Saturday, October 23, 2004

On Oct 23, 2004, at 3:18 PM, wrote:


Jack Sarfatti wrote:

[PZ] But the point here is that in Einstein's theory *even the global quantities are frame-dependent*.


But the problem -- as stated by Pauli, no less -- is precisely that they *are*.

I think you have misread Pauli.

It's in all black and white. This is from Pauli's account of the the problem as it stood before 1918 (as raised by Bauer and Schrodinger) to which Einstein's 1918 paper -- in which he first introduced the idea of "non-localized field energy" -- was a response:

"....Einstein calls the t_ik the energy components of the gravitational field and J_i the total momentum and energy of the closed system."

This is too vague. How is t_ik defined?

is J_i = I{(-g)^1/2t_ike^kjlmdx^jdx^ldx^m ?

Remember this is a spacelike integral so that J_i is no longer a Diff(4) LOCAL tensor even if t_ik is one.

"On closer inspection, however, great difficulties become apparent, which oppose this point of view at first sight. In the final analysis, they are due to the fact that the t_ik do not form a tensor... we can conclude immediately that that they can be made to vanish at an arbitrarily prescribed world point for a suitable choice of coordinate system..."

That's what I told you Paul. t_ik = T*ik(far field) in my notation!

"Bauer [Phys. Z. 19 (1918), 4] showed that by simply introducing polar coordinates in the Euclidean line element of special relativity the energy components are found to have values different from zero, in fact the total energy becomes infinite!"

I need to see what this means. What does special relativity have to do with it? This is out of context and without seeing exactly what was done in 1918 you cannot draw any general conclusion.

"In spite of these difficulties it would, on physical grounds, be hard to abandon the requirement that an analogue to the energy- and momentum-integrals of Newtonian theory should exist."

"A final clarification was eventually brought about in Einstein's paper [S.B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss (1918), 448] ... In this he proved that the expressions.. for the total energy and momentum of a closed system are, *to a large extent*, independent of the coordinate system, although the localization of the energy will in general be completely different for different coordinate systems."

It's not clear what this means without seeing the math. I think he means the J_i as a 4-vector relative to the approximate asymptotic flat translation group? "Independent of the coordinate system" must mean covariant under the action of some group. In this case J_k as a first rank tensor relative to that APPROXIMATE asymptotic flat group of translations which can also carry and approximate O(1,3) GLOBAL group in that asymptotic region of the special space-time under consideration.

"The proof was later completed by Klein [p 54, ibid.] According to this, one cannot assign any physical meaning to the t_ik themselves, i.e., it is impossible to carry out a localization of energy and momentum in a gravitational field in a generally covariant and physically satisfactory way."

YES! And I showed you exactly why!

-- W. Paul, "Theory of Relativity", Pergamon Press (1958), Section 61, pp 175-177.

This is straight out of Pauli 1921, re-editied 1956-58. You obviously have not properly studied this issue.

With all due respect, Jack, maybe you should stop pounding the table on this until you have.

On the contrary, I have explained it to you. You do not understand the physical issues here. You do not understand what a tensor is! A tensor does not hang there without context relative to a group! That's your basic error here.

t_ik = t*_ik(background) + t*_ik(gravity waves)

The t*_ik on RHS are the pseudotensors under local Diff(4). t_ik is a real Diff(4) local tensor.

J_i is NOT a Diff(4) tensor at all! It's a new beast! I think I understand this and you do not.

The point here is that there is a clash between the canonical definition of the stress-energy density, and general covariance, on the one hand, and the requirement of exact energy conservation for closed systems and precise correspondence with Newtonian theory, on the other.

That's baloney soaked in hogwash. It is not true!

t_ik = (c^4/8piG)G_ik = -(c^4/8piG)/\zpfg_ik

t_ik^;k = -(c^4/8piG)/\zpf^,kg_ik


No problem at all!

What are you handwaving about here? We don't know because you cannot write equations for what you mean. That means what you say has no real meaning.

Note also

t*_ik^;k(background) + t*_ik^;k(gravity waves) = -(c^4/8piG)/\zpf^,kg_ik


P_i(gravity waves) = I{(-g)^1/2t*_ik(gravity waves)e^kjlmdx^jdx^ldx^m

Is a horse of a different color entirely!

You don't seem to have understood this.

It is you who does not understand. You cannot even state what you think you understand in mathematical language.

