On Jul 3, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Everyone agrees that the laws of GR are formally covariant under

general coordinate transformations -- or under the group Diff(4)

of point set diffeomorphisms on a 4-dim pseudo-Riemannian manifold

(which is subtly different).

But this is not enough to give us *actual physical relativity*

with respect to accelerated motion.

The reversible tetrad map LNIF(P) <---> LIF(P) does that

i.e.

guv(LNIF at P) = Eu^a(P)(Minkowski)ab(LIF)Ev^b(P)

After all, in classical mechanics Newton's second law F = ma also

holds *formally* in non-inertial frames; but this cannot amount to

true relativity with respect to such frames, since the observed

forces are regarded as "fictitious" -- i.e., only apparent, a

kinematical artifact.

Bad use of language since we feel and measure fictitious forces same as gravity!

So whether we do or do not have physical relativity depends not only

on the formal symmetries of the theory, but also on the *physical

interpretation* of the covariant laws.

Einstein's original approach was to interpret such "fictitious"

forces as real, based on his concept of the unified gravito-inertial

field, described by the transformable/deformable metric tensor g_uv.

This was at the core of his original concept of general relativity, as

I have previously argued.

Still true today.

Einstein himself explained this very clearly in his earlier papers

and in several books on relativity. I have all the quotes.

If Einstein's math is interpreted differently -- as some have

proposed -- then we lose physical general relativity, even while the

formal general covariant character of the laws is left undisturbed.

Again I do not think these gyrations of the informal language that leave the formal equations alone and do not change any operational procedures and gedankenexperiments are important scientifically - at best a matter of psychology and cognitive style.

So general covariance is not the same as Einsteinian "general relativity".

Never said it was. It is necessary not sufficient. Puthoff seems to say in PV it is NOT necessary - an error.

As I understand it, the current consensus in gravitational physics is

indeed in favor of a NON-"general relativistic" interpretation of the

formal theory.

Show me with exact quotes.

If I am confused on this, then so are most contemporary gravitational

physicists. Even Wheeler writes that "'general relativity' is the name

Einstein gave to his theory of gravitation". Weinberg and Feynman,

to name just two others, thought that Einstein equivalence is a red

herring -- a mere heuristic tool that happened to lead to the current

theory, but not now part of the correct interpretation of that theory.

I have not read Weinberg on this. I do not read Feynman that way. Cite specifics.

If there is no "general relativity", then there is in reality no physical

relativity, except in some weak phenomenological sense (which latter,

ironically, was Einstein's original 1905 view of SR as a: theory of

principle").

The "beef" of GR is the TENSOR eq (under Diff(4) globally and O(3,1) locally)

Guv + /\zpfguv = - (8piG/c^4)Tuv("matter")

Therefore, I simply do not understand what you are saying.

Einstein pretty much implied all this himself: he viewed

his proposed extended relativity principle as a natural development of

his special relativity principle to encompass accelerated motion.

Right. That's the way I understand it.

If you only include observers in uniform relative motion and assume invariance of c under that limited group of transformations including global translations as well as all 6 space-time rotations you get 1905 SR. SR means do NOT locally gauge the Poincare group! It means do not locally gauge any space-time symmetry group under the constraint that the speed of light in vacuum is an absolute invariant. That c is an absolute invariant does NOT imply it is an upper speed limit to anything. To get that, one must make something like an Arrow of Time additional postulate that future causes of past effects is impossible. That is an entirely different story beyond relativity as simply a symmetry theory of space-time.

If you include COINCIDENT observers at SAME event P (i.e. in tiny ball centered at P) in arbitrary relative motion then you get GR(1916) relative to that choice of connection field that comes from ONLY locally gauging the 4-parameter translation sub-group T4 of the 10-parameter Poincare group.

Now, Einstein did NOT historically derive GR that way because the modern understanding of the organizing idea of "local gauge invariance" did not exist until after he died.

If further, you locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group O(1,3) you get an additional torsion field piece to the connection field for parallel transport of tensors (and spinors using Penrose-Newman) along vector fields in the base space. You now have a larger local symmetry group than GR's 1916 Diff(4)xO(1,3). If you go even further and locally gauge the full 15-parameter conformal group, or even the 16-parameter GL(4,R) you will get even a bigger connection field with new physical consequences to be explored.

But it now looks like this aspect of his program was not successful.

I think it has been extraordinarily successful.

Of course, the term "general relativity" has in the meantime been quietly

redefined to mean something quite different: the reciprocal influence of

gravitating matter on the vacuum, and vice versa.

I thought Einstein always thought of it that way - I mean from at least ~ 1916 on? I am not up on the detailed history of how his thought evolved. What he may have said between 1905 - 1916 is not really relevant.

