Memorandum for the Record

re: Ch 9 of Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" on exotic "Ice 9" type "Doomsday WMD" able to destroy entire Level I Hubble universes in Max Tegmark's sense of May 2003 Scientific American, like our little universe for example - a mere speck on Lenny Susskind's "Landscape." ;-)

Thanks Gary, this is quite relevant to what I have been talking about.

In my theory "gravity shielding" means creating a region of dark energy exotic vacuum with negative pressure by a variant on the Josephson effect using a real superconductor "impedance matched" to the vacuum.

/\zpf = (Planck Area)^-1[(Planck Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

with signature +---

tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = [(Witten String Tension)/(QED dimensionless coupling)]/\zpfguv

On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 02:22 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary S. Bekkum"

Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 8:17 AM
Subject: CHINA - Quantum Vacuum Reaction WMD research?


Chinese "Vacuum Reaction" WMD research? Note Podkletnov references...

...also note that author is from Institute of High Energy Physics in
China;
new multi-quark states under are investigation there...

Renormalizable Quantum Gauge General Relativity

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0309041

Authors: Ning Wu
Comments: 138 pages, no figure

The quantum gauge general relativity is proposed in the framework of
quantum
gauge theory of gravity. It is formulated based on gauge principle which
states that the correct symmetry for gravitational interactions should be
gravitational gauge symmetry. The gravitational gauge group is studied in
the paper. Then gravitational gauge interactions of pure gravitational
gauge
field is studied. It is found that the field equation of gravitational
gauge
field is just the Einstein's field equation. After that, the gravitational
interactions of scalar field, Dirac field and vector fields are studied,
and
unifications of fundamental interactions are discussed. Path integral
quantization of the theory is studied in the paper. The quantum gauge
general relativity discussed in this paper is a perturbatively
renormalizable quantum gravity, which is one of the most important
advantage
of the quantum gauge general relativity proposed in this paper. A strict
proof on the renormalizability of the theory is also given in this paper.
Another important advantage of the quantum gauge general relativity is
that
it can explain both classical tests of gravity and quantum effects of
gravitational interactions, such as gravitational phase effects found in
COW
experiments and gravitational shielding effects found in Podkletnov
experiments. For all classical effects of gravitational interactions, such
as classical tests of gravity and cosmological model, quantum gauge
general
relativity gives out the same theoretical predictions as that of the
Einstein's general relaitvity.

Gravitational Shielding Effects in Gauge Theory of Gravity

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307225

Authors: Ning Wu
Comments: 13 pages, no figure

In 1992, E.E.Podkletnov and R.Nieminen find that, under certain
conditions,
ceramic superconductor with composite structure has revealed weak
shielding
properties against gravitational force. In classical Newton's theory of
gravity and even in Einstein's general theory of gravity, there are no
grounds of gravitational shielding effects. But in quantum gauge theory of
gravity, the gravitational shielding effects can be explained in a simple
and natural way. In quantum gauge theory of gravity, gravitational gauge
interactions of complex scalar field can be formulated based on gauge
principle. After spontaneous symmetry breaking, if the vacuum of the
complex
scalar field is not stable and uniform, there will be a mass term of
gravitational gauge field. When gravitational gauge field propagates in
this
unstable vacuum of the complex scalar field, it will decays exponentially,
which is the nature of gravitational shielding effects. The mechanism of
gravitational shielding effects is studied in this paper, and some main
properties of gravitational shielding effects are discussed.

Key paper is T. W. B. Kibble's "Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field" JMP 1961 reproduced in "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century" John C Taylor, Imperial College Press (2001), p. 119.

R. Utiyama Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 (1956) applied the local gauge force principle (e.g. Yang-Mills for weak and strong forces Phys. Rev 96, 191 (1954) anticipating modern QCD and standard U(1)SU(2)SU(3) model with 17 - 25 free parameters) not to the 4-parameter translation subgroup of the Poincare group, but to the 6-parameter Lorentz group of rigid space-time rotations. Kibble points out problems with Utiyama's approach and instead includes the 4-parameter translation subgroup, i.e. the entire Poincare group leaving out the 5 additional parameters (dilation and hyperbolic uniform acceleration) of the zero rest mass conformal group used by Roger Penrose in twistor theory.

Kibble finds that there is a small torsion field coupling only when Tuv(Matter) =/= 0 and that Einstein's

Ruv = 0

is obeyed in "vacuum". This was before the recent discovery of "dark energy" that Mike Turner says may well be w = pressure/energy density = -1 exotic vacuum with dominating negative pressure causing the Universe to accelerate its expansion rather than slowing down. This issue is still controversial due to recent NEWTON data as interpreted by some. It's too early to know.

Thanks to Waldyr Rodrigues Jr for reminding me about the NEWTON data crucial test of my model.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 12:14 PM, Fred Wolf wrote:

Thanks, Jack, for the continued updates in as in
http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105040. I find this a valuable service.
In this regard you might want to see Milgroms work as in
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?0207231. He posits an essential classical
picture by adding to Newton's equations small correction terms that
correctly predict observations without dark matter. He says,

"I discuss open theoretical questions pertaining to the modified dynamics
(MOND)--a proposed alternative to dark matter, which posits a breakdown of
Newtonian dynamics in the limit of small accelerations. In particular, I
point the reasons for thinking that MOND is an effective theory--perhaps,
despite appearance, not even in conflict with GR. I then contrast the two
interpretations of MOND as modified gravity and as modified inertia. I
describe two mechanical models that are described by potential theories
similar to (non-relativistic) MOND: a potential-flow model, and a membrane
model. These might shed some light on a possible origin of MOND. The
possible involvement of vacuum effects is also speculated on."

His results are being taken very seriously by cosmologists.


Best Wishes,
Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.
Have Brains / Will Travel
San Francisco
mailto:fawolf@ix.netcom.com
web pages: http://pw1.netcom.com/~wolfweb ,
http://pw1.netcom.com/~wolfmirror



Thanks Fred. I downloaded the paper will look at it.
My approach is actually quite conservative.

1. I assume Einstein's GR is essentially correct.

2. I assume Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is essentially correct.

3. I apply my PhD thesis work with F.W. Cummings on Oliver Penrose's ODLRO and local gauge theory in superfluid helium, that you recall from the late 60's when we were teaching at SDSU, amplified by P.W. Anderson's notion of "More is different" as a general theory of emergent complexity from micro --> macro scales, to implementing Andrei Sakharov's great notion that gravity emerges from quantum electrodynamics.

I find that the key idea missing from the modern speculations on the nature of the "missing mass" of the Universe is "vacuum coherence".

With that I get a rather simple semi-phenomenological explanation of both dark energy and dark matter on the MACRO scale and the spatial extension of lepto-quarks as Bohm's "extra variables" on the micro-scale that are extended ~ h/mc at low energy but look more and more like point particles at high energy from a huge micro space-warp. I also get the string-like Regge trajectories in Wheeler's "Mass without mass" sense but with strong micro-gravity G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton) at 1 fermi scale due to exotic vacuum "dark matter" quantized vortex cores that prevent the self-charge of the electron, for example, from exploding. This IMHO solves one of the first problems Feynman tried while still an undergraduate at MIT i.e. Abraham-Lorentz-Poincare stress problem of 100 years ago.

Last but not least, combining both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacua allows technological applications such as weightless Alcubierre warp drive and Star Gate "metric engineering" IMHO. The stakes for the future survival of human kind are very high indeed. See also Chapter 9 of Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" and let's hope we all survive this New Years Eve 2004. :-)

Key paper is T. W. B. Kibble's "Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field" JMP 1961 reproduced in "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century" John C Taylor, Imperial College Press (2001), p. 119.

R. Utiyama Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 (1956) applied the local gauge force principle (e.g. Yang-Mills for weak and strong forces Phys. Rev 96, 191 (1954) anticipating modern QCD and standard U(1)SU(2)SU(3) model with 17 - 25 free parameters) not to the 4-parameter translation subgroup of the Poincare group, but to the 6-parameter Lorentz group of rigid space-time rotations. Kibble points out problems with Utiyama's approach and instead includes the 4-parameter translation subgroup, i.e. the entire Poincare group leaving out the 5 additional parameters (dilation and hyperbolic uniform acceleration) of the zero rest mass conformal group used by Roger Penrose in twistor theory.

Kibble finds that there is a small torsion field coupling only when Tuv(Matter) =/= 0 and that Einstein's

Ruv = 0

is obeyed in "vacuum". This was before the recent discovery of "dark energy" that Mike Turner says may well be w = pressure/energy density = -1 exotic vacuum with dominating negative pressure causing the Universe to accelerate its expansion rather than slowing down. This issue is still controversial due to recent NEWTON data as interpreted by some. It's too early to know.

May New Year's Eve 2004 be a safe one for all. I hope to see many of you in London March 9 - 14 for an informal "Bohm/Vigier" series of impromptu meetings on the foundations and frontiers of theoretical physics, both mainstream and fringe, in different meetings depending on the interests of the participants. This is a spontaneously self-organizing open forum free from unintelligent mechanical brutal censorship. ;-)

See message from Waldyr Rodrigues below on NEWTON data that one professor thinks casts doubt on the reality of "dark energy".
That would falsify my theory for sure. However, let's see what Saul Perlmutter, Mike Turner et-al say about that?

II
On Tuesday, December 30, 2003, at 05:46 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

JS: You seem here to confuse curvature of the orbit with tidal
curvature.

PZ: Not at all. This is all supposed to be over a *flat* manifold. No tidal curvature. I am
simply talking about the space-time *coordinate* curvature that is associated with
accelerated frames. That's what gives you a connection field without any Riemann
curvature.

As in SR, where you can do the same thing with n_uv --> g_uv (kinematic)
over a *flat* spacetime.

JS: OK, we must be precise on the physical meaning of curvilinear coordinate transformations in globally flat space-time. We must distinguish the arbitrary map a representation from the objectively real territory. That is basically the relativity principle and the idea of covariance relative to a given empirically determined set of symmetry groups and perhaps the more general morphisms/functors of category theory as in John Baez's paper on "Higher Dimensional Algebra" in "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale."