BTW, this is all cited quite accurately by Yilmaz in his papers.

Nonsense. Yilmaz is as confused as you except he can use the math.

Paul, you have yet to properly pose the problem. What you cite above is not adequate. You must at least attack my math above. Show me where you think there is an error. Otherwise you are not doing physics. You are doing Cargo Cult rituals chanting numbo jumbo.

Now, here is what Eddington had to say about this in 1923:

"The quantity t_uv represents the potential energy of classical mechanics, but we do not ourselves
recognise it as an energy of any kind. It is not a tensor-density, and can be made to vanish at any
point by suitably choosing the coordinates; we do not associate it with any absolute feature of the

First of all, the above has NO MEANING until you write the formula for t_uv the way Eddington meant it. I have Eddington's book. What page and equation number?

"In fact finite values of t_uv can be produced in an empty world containing no gravitating matter
merely by a choice of coordinates."

Obviously. So what?

In other words, Eddington is admitting that there is no correspondence analog to the Newtonian
gravitational energy and its conservation principles for closed systems in Einstein GR -- a very
serious conundrum.

Hogwash! I told you EXACTLY UNAMBIGUOUSLY what that is! You obviously do not understand what I have been professing since 2002. You are just mindlessly citing The Dead now turning over in their graves. Also back then not even Einstein, Eddington and Pauli really understood what they were doing fully! It's always like that. This is NOT Constitutional Law of the Founding Fathers!

Indeed, in the Newtonian limit we have the Poisson equation for the exotic vacuum

Grad^2V(vacuum) = 4pic^2/\zpf(P)

where V(vacuum) is the local gravity potential energy per unit test mass of the vacuum itself at a point event P.

This explains the Pioneer Anomaly and the Galactic Halo for example!

Note that

(c^4/8piG)/\zpfgoo is the exotic vacuum micro-quantum zero point energy density!

goo may be some static function of r the Schwarzschild radial coordinate for example. Or even non-static.

When /\zpf = 0 in a region, V(vacuum) = 0 and the pure local gravity energy density is ZERO!

Also notice that there is absolutely no specific mention of "asymptotically flat far-field regions" in any
of this. This is an entirely general feature of Einstein's theory.

Like hell it is. You have made a completely unwarrented inference from some vague words without any math to back it up. I have told you what it means. You have been nothing but vague on this.

So how do you conclude that according to Pauli's account they "should be"?

I showed you, but you have no eyes to see. Or, at least attack my math. You just ignore it. It is under your radar. You have no argument. You are still hand waving with rhetoric. A few vague quotes from the Great Dead does not pass muster.

That's your misreading of Pauli, who BTW was writing in 1921 and did not have it all that clearly back then either. No one did. Not even Einstein. Here is where Derrida's deconstruction into the creative tensions and complementarity paradoxes their texts might be helpful.

Pauli argues from energy conservation principles, general covariance, and frame-dependence of the local density, all of which are canonical.

Nonsense. I showed you the precise mathematical line of argument. Where do you object to what I wrote. Where is the math Pauli writes to oppose what I wrote? I have been concrete and specific and you have simply ranted with obscure pretty polemics.

Seems like a contradiction.

"A paradox, a paradox, a most unusual paradox!"

"A nice dilemma, we have here, that calls for all our wit ..."

"In a contemplative fashion, and a tranquil frame of mind.
Free from every kind of passion, some solution we must find ...
Quest calm deliberation disentangles every knot."

Personally, I find all these paradoxes to be quite delicious.

Tea for the Tillerman.

Jack, this is all in Pauli 1923 in black and white.

Also Ruvwl need not vanish in LIF for EEP to be correct!

Of course not. But "EEP" is not the same as Einstein equivalence! It is MUCH weaker.

EEP the way I mean it formally is ALL you need to contact observation. The rest is excess verbal baggage even if Einstein used it as he developed the theory in the early days.

NO. This is the core of Einstein's actual theory.

Show me.

He said so himself. I gave you all the quotes previously.

Historically speaking, there is simply no question about this, Jack.

Give it up!

No, there is every question about this because what Einstein may have said ABOUT what he did early in his game may not be important to what he actually did in the math and the comparison of the math to observation. Nothing you cited makes me feel different. What you cited from Einstein previously you have misread pulled the text out of context like Bush on Saddam and WMD in Iraq. You twist Einstein's text to fit your apriori agenda.

