On Jul 4, 2004, at 4:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

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!

Obviously I am not saying that the classical paradigm is correct --

Yes, I did not mean that as directed to your particular usage - it's in text books.

I am simply offering

this as an illustration of the distinction between mere formal covariance and

actual physical relativity.

Yes, there is a difference, but I think the additional tetrad map formal equation bridges that gap. How to describe it in informal common language in Bohr's sense is subject to the ambiguity of common language. The only real differences are either in the formal language of the equations and/or a real change in some actual operational procedure and/or gedankenexperiment and/or some new prediction. There is always ambiguity in explanations using informal language and that degenerates usually to moot matters of personal taste - until some new observation comes along to lift the degeneracy. Like the discoveries of both dark energy and dark matter with Omega(ordinary "Machian" matter) ~ 0.04 out of a total of 1.00! That's what is truly important! That and the cosmological constant /\ ~ (10^28cm)^-2 when random ZPF quantum field theory for the incoherent physical vacuum predicts /\ ~ (10^-33 cm)^-2!

This "bad use of language" -- "fictitious forces" -- is that of Newtonian physics.

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.

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

Still true today.

Not according to the majority of gravitational theorists.

Who is currently claiming that arbitrarily moving frames are all physically equivalent

in modern GR?

Who is now claiming that a matter-induced gravitational field is as a general principle

*locally fundamentally identical* to an accelerated frame of reference?

MTW is 1970 vintage. I seriously doubt that even Wheeler would stand behind any

of this now, despite his desperate attempts with Ciufolini to stave off lethal criticism in

the 1990s.

What you need to do here Paul is to pin this down with specific statements that you think oppose

each other side by side. I really do not understand your point here.

So what is the theoretic basis for the supposed "annihilation" of the gravitational field

at some point in an LIF?

Again, I think your confusion here is over garbling two distinct meanings of "gravitational field" as

1) a connection field, i.e. a g-force

2. 4th rank tidal curvature tensor field

1) is locally annihilated, 2) is not.

There is no contradiction.

BTW Kleinert has a generalized GR in which 2) is formally locally annihilated, but I do not know if he means that can be achieved physically?

What is the theoretic basis for the non-tensorial character

of the gravitational field energy density in GR?

The real statement is that there IS a local gravitational field stress-energy tensor. It is

-tuv(pure gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv = (String Tension)Guv = (Metric Elasticity)^-1Guv

where

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rgiv

Einstein's local field equation of 1916 is then simply

tuv(pure gravity) + Tuv(ordinary matter-field) = 0

Take the covariant divergence to get

tuv^;v + Tuv^;v = 0

This is local conservation of stress-energy density current!

However, something peculiar happens in the torsion-free 1916 DEGENERATE case.

The Bianchi identities relative to the usual symmetric connection field from guv partial derivatives gives SEPARATELY

tuv^;v = 0

Tuv^;v = 0

This is a BORING UNIVERSE without reaction-less warp drive possible because there is a gap between the geometrodynamic "marble" currents tuv and the ordinary matter-field currents Tuv!

In the BORING non-exotic vacuum without any dark energy and without any dark matter:

tuv^;v = 0

i.e.

Guv,^;v = 0

where tuv(pure gravity) = 0 everywhere-when BORING BORING BORING.

God has more imagination then that! Otherwise God is malicious and not subtle at all. That is what the flying saucers are telling us.

But our universe is not boring! Flying saucers prove that. Flying saucers are an "iron post of observation" covered over by the "paper mache" of theory.

In the INTERESTING exotic vacuum with dark energy and dark matter and with Tuv(matter-field) = 0

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

even in the usual symmetric connection field sense, i.e. covariant partial derivatives ";" are always relative to a connection!