Each n_uv --> g_uv refers to a possible physical object that represents the curvilinear coordinate system. For example, the curvilinear coordinate system might be a spinning flat disk out in empty space. The disk is equipped with a grid of detectors on it.

Or more generally, the curvilinear coordinate system may be conceived of as a lattice of rocket-propelled nano-bots each equipped with a suitable array of detectors, transceivers, computers and Doppler radars. The nano-bots may also have dark energy exotic vacuum /\zpf warp drive.

That is, one must distinguish the armchair couch potato formal writing of general coordinate transformations from what those transformations represent physically, which is, I think, part of Rovelli's point about "relationalism". Given the lattice swarm of Von Neumann Probe nano-bots roaming intergalactic space looking for intelligent life in the Stanislaus Lem Universe http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html Einstein's theory tells the relationship between this AI nano-beehive and what they detect Out There. ;-)

JS: There is a relationship of course since the former is a
LOCAL cause of the latter in GR though not in Newton. In GR we have a
bundle of local frames in fact two classes of bundles LIFs and LNIFs.
LNIFs generalize Newton's accelerating frames.

PZ: There is no physical gravity in my example. Only Newtonian fictitious forces in
accelerated frames. You still get a space-time connection field *by definition* once
you write

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.

JS: Take a look at Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" where he has a nice illustration and discussion of
this asking (I paraphrase) "How can gravity be locally equivalent to accelerating observers. Consider two accelerating observers
on opposite sides of the spherical Earth on a line through the Earth's center. They accelerate away from each other yet their distance
from each other does not change. What a paradox! It's only a paradox if you think of space-time as Euclidean globally flat! You need the notion of variable 4D space-time curvature. The role of torsion is not yet clear. See the Russian claims by Akimov/Shipov on that.

Einstein said that he could not explain gravity using GLOBALLY FLAT special relativity. There may be one exception to that in that Einstein also assumed RETARDED past-to-future causality. There was a professor from Belgium at Vigier IV in Paris Sept 2003 who showed how to get the SSS GR black hole equations using global Special Relativity but with Wheeler-Feynman/Hoyle-Narlikar ADVANCED action at a distance!
That is, not only the EM field, but also the guv field, may both be ADVANCED "presponse" effects in the sense of Wheeler-Feynman's 1940 idea suitably generalized. Since quantum nonlocality can also be explained this way, and since Shelly Goldstein also adds the Wheeler-Feynman micro-quantum advanced effect to Bohm's quantum realism, this is an interesting new idea IMHO.

"Opposite Arrows of Time Can Reconcile Relativity and Nonlocality

http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105040

Authors: Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka
Comments: 12 pages, 4 figures; v5: section headlines added
Journal-ref: Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 (2003) 557-564

We present a quantum model for the motion of N point particles, implying
nonlocal (i.e., superluminal) influences of external fields on the
trajectories, that is nonetheless fully relativistic. In contrast to other
models that have been proposed, this one involves no additional space-time
structure as would be provided by a (possibly dynamical) foliation of
space-time. This is achieved through the interplay of opposite microcausal
and macrocausal (i.e., thermodynamic) arrows of time."

from Gary Bekkum

Micro-causal from the future in sense of Dick Bierman's "presponse"
http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/BiermanRadin.html
Also Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" violating the "sub-quantal heat death"
assumed apriori in orthodox quantum theory with "signal locality."
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112151
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106098

Post-quantum theory with back-action using Einstein's archetypal idea (1915) of
NO ACTION WITHOUT DIRECT REACTION
NO ONE HAND CLAPPING
NO NON-DYNAMICAL ABSOLUTES
NOT ONLY IT FROM BIT, BUT ALSO BIT FROM IT
ONLY "TWO WAY RELATIONSHIP" (Bohm & Hiley p. 30 "The Undivided Universe")
is to orthodox quantum theory as General Relativity is to Special Relativity.

That is, orthodox quantum theory with signal locality is only the sub-quantal thermal equilibrium limit of a more general theory that admits sub-quantal non-thermal equilibrium. Our accelerating Universe dominated by dark energy is not IMHO in sub-quantal thermal equilibrium.

"Has ESA's XMM-Newton cast doubt over dark energy?
 
12 December 2003
ESA's X-ray observatory, XMM-Newton, has returned tantalising new data about the nature of the Universe. In a survey of distant clusters of galaxies, XMM-Newton has found puzzling differences between today's clusters of galaxies and those present in the Universe around seven thousand million years ago. Some scientists claim that this can be interpreted to mean that the 'dark energy' which most astronomers now believe dominates the Universe simply does not exist…
 
Observations of eight distant clusters of galaxies, the furthest of which is around 10 thousand million light years away, were studied by an international group of astronomers led by David Lumb of ESA's Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC) in the Netherlands. They compared these clusters to those found in the nearby Universe. This study was conducted as part of the larger XMM-Newton Omega Project, which investigates the density of matter in the Universe under the lead of Jim Bartlett of the College de France.

Clusters of galaxies are prodigious emitters of X-rays because they contain a large quantity of high-temperature gas. This gas surrounds galaxies in the same way as steam surrounds people in a sauna. By measuring the quantity and energy of X-rays from a cluster, astronomers can work out both the temperature of the cluster gas and also the mass of the cluster.

Theoretically, in a Universe where the density of matter is high, clusters of galaxies would continue to grow with time and so, on average, should contain more mass now than in the past.

Most astronomers believe that we live in a low-density Universe in which a mysterious substance known as 'dark energy' accounts for 70% of the content of the cosmos and, therefore, pervades everything. In this scenario, clusters of galaxies should stop growing early in the history of the Universe and look virtually indistinguishable from those of today.

In a paper soon to be published by the European journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, astronomers from the XMM-Newton Omega Project present results showing that clusters of galaxies in the distant Universe are not like those of today. They seem to give out more X-rays than today. So clearly, clusters of galaxies have changed their appearance with time. 
 


In an accompanying paper, Alain Blanchard of the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de l'Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées and his team use the results to calculate how the abundance of galaxy clusters changes with time. Blanchard says, "There were fewer galaxy clusters in the past."

Such a result indicates that the Universe must be a high-density environment, in clear contradiction to the 'concordance model,' which postulates a Universe with up to 70% dark energy and a very low density of matter. Blanchard knows that this conclusion will be highly controversial, saying, "To account for these results you have to have a lot of matter in the Universe and that leaves little room for dark energy."

To reconcile the new XMM-Newton observations with the concordance models, astronomers would have to admit a fundamental gap in their knowledge about the behaviour of the clusters and, possibly, of the galaxies within them. For instance, galaxies in the faraway clusters would have to be injecting more energy into their surrounding gas than is currently understood. That process should then gradually taper off as the cluster and the galaxies within it grow older.

No matter which way the results are interpreted, XMM-Newton has given astronomers a new insight into the Universe and a new mystery to puzzle over. As for the possibility that the XMM-Newton results are simply wrong, they are in the process of being confirmed by other X-ray observations. Should these return the same answer, we might have to rethink our understanding of the Universe.

Note to editors:

The two papers, The XMM-Newton Omega Project: I. The X-ray Luminosity-Temperature Relationship at z>0.4 by D.H. Lumb et al. and The XMM-Newton Omega Project: II. Cosmological implications from the high redshift L-T relation of X-ray clusters by S.C. Vauclair, A. Blanchard et al. will be published shortly in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
 
 


The contents of the Universe
 
The content of the Universe is widely thought to consist of three types of substance: normal matter, dark matter and dark energy. Normal matter consists of the atoms that make up stars, planets, human beings and every other visible object in the Universe. As humbling as it sounds, normal matter almost certainly accounts for a small proportion of the Universe, somewhere between 1% and 10%.

The more astronomers observed the Universe, the more matter they needed to find to explain it all. This matter could not be made of normal atoms, however, otherwise there would be more stars and galaxies to be seen. Instead, they coined the term dark matter for this peculiar substance precisely because it escapes our detection. At the same time, physicists trying to further the understanding of the forces of nature were starting to believe that new and exotic particles of matter must be abundant in the Universe. These would hardly ever interact with normal matter and many now believe that these particles are the dark matter. At the present time, even though many experiments are underway to detect dark matter particles, none have been successful. Nevertheless, astronomers still believe that somewhere between 30% and 99% of the Universe may consist of dark matter.

Dark energy is the latest addition to the contents of the Universe. Originally, Albert Einstein introduced the idea of an all-pervading 'cosmic energy' before he knew that the Universe is expanding. The expanding Universe did not need a 'cosmological constant' as Einstein had called his energy. However, in the 1990s observations of exploding stars in the distant Universe suggested that the Universe was not just expanding but accelerating as well. The only way to explain this was to reintroduce Einstein's cosmic energy in a slightly altered form, called dark energy. No one knows what the dark energy might be.

In the currently popular 'concordance model' of the Universe, 70% of the cosmos is thought to be dark energy, 25% dark matter and 5% normal matter.
 
 
XMM-Newton
 
XMM-Newton can detect more X-ray sources than any previous satellite and is helping to solve many cosmic mysteries of the violent Universe, from black holes to the formation of galaxies. It was launched on 10 December 1999, using an Ariane-5 rocket from French Guiana. It is expected to return data for a decade. XMM-Newton's high-tech design uses over 170 wafer-thin cylindrical mirrors spread over three telescopes. Its orbit takes it almost a third of the way to the Moon, so that astronomers can enjoy long, uninterrupted views of celestial objects.
 