You are quite wrong about this, Jack.

Show me.

I already did, several times.

No you never did. You made some garbled statements and never wrote even one equation in rebuttal of my many equations.

Power-down reset? :-)

More polemics. Reading too much Puthoff? ;-)

Just read Einstein! Any Einstein!

Let Einstein be Einstein!

Try "Meaning of Relativity".

And that's precisely why there is an energy problem in GR.

There is no problem. Whatever problem was thought to be there was not a real problem.

There is no energy problem. That there appears to be an energy problem shows that one is looking at the problem in the not even wrong way.

Here, ironically, I actually completely agree with you, word for word. :-)

BTW what make you think energy is fundamental?

What made Bauer, Schrodinger, Einstein, and now Penrose and many others think this was and is so important?

I showed you HOW the gravity energy is NONLOCAL in the sense that asymptotic P_i(gravity waves) is an integral over a Diff(4) pseudo-tensor density and P_i IS NOT A DIFF(4) tensor. You have to separate background modes from gravity wave modes to be able to detect the gravity waves.

Are they all really that clueless?


This is where you still seem to be confused about the actual nature of my critical arguments.

I see no math, hence I see no real critical arguments.

EEP simply means use covariant derivatives in the LNIF and use ordinary partial derivatives in the LIF coincident with it. That's all!

But I think I can now show that this is all barking up the wrong tree.

Meaningless statement unless you can predict something new with it.

Well, you could say the same about Einstein vs. Lorentz. From my POV there is a very close and instructive
analogy here.

I see no significant difference in either. A significant difference would mean some observational anomaly that one explained or predicted that the other did not. Also that's only for special relativity not general relativity.

You have turned my point upside down.

No need. It *is* upside down. :-)

This is a direct logical consequence of what you are arguing here -- there is no material difference
between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories (of restricted relativity). The only difference between the
two theories is "excess verbal baggage" expressed in "informal language".

You do seem to have painted yourself into a corner here.

Like hell I have. You are simply using polemics again. What is the real difference in your view? Show me.

I never suspected that you were an Einstein-basher. :-) You are finally unmasked! :-)

More twisting of my position to the opposite.

No one uses Lorentz POV today. It is not needed for any phenomenon - at least so far that have been replicated by independent reputable labs. You have, for example, claims of the Galilean electrodynamicists none of which seem to be reliable so far.

But according to you it is immaterial as to which model we use here, since the predictions come out exactly the same in either case.

NO! You obviously have not read their stuff. They reject Lorentz POV ALSO! They are not Lorentzians. They are crackpots who think

x' = x - vt

t' = t

is all you EVER need!

So according to your metatheoretic "argument", Einstein's theory did not really supercede Lorentz's.

Not in any real sense. Of course, some observation may happen that will exclude one and not the other. I don't know of any do you? I think BTW Kip Thorne & Hawking hold my view as well on this?

May I point out that Einstein's 1905 theory, as reinterpreted in 1907 by Minkowski, as matter of historical
fact led to the development of "general relativity".

It was more than just a verbal reinterpretation. Minkowski knew group theory and tensors and probably Einstein did not in 1905. I don't know the history that well nor do I really care that much at this moment.

Do you really think that Lorentz's "excess verbal baggage" would have led Lorentz down the same path?

I think not.

I do not understand your point.

However, once we face up to the fact that in the context of modern gravitational physics the Einsteinian
"excess verbal baggage" of "general relativity" really is "excess verbal baggage", we may be finding ourselves
reverting to an updated version of Lorentz's "excess verbal baggage".

The delicious irony of it all.

Poppycock. Show us.

Interestingly, Einstein 1905 himself saw no conflict between a "theory of principle" such as his (1905) and a
"constructive theory" such as Lorentz's.

That's what I just told you.

He was simply trying to show how you could do electrodynamics
without getting into the details of various ether models (particularly Maxwell's mechanical models). And he
never actually said in his 1905 paper that there is no ether; he simply says that reference to an ether seems
to be "superfluous ... from the point of view here to be developed". (John Bell is good on this in "Speakable
and Unspeakable")

Of course. So what else is new?

By 1920 Einstein had publicly repudiated Mach as a "deplorable philosopher" and announced that there
is, after all, an ether (Leiden address).

I told you this years ago!

Now, is this where you got this idea about "excess verbal baggage" from? If so, it's all myth.

