On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:15 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Apart from zero, the omega-cubed spectrum is the only spectrum whose

energy-density - per unit frequency, per unit volume - is invariant under

boosts.

OK

A more fundamental invariance of the ZPF under boosts is the (k-space)

momentum density, per unit momentum in any direction, per unit volume. The

spectral energy-density invariance follows from this invariance.

A spectral energy density per unit frequency, per unit volume is not, of

course, a Lorentz scalar, i.e. is not in general invariant under boosts for

example. If a spectral energy density of the vacuum plays a role in the

physics, then the former must be specifically constructed so that the latter

remains LI. I.E. the former must be omega-cubed distributed.

I am uncomfortable about accepting the unobservable cutoff argument.

So am I.

It is

not obvious to me that mass renormalization is insensitive to the cutoff.

Agreed

Since renormalization is dominated by the energy at the top end of the

spectrum, any shift in a cutoff induced by a boost could conceivably have

dramatic consequences for the observed mass.

The rest mass must be invariant under boosts, though the total mass is not.

Any significant change in rest mass, i.e. e/m, h/mc will likely be catastrophic in sense of WMD.

I'm sure better folks than me have given this some thought and have decided

the issue on way or another.

Maybe, maybe not?

Michael

On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

From the POV of GR(1916), SR(1905) is, strictly speaking, *false almost everywhere*,

since even in GR(1916) spacetime is almost never flat in the presence of matter even at

a spacetime point, and this has locally detectable consequences.

Yes, that is what I said. This is generally true when a theory is extended to a covering theory.

The original theory is only true in a sub-domain of the domain of validity of the covering theory.

BTW Freeman Dyson agrees with me generally that quantum theory needs a covering theory.

Lenny Susskind and Hawking do not think that though they disagree about fate of information down

the black hole that Puthoff says does not exist.

SR as a tangent space is an approximate idea as I showed in detail before. It is contingent on the bandwidth

resolution of the measuring instruments. Curvature is a local tensor field that does not vanish in the geodesic LIF if it does not

vanish in the non-geodesic COINCIDENT LNIF in same neighborhood of point event P relative to the 1916 torsion-free connection.

As to a *limited set of phenomena*, the predictions of SR(1905) are, however, locally

*compatible* with those of GR(1916), *on a purely empirical level*, in LIFs.

Yes, and this shows the limit of the purely SR "no ether" idea. A generally covariant "ether" is part of GR as shown experimentally in the Hubble flow where we have an absolute velocity measured by anisotropy of CMB and an absolute global time measured by the temperature of this same CMB (or CBB generally) - inside a Hubble sphere on a single spatially-flat post-inflation bubble in sense of chaotic inflation and the WAP.

Is that what you mean?

The correct theoretic interpretation of the predictions of GR(1916) is quite different from

the classic Einstein interpretation of SR(1905), and is consistent with -- and even

suggests -- a *non-mechanical* quasi-Lorentzian ether (as Einstein announced in 1920

in his Leyden address, and as explicitly mentioned by Pauli in his well-known 1921

Handbuch article).

Correct.

I would argue that this reduced the original Einsteinian principle of relativity to the status

of an *arbitrary formal metatheoretic stipulation*, where the concept of actual physical

relativity of motion had in fact been tacitly abandoned.

The special principle of relativity works very well practically in high energy beam scattering experiments for example - where the curvature corrections are small. They are not small however inside the lepto-quark itself with an effective short-range G* >> G(Newton) induced by dark energy/matter exotic vacuum residual micro-quantum ZPF modulated by partial macro-quantum vacuum coherence.

This meant that the Mach- and Poincare-inspired thinking behind classic Einsteinian SR

was also no longer to be taken too seriously -- which I believe is the "non-Einsteinian"

POV actually adopted by Einstein himself between 1920-26.

Yes, pretty much.

Among other things, this dramatic paradigm shift profoundly changed Einstein's view of physical

fields, which he had once regarded as autonomous entities subsisting in a truly relativistic void.

Hence unified field theory. Hence his opposition to Copenhagen quantum mechanics.

Freeman Dyson has much to say about this in his 2002 essay in "Science and Ultimate Reality.'

(According to the insufferably arrogant J. R. Oppenheimer, this radical change in Einstein's

thinking coincided with the onset of premature "senility".)