 
For further information, please contact:
 
Fred Jansen, ESA XMM Project scientist
ESA ESTEC, The Netherlands
Tel: + 31 71 565 4426
E-mail: Fred.Jansen@esa.int

Alain Blanchard
Laboratoire d'Astrophysique
Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, France
Tel: + 33 5 61 33 2842
E-mail: alain.blanchard@ast.obs-mip.fr

ESA Media Relations Service
Tel: +33 1.53.69.71.55
Fax: +331.53.69.76.90 "
 
 
PZ: The Einsteinian view is that even in this case -- no gravitating
sources -- all frames are
physically (and NOT just formally) on a *completely equal footing*,
which implies that there is
nothing special about the "straight" appearance of inertial motion in
an unaccelerated frame.
Under this interpretation we "produce" or "annihilate" a gravity field
simply by changing our
frame of reference, and the physics is thus exactly the same in *any*
frame.

JS: Yes, if by "gravity field" you only mean "g-force" at the
non-tensor "connection" level for parallel transport not at the "tidal"
level of tensor curvature.

PZ: Well, of course I agree. But that is not what *Einstein* meant.

Let me ask you again, Jack -- do you really think the gravitational vacuum stress-
energy must always identically vanish somewhere (at at least one point) in an LIF?

If so, why?

JS: The dynamical equations are "the same" in
the sense of being covariant equations.

PZ: Right.

JS: It is true that the tidal
curvature tensor is not zero in an LIF if it is not zero in a
COINCIDENT LNIF at same "point event" P.

PZ: Right.

JS: All that EEP, yes only a
correspondence principle, asserts, is that under most conditions, one
can manage to make the relative tidal acceleration between two timelike
geodesic test particles quite small.

PZ: Actually, only if you insist on using a pair of test particles. There are other
devices for measuring tidal effects that are not operationally scale-sensitive
in this sense. So even this is conditional.

JS: I am pointing to the geodesic deviation equation of GR. You need to give details on what you have just alleged. I am not familiar with that.

JS: This approximation breaks down on
the approach to a space-time singularity or if one is probing the
Planck scale Lp. For practical problems here on Earth the tidal effects
are very tiny because, as I recall, radius of curvature of the Earth at
its surface is ~ 1 AU ~ 10^13 cm. I need to compute it for Sun at
Earth as well.

PZ: Yes.

So I see no physical reason here as to why the stress-energy of a "permanent"
gravitational field must always vanish somewhere in an LIF, as MTW assert.

That's the bottom line on my deconstruction of Einstein equivalence and "EEP".

JS: I already answered this:

tuv(gravity stress energy) = (Witten's String Tension/QED Fine Structure Constant)Guv(Einstein) = -tuv(Exotic Vacuum)

when Tuv(Matter) = 0

tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (Witten's String Tension/QED Fine Structure Constant)/\zpfguv

/\zpf = (Planck Area)^-1[(Planck Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

guv = (Minkowski Global Flat Metric) + (Strain Tensor of Hagen Kleinert's World Crystal Planck Lattice)

(Spin 2) Strain Tensor of Hagen Kleinert's World Crystal Planck Lattice = (Planck Area)(Phase of Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)

( ) is symmetrizer, , denotes ordinary partial derivative

Einstein's general coordinate transformations derive from U(1) local gauge "phase" transformations.

The World Crystal distortion "compensating local gauge force" (Spin 1)field

du(x) = (Planck Area)(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u

is the Bohm "pilot guidance condition" for this "elastic" 4D model analog to the quantum liquid

v = (h/m)Grad(phase of the quantum BIT wave of "active information")

both in micro and MACRO quantum contexts e.g. Feynman Vol III on "Superconductivity".

Therefore, in the NON-EXOTIC VACUUM, by definition

/\zpf = 0

Therefore,

tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = 0

Everywhere-when in ALL frames LIF & LNIF.

Problem solved IMHO.

My result is consistent with MTW(1973)

to be continued.

On Tuesday, December 30, 2003, at 05:46 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

PZ: Which, in the absence of gravitational sources, is Newtonian straight
line motion,
although of course this inertial motion will *appear* to be curved in
accelerated
frames of reference. That's the Newtonian view: the *apparent*
curvature is an artifact
of an accelerating frame -- an aberration.

JS: You seem here to confuse curvature of the orbit with tidal
curvature.

PZ: Not at all. This is all supposed to be over a *flat* manifold. No tidal curvature. I am
simply talking about the space-time *coordinate* curvature that is associated with
accelerated frames. That's what gives you a connection field without any Riemann
curvature.

As in SR, where you can do the same thing with n_uv --> g_uv (kinematic)
over a *flat* spacetime.

JS: There is a relationship of course since the former is a
LOCAL cause of the latter in GR though not in Newton. In GR we have a
bundle of local frames in fact two classes of bundles LIFs and LNIFs.
LNIFs generalize Newton's accelerating frames.

PZ: There is no physical gravity in my example. Only Newtonian fictitious forces in
accelerated frames. You still get a space-time connection field *by definition* once
you write

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v.

PZ: The Einsteinian view is that even in this case -- no gravitating
sources -- all frames are
physically (and NOT just formally) on a *completely equal footing*,
which implies that there is
nothing special about the "straight" appearance of inertial motion in
an unaccelerated frame.
Under this interpretation we "produce" or "annihilate" a gravity field
simply by changing our
frame of reference, and the physics is thus exactly the same in *any*
frame.

JS: Yes, if by "gravity field" you only mean "g-force" at the
non-tensor "connection" level for parallel transport not at the "tidal"
level of tensor curvature.

PZ: Well, of course I agree. But that is not what *Einstein* meant.

JS: You need to remind me of what Einstein statements lead you to think that.

PZ: Let me ask you again, Jack -- do you really think the gravitational vacuum stress-
energy must always identically vanish somewhere (at at least one point) in an LIF?

If so, why?

JS: That question is not well-posed until one has a definition of "gravitational vacuum stress-energy".
I have one, though it is not the orthodox idea apparently.

tuv(Gravity) = (Witten's String-Tension/QED Fine Structure Constant)Guv(Einstein)

Einstein's GR field equation WITHOUT EXOTIC VACUUM is then simply like Archimedes's Lever in static equilibrium in the Block Universe.

tuv(Gravity) + Tuv(Matter) = 0

This is the Masonic Great Architect's view of the Society of Cincinatus and The Illuminati. :-) Joke Grin. I could not resist. ;-)

Metric Engineering (Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger") is when we upset this delicate balance with the exotic vacua of "dark energy" and "dark matter" that is essentially ALL the stuff of the world since ordinary matter is essentially the vibration of strings of dark matter threaded by gauge flux lines.

Now, in ordinary non-exotic vacuum means two things.

1. /\zpf = 0

2. Tuv(Matter) = 0

And in that special case indeed

tuv(Gravity) = 0

Everywhere-when in ALL frames LIF and LNIF.

The complete Einstein field equation is the 4D "static" balance

tuv(Gravity) + tuv(Exotic Vacuum) + Tuv(Matter) = 0

where

tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (Witten's String-Tension/QED Fine Structure Constant)/\zpfguv

/\zpf = Lp^-2[Lp^2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3

guv = Minkowski + Lp^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)

In contrast where there is either dark energy of negative quantum pressure or dark matter of positive quantum pressure, both phases of exotic w = -1 vacuum, then

tuv(Gravity) = - tuv(Exotic Vacuum)

when

Tuv(Matter) = 0

So that is my solution to the question you pose when properly formulated IMHO.

Now can you find anything wrong with this analysis given the amazing new discovery of dark energy in 1999 and the new results in 2003 that NO ONE anticipated. Little did Kip Thorne know, for example, in 1986 when he responded to Carl Sagan's telephone call about "Contact" that most of the universe is made out of the "exotic matter" needed to make Star Gate "traversable wormholes". Similarly Alcubierre did not know that the Universe is mostly the stuff he needs for his weightless warp drive when he wrote his paper in early 90's. Of course none of this is a surprise to certain more sophisticated "Black Ops" types into UFOS inside USG and elsewhere. The data was "Out There", but All The Kings Men could not explain it. They could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. ;-)

Mike Turner in Physics Today op ed wrote that he did not think "dark energy could be bottled". I suspect he is wrong about that prediction.

to be continued tomorrow with rest of stuff you wrote.

Note that negative zero point energy density means equal and opposite positive quantum pressure, i.e. w = -1. But the quantum pressure is three times stronger in its gravity effect in Einstein's GR. So negative zero point energy density is gravitating "dark matter" IMHO. Positive zero point energy density is anti-gravitating "dark energy" with dominating negative pressure. Does anyone object to that? If so, why?

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary S. Bekkum"
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:33:08 AM US/Pacific
Subject: SUSSKIND: Negative Energy, Superluminosity and Holography


Negative Energy, Superluminosity and Holography

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9903228

Authors: Joseph Polchinski, Leonard Susskind, Nicolaos Toumbas
Comments: Expanded version replacing earlier hep-th/9902182
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) 084006

"The holographic connection between large $N$ Super Yang Mills theory and
gravity in anti deSitter space requires unfamiliar behavior of the SYM
theory in the limit that the curvature of the AdS geometry becomes small.
The paradoxical behavior includes superluminal oscillations and negative
energy density. These effects typically occur in the SYM description of
events which take place far from the boundary of AdS when the signal from
the event arrives at the boundary. The paradoxes can be resolved by assuming
a very rich collection of hidden degrees of freedom of the SYM theory which
store information but give rise to no local energy density. These degrees of
freedom, called precursors, are needed to make possible sudden apparently
acausal energy momentum flows. Such behavior would be impossible in
classical field theory as a consequence of the positivity of the energy
density. However we show that these effects are not only allowed in quantum
field theory but that we can model them in free quantum field theory."

Public version

On Tuesday, December 30, 2003, at 02:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Tuesday, December 30, 2003, at 12:53 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth." --
Niels
Bohr

What Rovelli doesn't seem to understand is that this all makes
perfect
sense once
you give up strict equivalence and distinguish the background and
physical metrics.

JS: I do not understand this distinction. Please give more details
what
you mean.

PZ: In that case you don't understand Newtonian physics either, which
makes precisely
this distinction: you don't understand the Newtonian distinction
between "real" and
"fictitious" forces.