I got the phrase from Wheeler and all the Laputan theory nonsense on arXiv. Some of it is nice math of course, but I don't see much physics, i.e. predictions and explanations of observational anomalies.

Einstein later admitted that ignoring the internal constitution of clocks and measuring rods was the "original
sin" of special relativity, and even announced to Heisenberg in 1926 that he considered most of what he
had argued in his 1905 paper to be "rubbish". He told Heisenberg that "it is the *theory* that tells you
what can and cannot be measured".


With age comes true wisdom.

Not for all. Take Hal for instance. He has not changed his tune for 20 years! :-) Actually I like Hal personally. This is not personal. It's business. :-)

I agree with Einstein. The conclusions in his 1905 paper do not actually follow from his premises --
which defeats the whole point of the paper. You still need a constructive model to justify the choice
of light propagation for the "operational definition of time" (which I maintain is itself an epistemologically
defective concept, and I believe that Einstein 1926 would agree on this).

What is important about SR are the full meaning of the Lorentz transformation with

E = mc^2 and time dilation and later with Minkowski and Hilbert of the idea of covariance of laws of Nature under different groups of frame transformations.

Will the real Albert Einstein please stand up? Obviously a rapidly moving target.

AS IT SHOULD BE AND ALWAYS IS. This is a virtue you make into a vice and that is why you are a Sophist!

Einstein at one point even expressed regret that his 1905 paper was called the "theory of relativity", saying
that it really represented a search for invariants (his mentor Planck was the first to call it such).

Also obvious. I said this myself many times.

However, Einstein never seems to have understood the critical distinction between his "general relativity", a
physical postulate, and general covariance, a trivial formal requirement for *all* fully satisfactory physical
theories (see the 1993 review article by J.D. Norton).

Do you have it digital? Send it.

Maybe. The equivalence principle is what anchors covariance to physics. Also you use covariance like you use tensors out of context - it's all relevant to some choice of operationally defined symmetry group that maybe you can extend to categories, functors and morphisms especially for linguistics and social and computer sciences, but I am not sure.

How do you like them apples?


The transition LNIF --> LIF has nothing directly to do with
general coordinate transformations, or with the actual (mathematically defined) Levi-Civta connection field, but with an *analog* of this
field that by definition carries physical meaning -- which the mathematically defined transformations do not.

I think you are wrong. Show me the math.

LNIF <-> LIF is the Tetrad.


LIF <-> LIF' is O(1,3)

So we have a "triangle" of mappings.

You are not addressing the point.

In order to go LNIF --> LIF, for any observer, we have to *physically change the observer's worldline*.

Obviously! Why is that a problem for you?

Yes, I agree that this should be obvious. That means that it's true, right?

And of course this in itself is *not* a problem for me. Same in Newtonian physics.

"Same as it ever was... where does that freeway go?".

How does the (arbitrary) choice of the system of mathematical coordinates in spacetime physically change
*any* observer's worldline? What's the connection?

As I said, that is the wrong question!

By which I assume you mean you don't have an answer to my question, so you want to change the question. :-)

No, your question has a simple answer: "it doesn't"! The Map is not The Territory. To think it is is Magickal Thinking barring the possibility of a strange loop like a 1-sided Mobius strip. Locally it looks 2-sides like Map on one side, Territory on the other. Globally they merge - Oroborous.

Why don't you just admit that you don't have an answer to this perfectly well-posed question, and that you cannot
find one in the standard references?

I gave you the answer and it is ill-posed.

Whether or not world lines are geodesic or non-geodesic is physical independent of the arbitrary choice of local coordinates.


Whether or not an extended object is rotating about its center of mass that may be on a geodesic, e.g. Pioneer 10 and 11 with all rocket motors off, is also purely physical. If you are in a LIF then you are weightless. This is physical and you do not need any coordinates at all.

Yes, but this is exactly the same as in Newtonian physics. Einstein's theory is supposed to be fundamentally
different in its explanation of this phenomenon.

Only that you can do away with idea of "force".

As I said, we no longer seem to be talking about Einstein's actual original theory.

Depends what you mean by "theory".

When I say Einstein's theory I basically mean

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

with GCT of course.

I don't much care about Tuv(matter) since

Omega(matter) ~ 0.04

Where Omega = 1

I am The Alpha (e^2/hc ~ 1/137) and The Omega is The One!