Even Einstein abandoned "Mach's principle" (really a hypothesis) by 1920,

since it clearly entails instantaneous action at a distance in order to

explain inertial phenomena -- which of course leads us to a very different

view of inertia as arising locally from a matter-vacuum interaction.

Agreed, Mach's principle is not a necessary part of GR even though it heuristically motivated Einstein. Also the recent discovery that 96% of the stuff of the universe is not "matter" as Mach and Einstein thought of it means that the whole idea of Mach's Principle rests on very shaky ground and must be re-evaluated in the light of new surprising observations.

The ghost of the departed Lorentzian ether. Quite a different kettle of

fish.

Paul

"Ether" is back in, although not the old Galilean group version. "Ether" like "tensor", "spinor", "connection" are all relative terms defined relative to a choice of symmetry group G.

P.S. I have been revisiting SR, and I think I now may have a bulletproof

version of the clock paradox that I'd like you and Hal to take a look at.

Would you be willing to do that?

Depends what you mean by "clock paradox" - time dilation is a proven fact in many experiments.

I know this must sound like a crank perpetual motion thesis -- but I'm

serious.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

General coordinate transformations handle all - so I do not understand what you mean.

I think you are confused here.

True, given any symmetry group G you can make the laws covariant under G.

GR deals with a special choice G = Diff(4).

Diff(4) handles LNIF --> LNIF'

Also it includes EEP tetrads LNIF <---> LIF

On Jul 3, 2004, at 1:28 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I meant physical relativity of all motion, including accelerated motion.

The general principle of relativity was initially supposed by Einstein to

be modeled on the special principle and was supposed to be an extension

of it.

That's not the way it turned out -- or at least that's what I understand

to be the current view of the matter.

On Jul 3, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The general principle includes the special principle.

Only if the special principle is re-interpreted *ad hoc* to bring it in line with the general principle as currently

interpreted.

OK - what's wrong with that?

Jack, here you are disagreeing not just with me, but with most contemporary authors.

This is all explained in Ohanian & Ruffini, "Spacetime and Gravitation", which I believe you have.

What pages specifically?

Who now actually believes with Einstein 1907-1916 that physical gravitation is simply a form of variable frame

acceleration controlled by the distribution of matter?

I do if you change "simply" to "essentially" and if you change "matter" to "matter and exotic vacua."

Do you?

Of course.

When curvature is zero everywhere when special relativity works globally, i.e. there exist global inertial frames GIF

OK.

When there is curvature the special principle works locally subject to the 2 restrictions I mentioned previously.

In general, only at a spacetime point.

More precisely in a neighborhood of space-time point P of scale L small compared to scale of local radii of curvature. Since the latter at surface of Earth is ~ 1AU that is not much of a restriction on L for terrestrial measurements.

Also L >> Lp* which is usually taken as 10^-33 cm though it may be larger.

What this means is that the predictions of SR in an LIF are *empirically compatible* with those of GR when the

LIF is contracted to a point.

No to a "ball" and here at Earth it can be a pretty big ball. You need to put this "point" thing into proper perspective with numbers.

Where there is non-zero Riemann curvature (i.e. gravity) in any finite volume of spacetime,

they are only approximately compatible.

As explained in detail in MTW for example. Obviously the 4th rank curvature tensor is NOT generally zero and that includes LIFs as well as LNIFs - but its practical effects on surface of Earth are very tiny and for a majority of practical purposes are ignorable.

Of course this does not mean that even in such a contracted LIF the predictions of SR *match* those of SR -- they

are only a subset. For example, SR makes no predictions regarding tidal forces, even if we extend SR to handle

accelerated frames. Yet according to modern GR, tidal effects may be empirically detectable everywhere in an LIF.

What's your point? It is trivial that SR is a sub-theory of GR and that SR needs GR corrections if one does precise enough measurements. All covering theories transcend the theories they cover. All this confusion about "aether" for example is because people try to use SR outside of its proper domain of validity. Our universe has a Hubble flow in which absolute velocity and absolute global cosmic time are practically and usefully defined in terms of the cosmic black body radiation isotropy and temperature respectively. This is no different from fact that non-spherically symmetric ferromagnets exist even though their Hamiltonians are spherically symmetric. The particular solutions do not share the symmetries of the dynamics! Not all atomic electron states of hydrogen are S states! In particular, when the ground state of a complex system does not share all the symmetries of its dynamical action we say the symmetry is spontaneously broken. This same thing happens with the cosmology of our universe! This is common indeed ubiquitous! Read PW Anderson's "More is different" and other papers in his "A Career in Theoretical Physics" (World Scientific) - worth buying.

Note let a,b be LIF indices and u,v be LNIF indices both in small neighborhood of same local event P

Ruvwl(P) = Eu^a(P)Ev^b(P)Ew^c(P)El^d(P)Rabcd(P)

Curvature is a local field measurable in principle in the LIF.

OK.

E's are the tetrad components, i.e. local fields

In globally flat space-time the E's are Kronecker deltas &au^a, distinction between a's and u's disappears - degenerate limit

e'u(P) = Eu^a(P)ea

[e0, e1,e2,e3] is basis for a LIF at P

[e'0,e'1,e'2,e'3] is basis for a "coincident" LNIF at P

OK.

INTRINSICALLY

e'u(P) = ea&u^a + Lp*^2(Macro-Quantum Coherent Vacuum Phase),u (NEW to my theory

,u is ordinary partial derivative

guv(P) = nuv(Minkowski) + (1/2)[e'u,v(P) + e'v,u(P)] = Eu^a(P)nab(Minkowski)Ev^b(P)

So far all this is for usual torsion-free connection.

So your "curvature field" is directly determined by the coordinate derivatives of the macroquantum

phase of your virtual BEC?

Yes, of course. I have been saying this over and over and it's in my two books from late 2002.

This is the elastic analog to Bohm's hydrodynamic constraint of IT by quBIT in

velocity of IT particle = (hbar/m)Gradient of phase of quBIT pilot waved)

I replace the quantum of circulation (AKA vorticity flux) hbar/m in 3D by the "Quantum of Area" in the 4D elastic world crystal lattice picture of Hagen Kleinert from Free University of Berlin.

The LIF ea with zero partial derivatives have dimensions of length in above formulae and guv is dimensionless.

If so, this looks like a flat-background quantum field model with a correspondence bridge to

"curved" Einstein g_uv.

Only FORMALLY not PHYSICALLY - important you make that distinction!

That is, there is no assumption of perturbation theory here.

In

guv(P) = nuv(Minkowski) + (1/2)[e'u,v(P) + e'v,u(P)]

In no sense do I assume

nuv(Minkowski) >> (1/2)[e'u,v(P) + e'v,u(P)]

The way Feynman does in his Lectures on Gravity using spin 2 quantum field on Poincare symmetry group background vacuum.

I am not doing that at all! Also these are SMOOTH MACRO-QUANTUM ODLRO functions. There will be a micro-quantum normal fluid spin 2 tensor quantum field on this smooth curved space-time background of course along with all the spin 1/2 and spin 1 quantum fields ALL together contribute to /\zpf!

But my theory is automatically BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENT and NON-PERTURBATIVE since guv(P) is a dynamical field from the beginning determined globally self-consistently in a self-organizing manner!

I'm curious: What in your model causes mechanical inertia? And what in your model explains, or

at least might explain, the exact proportionality of inertial and gravitational mass?

Exactly same as John Wheeler explains "Mass without mass" in his classic book "Geometrodynamics" with new feature Lp* ~ 10^20Lp on scale of 1 fermi to make the spatially-extended quasi Kerr-Newman micro-geons of the lepto-quarks out of exotic vacuum with "charges" as quantized vortex trapped flux fields not only U(1) but also SU(2) and SU(3).

The lepto-quark masses m ~ Vacuum Coherence consistent with Higgs mechanism - not Haisch's & Puthoff's random EM ZPF friction.

~ 1 Mev for first generation that dominates Omega(Matter) ~ 0.04 where total Omega = 1 the remaining 0.96 is ALL w = -1 ZPF exotic vacuum! Hence dark matter detectors silent in principle sans false positives.

Then use QCD Lite bag model (Frank Wilczek) to get hadronic masses M ~ 1Gev from lepto-quarks glued together again by /\zpf in a cascade process.

I have not proved consistency as yet. This is all heuristics based on my physical picture.

OK.

Z.

On Jul 3, 2004, at 1:28 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I meant physical relativity of all motion, including accelerated motion.

The general principle of relativity was initially supposed by Einstein to

be modeled on the special principle and was supposed to be an extension

of it.

That's not the way it turned out -- or at least that's what I understand

to be the current view of the matter.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I think the cutoff is much larger than Planck distance at scale 1 fermi in fact it is 1 fermi on scale of 1 fermi

i.e. Lp* = 10^20Lp on scale of 1 fermi to stabilize electron as an extended micro-geon.

On Jul 2, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:19 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

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

density distributions that are Lorentz invariant?

Yes, that's what I am alluding to below. However, that does not have a finite cut-off in it, which is the problem.

The nitpicking point I first raised here is really not relevant to the main issue,

which is what happens to LI when the emptically confirmed v^3 ZPE spectrum

(which I suppose is actually a v^2 density distribution) is truncated at the Planck

scale.

Everyone here (except perhaps TS) says that this would destroy exact LI.

Puthoff seems to be saying that such a cutoff would nevertheless not have currently

observable consequences, while Ibison is not so sure.

What do you think?

Z.

I say it will have observable consequences that should be looked for in angular correlations in Lambshift radiation for example.

## Sunday, July 04, 2004

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

Post a Comment