But at least you are honest enough to admit it. :-)

JS: What I understand is that "fictitious" or "inertial" forces are
artifacts of the non-geodesic timelike motion of the local frames of
reference.

Which, in the absence of gravitational sources, is Newtonian straight line motion,
although of course this inertial motion will *appear* to be curved in accelerated
frames of reference. That's the Newtonian view: the *apparent* curvature is an artifact
of an accelerating frame -- an aberration.

JS: You seem here to confuse curvature of the orbit with tidal curvature. There is a relationship of course since the former is a LOCAL cause of the latter in GR though not in Newton. In GR we have a bundle of local frames in fact two classes of bundles LIFs and LNIFs. LNIFs generalize Newton's accelerating frames.

PZ: The Einsteinian view is that even in this case -- no gravitating sources -- all frames are
physically (and NOT just formally) on a *completely equal footing*, which implies that there is
nothing special about the "straight" appearance of inertial motion in an unaccelerated frame.
Under this interpretation we "produce" or "annihilate" a gravity field simply by changing our
frame of reference, and the physics is thus exactly the same in *any* frame.

JS: Yes, if by "gravity field" you only mean "g-force" at the non-tensor "connection" level for parallel transport not at the "tidal" level of tensor curvature. The dynamical equations are "the same" in the sense of being covariant equations. It is true that the tidal curvature tensor is not zero in an LIF if it is not zero in a COINCIDENT LNIF at same "point event" P. All that EEP, yes only a correspondence principle, asserts, is that under most conditions, one can manage to make the relative tidal acceleration between two timelike geodesic test particles quite small. This approximation breaks down on the approach to a space-time singularity or if one is probing the Planck scale Lp. For practical problems here on Earth the tidal effects are very tiny because, as I recall, radius of curvature of the Earth at its surface is ~ 1 AU ~ 10^13 cm. I need to compute it for Sun at Earth as well.


PZ: This is Einstein's basic extension of the restricted physical principle of relativity to mutually
accelerating frames.

My point here is that the whole "general covariant" formal apparatus of metric tensors,
connection fields, etc. based on

ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v

can be applied just as well under the Newtonian or the Einsteinian inertial models: so far, this general
covariant formulation is completely neutral as to Newton v. Einstein. The difference here is rather
in the *interpretation* of the inertial metric tensor g_uv -- whether it is to be understood as a purely
kinematical quantity (Newtonian), or as an integral aspect of a dynamic unified gravitational-inertial
field (Einsteinian).

JS: Since Newton's gravity is the slow speed weak curvature limit of Einstein's GR

For example in SSS where r > 2GM/c^2

ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/rc^2)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/rc^2)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2theta dphi^2)

U(Newton) = -GM/r per unit test particle

Therefore, one CAN seamlessly interpret Newton's gravity in exactly the same geometrodynamic way that Einstein does. Therefore, there is no necessary difference of interpretation since Einstein's theory eliminating "gravity force" is the covering theory of Newton's using "force acting at a distance". Newton's intepretation is clearly less fundamental and is superceded by Einstein's even in Newton's original domain of relevance.

PZ: I'm not sure this is generally understood.

The second step in Einstein's development is modeling the physical gravitational field as a
metric tensor field based on the "force field" analogy. But that leads straight to Riemann curvature,
a mathematical device that allows non-linear variation of the metric field from point to point,
which is of course absent in pure inertial fields.

The final step is formal fusion of the kinematical metric into the Einstein gravitational metric,
resulting in the unified Einstein tensor "metric field" g_uv.

But we can keep the metric tensor model of the gravity field while discarding the formally doable
but physically misleading fusion of the gravitational field with the inertial metric field, which is based
(in both theories) on the *trivially valid* kinematic definition of the invariant interval.

JS: I do not understand your last paragraph. I do not see that the invariance of the space-time interval ds is "trivially valid"?

PZ: That's the "rubber-rod-and-clock" approach.

JS: I understand Coriolis, centrifugal, standing on a scale in

an elevator as "inertial forces".

PZ: OK. Do you see how these can be associated with a purely kinematical connection field
even in Newtonian theory?

JS: Of course.


PZ: You must also realize that the "force field" that is observed in a rotating frame does not satisfy
physical boundary conditions at infinity. Landau and Lifshitz have a good discussion on this.

JS: OK

I also understand that LOCALLY there
is, APPROXIMATELY,

PZ: "APPROXIMATELY". Thank you. In caps, no less. :-)

JS: I have always emphasized that detail.

no way to distinguish the inertial force from a
gravity force or G-force on a SINGLE TEST PARTICLE 1 NOT ON A TIMELIKE
GEODESIC in sense of connection field for parallel transport
(Experiment A), IF one MAKES NO ATTEMPT to measure the relative tidal
acceleration between TWO OTHER TEST PARTICLES 2 & 3 BOTH ON TIMELIKE
GEODESICS with ZERO G-FORCE (Experiment B).

PZ: There is *approximately* no way to locally distinguish the two -- but even then only if we voluntarily
blinker ourselves?

I rest my case: "EEP" =/= "Einstein equivalence"

JS: I do not know what you mean by "Einstein equivalence"? What precise quote of Einstein are you thinking of there and WHEN did he write it?
Einstein changed his mind as his understanding of his own ideas deepened. This is always so. I think the real issue here is how much weight to give to different statements Einstein made at different points on his worldline.


My OPERATIONALISM is
showing,

PZ: Yes.

JS: which you ignore in your too abstract formal analysis.

PZ: Classic operationalism is troglodyte.

JS: I think your remark is too ideological and polemical. Operationalism is always a good thing when one can figure out how to use it. Indeed, the Einstein technique of the "Gedankenexperiment" is operationalism in action. It is good philosophy IMHO.

PZ: That is part of the reason Einstein had difficulty in separating
the formal issue of general covariance from the substantive issue of physical relativity, as pointed
out in 1917 by Kretschman.

JS: Is Kretschman's article in English or German?

PZ: For example, his classic 1905 argument about the magnet and the coil, concluding that the laws
of electrodynamics *must* or at least *should* be form-invariant under changes of inertial frame
simply because the observable effect is identical in either frame, is invalid. Einstein's conclusion
simply does not follow from the premises.

It's a *non sequitur*.

JS: Huh? That's a shocker. I think I disagree. You can think of this in analogy to holonomic integrability, i.e. path independent "state functions".

Each frame is a different perspective. The Hermetic Tech-Gnostic Platonic idea of objective reality is that what is real should not depend on the perspective. The perspective is the shadow image on the wall of Plato's Cave Allegory in Book Seven of "The Republic". We seek The Source, the thing in itself, not its "Maya" or "illusion" or "image".


PZ: The proper conclusion here is that the true laws *may or may not be* invariant under such a
transformation, depending entirely on the contingent nature of the physical systems involved.
All we can say *a priori* is that any viable theory must predict the same *effect* in either case
-- which of course Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics did.

JS: It did so because it was already a special-relativistic theory before anyone realized that.

PZ: The error of Einstein's thinking here shows up very clearly in his later development of "general
relativity" as an extended relativity principle. IMHO it is a root Einsteinian fallacy, an artifact of
his early naive "Machian" empiricism.

Once you consider the vacuum itself to be a physical system, the error of Einstein's reasoning
becomes obvious. Whether the true and proper laws of electrodynamics are or are not Lorentz
invariant under speed boosts is contingent on the physical characteristics of the vacuum, the details
of matter-vacuum interaction, and the nature of light propagation. So there is in reality no *a priori*
"principle of relativity" with any deep thinking behind it -- notwithstanding what they try to sell you
in textbooks.

JS: I think you have turned the argument upside down. I think mainstream physicists will force the physical vacuum to obey a certain set of symmetries. You are saying this is a Procrustean Bed. Of course, whether this or that particular symmetry should be forced upon Nature is a delicate matter and is ultimately empirical as in the breakdown of "parity" mirror space symmetry in the weak force of radioactive beta decay.


PZ: As for "Mach's principle", that self-implodes. It bites it own tail. It leads straight back to a physical
medium of propagation (as Einstein later admitted).

JS: Mach's Principle may survive once one admits retro-causation as in John Cramer's transactional quantum interpretation from Costa De Beauregard's "Feynman zig zag" intepretation of quantum nonlocality of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect stemming from Wheeler-Feynman classical action at a distance electrodynamics (Tetrode & Stuckelberg (Vigier's advisor BTW) up to Dick Bierman's "presponse" mind-matter data and Shelly Goldstein's recent advanced micro-causal Bohmian quantum realism.

On Thursday, December 18, 2003, at 03:57 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


Opposite Arrows of Time Can Reconcile Relativity and Nonlocality

http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0105040


Authors: Sheldon Goldstein, Roderich Tumulka
Comments: 12 pages, 4 figures; v5: section headlines added
Journal-ref: Classical and Quantum Gravity 20 (2003) 557-564

We present a quantum model for the motion of N point particles, implying
nonlocal (i.e., superluminal) influences of external fields on the
trajectories, that is nonetheless fully relativistic. In contrast to other
models that have been proposed, this one involves no additional space-time
structure as would be provided by a (possibly dynamical) foliation of
space-time. This is achieved through the interplay of opposite microcausal
and macrocausal (i.e., thermodynamic) arrows of time.



PZ: If we are to make real progress in quantum gravity, I think the time has come to face up to all this.

JS: I still do not understand what you want us to face up to? Did you read Goldstein on Bohmian quantum gravity? Does he face up to all this?

Therefore, you end up in a false comparison comparing apples to oranges
so to speak by confounding the essentially different, indeed,
complementary in Bohr's sense of "total experimental arrangements" -
even of macro relevance, Experiments A & B.

PZ: Come on, Jack. I am simply saying that you can locally empirically distinguish a true
gravitational field from an inertial field. You know this is true.