What is first shall be last means the Destiny Matrix where The Future Bootstraps Itself into Being and Becoming.

Becoming comes from the collapse of phase space volume of the Dirac Sea into the Higgs Ocean.

Strain gauges will stay at their null points. Obviously there are convenient choices of local coordinates. Although the choice is arbitrary, bad choices require more computational effort! This is usually left out of the interpretations BTW. You want to minimize algorithmic complexity & depth etc. in the choice of local coordinates. You always want to find local tensor quantities for all PHYSICAL OBSERVABLES. Now since quantum gravity is an illusion I am not worried about the nonlocal observables needed for orthodox quantum gravity that is a pseudo-problem - well maybe. I might be wrong. That is my position for today.

General covariance *per se* is not an issue here. It applies trivially to all reasonable physical theories for purely mathematical reasons. My problem is that Einstein erroneously attached direct physical meaning to this purely mathematical requirement.

This is all well known. Do you really imagine that I am the only one saying these things?

You are wrong and they are wrong. The physics is in the choice of this or that group defined in principle by operational procedures in the sense of P.W. Bridgeman and also of Eugene Wigner!

See Norton.

Send it to me.

Does going to, say, *polar coordinates* in a spatial 2-plane change any observer's worldline?

NO! That's why some people like exterior Cartan forms! You can do GR that way coordinate-free Holmes! It's even in MTW. See Flanders "Differential Forms".

You are asking a bogus question. You have it upside down.

It is a perfectly well-posed question. I suspect the real problem here is that you don't have a answer to hand.
Perhaps because there *is* no answer to this question in the canonical references.

Even Pauli cited Bauer on the effect of going to polar coordinates on the local field energy momentum

See above.

The above is meaningless until I see the actual detailed math.

Why should choosing polar coordinates in a space-time plane result in the appearance of inertial forces, as
it does in canonical GR?

Because, every such coordinate change in principle can be achieved by an observer firing rocket engines in space to produce those inertial forces on NON-GEODESICS. So that answers your question. It's like hopping on a Merry Go Round or stepping on the gas and turning the wheel, or flying in an aeroplane.

I don't think you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- can answer this basic question, which is now commonly
posed in foundational discussions of GR as part of a standard critique of Einstein's classic definition of the
"gravitational field".

I just answered it.

If not, why not?

And if not, what's the difference?

You do not need tetrads to deal with this question.. Let's keep it simple, transparent, and intuitive.

This is polemics.

What, keeping it simple, transparent, and intuitive?

Is that what you call "polemics"?

No, your previous questions. And yes what you just did is polemics using a loaded question based on a false description of what I said.

When we go to polar coordinates in a space-space plane, we get a non-zero "connection field" by mathematical
definition. Why isn't this "connection field" associated with forces, when the non-zero mathematical connection field that we get when we choose polar *space-time* coordinates is associated with gravitational forces in orthodox GR?

It is! You can always fire rocket engines such that

d^2X^u/ds^2 + |~^uvw(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds) = F^u(rocket)/m

Where m is the rest mass of the observer.

Obviously in the NON-INERTIAL rest frame of the observer i.e. the rest LNIF

d^2X^u/ds^2 = 0, but the connection field |~^uvw is NOT zero! It is the inertial force.

This is always the case when you feel weight.

Indeed on surface of Earth we have F^u(electric).

Also dX^v/ds is a first rank tensor

Note that dX^1/ds = dX^2/ds = dX^3/ds = 0 in the rest LNIF of the observer BUT

dX^0/ds = cdt/ds =/= 0

The "weight" is then

W^u = |~^u00(dX^0/ds)^2 =/= 0

Wu - F^u = 0 is D'Alembert's Principle of Virtual Work in Statics!

It's beautiful, it's elegant, it agrees with experiment and it works! You do not have a leg to stand on here.

There's your compensating force! You never wrote down the equations so of course you have misunderstood the problem using only vague words of ordinary language - NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!

What exactly is the difference here?

Read my math not my lips!

You are not saying anything scientific here.

No, it's too logical.

It's too fluffy. Too vague. Like gravity energy you are neither here nor there.

The tetrads are the compensating gauge force fields from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group. The non-trivial part of them, that is not the Kronecker delta Iu^a is like the distortion field away from a perfect crystal lattice. You might say that the tetrads are the non-inertial forces you are looking for. Actually they are "strains" away from global flatness.