Yes, I remember Ronnie Peierls talking about this in the car coming home from a Cornell Savoyards rehearsal when he was living at Han Bethe's house ~ 1958.

Although of course this formal husk of a relativity principle still had some *heuristic* utility

in that it led in the case of GR(1916) to the mathematically simplest field equations of the

general covariant type (Einstein 1947).

This is why many now argue that the term "general relativity" is an antiquated misnomer, the

relic of a bygone era.

Like the worm Ouruboros, Einsteinian "general relativity" -- and thus physical relativity in

general -- ate its own tail.

In short, Einstein's theory of gravitation and his classic "special theory of relativity" are two

completely different animals. One is not simply a generalization of the other, as orginally

conceived by Einstein -- notwithstanding what is written in influential textbooks such as

Misner, Thorne & Wheeler's "Gravitation".

Z.

I stop short of your last paragraph since in a formal sense GR(1916) ----> SR(1905) when local radii of curvature ---> infinity every where-when.

In my theory of "More is different" emergent gravity, with dark energy/matter exotic vacuum phases, this is precisely what happens when macro-quantum partial vacuum coherence ---> 0 everywhere-when.

There is no "classical limit." What we misidentified as "classical space-time" is simply an artifact of P.W. Anderson's "generalized phase rigidity" of the partial vacuum coherence field whose "normal fluid" is the w = -1 ZPF of exotic dark energy/matter of negative/positive quantum pressure respectively.

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/warpdrive.pdf

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I seem to recall a detailed discussion of the Lorentz boosts of the blackbody spectrum in Richard Tolman's old text on Statistical Mechanics that I actually may have a copy of in my office. This relates to the "aether" issue over which amateurs get confused. GR(1916) is a covering theory of SR(1905), things globally true in SR are no longer so in GR. SR is approximately locally true in GR provided:

1. scale of measurements L << scale of local tensor radii of curvature Rc

2. L >> Lp* = scale of micro-quantum metric and connection zero point vacuum fluctuations.

Note Lp* may be a function of L and NOT a constant 10^-33 cm. Indeed in my theory

Lp*(1 fermi) ~ 1fermi in order to stabilize the spatially-extended electron as a Wheeler "Mass without mass" micro-geon = Bohm-Vigier "extra variable."

This feature is largely missed in Wheeler 90th 'Science and Ultimate Reality" BTW.

The WMAP observations show CMB black body spectrum isotropic to ~ 10^-5 angular correlations over entire celestial sphere relative to Hubble flow of the dark energy accelerated expansion of 3D space of the Tegmark "Level I" Hubble bubble universe we are inside of like E. Abbott's Flatlanders on a Euclidean plane. My theory BTW explains Linde's chaotic inflation dynamically.

A Lorentz boost on the CMB relative to the Hubble flow introduced anisotropy in the CMB, which is an "absolute velocity" meter for star ships just as measuring absolute Kelvin temperature of the CMB is an absolute cosmological clock for those Masters and Commanders navigating Her Majesty's Space Navy! ;-)

http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/captain.mp3

On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

It's certainly necessary for the Lorentz invariance of the actual

ZPE distribution, which is what really matters here.

I think Hal is exactly right that this invariance is broken at the

margins by a Planck scale cutoff, but the empirically detectable

effects of this are very slight -- contrary to what Tony Smith

seems to be saying.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Ask Puthoff, I think he is correct on that. I cannot recall proof instantly.

Also, I am saying that the ZPF cut-off is a scale-dependent variable! The ZPF cut-off is not the same on scale of 1 fermi that it is on scale of 10^2 megaparsecs or even what it is on scale of 1 Angstrom where Lamb shift is measured. We need a continuous wavelet transformation (AKA "CWT") generalization of the Fourier transform-based Wigner phase space density to say this precisely. I have not yet succeeded in doing this, but the renormalization group flow to a fixed point is a guide to what I am dimly driving at - Through The Looking Glass Darkly.

The Type 1a supernovae data on dark energy ZPF energy density is only valid on a large-scale in sense of a ZOOM-OUT in the CWT. The Lamb shift data is a ZOOM-IN in the CWT "Multi-Resolution Landscape." Similarly for the universal Regge slope of the hadronic resonances and the spatially-extended structure of the incredibly-shrinking lepto-quark "mass without mass", "charge without charge" "micro-geons" "hidden variables."