JS: If you mean by "gravitational field" can one, in principle, measure the 4th rank Riemannian curvature tensor quasi-locally using the tidal geodesic deviation of pairs of test particles, each on timelike geodesics, in different orientations, yes that is true. It that all you mean here? That is part of Einstein's GR IMHO. On the other hand if you mean by "gravitational field" the g-force on a single point test particle not on a timelike geodesic, that is not true. Again, your point seems to be based on not being precise and explicit enough in how you use "gravitational field" in different contexts.

PZ: Of course, if you ignore everything but translational effects on a single test particle, then you
can't tell: an apparent translational force is an apparent translational force. That's the real thrust
of Einstein's elevator argument.

JS: That's what I have been saying.

PZ: That's the extent of the analogy. But as soon as you consider
tidal and rotational effects, Einstein's "equivalence principle" is already in serious trouble. Even
"EEP" (MTW) fails to work as advertised.

JS: Huh? The way I use it is same as in MTW (1973).

PZ: And you cannot get rid of Riemann curvature, which is absolute.

JS: Who says different? Not Einstein.

PZ: There is no good reason
to assume that Riemann curvature doesn't directly couple -- locally -- to other fields.

JS: Not sure what you mean without seeing a mathematical example of such a coupling. In any case that is an empirical issue.

PZ: So who is confusing apples and oranges? Einstein is; not me.

JS: No, I see nothing said by Einstein that justified what you just said.

PZ: All this has been pointed out by any number of fully-credentialled "heretics" over the years.
Ohanian and Ruffini wrote an entire textbook on gravitational physics based on this skeptical
approach. Weinberg talks about this.

JS: I think I have Ruffini's book in my office. What pages? I will get a copy of Weinberg's book, been meaning to. What pages? Again if you have quotes send them.

Further, I do not see how you tie that to "strict equivalence", which,
if I understand you, you say is fundamentally wrong in some way?

PZ: Jack, you think it is so wrong you couldn't even believe me that Einstein ever advanced it.
Yet the fact of the matter is that not only did he advance it and take it very seriously, but
this *was* his "theory of general relativity" -- certainly as of 1921.

I gave you the quotes.

JS: Send them again thanks. I will do a close critical reading. Again the dates on the quotes are important. Einstein was struggling between 1912 and 1915.


I do
not understand how you mean "background" and "physical" above. Do you
mean "nondynamical" and "dynamical".

PZ: I mean kinematical vs. dynamical.

Inertial metric = kinematical

Gravitational metric = dynamical

JS: The problem is that you introduce
key terms without enough contextual background to understand what you
mean. In many cases an equation would eliminate the ambiguity.

PZ: No it would not, since the equations are precisely the same, while the interpretation is
different. See above.

If you think seriously about my "Newtonian" inertial metric, you will see what I mean.

You can do the same kind of thing in SR. Still no Einsteinian "general relativity".

JS: Now if you mean by "strict equivalence" that Einstein did not include
"Experiment B" as a matter of principle in his early formulations, then
if indeed, that is historically correct, then he may have made an error
that was later corrected and is completely corrected in MTW (1973),
which I suppose you say "EEP is a correspondence", which is always the
way I viewed it to begin with.

PZ: Which is the correct interpretation of GR IMO. I am simply saying that this interpretation
should be applied *consistently* throughout.

You don't seem to see the deep connection between this and the vacuum stress-energy
issue. Einstein's energy pseudotensor comes right out of this classic Einsteinian "error".
That is why I say that MTW are incoherent: they flip-flop between the "modern" and Einsteinian
models of gravitational-inertial equivalence, and this is why they fall into the error of
thinking with Einstein that the pure inertial field somehow contributes to gravitational vacuum
stress-energy.

Face it, they screwed up.

JS: Let's leave this on back burner until I do careful read of MTW on this.

If indeed your history of the evolution
of Einstein's thought on his own theory is correct, I do not know if it
is, then it is a minor footnote only.

PZ: This WAS Einstein's theory of "general relativity".

You agree it's wrong. That's hardly a "footnote".

We cannot understand the unified metric g_uv, or the related issue of vacuum stress-energy,
without squarely addressing these issues, IMHO.

JS: I am sure similar stories exist
in the evolution of all the great theories of physics from Newton on.

No, Jack. This was always Einstein's theory.

There is an interesting story in "Lectures on Gravitation" about how Einstein was horrified at
Kraitchnan's spin-2 field model because it threatened to put Einstein's cherished covariant
geometric model of gravitation into the twilight zone. This happened at Princeton in the
1940s. So Einstein's thinking was still fundamentally chronogeometric even then.

JS: Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff's
use of

dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic

in his "Tables".

PZ: It does no such thing. I would not even characterize pp 112-114
as
an "argument".
It is simply a sketch of a model in which *everything* is quantized
except the "raw"
manifold.

JS: It shows no intrinsic meaning to Puthoff's r and t as he means it
in his Tables.

PZ: In Rovelli's approach, almost everything is quantized and time
itself has no fundamental
meaning.

So, OK, things are VERY different in Rovelli's theory. No argument
there.
He wants to dig down to the raw manifold so he can quantize the
stripped-off
Einsteinian chronogeometric structure of spacetime, replete with its
unified metric,
thinking this may be the real solution to the quantum gravity
conundrum.

I say he has not properly understood the status and meaning of the
unified metric.
He has simply skated over this. He is trying to run before he can walk.

...

What does he mean by "fluctuations"?

JS: What do you mean by "kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational
g_uv" apart from Ruvwl = 0 in the former and not in the latter.

PZ: I mean what it means in Newtonian physics.

JS: Huh? Newton uses forces with action at a distance.

PZ: This is "orthogonal" to the kinematic-dynamic distinction. Immaterial to the argument.
You still have "real" and "apparent" forces in Newtonian theory. You still have kinematics
vs. dynamics.

JS: He never invokes
any geometrodynamical
replacement of forces the way Einstein does. Newton never talks of a
"metric" so what do you mean?

PZ: Of course I didn't say, or imply, that Newton himself "talked of a metric".

I said you can *do* a metric tensor formulation of Newtonian kinematics by defining an
invariant interval ds in terms of a metric g_uv, and allowing g_uv to transform naturally
(as a tensor) under accelerative frame transformations.

This much is mathematically trivial. You even can do this with logarithmic x-y graph paper.
The x-coordinate is scaled non-linearly and this is reflected in the transformations of
g_ik: straight lines *look* curved, curved lines *look* straight. But the expression for the
invariant interval in terms of g_ik is form-invariant, since the g_ik components transform as
a tensor.

So?

JS: Do you simply mean again the distinction between inertial and
non-inertial frames of reference?

PZ: That has nothing to do with the covariance of the metric formulation. It is, rather, a matter of
*interpretation* of this covariant formalism.

Physical relativity is not the same as formal "covariance". The formal "covariance" of
the covariant formulation of Newtonian kinematics in terms of a metric tensor does not
guarantee or imply physical relativity of non-inertial motion.

That's what I mean.

JS: There are no "fictitious" or "inertial forces" in "inertial frames".

PZ: Exactly right. Who says otherwise?

JS: Newton only had implicitly
the idea of a global frame of reference not local frames of reference
on a rigid Euclidean space with a
rigid absolute time

PZ: There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a "local frame of reference". That's just a
*facon de parler*. A term of art.

JS: Huh? The Space-Shuttle is a local frame for example.

PZ: Frames of reference are inherently global.

JS: I do not think that is true. Basically, a frame of reference is a detector of some sort. Or, more generally, a set of detectors communicating with each other by exchanging real photons or real particles of some other kind and using Doppler radar. The size of this set of detectors must be small compared to the local radii of space-time curvature.

PZ: The "LIF" stands for blinkering our observations so that we can pretend SR works
in a limited region of spacetime in which gravitational fields are present -- in other
words, the "EEP" correspondence model. But the issue of "locality" is a red herring.
You might as well just exclude all observations of tidal forces -- since these do not
really go away in any "neighborhood".

As I see it, the only virtue of the so-called "EEP" as formulated by MTW is that it
*looks* superficially like an Einstein-type equivalence principle, even though it is really
something else entirely -- a rough-and-ready empirical correspondence model. In
other words, it simply offers a plausible answer to the question, "If it's wrong, why
did we ever believe in SR?"

Hardly enough to be dignified by the honorific title "principle".

...

The point is, inertial and gravitational forces can cancel in free float without our *identifying*
gravitational and inertial phenomena, and without our instituting a unified gravitational-inertial
metric.

JS: Einstein in 1905 unified rigid space and rigid time into a rigid
space-time in which space and time separately were no longer rigid.

PZ: But the question was, was this only *apparent*, or was it a direct reflection of the
fundamental structure of a unitary "Minkowski spacetime"?

That is Einstein vs. Lorentz; "chronogeometric", vs. rubber-rod-and-clock.

JS: See Brown & Pooley's article on this Ch 11 of "Physics Meets Philosophy at The Planck Scale."


JS: Special Relativity uses a NONDYNAMICAL "background" RIGID 4D space-time
that ACTS on MATTER WITHOUT BACK-ACTION of MATTER on space-time.

PZ: Right.

JS: Einstein by 1915 corrects that approximation in General Relativity.
Space-time GEOMETRY is now DYNAMICAL in "TWO WAY RELATION" (Bohm and
Hiley, UNDIVIDED UNIVERSE p. 30 & 14.6) of ACTION-REACTION with MATTER
(MASS-ENERGY).

PZ: Right. But is the dynamic gravitational g_uv to be interpreted as being "completely physically
equivalent" to the kinematical g_uv, and then formally fused into it? That is the question.

Einstein's classic answer was "yes".

JS: Similarly, nonlocal linear unitary evolving orthodox micro-quantum
theory with "signal locality" has a NON-DYNAMICAL BIT "pilot wave"
relative to its IT "extra-variable". The BIT is of course DYNAMICAL
relative to its ENVIRONMENT via boundary conditions, stochastic pumps,
semi-classical couplings etc. I am only here talking SELF-REFERENTIAL
DYNAMICS of a kind not even recognized in other interpretations of
micro-QM where

IT FROM BIT (Wheeler)

BIT is complete description of micro-quantum reality.

PZ: OK. But if there is a 4D physical vacuum, then it is really no mystery that quantum
particles are capable of interference effects over space and time. This is the key to
the "wave-particle duality" conundrum IMO. That is also the answer (together with
a finite speed of propagation) to the ancient action-at-a-distance problem.

JS: The physical vacuum may have more than four dimensions on the micro-scale. Also one needs to distinguish bosonic c-number dimensions from anti-commuting fermion dimensions required by supersymmetry. See also Connes "non-commutative geometry". Basically spacetime manifolds are extended from spaces over real numbers to hypercomplex matrices.

I disagree there is no mystery regarding interference effects. That's where Bohm's quantum potential comes in in a realist ontology. I do not understand your remark above.


JS: This includes all "collapse" models with the possible exception of
Penrose's "OR" and all many-worlds models from Everett to
Gell-Mann/Hartle to David Deutsch's "multi-verse" and also Cramer's
"transactional".

Shelly Godstein takes a wrong turn IMHO in his Bohmian Quantum Gravity
paper in "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale" in rejecting a
"source" for the "pilot wave" where it is most important on the vast
scale of the Universe in the FRW limit.

In contrast to micro-quantum theory, MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY is P.W.
Anderson's "More is different" in action IMHO.

PZ: Can you give me a citation for Anderson again?

JS: There are two books, one is titled "More is different", then there is World Scientific collection of his key papers "A Career in Theoretical Physics". There are also at least two op eds in older Physics Todays. The point is that the MACRO-QUANTUM wave is local and in some ways very much like a classical field like an EM field, but still with quantum weirdness on a large scale. Most important is the essential nonlinearity in the Landau-Ginzburg replacement of the linear Schrodinger equation and the breakdown of the Born probability interpretation because of "generalized phase rigidity". The Born probability only works for the random noise "normal fluid" not for the "superfluid" or elastic world crystal analog of the superfluid.

For superfluid LOCAL wave PSI in 3D

v = (h/m)Grad(arg PSI)

For elastic 4D world crystal Planck lattice

du(x) = Lp^2(argPSI),u

du(x) is the dynamical distortion of the world crystal.

,u is ordinary partial derivative relative to x^u

The Einstein curved metric tensor is

guv = (Minkowski metric) + strain tensor

strain tensor = du,v + dv,u

You cannot assume

du,v = dv,u

everywhere.

That integrability breaks down along string phase singularities like vortices in a superfluid.

Kleinert shows there are both curvature strings and torsion strings possible as disclination and dislocation defects in the 4D lattice respectively.

Einstein's general coordinate transformations are essentially LOCAL "gauge" transformations on the Goldstone phase argPSI with dynamical distortion du(x) as the compensating gauge force field - in this case "spin 2" from the symmetric strain tensor.

MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY is local, non-unitary nonlinear with "presponse"
(Dick Bierman) signal nonlocality in the sense of Antony Valentini's
violation of "sub-quantal heat death".

The nonlocal linear micro-quantum Schrodinger equation in the
configuration space of entangled parts of the whole is replaced by a
local nonlinear MACRO-QUANTUM "Landau-Ginzburg" equation coupled to a
residual micro-quantum Schrodinger equation in the sense of the old
"two-fluid model" of Tiza but now generalized. This seems to go against
some of Lenny Susskind's and t'Hooft's ideas and seems to support some
of Hawking's older ideas on information loss in black holes. However, I
am not sure of that. Lenny et-al seems to want to misapply
micro-quantum theory in the MACRO-domain ignoring PW Anderson's "More
is different"? I could be wrong. We shall see.

PZ: OK.

JS: The phase-transition from an unstable completely random white zero
point noise micro-quantum vacuum to a metastable MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM
with colored zero point noise controlled by Vacuum Coherence has a
lower q-entropy defined as log of the phase space needed by the vacuum.

Since 2003 with the discovery of both DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER as ~
96% of the "stuff" of The World, we have been forced by the weight of
FACTS to expand our notion of MATTER as MASS-ENERGY to include VIRTUAL
ZERO POINT ENERGY or "EXOTIC VACUA". Zero Point energy has w =
Pressure/Energy Density = -1. Dark energy is exotic vacuum with
negative micro-quantum pressure and dark matter is the same, but with
positive pressure. All lepto-quarks have dark matter "vortex string"
cores which prevent the distributed electric charge of the IT
"extra-variable" from exploding. This is consistent with J.P. Vigier's
notion of "tight atomic states" and it solves the old
Abraham-Becker-Lorentz self-energy of the electron problem from ~ 100
years ago. The smallness of the cosmological constant is not solved by
string theory as Ed Witten admits, but it is, IMHO, solved by
MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

PZ: Fascinating.

JS: I think so. However, few GET IT.

Key prediction: No dark matter detector will "click" with "the right
dark stuff" because all dark stuff is "virtual" not "real".

PZ: What does that mean?

JS: Exactly what it means in SR quantum field theory. Real stuff is "on mass shell", i.e. pole of
Feynman propagator in complex energy plane. The position of the pole E(p) obeys

E^2(p) = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

Only real particles can cause a detector to "click".

Virtual particles violate the above equation. They can have any energy and any momentum.

Near EM induction fields are made from virtual photons.

For example, the static Coulomb field in rest frame of a point charge is made from virtual photons of all wavelengths but each of zero frequency!
The response function of a material to an EM near field is X(k,f) where wave vector k and frequency f are independent variables!

PZ: Is the entire physical vacuum in the absence of matter itself "virtual, but not real"?

JS: Yes, but in exotic regions there is net zero point energy density that anti-gravitates with negative pressure as "dark energy" , or, alternatively, gravitates with positive pressure. What it does in any region depends on the intensity of the vacuum coherence in that region. The vacuum coherence is the Archimedean Lever for "metric engineering" of Men Like Gods, like "Q" in Star Trek. IMHO the "flying saucers" are evidence that someone has this technology working - but it ain't the USAF. That's the problem here!

PZ: I mean other than virtual particles being "off the mass shell", by definition.

I take it that this "virtual dark matter" gravitates, in your model?

JS: Yes, that's the whole point. And "virtual dark energy" anti-gravitates! It's what Kip Thorne called "exotic matter" and what Herman Bondi and Robert Forward and also Stalin's Spy Master Yacov Terletskii called "negative matter". Little did they know back then that most of the stuff in the universe is "exotic" with real matter only about 4% of the stuff of large-scale universe.


Dark stuff
looks like w ~ 0 at a distance but up close it is w = -1 as one day
interstellar space probes using dark energy weightless warp
(Alcubierre) drives will confirm.

PZ: If your theory works.

JS: It works. Heads up. Look to the skies.

What is interesting about Lenny Susskind's theory however is the
connection between black holes and elementary lepto-quarks and gauge
force bosons as merely a matter of the complexity or bit length of the
"strings" in which "string" has dual meaning as "vibrating strings of
energy" and "strings" of computer theory in the sense of algorithmic
complexity and all that. This is already seen in black hole
thermodynamics where

Area/Lp^2 ~ number of bits

and the world hologram idea.

PZ: Is string theory even empirically refutable? What makes you think strings exist?

JS: Topology of order parameters. See any modern book on "soft condensed matter physics".
Also see Hagen Kleinert's webpage.
Now if you mean superstrings ,then Saul-Paul's latest comment on the EINSTEIN NASA probe is relevant.

fyi

This is a very weird situation dealing with freedom of information in physics and abuse of the "crackpot" smear where it should not be applied.
Brian Josephson is defending Castro in this matter. Brian and I have seen a very abusive e-mail from Ginsparg about Castro, which is not at all justified by the content of Castro's papers IMHO.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:29:14 PM US/Pacific
To: "carlos castro"
Cc: f130smith@mindspring.com, bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Ginsparg and our options


On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 11:15 PM, carlos castro wrote:

Dear Brian, Jack and Tony :

Thanks Tony for your wise insight at why the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU )
is useless for us. It makes a lot of sense and it is a disgrace that they will never fight against the physics establishment.

I want to tell ( remind ) Brian and Jack that my problems with Ginsparg date all the way back to February 2000 as I've indicated in my past e-mails and the letter I sent Jack
with Ginsparg extremely offensive e-mail.

The papers in 2001, 2002 were submitted, for the most part, by friends of mine from different e-mail accounts all over the world.

All papers that I submitted ( that my friends submitted ) in 2003 have been removed, whether I wrote them with other authors or not.

It seems you have a good case because your papers are OK and even better and clearer than many of the papers on the archive IMHO. Did Ginsparg or anyone ever give any detailed professional objections against your physics like a real referee would? It is very strange that Ginsparg would react so emotionally to your papers, which are hardly more speculative than M theory. Also you are tackling real issues like the size of the cosmological constant.


Let me know if you need some more information.

I don't think Lantz Miller has published his news/magazine article about this blacklisting situation.
I imagine that he would like to get in touch with you soon and/or in the near future.

The bottomline is that we have to file the class action suit. I don't see other options.
Look at what they wrote about Tony and Gentry !

Happy New year

Thanks

Best wishes

Carlos

From: Jack Sarfatti
To: carlos castro , Brian Josephson , Tony Smith , Creon Levit , S-P Sirag , Waldyr Jr.
Subject: Ginsparg
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 13:11:33 -0800

Carlos

I am looking at some of your papers. You seem to have them on Ginsparg's archive still. When did the problem with Ginsparg start with you?
On what paper?

IV
On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

In Rovelli's approach, almost everything is quantized and time itself has no fundamental
meaning.

So, OK, things are VERY different in Rovelli's theory. No argument there.
He wants to dig down to the raw manifold so he can quantize the stripped-off
Einsteinian chronogeometric structure of spacetime, replete with its unified metric,
thinking this may be the real solution to the quantum gravity conundrum.

I say he has not properly understood the status and meaning of the unified metric.
He has simply skated over this. He is trying to run before he can walk.

PZ: He wants to throw away time in order to keep a unified g_uv.

Read Goldstein on "time" in QMGR.

...

JS: What do you mean by "kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational
g_uv" apart from Ruvwl = 0 in the former and not in the latter.

I mean what it means in Newtonian physics.

We can always write a metric tensor expression for the invariant interval in Newtonian
mechanics. We can then covariantly describe the "fictitious" inertial forces of
Newtonian theory (and Jack, please don't say here that you don't know what I mean)
in terms of the space-time connection field. The metric gradients then determine the
strength of the apparent "forces" that are observed in accelerated frames. They can
be viewed as the "metric potentials" (Tolman, Bergmann) of the fictitious force field.

Of course, the space-space connections are not here associated with any "forces",
fictitious or otherwise.

JS: Are you sure of that?

Everything contributes.

E.g. for a charge on a timelike non-geodesic in an external EM field Fvw

d^2x^u/ds^2 + {^u|vw}(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds) + (e/m)e(^u^v^w l)Fvwdx^l/ds = 0

{^u|vw} is the connection field

e(^u^v^w l) is the 4-antisymmetric symbol.

I think that's correct off-hand?

The third term on LHS drives the test particle of mass m = mo[1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2

off the time-like geodesic it is on when Fvw = 0.

On the other hand the quantum BIT field is feeling Au in its phase accumulation even when Fvw = 0 at its location.

So I think you have made another error using only words and not checking the relevant math.


PZ: Jack, are you able to distinguish between the Lorentzian and Einsteinian
interpretations of the Lorentz contraction and time dilation? John Bell wrote
a whole essay on this in "Speakable and Unspeakable". Have you read it?

JS: Yes, but it makes no difference to the formal structure or to the physical predictions.
It is only in the informal language. It is moot. Only until that degeneracy is lifted will
there be physics there. Einstein was very interested in the "constructive" view that was
like "kinetic theory" to his "thermodynamics."

PZ: The situation here is precisely analogous: it is the difference between viewing
gravitational distortions of measurements as inseparable from the nature of
spacetime and the definition of its fundamental structure, on the one hand, and
viewing it as a physical effect, similar to universal thermal contraction and expansion
of measuring sticks (Feynman), which is regarded as *separable* from the
fundamental chronogeometric structure of spacetime.

JS: Again this is not really interesting physics until a significant experimentally testable difference can be found - at least in principle if not in fact.

PZ: If you are really having problems with these distinctions, I suggest you re-read
Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation", where he pays considerable attention to
precisely this kind of issue (in the context of developing a spin-2 quantum
field theory of gravitation). Feynman was a wonderful teacher.

JS: Yes I know.


PZ: And I find it difficult to believe that Feynman would describe his own ideas,
and his own perceptive critique of Einsteinian physics, as "philosofauzy".

JS: I think he was objective enough to do so if the situation warranted.

PZ: That is "the great Einsteinian insight" -- which is.
unfortunately, based on strict Einstein equivalence, which is
fictitious.

JS: Again I really do not understand what you mean by this sentence.

PZ: Then I suggest you read just about anything Einstein published on this -- at least
up to 1921. It certainly seemed to make sense to him, at least at the time.

JS: He changed his mind? Early ideas mature.


PZ: But then again, why bother? Just check my previous e-mail. I have already given
you a veritable cornucopia of direct Einstein quotes on this concept!

The fact is that the reason we have a unified gravitational-inertial metric in orthodox
GR is because Einstein supposed that the gravitational and inertial fields were *one
and the same*.

JS: They essentially are. In fact the idea of a uniform gravity field without tidal curvature is rare if not impossible to come by.

PZ: You and Rovelli seem to be content to have the g_uv grin without the cat. I, on the
other hand, am trying to paste this same grin on a very different cat.
...

Can you explain what Rovelli means by "active diff invariance" with respect to a
raw manifold of indistinguishable points? And how his "Cartesian relationism"
is at all relevant to existing gravitational physics and to Einsteinian relativity?

JS: Good question to which at the moment I do not have a good short answer.

...

JS: Yes on just another field. But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz.
Not
true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal uses an absolute non-dynamical background global
Minkowski space

PZ: That is what Rovelli *should* be doing, but he doesn't even
consider this
possibility. He seems to think you can treat unified g_uv as a
physical field.

JS: Why do you think you cannot?

PZ: Because then you arrive at the absurdity of diff invariance with respect to raw
spacetime manifold as some kind of physically relevant notion of "relativity"
-- which reduces the whole thing to absurdity.

JS: You lost me. What is absurd about diff invariance? Do you also think local gauge invariance is absurd?
Diff invariance is to the base space of the set of physical fiber bundles as local gauge invariance is to the
several fiber spaces for lepto-quark fermion sources and gauge boson forces and self-sources with the added
supersymmetry mixing the two.

Diff invariance is simply locally gauging the translational subgroup of the Poincare group of the base space. Doing so converts a globally flat base space to a variably curved one without torsion. Locally gauging the Lorentz sub-group seems to introduce torsion. The compensating gauge fields restore the symmetry broken by the initial local gauging.

In the case of gravity, as curvature without torsion and without residual micro-quantum zero point stress-energy density tensor

i.e. tuv(exotic vacuum) = [(Fine Structure Coefficient)]^-1(Witten String Tension)]/\zpfguv --> 0

/\zpf = Lp^-2[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

guv = Minkowski(uv) + d(u.v)

du = Lp^2(Arg Vacuum Coherence),u

Restoring the translational symmetry is found in the consequence of the Bianchi identities

Guv(Einstein)^;v = 0

Which is only true when there is no torsion and no exotic vacuum.

With zero torsion but exotic vacuum and insignificant Tuv(Matter)

Guv(Einstein)^;v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0

Assuming also metricity i.e.

guv^;v = 0.

One of the basic equations for practical metric engineering of weightless Alcubierre warp drive and star gate time travel is

Guv(Einstein)^;v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0

IMHO.


PZ: You cannot paste the grin of the unified metric on the cat of "Cartesian relationism",
in Rovelli's definition of the term. It won't stick.

PZ: I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed. And you say Rovelli is
a "big
shot"?

That is why I say Rovelli's position is incoherent.

JS: Is coherence in the mind of the beholder?

PZ: As of the above sentence it is you who is now the beholder. :-)

JS: Narcissus Principle i.e. "Universe as a self-excited circuit." (Wheeler)

PZ: So, what's the answer?

JS: "The Question is: What is The Question?" (Wheeler)


PZ: Yes, I know I'm sticking my neck out, but this is how Rovelli's position strikes me.
You yourself admit that you haven't yet been able to make sense out of his "relationism".

So, OK, you have faith.

JS: There is no consistent ontology for quantum gravity based on any non-Bohmian interpretation of quantum theory. The exception is
Shelly Goldstein's paper in the book "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale", even he makes a mistake IMHO in not sticking to
NO ACTION WITHOUT DIRECT REACTION by proposing that the BIT wave function of the universe "has no sources" from its IT
extra variable, i.e. the 3-geometry (or something deeper like spin networks maybe or perhaps a set of D-branes with strings as 1 branes).
The BIT MACRO-QUANTUM WAVE OF THE UNIVERSE is IMHO Hawking's "Mind of God" ONLY when it has sources! That makes Fred Hoyle's "Intelligent Universe" conscious IMHO.

On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth." -- Niels
Bohr

What Rovelli doesn't seem to understand is that this all makes perfect
sense once
you give up strict equivalence and distinguish the background and
physical metrics.

JS: I do not understand this distinction. Please give more details what
you mean.

PZ: In that case you don't understand Newtonian physics either, which makes precisely
this distinction: you don't understand the Newtonian distinction between "real" and
"fictitious" forces.

But at least you are honest enough to admit it. :-)

JS: What I understand is that "fictitious" or "inertial" forces are artifacts of the non-geodesic timelike motion of the local frames of reference. I understand Coriolis, centrifugal, standing on a scale in an elevator as "inertial forces". I also understand that LOCALLY there is, APPROXIMATELY, no way to distinguish the inertial force from a gravity force or G-force on a SINGLE TEST PARTICLE 1 NOT ON A TIMELIKE GEODESIC in sense of connection field for parallel transport (Experiment A), IF one MAKES NO ATTEMPT to measure the relative tidal acceleration between TWO OTHER TEST PARTICLES 2 & 3 BOTH ON TIMELIKE GEODESICS with ZERO G-FORCE (Experiment B). My OPERATIONALISM is showing, which you ignore in your too abstract formal analysis. Therefore, you end up in a false comparison comparing apples to oranges so to speak by confounding the essentially different, indeed, complementary in Bohr's sense of "total experimental arrangements" - even of macro relevance, Experiments A & B.

Further, I do not see how you tie that to "strict equivalence", which, if I understand you, you say is fundamentally wrong in some way? I do not understand how you mean "background" and "physical" above. Do you mean "nondynamical" and "dynamical". The problem is that you introduce key terms without enough contextual background to understand what you mean. In many cases an equation would eliminate the ambiguity.

Now if you mean by "strict equivalence" that Einstein did not include "Experiment B" as a matter of principle in his early formulations, then if indeed, that is historically correct, then he may have made an error that was later corrected and is completely corrected in MTW (1973), which I suppose you say "EEP is a correspondance", which is always the way I viewed it to begin with. If indeed your history of the evolution of Einstein's thought on his own theory is correct, I do not know if it is, then it is a minor footnote only. I am sure similar stories exist in the evolution of all the great theories of physics from Newton on.

Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s
use of

dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic

in his "Tables".

PZ: It does no such thing. I would not even characterize pp 112-114 as
an "argument".
It is simply a sketch of a model in which *everything* is quantized
except the "raw"
manifold.

JS: It shows no intrinsic meaning to Puthoff's r and t as he means it
in his Tables.

PZ: In Rovelli's approach, almost everything is quantized and time itself has no fundamental
meaning.

So, OK, things are VERY different in Rovelli's theory. No argument there.
He wants to dig down to the raw manifold so he can quantize the stripped-off
Einsteinian chronogeometric structure of spacetime, replete with its unified metric,
thinking this may be the real solution to the quantum gravity conundrum.

I say he has not properly understood the status and meaning of the unified metric.
He has simply skated over this. He is trying to run before he can walk.

...

What does he mean by "fluctuations"?

JS: What do you mean by "kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational
g_uv" apart from Ruvwl = 0 in the former and not in the latter.

PZ: I mean what it means in Newtonian physics.

JS: Huh? Newton uses forces with action at a distance. He never invokes any geometrodynamical
replacement of forces the way Einstein does. Newton never talks of a "metric" so what do you mean?
Do you simply mean again the distinction between inertial and non-inertial frames of reference?
There are no "fictitious" or "inertial forces" in "inertial frames". Newton only had implicitly
the idea of a global frame of reference not local frames of reference on a rigid Euclidean space with a
rigid absolute time.

Einstein in 1905 unified rigid space and rigid time into a rigid space-time in which space and time separately were no longer rigid.
Special Relativity uses a NONDYNAMICAL "background" RIGID 4D space-time that ACTS on MATTER WITHOUT BACK-ACTION of MATTER on space-time.

Einstein by 1915 corrects that approximation in General Relativity. Space-time GEOMETRY is now DYNAMICAL in "TWO WAY RELATION" (Bohm and Hiley, UNDIVIDED UNIVERSE p. 30 & 14.6) of ACTION-REACTION with MATTER (MASS-ENERGY).
Similarly, nonlocal linear unitary evolving orthodox micro-quantum theory with "signal locality" has a NON-DYNAMICAL BIT "pilot wave" relative to its IT "extra-variable". The BIT is of course DYNAMICAL relative to its ENVIRONMENT via boundary conditions, stochastic pumps, semi-classical couplings etc. I am only here talking SELF-REFERENTIAL DYNAMICS of a kind not even recognized in other interpretations of micro-QM where

IT FROM BIT (Wheeler)

BIT is complete description of micro-quantum reality.

This includes all "collapse" models with the possible exception of Penrose's "OR" and all many-worlds models from Everett to Gell-Mann/Hartle to David Deutsch's "multi-verse" and also Cramer's "transactional".

Shelly Godstein takes a wrong turn IMHO in his Bohmian Quantum Gravity paper in "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale" in rejecting a "source" for the "pilot wave" where it is most important on the vast scale of the Universe in the FRW limit.

In contrast to micro-quantum theory, MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY is P.W. Anderson's "More is different" in action IMHO.

MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY is local, non-unitary nonlinear with "presponse" (Dick Bierman) signal nonlocality in the sense of Antony Valentini's violation of "sub-quantal heat death".

The nonlocal linear micro-quantum Schrodinger equation in the configuration space of entangled parts of the whole is replaced by a local nonlinear MACRO-QUANTUM "Landau-Ginzburg" equation coupled to a residual micro-quantum Schrodinger equation in the sense of the old "two-fluid model" of Tiza but now generalized. This seems to go against some of Lenny Susskind's and t'Hooft's ideas and seems to support some of Hawking's older ideas on information loss in black holes. However, I am not sure of that. Lenny et-al seems to want to misapply micro-quantum theory in the MACRO-domain ignoring PW Anderson's "More is different"? I could be wrong. We shall see.

The phase-transition from an unstable completely random white zero point noise micro-quantum vacuum to a metastable MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM with colored zero point noise controlled by Vacuum Coherence has a lower q-entropy defined as log of the phase space needed by the vacuum.

Since 2003 with the discovery of both DARK ENERGY and DARK MATTER as ~ 96% of the "stuff" of The World, we have been forced by the weight of FACTS to expand our notion of MATTER as MASS-ENERGY to include VIRTUAL ZERO POINT ENERGY or "EXOTIC VACUA". Zero Point energy has w = Pressure/Energy Density = -1. Dark energy is exotic vacuum with negative micro-quantum pressure and dark matter is the same, but with positive pressure. All lepto-quarks have dark matter "vortex string" cores which prevent the distributed electric charge of the IT "extra-variable" from exploding. This is consistent with J.P. Vigier's notion of "tight atomic states" and it solves the old Abraham-Becker-Lorentz self-energy of the electron problem from ~ 100 years ago. The smallness of the cosmological constant is not solved by string theory as Ed Witten admits, but it is, IMHO, solved by MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

Key prediction: No dark matter detector will "click" with "the right dark stuff" because all dark stuff is "virtual" not "real". Dark stuff looks like w ~ 0 at a distance but up close it is w = -1 as one day interstellar space probes using dark energy weightless warp (Alcubierre) drives will confirm.

What is interesting about Lenny Susskind's theory however is the connection between black holes and elementary lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons as merely a matter of the complexity or bit length of the "strings" in which "string" has dual meaning as "vibrating strings of energy" and "strings" of computer theory in the sense of algorithmic complexity and all that. This is already seen in black hole thermodynamics where

Area/Lp^2 ~ number of bits

and the world hologram idea.

bcc

On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 06:49 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Gary, Jack and Tony :

Thank you for your information. Cahill et al have
worked for some time on the notion of Self Referential
Noise as models of reality. Wheelers's spacetime FOAM
is just another interpretation of Noise. You could
take that Noise as your " absolute " frame of
reference.

JS: The new EINSTEIN results seem to argue against this model?
I am not sure of that of course. Sirag says the "foam" is not really
randomly chaotic but coherently "harmonic" and that sets the
number of extra dimensions in Calabi-Yau space? On the other hand
Christian Beck seems to agree with you and says he can determine
the 25 epicycles of the standard model (some say only 17) from
chaotic strings. This would seem choose a definite location on Susskind's
"Landscape" in opposition to the WAP ideas of chaotic inflation seen
in Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American and in papers and books
by Lee Smolin.

CC: One day you may want to look at :

Carlos Castro `` The String Uncertainty Relations
Follow from the New Relativity Principle " .
Foundations of Physics. {\bf 8} ( 2000 ) page 1301.

for a way to derive the stringy uncertainty relations
from first principles.

JS: Is the claim being made that the new term beyond Heisenberg uncertainty is the source of irreversibility as in the arrow of time? Remember Hawking talks about a new source of uncertainty although Susskind seems to think that is wrong?

Note also Ed Witten's formula generalizing Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle, i.e. eq. (5.9) p. 136

Delta X > h/DeltaP + alpha'(DeltaP)/h

The second gravity-string source of uncertainty should give the irreversible statistical arrow of time not found when alpha' = 0, i.e. infinite string tension, or infinite space-time stiffness of action without reaction as is also found in the "signal locality" of orthodox quantum theory in sense of Antony Valentini's papers.

Note the "conformal" look

w = 1/z + alpha'z

Thanks Saul-Paul, so the data is evidence FOR string theory in your opinion.
Interesting!

On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 06:18 PM, S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:

Jack,

Superstring theory does not view the Planck scale of spacetime as a quantum
foam but rather as the Planck scale is approached the dimensionality of
spacetime goes to 10-d. In string theory the spacetime does fluctuate but
this fluctuation is harmonic rather than chaotic. In fact the assumption
that the harmonics of the strings absorbs all the quantum fluctuation can be
used to derive the dimensionality of spacetime. Also Lorentz invariance is
assumed in this calculation. This was first done by L. Brink and H.B.
Nielsen in 1973 ("A Simple Physical Interpretation of the Critical Dimension
of Space-time in Dual Models," *Physics Letters* 45B:4 (1973) 332-336. This
paper is also included in the anthology edited by John Schwartz,
*Superstrings: the First 15 Years of Superstring Theory, Vol. 1* (World
Scientific, 1985). [Note that "Dual Models" is the old name for string
theory, when it was still evolving away from the terminology of s-matrix
theory. However, the Mandelstam labels of S, T, and U duality have
resurfaced in membrane theory!]

I mentioned the Brink-Nielsen view of string theory in my paper "Notes on
Hyperspace" that I wrote for ISSO & ISEP in November 2000. [See attached
pdf.]

Also on page 6 of F.W. Stecker's pdf paper [referred to in the NASA
report], he says "We note that there are variants of quantum gravity and
large extra dimension models which do not violate Lorentz invariance and for
which the constraints considered here do not apply."

BTW: In the "Acknowledgments" on page 8, Serge Rudaz is one of four
people thanked "for helpful discussions." I remember meeting Serge Rudaz in
1976 at your Nob Hill appartment on (1155?) Jones Street where the PCRG held
seminars. He was then a young physics student (at Cornell?) who was an old
acquaintance of yours. He told us about "instantons" -- which was a new idea
then. I have not heard of him since 1976 -- until seeing this
acknowledgement!

Nuff said!

Saul-Paul

JS: Yes, Serge was with me at UCSC in Summer 1973 when I went to see Jean Cocteau's Orphee on campus with Helen Quinn (who was close to having he baby at that time) and I think Serge and a few others. This was days before I went to SRI to meet with Puthoff and Targ on the tape you have. The story is in the book "Destiny Matrix".

----------
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: "Gary S. Bekkum"
Subject: Re: NASA: EINSTEIN MAKES EXTRA DIMENSIONS TOE THE LINE
Date: Sun, Dec 28, 2003, 2:37 PM


Thanks Gary. This is actually good news for my theory in which
Einstein's GR is emergent as a c-number ODLRO field out of
a BCS QED vacuum instability that forms the inflation field.
That is, direct quantization of Einstein's guv field is not
appropriate anymore than re-quantizing the giant superfluid and
superconducting waves is appropriate.

Therefore "quantum foam" is suspect. Also Bohm's "quantum potential"
view of "vacuum fluctuations" is relevant in context of the recent
paper from Teheran.

I need to follow the experiment below more carefully.

On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Jack better check this story out:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html

Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com