This is simply an over-elaborate mathematical reformulation that adds no new content and simply serves to obfuscate.

You are dead wrong! You obviously have not understood my math or my ideas enough to properly refute them even if they were wrong, which I doubt. Since you really do not understand Einstein's Vision I suppose you cannot understand mine because I stand on his shoulders.

Poltorak looked at this in one of his papers and argued -- correctly, I think -- that much of the mathematical
apparatus of tetrad transformations is irrelevant to the fundamental issues.

Well then Alex is also wrong. Nice people and smart people are often wrong.

I am asking a simple, direct, well-posed question. Why can't I get a simple and direct answer?

Answer: because there isn't one.

No, I answered ALL your bad questions better than you posed them.

eu(LNIF) = ea(LIF)Iu^a + (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

Note when there is no macro-quantum rigid Goldstone phase, i.e. when ODLRO vanishes, there is no trace of curvature/gravity

ea(LIF) = Ea^ueu(LNIF)

Ea^u are the 16 tetrad components

When the Goldstone phase vanishes

Ea^u ---> Ia^u i.e. unit matrix

Eu^a = Iu^a + &Eu^a

&eu = &Eu^aea = (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

guv(LNIF) = nuv(Globally Flat) + (1/2)(h/Mc)^2[(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean){,u,v}] = Eu^anabEv^b

{ } is the symmetric anti-commutator

,u is ordinary partial derivative

The non-integrable path-dependent anholonomy to be expected is

(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean)[,u,v] =/=0

[ ] is the anti-symmetric commutator

U(N) local phase tranformations, in case Higgs Ocean has N complex scalar components lead to Diff(4) GCT.

For N = 1 this is almost obvious. For the U(1) arbitrary phase function @, the GCT Jacobian matrix is obviously

Xu^u' = @,u',u

where locally

x^u' = xu'(x^u)

For U(N) there will be the Lie algebra matrix generators to trace over. It can be done. A hedgehog topological exotic defect apparently seen in the Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly. The hedgehog has constant gradient vector field between the two concentric spheres!

a_P = cH back to Sun


V(zpf) = cHr = c^2/\zpfr^2

OK, then can you explain exactly where "inertial forces" arise in your model, and exactly how they relate to physical (i.e., matter-induced) gravitational fields? And exactly how you recover weak (Eotvos) equivalence in your BEC model of the physical vacuum?

I did that above. Also it is an inappropriate TWIGGY question to ask among these GIANT SEQUOIA TREES!

That is the root Einsteinian confusion that I believe I have identified as the source of all these problems (non-localizable field energy density, "problem of general covariance", etc.).

Not at all and I showed why above.

I think you are not even wrong here. I cannot really tell until I see your math for this.

I told you that based on an isomorphism the math looks exactly the same on paper -- but it refers to a completely different set of transformations.

So you seem to be going around in circles here.

No, you are not showing what you have.

You're right. When it's written up I'll let you and Poltorak have a look at it.

Well that is not good science. You must show what you have. You are acting like Bush and the Neocons. Putup or shut up. Talk is cheap. Your claim is not credible if you cannot show these alleged "transformations". You have not even said anything here. You are not only beating round The Bush 43 times you are spiraling in so that where Bush begins and where Paul ends cannot be seen in the quantum fog of the Smokey Dragon. One of you is the Dragon's mouth and the other is the Dragon's ... Which is which? ;-)

You are hand waving. Without the math what you say is meaningless.

Yes, of course I have to "do the math". And I will.

Promises, promises. You said this 3 years ago. You are like Puthoff saying he can do rotating bodied in PV. Huffing and puffing with no movement.

But the logic of my argument is inescapable. And I know my alternative model works.

I think you are deluding yourself. Prove me wrong.

Everything snaps into place.

You just got caught in a false attractor!

In any case, I will explain all this in painful detail in due course (as of course I must).

Methinks thou doth profess too much. I am reminded of a comic character in Henry IV and Henry V.

"Nonlocalizable" is ONLY for GLOBAL Pu from a PIECE of total LOCAL tensor


As far as I know, the stress-energy density of the gravitational field in Einstein's theory is frame-dependent, and thus cannot be integrated to give an objective frame dependent physical energy-momentum content for typical finite spacetime regions.

This is the problem as stated by Pauli in 1921.

I explained all this above.

As far as I can see, the "global Pu" is simply a fudge.