We now have, at the very least,

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

with

Guv^;v =/= 0

Extracting ZPF vacuum energy means, for example

/\zpf^vguv = (8piG*/c^4)Tuv^;v

if we can arrange in a special case

Guv^;v =/= 0

In general

[tuv(geometry) + Tuv(matter-field)]^;v = /\zpf^,vguv

* This is like two resistors in parallel with /\zpf^,vguv like an applied voltage with negative resistance possible for stealth cloaking of war machines.

* Now the problem you allude to at the beginning is a totally DIFFERENT PROBLEM of defining a global integrated Pu in an asympotically flat space-time for a matter-free region of space-time with localized curvature and with all zero point energy density = 0 in the problem.

That Pu global integral is not a simple integral of a local tensor density.

As far as I can see there is none. This is simply a relic of Einsteinian "general relativity",

which doesn't actually exist.

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

Display them. Your argument depends on these details.

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 that is subjective aesthetics - not physics.

PZ: Einstein himself explained this very clearly in his earlier papers

JS: 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.

This "positivistic" view of physical theory -- which became fashionable in the

1930s -- was abandoned by Einstein himself in the 1920s. That's what he

was referring to when he told Heisenberg in Berlin (1926) that much of his

thinking about SR(1905) was "rubbish".

I see no reason to accept what you just said. I mean no scientific reason. Again this is aesthetics, metaphysics. I think you have confused Einstein's point here. I never said that ALL mathematical objects in the theory must have direct operational definitions, which is what Heisenberg was trying to do in his matrix mechanics.

(I must get the original German quote on this. A more contemporary translation

might be "bullshit".)

I imagine that is why he also publicly repudiated Ernst Mach as a "deplorable

philosopher" in the early 1920s, and started talking about a quasi-Lorentzian

ether.

Again this is neither here nor there. So what?

This all happened after the final development of GR in 1916, which profoundly

altered Einstein's metatheoretic approach. That is how he became a *critical

realist* -- and why he objected so strongly to Copenhagen quantum physics.

OK

Critical realism is not positivism. It is not even Machian empiricism.

I think you mischaracterized my position here as naive positivism. But we can quibble like Laputan M-theorists on that for zillions and zillions of aeons - and have.

"It is the *theory* that determines what can and cannot be measured" -- Albert Einstein

Yes, obviously as can be seen in my discussions with experimentalist Ken Shoulders on "black EVOs" that he thinks may show v >> c.

It is really two-way.

Theory determines what can and cannot be measured AND Experiment co-determines what can and cannot be conceived.

IT FROM BIT AND BIT FROM IT

The sound of TWO HANDS CLAPPING!

Forget ONE HAND CLAPPING.

This is all in Stachel, who is a highly regarded contemporary historian of Einstein's

work. Stachel was himself professionally trained in gravitational physics at ranking

institutions, so he also knows something about this subject from a strictly internal POV.

I need to see specific statements on a case by case basis. No blanket judgments without evidence.

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

Never said it was. It is necessary not sufficient.

OK then. So if the exact local identification of gravitational fields and frame acceleration

is now untenable, then so is Einsteinian "general relativity".

I do not accept what you just said as true. You made a false premise. It's not untenable at all.

Gravitational field = connection field.

You can't have it both ways. Unless you are the Red Queen who believes three impossible

things before breakfast...

Puthoff seems to say in PV it is NOT necessary - an error.

It is not necessary for fundamental physical reasons of "general relativity"..

I see no evidence, no coherent argument for what you just wrote.

Show me how to do gravity in all its fullness without writing the tensor field equations of Einstein.

I think you have made an obviously false statement.

However, if you want to deal with gravitational physics in arbitrary frames of

reference, of course the tensorial formulation of GR is pragmatically indispensible.

I actually agree with you on this point.

So what are you talking about? I have no understanding of what point you are trying to make here.

Indeed, you seem to be the Red Queen! :-)

It is BAD PHYSICS not to be able to deal with arbitrary LOCAL frames of reference.

But I don't think that is the purpose of PV, which is not offered as a fundamental

theory, but more as an engineering model with heuristic utility.

It fails badly on both counts. Hal cannot describe a rotating source. Therefore, he cannot describe a gravimagnetic field.

Practical metric engineering demands a gravimagnetic field, yet he claims that PV is the Yellow Brick Road to The Stars.

Hal is The Wizard of Oz in NASA BPP and STAIF! :-)

The point is that

it can be applied by engineers who have not mastered the mathematics of tensors

in 4-dim spacetime. -- raising and lowering indices, trace operations, covariant

and contravariant tensors, and all that stuff.

Hogwash. Smart high school kids can do tensors. Hal cannot solve even one interesting problem in metric engineering warp drive and star gates with Hal's published versions of PV. Ibison showed that a real test of PV in the case of pulsars failed to come up with the correct observation in contrast to GR, which does. Indeed a Nobel Prize was given for that I think.

We have a similar situation in quantum chemistry, where all kinds of naive "floating

models" of atomic and molecular structure are successfully used by chemists for

practical heuristic purposes -- but these are just icons which evaporate when the

exact quantum mechanical theory is taken into account.

False analogy. No one has used PV successfully. Getting the 3 classic tests of GR with PV is not a success, but a minimal necessity.

I agree that this can become pathological if the floating models are taken too

seriously. In fact this is one of the big problems I had with theoretical chemistry and

the way it is taught in universities. That's part of why I switched to foundations

of physics, hoping to get the "real deal".

Boy was I naive.

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

formal theory.

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

Show me with exact quotes.

Look at Ohanian and Ruffini, where there are plenty of citations.

About what specific points?

Their entire book is written on this very premise.

Which is? Play it again, Sam.

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.

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

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

It's all in his "Lectures on Gravitation". He even compares gravitational distortions

of rods and clocks to thermal expansion of bars on a hotplate:

"We may think... of the man who is making measurements with a physical

ruler on a hot plate; the ruler obviously changes length as he moves to hotter

or cooler regions. But this makes sense only because we know of something

which can measure distances without being affected by the temperature,

namely light."

And that's why it is not a good analogy.

"The situation is quite clear in the case of the hotplate... only because we have

assumed that light measurements are unaffected by heat. In the case of

gravity, however, we know of no scale that would be unaffected -- there is

no "light" unaffected by gravity with which we might define a Galilean

coordinate system." - "On the assumption that space is truly flat", p 112

Right. I wonder if you are reading Feynman correctly here?

He explicitly characterizes that the equivalence principle as a mathematical

"coincidence" which might be explained by gauge symmetries of the spin-2

field:

"It is one of the peculiar aspects of the theory of gravitation, that is has both a

field interpretation and a geometric interpretation..."

You must be careful here not to base the explanation of Einstein's GR emerging from a perturbation theory of a spin 2 quantum field on a globally flat space-time non-dynamical background using only a FINITE sum of diagrams.

"The geometric interpretation is not really necessary or essential in physics.

It might be that the whole *coincidence* might be understood as representing

some kind of gauge invariance." - p 113 [my emphasis]

Depends on what you mean by "necessary" or "essential" - again this is aesthetics.

Remember he was working on a flat-background theory of quantum gravity --

which I believe yours also is.

NO! You completely misunderstand me here. I tried to explain that in my earlier message today.

My theory is background-independent, i.e. the smooth curved space-time background is dynamical and emerges from the ODLRO of the true post-inflationary physical vacuum and it is non-perturbative in the same way that the BCS superconducting ground state cannot be reached from the normal metal ground state in finite order in perturbation theory. The globally flat pre-inflationary false vacuum is non-dynamical and cannot support any finite rest mass quasi-particles, it's all m = 0. The giant vacuum wave wobbles and adjusts. It self-organizes to make the Einstein guv field and also dark energy and dark matter fields in this or that post-inflationary bubble in the sense of chaotic inflation.

He even mentions that the success of "general relativity" in explaining the anomalous

orbit of mercury might be entirely due to the non-linear character of the field

equations, and nothing necessarily to do with curved spacetime geometry or

Einstein equivalence.

A false dichotomy.

In other words, it is not an empirical confirmation of the

reality of the geometric model, which Feynman evidently regarded as fictitious.

This again is metaphysics/aesthetics - not physics.

This explains to me his frustration at the Polish conference, where he appeared to

be skeptical as to whether what was being discussed was actually "physics" in

any acceptable sense.

No, I do not think that is what bothered him. I am sure Feynman would have said the same thing today about M-theory on Brian Greene's NOVA had he lived to see it as he said at the Polish GR conference in 1961. Indeed, Feynman would have jumped on the table and hissed at Brian like a snake as he once did in the Cal Tech Cafeteria performing for hundreds of undergrads. It was lack of contact with observation and mathematical "rigor mortis" which bothered him. This was all pre-MTW. Hal Puthoff's PV is a characature of pre-1961 physics. Feynman would have jumped for joy over the new Type 1a supernovae, the WMAP and other results of the concordance in "precision cosmology." Feynman would not have signed that May 22, 2004 letter in New Scientist.

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

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

principle").

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

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.

But you have already admitted above that a covariant tensor formulation of the

laws of gravitation does not guarantee actual "general relativity".

You distort what I said. Actual GR is embodied in

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

Where EEP is expressed formally as the tetrad relation connecting guv to Minkowski metric locally at a point P in the usual torsion-free connection choice for defining the partial covariant derivatives ;u.

Not all covariant tensor field equations for gravity need be the above specific one. So what? Einstein's works. It is battle tested. The others do not work.

The point is that the exact literal identification of a gravitational field and some

acceleration field within some infinitesimal neighborhood in free fall is critical to

the Einsteinian principle of general relativity.

Correct. I have consistently said that.

Remove this, and you no longer have actual "general relativity".

Correct. So what else is new?

Yes, you can re-define the "gravitational field" as a connection field, but as far as I

can see this is just an *ad hoc* rhetorical stratagem to divert attention away from the

failure of Einstein equivalence as a fundamental physical principle.

Huh? I do not understand what you are saying here. You lost me.

Smoke and mirrors.

?

I think this was even Eddington's view in the early 1920s. Eddington stated in his

"Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (1923) that there is no good reason to assume

that the Riemann curvature locally has no direct physical significance, or can be excluded

from the characterization physical g-fields, as Einstein tried to do.

This is a Red Herring. I do not believe Eddington said that.

The Riemann tidal time-like geodesic deviation for pairs of point test particles tensor curvature is the inhomogeneity in the non-tensor connection g-force field. I see no problem here either conceptually or formally.

He explicitly states that the equivalence principle as originally conceived by Einstein is

not to be taken too seriously, and is to be downgraded to the staus of a mere heuristic

tool which need not be referred to -- and indeed should not be referred to -- in the

critical interpretation of the theory.

Fine, so what of it? Similar qualifications can be made for all important key organizing ideas for all successful physics theories.

Bohm says same thing in his "proper domain of validity" qualification for all important physical ideas. Why pick on the poor equivalence principle?

How about the linear Schrodinger equation evolving unitarily in configuration space? According to many Pundits its domain of validity has no boundary and is infinite! Dyson does not think so and neither do I.

And I think this is also the modern view of the conceptual development of GR, which

correctly distinguishes between the context of discovery and the context of critical

evaluation.

Fine on that.

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.

Well, this is no longer tenable. There simply is no true physical relativity of arbitrarily

accelerated motion in modern GR.

I don't understand your sentence.

And there is not even any theoretical need for it, since Einstein equivalence is no longer

tenable as a fundamental physical principle.

I don't understand your sentence.

Although OF COURSE you still get a correspondence bridge to SR based on

the approximate local cancellation of the connection field within an LIF. But this

does NOT mean you actually get SR, or that the gravitational field is literally "annihilated"

anywhere in an LIF (see, e.q., Landau and Lifshitz) -- unless physical gravitation

is eliminated from the problem (no sources).

You are beating a dead horse here. No one takes the annihilation literally. The precise statement is a mathematical idealization at a "point."

That's the point!

Really? :-) I think the physical point is what matters here, which is that astronauts freely orbiting Earth in a closed elliptical orbit without rockets firing and without rotation about the ship's center of mass are continually weightless in constant free float. They are timelike geodesic observers passing through a continuous sequence of LIFs along their timelike geodesic path. As soon as they fire rockets they pass through a continuous sequence of LNIFs on a timelike non-geodesic path and they experience time dilation relative to their geodesic comrades they left behind. In contrast, when our brave Argonauts use ZPF warp drive they remain in free float LIFs even though to a distant observer they appear to have v >> c and make sharp sudden changes of course through large angles with no internal g-forces! That's a good trick The Visitors in Flying Saucers allegedly are doing for us to watch and wonder.

This all relates to the field energy conundrum. If the gravitational field is not "annilhilated",

then why are frame-dependent inertial contributions incuded in the Einstein pseudo-tensor?

IMHO this is all simply a hangover from the earlier Einsteinian approach. IMHO consistency

demands its critical reappraisal within the context of the contemporary interpretation of

the theory..

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.

No, you also need the Machian-Poincarian gloss on the formal theory, which

considers the formal Lorentz invariance of the laws to reflect the fundamental physical

*meaninglessness* of any distinction between actual inertial motion and relative

inertial motion. In Einstein SR this is how it's all reduced to kinematics.

I don't understand your sentence.

So this requires more than mere *formal* invariance.

After all, we can get *formal* kinematical Lorentz-Einstein invariance simply by

agreeing to rescale our spacetime coordinates for uniformly moving frames according

to the Lorentz-Einstein transformation formulae. This would preserve the *form*

of Maxwell's equations in all inertial frames, but it ain't Einsteinian special relativity.

This particular artifice is no different from using logarithmic graph paper to get a straight line

plot.

?

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.

That's not Einstein's theory.

Sure it is.

In Einstein's theory, c is a fundamental invariant based on the reduction of the Lorentz

transformations to pure kinematics and *therefore* an upper limit on the speed of relative

motion, and of relative signal propagation.

False. It is true that you cannot subluminally boost a subluminal signal into a superluminal signal. People have extended SR to include superluminal boosts. The issue is retarded causality. Signals with speed c are still frame-invariant with these super-boosts, but not the usual conception of past causes and future effects along timelike or lightlike histories with no spacelike actions at a distance outside the local light cones.

In Einstein's theory, the kinematics are not to be

regarded as *contingent* on the physical properties of light signal propagation, but as

more fundamental and determinative of limits on all possible relative motion and

electrodynamic propagation, so that the limit on signal propagation logically *follows* from

fundamental kinematical constraints.

Again this is wrong. There are counter-examples. It is true historically that Einstein put in retarded causality as a logically independent postulate just like Euclid's 5th, but you are wrong to claim it as a theorem!

This is what gives you the *fundamental kinematical reciprocity* of the Lorentz-Einstein

transformations at a deep interpretive level. And *that's* what leads to the infamous clock

paradox.

Wrong. There is no clock paradox. A timelike geodesic has the LONGEST proper time of all world lines starting and ending at the same pair of points both in SR and in GR. There is no paradox at all. This is simply the dynamical action principle for a free test point particle. BTW some famous physicists get this wrong writing SHORTEST confusing 3D Riemannian geometry with 4D Lorentzian geometry.

Otherwise, Einstein's theory would not be fundamentally different from those previously

proposed by Poincare and Lorentz -- and Einstein would lose priority.

I don't understand your sentence.

I am not arguing that this "Einsteinian" interpretation of the formalism is *correct*. To the

contrary -- I would argue that the clock paradox shows that it cannot be.

What "clock paradox"? I don't understand your sentence.

I am just saying that this was Einstein's theory ca.1905.

I agree it might be interesting to speculate how Einsteinian SR would look to a physicist

who had access to some kind of "superlight" that propagates signals at vastly greater speeds,

but is invisible to Einsteinians. It might be analogous to a 5-dim being looking down at

flatlanders in 4-dim spacetime.

That is what we have in post-quantum theory with signal nonlocality that violates the no-cloning a quantum theorem and the whole Temple of "quantum computers" and "quantum cryptography" and "quantum teleportation" is rendered "impotent and obsolete" -- of course no one has yet built a quantum computer nor are they likely to build a non-trivial one in the near future. Do The Visitors in the flying saucers have them?

No micro-quantum computer can be a conscious computer.

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

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.

The math is uncontroversial. What is problematic is the *interpretation* of the math.

I think you have made too much of this for classical GR. It is more relevant to QM.

And this goes well beyond mere operational definitions, as Einstein instructed Heisenberg

in 1926.

I never said operational definitions were required for ALL important theoretical ideas. I did say that arguing for a different informal language to adorn a formal theory without any differences in operational definitions and/or gedankenexperiments and/or actual physical predictions is empty rhetoric for Laputan disquisitions like we see in M-theory and perhaps in Loop Quantum Gravity? My God, the M-theorists have the audacity to say they are looking for an organizing idea like the "equivalence principle" that you eschew! They also say that M-Theory is not a theory but some kind of hope looking for a problem! I find the M-theorists like the poets satirized by W.S. Gilbert in "Patience" with Ed Witten as Grosvenor perhaps? :-) Well I am not content with a "vegetable love." http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/patience/html/index.html

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.

Heuristically, yes. But as I have said, the thing eats its own tail.

I think Einstein knew this.

Again your point eludes me.

redefined to mean something quite different: the reciprocal influence of

gravitating matter on the vacuum, and vice versa.

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

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.

Not quite -- if I'm right about gravitational energy.

What Einstein thought early on is critical to understanding why those such as

Misner and Wheeler still insist that the gravitational energy density must be defined in

such a way that it transforms locally as a pseudo-tensor which can be locally

created or annihilated at will by a mere frame transformation.

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.

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

Agreed, Mach's principle is not a necessary part of GR even though it heuristically motivated Einstein.

OK. So here is a clear example of the kind of thing I'm talking about, and you seem

to agree on this particular example.

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.

OK.

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.

The Lorentzian ether was not Galilean.

This is all about Einstein vs. Lorentz, not Einstein vs. Galileo.

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.

Lorentzian time dilation is. But that is not the same as Einsteinian universal kinematical time dilation.

The Lorentzian distinction between real and apparent kinematical dilation has not been disproved

empirically.

And you cannot prove a contradiction (clock paradox) empirically.

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?

Nothng. In fact that's what I'm proposing myself.

We just need to be clear about this.

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

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

What pages specifically?

Chapter 1. Have a look.

They agree closely with Eddington and Synge, among many others.

acceleration controlled by the distribution of matter?

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

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

But then you have to say that while the connection field is "essential" to the physical characterization of the

gravtitational field, the Riemann curvature field is not..

I think that was Einstein's later position. But that's where I have a problem.

Do you?

Of course.

But you have already agreed that tidal forces are measurable down to a point in an

LIF.

If tidal forces are an essential characeristic of physical gravitational fields, then this means

the typical gravitational field is not "annihilated" anywhere in an LIF, and the whole classic

Einsteinian argument about local field energy is untenable -- as Laue pointed out.

You seem to be arguing inconsistently here.

On the contrary, I perceive you as arguing inconsistently here. Again you simply confuse non-tensor connection field g-forces with its tensor tidal derivatives! You confound f(x) with df(x)/dx. You have simply confounded the ordinate of a curve at a point with its slope. That's your basic confusion on this Hobby Horse of yours - a peculiar conceptual blindness.

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.

It only works *approximately* in any finite spacetime volume. It is only exact -- *for the

connection field alone* -- at a point.

I have said this repeatedly so your point again eludes me.

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.

I mean in *any* finite neighborhhood, no matter how small. This is all a matter of approximation.

Yes.

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.

Right. Generally it's not a zero tensor anywhere in an LIF.

SR knows nothing about this.

Nor should it. So what?

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.

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

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.

Right.

The point is, in general we do not actually get SR anywhere, even in an LIF. It's just a correspondence bridge.

Depends what you mean by "actually." We live in a LNIF at surface of Earth yet SR equations work extraordinarily well! That's because the local curvatures are ~ (10^13 cm)^-2.

So, the gravitational field is not "annihilated" anywhere in an LIF.

So there is in reality no Einsteinian "general relativity".

That's the point.

You are fundamentally confused here. There are several experimental tests of GR that work well.

All covering theories transcend the theories they cover.

Fine. So we agree.

Perhaps the problem here is you don't see the close connection between classic "general relativity"

and the supposed complete physical "annihilation" of the gravitational field at some point in an LIF?

Astronauts in orbit around Earth are continuously in free float weightlessness - that is an essential test of the equivalence principle.

Mathematically you can find a sequence of LIFs in which the connection vanishes at every point on the timelike geodesic that is the orbit of the aforementioned astronauts to a good approximation. That's good enough.

All this confusion about "aether" for example is because people try to use SR outside of its proper domain of validity.

Well, then maybe we agree. The proper interpretation of "relativity" and the domain of SR is severely restricted by the

success of GR in its modern incarnation as a theory of gravitation.

The clock paradox arises from taking 1905 SR, with its fundamental kinematical reciprocity, too seriously.

No, even in SR one can compare proper lengths of bundles of world lines with same start and finish events. It's calculus of variations. Timelike geodesics obey the action extremal principle for massive test particles even in global SR and there is no clock paradox no kinematical reciprocity at all once the problem is properly posed!

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.

I'm talking about *local* equivalence.

So am I. I can measure CMB anisotropy and temperature LOCALLY! Distant observers can compare their local data and agree who is where-when in the Hubble flow of the expanding accelerating universe for interstellar navigation exactly like the British Navy did on the high seas with their clocks.

So you have no fundamental objection to the idea of a preferred frame of reference?

The Hubble flow is a fact. You cannot argue with facts. Look at WMAP for example. The Earth's motion relative to Hubble flow is corrected for in the analysis of the data to get isotropy to order 10^-5. These are facts! The facts have meaning in context of

Guv + /\guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv eq. I

and the FRW isometries for the metric SOLUTION of eq. I with scale factor R(t) where you can think of t as h/kT(Cosmic Black Body Radiation).

Or do you object to the idea of a preferred frame only with respect to inertial motion?

I do not understand your question. Make it operational. It is hanging there in limbo without context.

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!

Of course.

But I am arguing that the *laws* of GR, while formally general covariant, do not

admit of the literal annihilation of the gravitational field *anywhere* in an LIF.

Red Herring as I show above. This is not important.

That is

a very different issue. It has nothing to do with particular solutions of the laws --

except in the trivial sense that you need a matter distribution in order to get physical

gravity.

Too crude. "Matter" is only at most 4% of the stuff of the World (AKA Universe) 96% is zero point energy density with both positive and negative quantum exotic vacuum pressures in different 4D regions and on different scales.

Given a matter distribution, this "no-annihilation" principle applies to all physical solutions

of the field equations.

?

Not all atomic electron states of hydrogen are S states!

Of course.

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.

Yup.

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?

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

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

OK, that's what I thought.

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.

OK.

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!

NOT OK. Here you lose me.

How exactly does this work?

I explained that in detail below.

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!

Of course here I didn't mean that you are taking a direct perturbative QFT approach. I didn't mean that

at all.

What I meant is that like Feynman, your underlying micro-theory is naturally premised on a flat background, and that

"spacetime curvature" would then emerge (by correspondence) from the physical characteristics of your *macro*-

quantum field.

Not quite. What you do not get is that the NONDYNAMICAL globally flat Minkowski background is a PRE-INFLATIONARY FALSE VACUUM like the state of a normal metal in a supercooled state below the critical temperature! Einstein's smooth curved c-number guv is an EMERGENT POST-INFLATIONARY DYNAMICAL SELF-ORGANIZING background on which residual micro-quantum fields of spin 1 and spin 1/2 live. Since spin 2 is not renormalizable I am not sure if there is any quantum foam at all! EINSTEIN NASA space probe has failed to find any evidence for quantum foam graininess of space-time in high energy gamma signals from early universe and Freeman Dyson argues that quantum foam may not exist at all! My theory is comfortable with the complete absence of quantum gravity foam! It may be that the only micro-quantum ZPF in the /\zpf field comes from renormalizable spin 1/2 and spin 1 fields, but I am not sure yet.

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!

OK, I understood this already.

But my theory is automatically BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENT

OK, this I didn't know.

That means c-number guv emerges in a dynamical self-organizing way from the git-go in the inflationary vacuum phase transition from a pre-inflationary non-dynamical globally flat false vacuum to a post-inflationary dynamical locally curved true vacuum.

It follows immediately that it is at least *compatible* with a flat background spacetime.

NO not at all anymore than a superconducting ground state is compatible with a normal metal ground state below Tc. I do not know what you mean by "compatible"?

So in your theory the phenomenological physics of the macro-quantum field comes out the same

regardless of the curvature of the spacetime in which the theory of the underlying

quantum field is formulated?

NO! You don't get it. The false vacuum is globally flat. It is completely micro-quantum. It cannot support massive excitations. All m = 0. There is NO GRAVITY at all in this pre-inflationary vacuum! Gravity emerges post-inflation as an artifact of the self-organizing macro-quantum vacuum wave! Only now can you have m =/= 0 lepto-quarks and W bosons since gravity is equivalent to inertia. The curvature of the dynamical (AKA background-independent) spacetime is emergent from the modulations of the phase of the coherent macro-quantum vacuum wave!

That's interesting.

So are you saying that your underlying *micro* quantum field need not be based on a

flat spacetime QFT?

WRONG! I have said exactly the opposite. You seem to be inverting what I am saying.

and NON-PERTURBATIVE

Yes, I realize this.

Very important.

since guv(P) is a dynamical field from the beginning determined globally self-consistently in a self-organizing manner!

Then I would have thought your attitude to the geometric model would be very similar to

Feynman's -- even though you are not taking the same direct perturbative spin-2 QFT approach.

Quantizing the spin 2 field seems to imply quantum foam. All the evidence so far is that there is no quantum foam. In any case if you do quantize the spin 2 field you do it post-inflation on my smooth ODLRO guv emergent curved metric that is dynamical AKA "background independent" not like Feynman's attempt.

As I understand it, your model still ultimately a QFT.

Are you really thinking of a micro-quantum field in curved spacetime? Or are you just saying you

don't need to take a position on this issue in order to do quantum gravity?

You are still very confused on what I am saying.

I am saying

PRE-INFLATION GLOBALLY FLAT FALSE NONDYNAMICAL VACUUM only m = 0 quasi-particles of spin 1/2 & spin 1 i.e. only renormalizable quantum fields.

POST-INFLATION LOCALLY CURVED TRUE DYNAMICAL VACUUM with now m=/= 0 lepto-quarks - perhaps no spin 2 quantum fields even here. Need more experiments. Quantum foam may not exist at all. Gravitons may not exist at all. That is only quanta of renormalizable fields may be allowed. It's too early to say. Read Freeman Dyson on this!

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

Yes.

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

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).

OK.

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.

OK, so does this *naturally* give you Eotvos equivalence when combined with your macro-quantum field model of

gravitation?

Of course.

Z.

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