You can call this the "ZOOM ZOOM" theory. :-)

On Jul 2, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

michael ibison wrote:

Apart from zero, the omega-cubed spectrum is the only spectrum whose

energy-density - per unit frequency, per unit volume - is invariant under

boosts.

OK, so the LI of Einstein SR clearly depends entirely on the exact v^3 spectral

characteristic of the quantum vacuum.

A more fundamental invariance of the ZPF under boosts is the (k-space)

momentum density, per unit momentum in any direction, per unit volume. The

spectral energy-density invariance follows from this invariance.

OK.

A spectral energy density per unit frequency, per unit volume is not, of

course, a Lorentz scalar, i.e. is not in general invariant under boosts for

example. If a spectral energy density of the vacuum plays a role in the

physics, then the former must be specifically constructed so that the latter

remains LI. I.E. the former must be omega-cubed distributed.

OK.

I am uncomfortable about accepting the unobservable cutoff argument. It is

not obvious to me that mass renormalization is insensitive to the cutoff.

Since renormalization is dominated by the energy at the top end of the

spectrum, any shift in a cutoff induced by a boost could conceivably have

dramatic consequences for the observed mass.

I would be uncomfortable basing any fundamental argument on the quirks of mass

renormalization, which I have to regard as a proverbial can of worms -- but

that's another debate.

I'm sure better folks than me have given this some thought and have decided

the issue on way or another.

This is a fundamental issue so I would expect that somewhere there is a clear-cut

mathematical proof of the necessity and sufficiency of the exact v^3 ZPE spectral

characteristic for LI.

Since I strongly suspect a ZPE cutoff of some kind is necessary to avoid

catastrophes, this raises serious questions about the status of LI as an exact

symmetry, in my mind.

Z.

The EINSTEIN NASA Probe shows LI remarkably accurate in I think high energy cosmic ray data?

No deviation from mass shell

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

as some of the fancy math theories seem to predict. I have to go back and check on the details.

On Jul 2, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Mark Davidson wrote:

Jack,

You are right about Tolman. The reference is:

R. Tolman, Relativisitc Thermodynamics and Cosmolgy, Oxford University Press, 1934. Page 161.

Tolman also references the following earlier derivation of the boost laws of black body radiation:

Monsengeil, Ann. der Physik, 22, 867, 1907.

Tolman also gives expressions for the Lorentz transformation properties of general disordered and ordered radiation. So knowledge of the Lorentz transformation properties of radiation fields is truly ancient.

From Tolman's formulae it follows immediately that any vacuum with a finite energy density must be non-invariant under Lorentz transformations.

I think you mean "finite energy cutoff"?

Note that

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 in a LNIF

is generally covariant with /\zpf a scalar and it is also LI invariant

Gab + /\zpfnab = 0 in a LIF

nab = SR (1905) metric

guv = Eu^anabEv^b = GR(1916) metric

eu = Eu^aea = Lp*^2(Phase of Partial Vacuum Coherence),u

,u is ordinary partial derivative that may be generalized to U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) spin 1 gauge force covariant partial derivatives in sense of the FALSE pre-inflationary vacuum of globally flat quantum field theory with full conformal group symmetry, i.e. ALL rest masses m = 0 in the globally flat FALSE VACUUM.

You can think of this as a perfect defect free Planck lattice in sense of Hagen Kleinert's string topology defect density elastic model of curvature, torsion and ...? m =/= 0 is a vacuum coherence effect (Higgs mechanism) not random ZPF friction effect in sense of Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda. To be consistent with local equivalence principle, gravity and inertia are ONE AND THE SAME! Rest inertia m is "Mass without mass" micro-geon with Lp* ~ 10^20Lp.

ea is LIF basis

eu is LNIF basis

Best wishes,

Mark

At 10:23 AM 7/2/2004, you wrote:

I seem to recall a detailed discussion of the Lorentz boosts of the blackbody spectrum in Richard Tolman's old text on Statistical Mechanics that I actually may have a copy of in my office. This relates to the "aether" issue over which amateurs get confused. GR(1916) is a covering theory of SR(1905), things globally true in SR are no longer so in GR. SR is approximately locally true in GR provided:

On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Mark Davidson wrote:

I think Jack is correct, the zero point spectrum of QED is the only Lorentz invariant spectrum. Put a cutoff in that spectrum and you destroy Lorentz invariance. Black body spectrum is not Lorentz invariant except at zero temperature.

Mark

At 12:19 AM 7/2/2004, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I was under the impression that there is a class of v^3 ZPE

density distributions that are Lorentz invariant?

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I think Puthoff has an argument related to that? Definitely as I recall the EM ZPF spectrum is the only one consistent with local Lorentz invariance as I recall off top of my head.

On Jul 1, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

While it has been shown that the black-body distribution is

compatible with Lorentz invariance, I know of no proof that

that the full blackbody spectrum is a *necessary* condition

for such invariance.

This is an interesting question IMO.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler, The Daring Conservative

We need to distinguish several issues:

1. Is a virtual photon ZPF cutoff actually observed in the lab? - empirical question.

2. If yes, does that imply a new experimental effect of anisotropy in Lamb shift radiation as observed perhaps in angular correlation measurements on such radiation? - empirical question.

3.What is the value of the cutoff if it exists? - empirical question

4. If a virtual photon cutoff is a fact, is this evidence for non-commuting space-time? theoretical question

.....

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@earthlink.net]

Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:42 PM

To: Puthoff@aol.com

Subject: Re: Puthoff & Lorentz invariance and alleged experimental lab

ZPE cutoff

Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 7/2/2004 11:24:19 AM Central Daylight Time,

mdavid@spectelresearch.com writes:

.... the zero point spectrum of QED is the only Lorentz

invariant spectrum.

Indeed, as discussed in my paper, H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a

Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev

A 47, 3454 (1993),

"... Lorentz invariance, which derives specifically from the

spectrum's cubic dependence on frequency.

So are you saying that the standard ZPE spectrum is the *only* possible

distribution with the v^3 characteristic?

Now I'm confused.

Logically, I would have thought that the v^3 dependence of the standard

ZPE spectrum guarantees Lorentz

invariance of the distribution -- which I accept -- does not *in itself*

prove that all Lorentz invariant distributions

*must* have this dependence.

Do you have a proof that this v^3 characteristic is also a necessary

condition?

Of course, if the v^3 ZPE characteristic has been unambiguuosly

confirmed by experiment, then this is all

irrelevant.

The cubic spectrum is unique in its property that delicate

cancellations of Doppler shifts with velocity boosts leaves the

spectrum Lorentz invariant."

OK, but this leaves the logical possibility of alternative spectral

distributions that may satisfy Lorentz

invariance for different reasons -- which may have nothing to do with

Doppler cancellation.

I am not suggesting that this Doppler cancellation is not significant --

in fact I believe it is very significant.

Most interetsing of all, in my view, is that it illustrates the intimate

connection between Lorentz invariance

and the *contingent* physical characteristics of the quantum vacuum --

which raises interesting questions

(in my mind, at least) as to the true status of the Einsteinian

relativity principle

Put a cutoff in that spectrum and you destroy Lorentz

invariance.

In principle, yes. However, as discussed in my footnote 21 in the

above paper, I point out:

"The possible existence of a cutoff in quantum theory is recognized to

introduce a non-Lorentz-invariant factor, in that detection of a

Doppler-shifted cutoff frequency by a moving detector could in

principle reveal absolute motion. As pointed out in the literature,

however, [for example, by M. A. Shupe, Am. J. Phys. 53, 122 (1985)],

as long as the cutoff frequency is beyond detectability (as in the

Planck frequency in this case) there is no measurable consequence

expected of such a breakdown of Lorentz invariance at this limit of

present physical theory, either now or in the foreseeable future."

OK. So, at a minimum, assuming Lorentz invariance based on a v^3

spectrum -- which of course is the

case for the standard ZPE distribution -- a Planck scale cutoff of such

a spectrum will indeed

destroy perfect Lorentz invariance, but not to the extent that it

contradicts the results of existing

measurements.

This seems to be a little different from what Tony Smith was claiming.

Z.

Cheers,

Hal Puthoff

## Friday, July 02, 2004

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

Post a Comment