No it is not. It's trying to catch the gravity waves directly with LIGO and LISA.

tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

This nonlocalizable issue is only important for gravity wave detection!

Not according to Pauli 1921, as re-edited in 1956. It is a fundamental problem.

Also for Penrose 1991.

You have certainly misread Penrose I wager. Get thee On The Road to Reality lest ye breed more confusions! Hit The Road Paul!

Incidentally, the 1990s review article I mentioned on the "problem of general covariance" is by J. D. Norton: "General covariance and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades of dispute", Rep. Prog. Phys. 56 (1993), 791-858. Worth a read IMO.

I am sure it is. When I have world enough and time. Do you have it digital? Please send it.

I have a copy. If I make you another copy, will you read it?

Yes - eventually. Right now I am excited that Pioneer anomaly is an exotic vacuum hedgehog exotic vacuum defect. I am the first to understand this.


And it is beautiful! It's alive Igor! It's alive!

This is a 67-page review article, without any new mathematics, by an acknowledged expert in the field, endorsed by Rovelli, which goes over the entire history of this long-running controversy, and does not offer any definitive resolution to the problem.

So if talk on this subject is cheap, there is plenty of "cheap talk" around in the established journals.

Yes, but my point here Paul is that almost all the pure theory papers today on arXiv that are not trying to understand real observations are a bad bet to waste time on.

You may be right. In fact my impression is that most of the foundational discussions on GR are indeed a waste of time since they are barking up the wrong trees.

And your bark is among the loudest! Take the mote out of thine own eye.

Yes, particularly the attempts to explain :general relativity in terms of "active and passive" invariance under
"diffeomorphisms" (e.g. Rovelli).

You may have a point there. So far the only point I can relate to.

If I'm right, Rovelli doesn't even know exactly which tranformations he's talking about.

Let He who is without Sin cast the first stone! Or should I say, it takes one to know one?

That doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions.

The reason I have this attitude closely echoes Feynman in his "Lectures on Gravitation".

Remember, Feynman didn't buy Einstein equivalence either.

Show me. I think you are misreading there.

Come on Jack. Feynman's code word for "heretic" (S. Weinberg) is "Venutian".

Some time we must deconstruct that text, but now is not that time.

Feynman explicitly stated that he thought EInstein equivalence was based on a mathematical
coincidence that actually had to do with gauge symmetries of some underlying quantum field.

That's what I have been showing you!

Just read his lectures. It's all there. Feynman, unlike Einstein, clearly understood the distinction
between mathematical covariance and physical relativity.

He compares gravitationally distorted rods and clocks with metal bars on a hotplate.

So what?

Don't you get it? He was a "PV" kind of guy, and not an Einsteinian relativist (although in
many important respects neither was the actual Einstein, at least > 1920).

NO! He never would accept Hal's exponential metric and would have gotten up on a table hissing like a snake to Hal about his PV Tables I & II. And he would have asked Hal - describe the field of a rotating source. Like with Lorentz and Einstein, actually Fitzgerald and Einstein you can think of gravitational distortion like metal bars on hot plates IN FACT I DO! Except the analogy is to a strained crystal lattice with cracks that are curvature and hedgehogs etc. Gravity is emergent like in soft condensed matter physics. But the geometrodynamics is fine as an effective c-number ODLRO gauge theory!

It's what Bohm called fragmented thinking. They have no real physical ideas and are Cargo Cultists hoping that this or that pretty arcane pure mathematical idea will bear physical fruit. Max Tegmark has elevated this to Level IV Super Platonism.

Bohm was a conservative realist. He picked up the torch from the older, wiser, and
much more conservative Einstein.

I am also a conservative surrealist in case you haven't noticed.

For Bohm the underlying model was not simply "excess verbal baggage" -- far from it.

Not all interpretive heuristics is excess verbal baggage - only bad heuristics is!

In fact, I am arguing against the kind of Platonistic conceit that you allude to.

What do you think the naive faith in the literal reality of the Minkowski model -- and later in
"curved spacetime" -- is?


Actually, I don't disagree. I'm trying to stay as close as possible to the nitty-gritty.

I predict that 99% of the pure theory papers on arXiv will be forgotten 20 years from now assuming there is anyone left on Earth then if Lone Cheney's Halliburton Gangsters continue to rape and pillage the environment like a Plague of Locusts.

I don't doubt it.

No comments: