re: http://lsw-nyc.com/12ruth.html

May I quote you in the very beginning my new book

"Blog One"?

Basically my Web Diary on Physics and Current Events of the past year or two or so. :-)

I will include reviews of important books like Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour."

BTW I have enjoyed several of your dramatic performances on the silver screen and TV. You are one of the great actresses of our time.

On Jan 31, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Siriusrmk ... wrote:

In a message dated 1/31/2004 2:33:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@well.com writes:

I who have loved language and words, not just for meaning but for sound, am, after a lifetime, speechless. The imagination of the "cartoons"--especially your version of Jack and the Beanstalk

Also the cartooning genius of Norman Quebedeau, the charming music of Michael Andreas and the Magic Sparkle of Princess T :-)

and your own animated bio-- have left me again, wordless. I would imagination that had Alexander Pope, our most biting and brilliant satirist, lived in 2004 and attained a doctorate in physics, he might have written something like your "Hitler's Last Weapon." I suppose it is appropriate that my messages to you (this is the third) are all returned "undeliverable," assuming that you have sent them to some wormhole in cyberspace to censor or be devoured. I am delighted that there are indeed people with humor and intelligence who are not trapped in time. In a rush of ego I included some lines of my own in my film. You might be interested in two slices: They lack your irony and wit, but seldom did a 7 or 12 year old female in the 1930s or 40s possess those qualities. However, neither did too many of them receive such odd revelations:

Experienced at age 7

Yes,

I live in silence

because one time

when I was eight or nine,

in a darkling room

I became the holiness

that is the moon.

Experienced at age 12

yes,

I early learned

and did commit to memory

that Santa Monica,

my shining world,

and all its wonderment,

regardless of my love for it,

was not my home.

I will continue to explore your ideas. Thank you grandly.

Ruth Kulerman

## Saturday, January 31, 2004

Sarfatti Commentary on

“FROM SLOWDOWN to SPEEDUP”

By Adam G. Riess and Michael S. Turner

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004

“Although Einstein’s general theory

of relativity allows for gravity to push as well as pull, most physicists

regarded this as a purely theoretical possibility, irrelevant

to the universe today. Until recently, astronomers fully expected

to see gravity slowing down the expansion of the cosmos.

In 1998, however, researchers discovered the repulsive side

of gravity. By carefully observing distant supernovae—stellar explosions

that for a brief time shine as brightly as 10 billion suns—

astronomers found that they were fainter than expected. The

most plausible explanation for the discrepancy is that the light

from the supernovae, which exploded billions of years ago, traveled

a greater distance than theorists had predicted. And this explanation,

in turn, led to the conclusion that the expansion of

the universe is actually speeding up, not slowing down. …

In the past fewyears, though, astronomers have solidified the case for cosmic

acceleration by studying ever more remote supernovae.

But has the cosmic expansion been speeding up throughout

the lifetime of the universe, or is it a relatively recent development

—that is, occurring within the past five billion years or so?

…

In Einstein’s theory, the notion of gravity as an attractive

force still holds for all known forms of matter and energy, even

on the cosmic scale. Therefore, general relativity predicts that

the expansion of the universe should slow down at a rate determined

by the density of matter and energy within it. But general

relativity also allows for the possibility of forms of energy with

strange properties that produce repulsive gravity

The discovery of accelerating rather than decelerating

expansion has apparently revealed the presence of such an energy

form, referred to as dark energy.

…

In 1998 observations of distant supernovae indicated

that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. Since

then, astronomers have solidified the case for cosmic

acceleration. By studying ever more remote supernovae, researchers

have found evidence that the expansion slowed down

before it sped up—just as cosmologists had predicted.

THE ANCIENT SUPERNOVAE also provided new clues about

dark energy, the underlying cause of the cosmic speedup. The

leading candidate to explain dark energy’s effects is vacuum energy,

which is mathematically equivalent to the cosmological

constant that Einstein invented in 1917. Because Einstein

thought he needed to model a static universe, he introduced his

“cosmological fudge factor” to balance the attractive gravity

of matter. In this recipe, the constant’s density was half that of

matter. But to produce the observed acceleration of the universe,

the constant’s density would have to be twice that of matter.

Where could this energy density come from? The uncertainty

principle of quantum mechanics requires that the vacuum be

filled with particles living on borrowed time and energy, popping

in and out of existence. But when theorists try to compute

the energy density associated with the quantum vacuum, they

come up with values that are at least 55 orders of magnitude too

large. If the vacuum energy density were really that high, all matter

in the universe would instantly fly apart and galaxies would

never have formed.”

Jack: This is the problem I claim I have solved with the idea of

“vacuum coherence” that is in fact the inflation field in disguise.

Einstein’s gravity together with both dark energy and dark matter emerge together from ripples in the holographic phase and intensity of the vacuum coherence field that decreases the randomness of the zero point vacuum fluctuations of all the quantum fields.

I have provided a very simple dynamical reason based on Dirac’s theory of the electron why this happens that is very like what happens when a normal metal becomes a superconductor.

“This discrepancy has been called the worst embarrassment

in all of theoretical physics, but it may actually be the sign of a

great opportunity. Although it is possible that new attempts to

estimate the vacuum energy density may yield just the right

amount to explain cosmic acceleration, many theorists believe

that a correct calculation, incorporating a new symmetry principle,

will lead to the conclusion that the energy associated with

the quantum vacuum is zero. (Even quantum nothingness

weighs nothing!) If this is true, something else must be causing

the expansion of the universe to speed up.”

Jack: No, this is simply confused thinking. What you see below

Is All The King’s Men grasping wildly willy nilly at straws like the Sufi Story where The Pundits shine strong light in the wrong part of Plato’s Dark Cave.

“Theorists have proposed a variety of ideas, ranging from the

influence of extra, hidden dimensions to the energy associated

with a new field of nature, sometimes called quintessence [see

“Out of the Darkness,” by Georgi Dvali, on page 68]. In general,

these hypotheses posit a dark energy density that is not constant

and that usually decreases as the universe expands. (But

the suggestion that dark energy density is actually increasing as

the universe expands has also been put forth.) Perhaps the most

radical idea is that there is no dark energy at all but rather that

Einstein’s theory of gravity must be modified.”

Jack: Bad idea. The following however is in agreement with my model.

…

“IN NEWTON’S THEORY, gravity is always attractive and its

strength depends on the mass of the attracting object. The

twist in Einstein’s theory is that the strength of the

gravitational pull exerted by an object also depends on its

composition. Physicists characterize the composition of a

substance by its internal pressure. An object’s gravity is

proportional to its energy density plus three times the

pressure. Our sun, for example, is a hot sphere of gas with

positive (outward) pressure; because gas pressure rises with

temperature, the sun’s gravitational pull is slightly greater

than that of a cold ball of matter of equivalent mass. On the

other hand, a gas of photons has a pressure that is equal to

one third its energy density, so its gravitational pull should

be twice that of an equivalent mass of cold matter.

Dark energy is characterized by negative pressure.

(Elastic objects—for instance, a rubber sheet—also have

negative, or inward, pressure.) If the pressure falls below

–1⁄3 times the energy density, then the combination of energy

plus three times the pressure is negative and the gravitational

force is repulsive. The quantum vacuum has a pressure that

is –1 times its energy density, so the gravity of a vacuum is

very repulsive. Other hypothetical forms of dark energy have

a pressure that is between –1⁄3 and –1 times its energy

density. Some of these types of energy have been invoked to

explain the inflationary epoch, a very early period of cosmic

acceleration. Other types are candidates for the dark energy

powering the acceleration observed today.

…

Only theories stipulating large variations in dark energy density

have been ruled out ... The only way to forecast our cosmic future is

to figure out the nature of dark energy.”

Jack: I agree completely here. This is “metric engineering” in which we will control the unified exotic vacuum dark energy/matter local field for super-technology missions of exploring the universe using weightless warp drive through traversable wormhole time travel gateways to the future and past of our universe, to distance parts of our universe and to the parallel universes next door. The UFOs show that we are not the first to have figured out how to do this. We are getting close to figuring it out. Ad Astra and Beyond is our Manifest Destiny.

References:

“Our Final Hour” Sir Martin Rees (Chapter 9)

Do Type Ia Supernovae Provide Direct Evidence for Past Deceleration in

the Universe? Michael S. Turner and Adam G. Riess in Astrophysical

Journal, Vol. 569, Part 1, pages 18–22; April 10, 2002. Available online at

arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106051

..

Is Cosmic Speed-Up Due to New Gravitational Physics? Sean M. Carroll,

Vikram Duvvuri, Mark Trodden and Michael S. Turner in Physical Review

Letters (in press). arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306438

On Jan 31, 2004, at 12:10 AM, ISEP Theoretical Physics Group wrote:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004

Critique #1

George Divali wrote:

"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so

confused. Although our standard model of cosmology

has been confirmed by recent observations, it still

has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the universe

is accelerating."

JS: I think I do. http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

GD: "If you throw a stone straight up, the pull

of Earth’s gravity will cause it to slow down; it will not accelerate

away from the planet. Similarly, distant galaxies, thrown

apart by the big bang expansion, should pull on one another

and slow down. Yet they are accelerating apart. Researchers

commonly attribute the acceleration to some mysterious entity

called dark energy, but there is little physics to back up these

fine words."

JS: That is false in my opinion. An exotic vacuum phase with net total cumulative random positive zero point vacuum fluctuation energy density, hence negative pressure with w = -1, from all physical quantum fields does the trick. One must realize that the degree of randomness of the zero point vacuum fluctuations is tempered by the local inflation vacuum coherence field whose phase variation is the dominant smooth c-number non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamic field of Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity upon which precision cosmology is predicated in the equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

GD: "The only thing that is becoming clear is that at the

largest observable distances, gravity behaves in a rather strange

way, turning into a repulsive force."

JS: Agreed. We can also, I bet, do this on a small scale for exotic warp drive time travel through traversable wormholes.

GD: "The laws of physics say that gravity is generated by matter

and energy, so they attribute a strange sort of gravity to a

strange sort of matter or energy. That is the rationale for dark

energy. But maybe the laws themselves need to be changed."

JS: That is "too cheap" as Einstein mistakenly told Bohm. However, I am not mistaken I think in my opinion that a drastic overhaul of the known laws of physics is needed for this problem.

GD: Physicists have a precedent for such a change: the law of gravity

that Newton formulated in the 17th century, which had various

conceptual and experimental limitations, gave way to Einstein’s

general theory of relativity in 1915. Relativity, too, has

limitations; in particular, it runs into trouble when applied to

extremely short distances, which are the domain of quantum

mechanics. Much as relativity subsumed Newtonian physics, a

quantum theory of gravity will ultimately subsume relativity.

Over the years, physicists have come up with a few plausible

approaches to quantum gravity, the most prominent being

string theory."

JS: Smolin, Ashtekar, Baez, Rovelli et-al will strongly disagree on that against Greene, Witten, et-al. Of course neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have made hard predictions of any facts nor have they provided compelling explanations of the observational mysteries of precision cosmology and particle physics. Yet many of the Guardians of respectability and ideological purity reminiscent of Stalinism in the Soviet Union on the LANL Cornell Archive and in mass media like Scientific American and NOVA PBS are quick to embrace these radical speculations which in fact

are little more than pretty mathematical vaporware.

GD: "When gravity operates over microscopic distances

—for instance, at the center of a black hole, where a huge

mass is packed into a subatomic volume—the bizarre quantum

properties of matter come into play, and string theory describes

how the law of gravity changes.

Over greater distances, string theorists have generally assumed

that quantum effects are unimportant. Yet the cosmological

discoveries of the past several years have encouraged researchers

to reconsider. Four years ago my colleagues and I

asked whether string theory would change the law of gravity

not just on the smallest scales but also on the largest ones. The

feature of string theory that could bring about this revision is

its extra dimensions—additional directions in which particles

can roam. The theory adds six or seven dimensions to the usual

three."

JS: Theorists today are willing to pay any price to avoid signal nonlocality.

GD: In the past, string theorists have argued that the extra dimensions

are too small for us to see or move in. But recent progress

reveals that some or all of the new dimensions could actually

be infinite in size. They are hidden from view not because

they are small but because the particles that make up our bodies

are trapped in three dimensions. The one particle that eludes

confinement is the particle that transmits the force of gravity,

and as a result, the law of gravity changes.

Quintessence Even from Nothingness

WHEN ASTRONOMERS ENCOUNTERED the cosmic acceleration,

their first reaction was to attribute it to the so-called cosmological

constant. Notoriously introduced and then retracted

by Einstein, the constant represents the energy inherent in space

Maybe cosmic acceleration isn’t caused by dark energy after all

but by an inexorable leakage of gravity out of our world

COPYRIGHT 2004 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

GD: "A completely empty volume of space, devoid of all matter,

would still contain this energy—equivalent to roughly 10–26

kilogram per cubic meter. Although the cosmological constant

is consistent with all the existing data so far, many physicists find

it unsatisfying. The problem is its inexplicable smallness,"

JS: This is only a problem because The Pundits have not properly used the idea of "vacuum coherence" in which the cosmological term in Einstein's equation has a subsidiary equation

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Where the tetrad gravity field Cartan 1-form in the sense of Rovelli's book on Quantum Gravity is

euadx^a = Kronecker Deltau^adx^a + (Quantum of Area)(argVacuum Coherence),u

A vanishing Vacuum Coherence means maximally random zero point energy fluctuations from all fields in unstable globally flat spacetime with no gravity.

“FROM SLOWDOWN to SPEEDUP”

By Adam G. Riess and Michael S. Turner

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004

“Although Einstein’s general theory

of relativity allows for gravity to push as well as pull, most physicists

regarded this as a purely theoretical possibility, irrelevant

to the universe today. Until recently, astronomers fully expected

to see gravity slowing down the expansion of the cosmos.

In 1998, however, researchers discovered the repulsive side

of gravity. By carefully observing distant supernovae—stellar explosions

that for a brief time shine as brightly as 10 billion suns—

astronomers found that they were fainter than expected. The

most plausible explanation for the discrepancy is that the light

from the supernovae, which exploded billions of years ago, traveled

a greater distance than theorists had predicted. And this explanation,

in turn, led to the conclusion that the expansion of

the universe is actually speeding up, not slowing down. …

In the past fewyears, though, astronomers have solidified the case for cosmic

acceleration by studying ever more remote supernovae.

But has the cosmic expansion been speeding up throughout

the lifetime of the universe, or is it a relatively recent development

—that is, occurring within the past five billion years or so?

…

In Einstein’s theory, the notion of gravity as an attractive

force still holds for all known forms of matter and energy, even

on the cosmic scale. Therefore, general relativity predicts that

the expansion of the universe should slow down at a rate determined

by the density of matter and energy within it. But general

relativity also allows for the possibility of forms of energy with

strange properties that produce repulsive gravity

The discovery of accelerating rather than decelerating

expansion has apparently revealed the presence of such an energy

form, referred to as dark energy.

…

In 1998 observations of distant supernovae indicated

that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. Since

then, astronomers have solidified the case for cosmic

acceleration. By studying ever more remote supernovae, researchers

have found evidence that the expansion slowed down

before it sped up—just as cosmologists had predicted.

THE ANCIENT SUPERNOVAE also provided new clues about

dark energy, the underlying cause of the cosmic speedup. The

leading candidate to explain dark energy’s effects is vacuum energy,

which is mathematically equivalent to the cosmological

constant that Einstein invented in 1917. Because Einstein

thought he needed to model a static universe, he introduced his

“cosmological fudge factor” to balance the attractive gravity

of matter. In this recipe, the constant’s density was half that of

matter. But to produce the observed acceleration of the universe,

the constant’s density would have to be twice that of matter.

Where could this energy density come from? The uncertainty

principle of quantum mechanics requires that the vacuum be

filled with particles living on borrowed time and energy, popping

in and out of existence. But when theorists try to compute

the energy density associated with the quantum vacuum, they

come up with values that are at least 55 orders of magnitude too

large. If the vacuum energy density were really that high, all matter

in the universe would instantly fly apart and galaxies would

never have formed.”

Jack: This is the problem I claim I have solved with the idea of

“vacuum coherence” that is in fact the inflation field in disguise.

Einstein’s gravity together with both dark energy and dark matter emerge together from ripples in the holographic phase and intensity of the vacuum coherence field that decreases the randomness of the zero point vacuum fluctuations of all the quantum fields.

I have provided a very simple dynamical reason based on Dirac’s theory of the electron why this happens that is very like what happens when a normal metal becomes a superconductor.

“This discrepancy has been called the worst embarrassment

in all of theoretical physics, but it may actually be the sign of a

great opportunity. Although it is possible that new attempts to

estimate the vacuum energy density may yield just the right

amount to explain cosmic acceleration, many theorists believe

that a correct calculation, incorporating a new symmetry principle,

will lead to the conclusion that the energy associated with

the quantum vacuum is zero. (Even quantum nothingness

weighs nothing!) If this is true, something else must be causing

the expansion of the universe to speed up.”

Jack: No, this is simply confused thinking. What you see below

Is All The King’s Men grasping wildly willy nilly at straws like the Sufi Story where The Pundits shine strong light in the wrong part of Plato’s Dark Cave.

“Theorists have proposed a variety of ideas, ranging from the

influence of extra, hidden dimensions to the energy associated

with a new field of nature, sometimes called quintessence [see

“Out of the Darkness,” by Georgi Dvali, on page 68]. In general,

these hypotheses posit a dark energy density that is not constant

and that usually decreases as the universe expands. (But

the suggestion that dark energy density is actually increasing as

the universe expands has also been put forth.) Perhaps the most

radical idea is that there is no dark energy at all but rather that

Einstein’s theory of gravity must be modified.”

Jack: Bad idea. The following however is in agreement with my model.

…

“IN NEWTON’S THEORY, gravity is always attractive and its

strength depends on the mass of the attracting object. The

twist in Einstein’s theory is that the strength of the

gravitational pull exerted by an object also depends on its

composition. Physicists characterize the composition of a

substance by its internal pressure. An object’s gravity is

proportional to its energy density plus three times the

pressure. Our sun, for example, is a hot sphere of gas with

positive (outward) pressure; because gas pressure rises with

temperature, the sun’s gravitational pull is slightly greater

than that of a cold ball of matter of equivalent mass. On the

other hand, a gas of photons has a pressure that is equal to

one third its energy density, so its gravitational pull should

be twice that of an equivalent mass of cold matter.

Dark energy is characterized by negative pressure.

(Elastic objects—for instance, a rubber sheet—also have

negative, or inward, pressure.) If the pressure falls below

–1⁄3 times the energy density, then the combination of energy

plus three times the pressure is negative and the gravitational

force is repulsive. The quantum vacuum has a pressure that

is –1 times its energy density, so the gravity of a vacuum is

very repulsive. Other hypothetical forms of dark energy have

a pressure that is between –1⁄3 and –1 times its energy

density. Some of these types of energy have been invoked to

explain the inflationary epoch, a very early period of cosmic

acceleration. Other types are candidates for the dark energy

powering the acceleration observed today.

…

Only theories stipulating large variations in dark energy density

have been ruled out ... The only way to forecast our cosmic future is

to figure out the nature of dark energy.”

Jack: I agree completely here. This is “metric engineering” in which we will control the unified exotic vacuum dark energy/matter local field for super-technology missions of exploring the universe using weightless warp drive through traversable wormhole time travel gateways to the future and past of our universe, to distance parts of our universe and to the parallel universes next door. The UFOs show that we are not the first to have figured out how to do this. We are getting close to figuring it out. Ad Astra and Beyond is our Manifest Destiny.

References:

“Our Final Hour” Sir Martin Rees (Chapter 9)

Do Type Ia Supernovae Provide Direct Evidence for Past Deceleration in

the Universe? Michael S. Turner and Adam G. Riess in Astrophysical

Journal, Vol. 569, Part 1, pages 18–22; April 10, 2002. Available online at

arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106051

..

Is Cosmic Speed-Up Due to New Gravitational Physics? Sean M. Carroll,

Vikram Duvvuri, Mark Trodden and Michael S. Turner in Physical Review

Letters (in press). arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306438

On Jan 31, 2004, at 12:10 AM, ISEP Theoretical Physics Group wrote:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004

Critique #1

George Divali wrote:

"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so

confused. Although our standard model of cosmology

has been confirmed by recent observations, it still

has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the universe

is accelerating."

JS: I think I do. http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

GD: "If you throw a stone straight up, the pull

of Earth’s gravity will cause it to slow down; it will not accelerate

away from the planet. Similarly, distant galaxies, thrown

apart by the big bang expansion, should pull on one another

and slow down. Yet they are accelerating apart. Researchers

commonly attribute the acceleration to some mysterious entity

called dark energy, but there is little physics to back up these

fine words."

JS: That is false in my opinion. An exotic vacuum phase with net total cumulative random positive zero point vacuum fluctuation energy density, hence negative pressure with w = -1, from all physical quantum fields does the trick. One must realize that the degree of randomness of the zero point vacuum fluctuations is tempered by the local inflation vacuum coherence field whose phase variation is the dominant smooth c-number non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamic field of Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity upon which precision cosmology is predicated in the equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

GD: "The only thing that is becoming clear is that at the

largest observable distances, gravity behaves in a rather strange

way, turning into a repulsive force."

JS: Agreed. We can also, I bet, do this on a small scale for exotic warp drive time travel through traversable wormholes.

GD: "The laws of physics say that gravity is generated by matter

and energy, so they attribute a strange sort of gravity to a

strange sort of matter or energy. That is the rationale for dark

energy. But maybe the laws themselves need to be changed."

JS: That is "too cheap" as Einstein mistakenly told Bohm. However, I am not mistaken I think in my opinion that a drastic overhaul of the known laws of physics is needed for this problem.

GD: Physicists have a precedent for such a change: the law of gravity

that Newton formulated in the 17th century, which had various

conceptual and experimental limitations, gave way to Einstein’s

general theory of relativity in 1915. Relativity, too, has

limitations; in particular, it runs into trouble when applied to

extremely short distances, which are the domain of quantum

mechanics. Much as relativity subsumed Newtonian physics, a

quantum theory of gravity will ultimately subsume relativity.

Over the years, physicists have come up with a few plausible

approaches to quantum gravity, the most prominent being

string theory."

JS: Smolin, Ashtekar, Baez, Rovelli et-al will strongly disagree on that against Greene, Witten, et-al. Of course neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have made hard predictions of any facts nor have they provided compelling explanations of the observational mysteries of precision cosmology and particle physics. Yet many of the Guardians of respectability and ideological purity reminiscent of Stalinism in the Soviet Union on the LANL Cornell Archive and in mass media like Scientific American and NOVA PBS are quick to embrace these radical speculations which in fact

are little more than pretty mathematical vaporware.

GD: "When gravity operates over microscopic distances

—for instance, at the center of a black hole, where a huge

mass is packed into a subatomic volume—the bizarre quantum

properties of matter come into play, and string theory describes

how the law of gravity changes.

Over greater distances, string theorists have generally assumed

that quantum effects are unimportant. Yet the cosmological

discoveries of the past several years have encouraged researchers

to reconsider. Four years ago my colleagues and I

asked whether string theory would change the law of gravity

not just on the smallest scales but also on the largest ones. The

feature of string theory that could bring about this revision is

its extra dimensions—additional directions in which particles

can roam. The theory adds six or seven dimensions to the usual

three."

JS: Theorists today are willing to pay any price to avoid signal nonlocality.

GD: In the past, string theorists have argued that the extra dimensions

are too small for us to see or move in. But recent progress

reveals that some or all of the new dimensions could actually

be infinite in size. They are hidden from view not because

they are small but because the particles that make up our bodies

are trapped in three dimensions. The one particle that eludes

confinement is the particle that transmits the force of gravity,

and as a result, the law of gravity changes.

Quintessence Even from Nothingness

WHEN ASTRONOMERS ENCOUNTERED the cosmic acceleration,

their first reaction was to attribute it to the so-called cosmological

constant. Notoriously introduced and then retracted

by Einstein, the constant represents the energy inherent in space

Maybe cosmic acceleration isn’t caused by dark energy after all

but by an inexorable leakage of gravity out of our world

COPYRIGHT 2004 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

GD: "A completely empty volume of space, devoid of all matter,

would still contain this energy—equivalent to roughly 10–26

kilogram per cubic meter. Although the cosmological constant

is consistent with all the existing data so far, many physicists find

it unsatisfying. The problem is its inexplicable smallness,"

JS: This is only a problem because The Pundits have not properly used the idea of "vacuum coherence" in which the cosmological term in Einstein's equation has a subsidiary equation

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Where the tetrad gravity field Cartan 1-form in the sense of Rovelli's book on Quantum Gravity is

euadx^a = Kronecker Deltau^adx^a + (Quantum of Area)(argVacuum Coherence),u

A vanishing Vacuum Coherence means maximally random zero point energy fluctuations from all fields in unstable globally flat spacetime with no gravity.

On Jan 31, 2004, at 12:40 PM, zenodestiny wrote:

J.S. Your remarks have nothing to do withwhat I am talking about.

J.H. Thank you.

JS: Your welcome.

Side problem for a sphere of exotic vacuum with uniform /\zpf

of radius R

V = -GMeff/r

dV/dr = GMeff1/r^2

d^2V/dr^2 = -2GMeff/r^3

GMeff = c^2/\R3

J.H. What is T3 in this equation? Or the sign /\?

JS: "T3"? Get new glasses. I don't see no "T3". Who's on first?

Oh you mean R^3. Dumbkopf! The volume of the sphere of radius R is (4pi/3)R^3. I am using the "curvature radial coordinate" convention where the area of the sphere is 4piR^2. The increase of "radial length" from the space-warp I include in the definition of /\zpf. I may need to reconsider that later on. I am only doing a quick and dirty back of the envelope toy model here.

J.S. Now if you still cannot grok this you flunk the course. You will not graduate from Star Fleet Academy and you will spend your life cleaning latrines for Elephants with cholera.

J.H. I don't need any Starfleet academy. I can form my own!

JS: And who will come?

JH: And yes my ideas for reactionless propulsion do actually work.

JS: Yeah, and I own The Brooklyn Bridge and can put a billion dollars in your account from Nigeria.

JH. I do NOT need theory or even your theory for that matter because I have experiments! You have not built a device and I believe you don't have a clue on how to do it. I do! I was hoping I could find out what are

your ideas for actually building a device are and how this might improve my ideas. So far I have heard nothing but convoluted physics- speak. Only you take this to a whole brave new level. If this is all you got then you are beneath me. I do not want to sound rude or anything, but PHD or no PHD I do not see how I can get anything from your theories, "

JS: Agreed, you are too delusional.

JH: though I do enjoy your "physics". I could be wrong

JS: You are not even wrong. This time the men in the white coats are coming not the little Grays.

JH: because I don't understand them but you cannot actually engineer a flying device. I CAN! If you would like to understand my idea I would be happy to spell it out for you in actual construction terms. You

can even use this idea for your so-called "black" company free of charge. I only ask that if it is used for a craft that I get credit so I can impress my friends back in the looney bin.

JS: Hey that's funny.

J.S. Is there no hope for this Planet of Fools?

J.H. I like your obvious choice of sentence structure in relation to a previous post of mine, but to answer the question, probably not.

JS: Don't flatter yourself. I don't remember your gibberish.

J.S. Read Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" especially Chapter 9.

J.H. I have because of your plugs. It was a good book. But again by reading the references in the back of the book you again show your tells Doc. Shame on you!

JS: What do you mean? Of course asking a self-confessed Madman what do I expect?

>>>J.S. The gravity effect V(source) of any source , according to

>>> Einstein's GR

>>> in weak field limit for simplicity, obeys

>>> the Poisson equation

>>>

>>> Grad^2V(source) ~ (G/c^2)(energy density)(1 + 3w)

>>>

>>> Any good physics student should then be able to figure out the

>>> rest

>>> given this information.

J.H. This isn't beyond me at all. But with the ideas you speak you cannot help but get contradictions. For example see above.

J.S. There is no contradiction except in your confused

misunderstandings.

J.H. Ok, then clear something up by answering a simple question for

me. In terms of gravity, what is the factor for energy density with

respect to pressure in the w term? If this question is beneath you

then a simple number will suffice. Not a bunch of personal slurs

where your motivation for doing so is transparent.

JS: I do not understand your question.

By definition for ALL "stuff" real or virtual:

w = pressure/energy density

It is then a theorem of standard physics that w = -1 for any kind of zero point vacuum fluctuation "virtual stuff."

That should answer your question that you did not pose clearly.

For comparison, w = +1/3 for radiation, and w ~ 0 for ordinary matter moving slowly relative to the detector.

Clumps of w = -1 virtual zero point stuff with negative zpf energy density and positive pressure, i.e. attractive "dark matter" will mimic w ~ 0 as in the dark galactic halos.

J.H. I have read them all including Wu Li masters. Yes, they are

moron books alright.

J.S. Which is why you keep them.

J.H. No, I only take them out from the library. But you know this already.

>>> J.S. and my

>>> own early

>>> "Space-Time and Beyond" from 1975 - not my 2002 "Space-Time and

>>> Beyond

>>> II."

>> J.H. Too expensive. Sorry.

> J.S. You mean your keepers do not give you an allowance in the

Asylum? You

>can download a copy for $6 from

>http://www.1stbooks.com

> but I suppose they will not give you a credit card.

J.H. Well if I am a good little boy and don't pet the animals when

I'm told not too they give me a dollar a day credit on a visa card.

I'll try to restrain myself for a few days (not likely) and give your

book a read.

>> J.H. Well I don't know. What is a "good" university?

> J.S. Obviously not the one you went to.

J.H. I've learned physics from the best of them. Including some of

the ones you claim to have been taught by (by two degrees of

separation). Again, you are showing your tells.

JS: Name names. Who? When did you go wacko? Did you fall on your head?

>> J.H. Now I see your true political beliefs. Perhaps of the Leo

>> Straussian variety? A neocon pehaps? Go say hi to your friends

>> Wolfowitz, Pearl, and Feith for me. Will ya. I guess there is more

to

>> the story of your aunt who was friends with Mussolini after all?

> JS: She created Mussolini.

J.H. You should be proud! And you're a Jew!?

JS: I am not proud. It is a fact. Read "Il Duce's Other Woman". Also I did not grow up with those people.

Also read "An American Dynasty", "The Price of Loyalty", "The Idiot's Guide to the CIA ...", "The Star Gate Conspiracy",

"Cosmic Trigger", "1968".

> J.S. However I am anti-fascist.

J.H. Actions speak louder than words.

JS: What actions? It's all words. I see no "sticks and stones."

> J.S. Academia is not a

> democracy

J.H. Yes it is. Even more so if you have tenure.

> J.S. and neither is the military. It is a meritocracy though it

> can also get corrupt.

J.H. No shit genius.

JS: Touche. A moment of lucidity.

>>> J.S. Hawking is my peer. Susskind is my peer.

>> J.H. You Sir are no Hawkings!

> JS: How would you know?

J.H. I know more than yous think.

JS: I see no evidence of that.

> >J.H. Typical elitist mentality. See above.

>JS: Yes, real education is elitist and should be.

J.H. Only within reason.

JS: Of course. I am a Champion of Reason.

> J.S. The Navy Seals and

>other such special units are elitist and should be.

J.H. Elitism should have no place in the world! Anywhere!

JS: That's why you are in the Loony Toons Bin.

>J.S. Political democracy means that every one even a doltish nut

like you

>should have equal opportunity.

J.H. Agreed. About the equal opportunity that is.

> J.S. It does not mean I should

>not tell you the truth about what I think of your ideas.

J.H. Agreed.

> JS. Incoherent thought. Time for your meds I guess. ;-)

J.H. Well no Doc actually it is the reptilians who are

psychotronically beaming me with microwave radiation of about 100 Mhz

and it is giving me a God-awful migraine. I am afraid that meds

aren't going to help me in a situation like this. By the way do you

make psych evaluations before or after you have just been contacted

by the aliens? Could we get this straight before anymore dialog?

JS: If you read my book "Destiny Matrix" and look at

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

and read carefully, you will see I never claim there was a real ET alien on the other end of the phone.

I do not know who or what was on the other end of the phone. In context over 50 years it is quite weird and you

can draw your own conclusions one way or the other.

>J.S. I am giving out my ideas. I am not forcing

> you to read my ideas.

> I have no interest in yours.

J.H. You know more about me and have more interest in me than you

lead on. Question is: Why?

JS: John Nash was also a delusional nut. Also, you may be joking. Also I get paid to deal with nuts like you as well as

serious students. It's part of my "day job." Also I will put you in my third book "Blog One" I am now writing.

The dialogue is entertaining.

> J.S. In other words, your level of

> comprehension of real physics is so

> primitive that you are not capable of formulating an interesting

idea

> or explanation and you are

> not able to understand what I am writing.

J.H. Theories aside. It are experiments that make physics.

JS: Agreed. So you have a big physics lab in your Cuckoo's Nest at a dollar a day.

J.S. Your remarks have nothing to do withwhat I am talking about.

J.H. Thank you.

JS: Your welcome.

Side problem for a sphere of exotic vacuum with uniform /\zpf

of radius R

V = -GMeff/r

dV/dr = GMeff1/r^2

d^2V/dr^2 = -2GMeff/r^3

GMeff = c^2/\R3

J.H. What is T3 in this equation? Or the sign /\?

JS: "T3"? Get new glasses. I don't see no "T3". Who's on first?

Oh you mean R^3. Dumbkopf! The volume of the sphere of radius R is (4pi/3)R^3. I am using the "curvature radial coordinate" convention where the area of the sphere is 4piR^2. The increase of "radial length" from the space-warp I include in the definition of /\zpf. I may need to reconsider that later on. I am only doing a quick and dirty back of the envelope toy model here.

J.S. Now if you still cannot grok this you flunk the course. You will not graduate from Star Fleet Academy and you will spend your life cleaning latrines for Elephants with cholera.

J.H. I don't need any Starfleet academy. I can form my own!

JS: And who will come?

JH: And yes my ideas for reactionless propulsion do actually work.

JS: Yeah, and I own The Brooklyn Bridge and can put a billion dollars in your account from Nigeria.

JH. I do NOT need theory or even your theory for that matter because I have experiments! You have not built a device and I believe you don't have a clue on how to do it. I do! I was hoping I could find out what are

your ideas for actually building a device are and how this might improve my ideas. So far I have heard nothing but convoluted physics- speak. Only you take this to a whole brave new level. If this is all you got then you are beneath me. I do not want to sound rude or anything, but PHD or no PHD I do not see how I can get anything from your theories, "

JS: Agreed, you are too delusional.

JH: though I do enjoy your "physics". I could be wrong

JS: You are not even wrong. This time the men in the white coats are coming not the little Grays.

JH: because I don't understand them but you cannot actually engineer a flying device. I CAN! If you would like to understand my idea I would be happy to spell it out for you in actual construction terms. You

can even use this idea for your so-called "black" company free of charge. I only ask that if it is used for a craft that I get credit so I can impress my friends back in the looney bin.

JS: Hey that's funny.

J.S. Is there no hope for this Planet of Fools?

J.H. I like your obvious choice of sentence structure in relation to a previous post of mine, but to answer the question, probably not.

JS: Don't flatter yourself. I don't remember your gibberish.

J.S. Read Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" especially Chapter 9.

J.H. I have because of your plugs. It was a good book. But again by reading the references in the back of the book you again show your tells Doc. Shame on you!

JS: What do you mean? Of course asking a self-confessed Madman what do I expect?

>>>J.S. The gravity effect V(source) of any source , according to

>>> Einstein's GR

>>> in weak field limit for simplicity, obeys

>>> the Poisson equation

>>>

>>> Grad^2V(source) ~ (G/c^2)(energy density)(1 + 3w)

>>>

>>> Any good physics student should then be able to figure out the

>>> rest

>>> given this information.

J.H. This isn't beyond me at all. But with the ideas you speak you cannot help but get contradictions. For example see above.

J.S. There is no contradiction except in your confused

misunderstandings.

J.H. Ok, then clear something up by answering a simple question for

me. In terms of gravity, what is the factor for energy density with

respect to pressure in the w term? If this question is beneath you

then a simple number will suffice. Not a bunch of personal slurs

where your motivation for doing so is transparent.

JS: I do not understand your question.

By definition for ALL "stuff" real or virtual:

w = pressure/energy density

It is then a theorem of standard physics that w = -1 for any kind of zero point vacuum fluctuation "virtual stuff."

That should answer your question that you did not pose clearly.

For comparison, w = +1/3 for radiation, and w ~ 0 for ordinary matter moving slowly relative to the detector.

Clumps of w = -1 virtual zero point stuff with negative zpf energy density and positive pressure, i.e. attractive "dark matter" will mimic w ~ 0 as in the dark galactic halos.

J.H. I have read them all including Wu Li masters. Yes, they are

moron books alright.

J.S. Which is why you keep them.

J.H. No, I only take them out from the library. But you know this already.

>>> J.S. and my

>>> own early

>>> "Space-Time and Beyond" from 1975 - not my 2002 "Space-Time and

>>> Beyond

>>> II."

>> J.H. Too expensive. Sorry.

> J.S. You mean your keepers do not give you an allowance in the

Asylum? You

>can download a copy for $6 from

>http://www.1stbooks.com

> but I suppose they will not give you a credit card.

J.H. Well if I am a good little boy and don't pet the animals when

I'm told not too they give me a dollar a day credit on a visa card.

I'll try to restrain myself for a few days (not likely) and give your

book a read.

>> J.H. Well I don't know. What is a "good" university?

> J.S. Obviously not the one you went to.

J.H. I've learned physics from the best of them. Including some of

the ones you claim to have been taught by (by two degrees of

separation). Again, you are showing your tells.

JS: Name names. Who? When did you go wacko? Did you fall on your head?

>> J.H. Now I see your true political beliefs. Perhaps of the Leo

>> Straussian variety? A neocon pehaps? Go say hi to your friends

>> Wolfowitz, Pearl, and Feith for me. Will ya. I guess there is more

to

>> the story of your aunt who was friends with Mussolini after all?

> JS: She created Mussolini.

J.H. You should be proud! And you're a Jew!?

JS: I am not proud. It is a fact. Read "Il Duce's Other Woman". Also I did not grow up with those people.

Also read "An American Dynasty", "The Price of Loyalty", "The Idiot's Guide to the CIA ...", "The Star Gate Conspiracy",

"Cosmic Trigger", "1968".

> J.S. However I am anti-fascist.

J.H. Actions speak louder than words.

JS: What actions? It's all words. I see no "sticks and stones."

> J.S. Academia is not a

> democracy

J.H. Yes it is. Even more so if you have tenure.

> J.S. and neither is the military. It is a meritocracy though it

> can also get corrupt.

J.H. No shit genius.

JS: Touche. A moment of lucidity.

>>> J.S. Hawking is my peer. Susskind is my peer.

>> J.H. You Sir are no Hawkings!

> JS: How would you know?

J.H. I know more than yous think.

JS: I see no evidence of that.

> >J.H. Typical elitist mentality. See above.

>JS: Yes, real education is elitist and should be.

J.H. Only within reason.

JS: Of course. I am a Champion of Reason.

> J.S. The Navy Seals and

>other such special units are elitist and should be.

J.H. Elitism should have no place in the world! Anywhere!

JS: That's why you are in the Loony Toons Bin.

>J.S. Political democracy means that every one even a doltish nut

like you

>should have equal opportunity.

J.H. Agreed. About the equal opportunity that is.

> J.S. It does not mean I should

>not tell you the truth about what I think of your ideas.

J.H. Agreed.

> JS. Incoherent thought. Time for your meds I guess. ;-)

J.H. Well no Doc actually it is the reptilians who are

psychotronically beaming me with microwave radiation of about 100 Mhz

and it is giving me a God-awful migraine. I am afraid that meds

aren't going to help me in a situation like this. By the way do you

make psych evaluations before or after you have just been contacted

by the aliens? Could we get this straight before anymore dialog?

JS: If you read my book "Destiny Matrix" and look at

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

and read carefully, you will see I never claim there was a real ET alien on the other end of the phone.

I do not know who or what was on the other end of the phone. In context over 50 years it is quite weird and you

can draw your own conclusions one way or the other.

>J.S. I am giving out my ideas. I am not forcing

> you to read my ideas.

> I have no interest in yours.

J.H. You know more about me and have more interest in me than you

lead on. Question is: Why?

JS: John Nash was also a delusional nut. Also, you may be joking. Also I get paid to deal with nuts like you as well as

serious students. It's part of my "day job." Also I will put you in my third book "Blog One" I am now writing.

The dialogue is entertaining.

> J.S. In other words, your level of

> comprehension of real physics is so

> primitive that you are not capable of formulating an interesting

idea

> or explanation and you are

> not able to understand what I am writing.

J.H. Theories aside. It are experiments that make physics.

JS: Agreed. So you have a big physics lab in your Cuckoo's Nest at a dollar a day.

First of all you are seriously muddled in the use of "Negative Energy".

If you mean "anti-gravity" from partially random micro-quantum zero

point vacuum fluctuation (zpf) energy density (modulated by vacuum

coherence out of which Einstein's gravity equations "emerge" as phase

ripples) the zpf energy density must be POSITIVE in order to get

NEGATIVE QUANTUM PRESSURE because the equivalence principle +

covariance + Heisenberg's uncertainty principle imply w =

pressure/energy density = -1.

On Jan 31, 2004, at 7:52 AM, vic xianto wrote:

>

> "Dear Prof. Sarfatti:

>

>

> Thanks for your clues and critics. Where do you find

> my article, and which of them ? I guess it is my

> recent article in Apeiron."

Probably. Google is a Magic Genie.

I do not understand the notation in your very first equation.

You do not give enough background context so that your

paper is incomprehensible to my mind. I do not have a year to devote to

your paper.

You do not show how your idea relates to the battle-tested

equations of Einstein's GR

You must show how your math at least in some limit

reduces to the c-number (macro-quantum ODLRO vacuum condensate phase

ripple equation)

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

otherwise no significant physicist working in astrophysics and cosmology

will consider your paper anything, but still another amateur crackpot

work

- and rightly so.

Also you give too many details without enough explanation of the

Grand Idea, the simple "organizing idea" behind your details.

Your empirics on planetary orbits in terms of Bohr's atom with something

like a giant Planck's constant may be curious, but it has no context.

You invoke many dangling unconnected mysteries to explain things

understood

by orthodox theory.

It seems to me you have less with more, although I do not have the time

to

seriously study your ideas because I am too busy with my own.

You do talk about a cosmic Bose-Einstein condensate but I see no math

that

fits my understanding of that idea. Also I deduce Einstein's equations

from

the coherent phase of that cosmic vacuum condensate, which I identify

with the inflation field.

You do not address the key observations of today's precision cosmology

as in, for example, the "Special Report" in Feb 2004 Scientific

American.

> VX:" If yes, allow me to make

> few remarks here in this regards:

>

> I would appreciate to see your own article on the same

> issues of gravitation from superfluid vortice.

JS: I have given these references a jillion times. Again

http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

also other papers in open directory

http://qedcorp.com/APS/

>

> VX: I know it is perhaps too simplistic, for this reason I

> considered it only as 'preliminary' version (or a

> sketch, if you wish). It is beyond my intention to

> consider it as the 'final theory' we seek after.

JS: I see not "theory" there. I mean a grand organizing idea with

a step by step mathematical development like in Euclid's elements.

I see no intuitive motivation for your first equations whose terms

are not even defined. You seem to use V as a velocity on the LHS

and then as a potential on the RHS?

Also you simply do not justify what the equation really means.

You start your theory from a totally obscure starting point.

> VX: In

> fact, I'm not so proud of it because it is published a

> year after I wrote it. I've attempted to write a newer

> version using partial wave analysis,

JS: Again you invoke an advance math tool totally out of context so it

is meaningless to my mind.

> VX: so I can send you

> if you like. But not something on metric yet....

JS: Don't bother because where you are coming from is totally

incomprehensible to me.

Start with Einstein's GR and then I have a context. Without that your

writing appears as

just more amateurish gibberish. You obviously have some kind of perhaps

engineering background?

Engineers often make fools of themselves when they try to do

theoretical physics in a fundamental

way challenging Einstein. Hal Puthoff's "PV" alternative to Einstein's

GR is a good example.

All these attempts to make "flat space-time" theories of gravity are

ultimately nonsense in my opinion.

When you try to do perturbation theory on flat space-background it

fails. You need a non-perturbative

summation of an infinity of Feynman diagrams of a special class at

least to get to Einstein's equations.

This is a qualitative collapse or phase transition of the fundamentally

unstable globally flat rigid non-dynamical vacuum

to a non-rigid dynamical locally curved vacuum. This is why Puthoff's

whole PV idea is basically nonsense in my

opinion, which is also what John Baez has basically said of it.

>

> VX: But I do want to develop such a metric idea to become

> more mature ---

JS: You are wasting your time reinventing a crooked wheel, when we have

an excellent wheel from Einstein.

You are not working on anything worth working on because you have not

identified the interesting questions.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" (JA Wheeler).

> VX: especially for critical readers like

> you (I appreciate any criticism). I do believe that

> you know much better concerning superfluidity and

> metric (I guess your PhD was on superfluidity). I

> merely attempt to bring it forward to cosmological

> setting ( though Zurek & Volovik

JS: I have read Volovik's book cover to cover and it is good work.

He has an equation in a special case that is very similar to my

heuristic "two-fluid" ansatz

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2

- 1]

Volovik's explanation of why Einstein's Cosmological Constant is zero

in the "equilibrium" non-exotic vacuum

is correct in my opinion. Although you cite Volovik, and also cite

Carlos Castro, I see nothing in your math that

essentially connects to their math, nor do I see any matching of

heuristic concepts. Of course, I did not spend

a lot of time trying to penetrate your obscure writing.

> VX:has done this, I

> guess few has attempted to compare superfluid

> prediction with astronomical data). I've found that

> you mentioned on Visser's articles,

JS: You also cite Visser. I read his book "Lorentzian Wormholes" cover

to cover and you appear

to not at all understand elementary things in his book. You completely

misread him from

what I can gather from your short e-mails.

> VX: so this was why I

> guess you could provide further clues on how to

> describe superfluidity in metrical terms which is more

> common for large scale

JS: I have done that in math detail already.

> VX:...(the simpler version is

> merely to convert Euler-Lagrange equation into

> Newton-FRW metric like Coles', but I didn't find it

> much convincing for superfluidity, so I guess perhaps

> Arnowit-Deser-Misner could be a better approach etc.)

JS: Meaningless. What "Euler-Lagrange equation" from what action.

You have a global action. You make the action extremal and

using calculus of variations get local Euler-Lagrange equations.

Or do you mean some hydrodynamics? What?

If hydrodynamics you pull it out of a hat without motivation

and some silly talk about negative mass Planck black holes.

>

>

> VX: For the first step, this CSV idea began few years ago

> when I found that Nottale's equation

> (Schrodinger-Euler) cannot describe outer planets

> properly. Yup, I didn't start with any metrical

> approach, instead I rederived Schrodinger equation for

> gravity case.

JS: Incomprehensible.

> I found that most related articles

> (including Neto et al. 2002) make use of second

> quantum number, which seems to me not required, but

> after some calculation I found (rather

> serendipitously) that this could be reconciled if we

> could minimize the standard deviation of the Jovian

> planets, and then find the m2 mass from reduced mass

> equation.

JS: Ditto.

>

> VX: And then I come up with assumption of negative

> energies and negative mass, which is so far could only

> be explained using:

>

> a. Bradford's idea of negative mass and its equation

> of motion

> b. DeAquino's theory of cosmological consequence of

> superconducting phenomena

> c. Frohlich's polaron (or something like dipole

> gravity etc.)

> d. Hall effect (see my endnote in this article)

> e. Dirac equation (see Hestenes' spinor particle

> mechanics)

JS: Incomprehensible sequence of loosely associated buzz words dangling

in cognitive limbo out of context.

Professor Irwin Corey can use the above in the Comedy Club.

No one can understand what you are trying to say here.

This is not a valid communication.

Again you do not understand that "negative mass" in cosmology

means "anti-gravity" "Dark Energy" from positive energy density with

equal and opposite negative pressure.

w = -1

You do not need any of your less with more excess baggage that you

write above to explain the observed fact that

96% of the stuff of the universe is not protons electrons photon et-al

"on mass shell".

>

> VX: Dirac's equation seems to me as the nearest argument

> so far (pls note here that I do not need NEGATIVE

> CURVATURE), because he conjectures of 'sea of negative

> energies', which could be interpreted as Hall liquid.

JS: Not even wrong. BTW I have shown how Dirac's vacuum is unstable

and causes the vacuum coherence (in a toy model as the dominant effect).

> VX: I guess this is what Susskind recently wrote of

> (2001:Hall liquid and noncommutative theory, arxiv) --

> though I'm not sure he wants to apply this into

> cosmological setting.

JS: I have not seen that. What's the exact URL?

>

>

> VX: I know that no such negative mass was observed in

> solar system,

JS: Ill-posed.

> VX: thus far. For instance, in Zel'dovich's

> book Konstantinov has proposed of the presence of

> antimatter in the nearby of solar system, but so far

> it is not found.

JS: Irrelevant detail out of context.

>

> VX: But there is clue from antihydrogen experiments

> (ATHENA) that seems to suggest that it is possible to

> find a kind of antihydrogen in low energies. Provided

> that our solar system is analogous to hydrogen (>60%

> matter in this universe consists of hydrogen), I guess

> there is chance to observe the same in solar system

> (low energy physics analogous to cosmology, Volovik).

> I'd greatly appreciate if your own theory does predict

> the similar things.

JS: More irrelevant gibberish to my mind.

>

>

> VX: With regards to Riemann's metric, I've got no more

> argument, partly because you're right that I'm not so

> much trained in such metric.

JS: I rest my case. You are wasting everyone's time.

You have not mastered your craft sufficiently to make

an interesting contribution.

I have no further patience for your random rambles below.

If you mean "anti-gravity" from partially random micro-quantum zero

point vacuum fluctuation (zpf) energy density (modulated by vacuum

coherence out of which Einstein's gravity equations "emerge" as phase

ripples) the zpf energy density must be POSITIVE in order to get

NEGATIVE QUANTUM PRESSURE because the equivalence principle +

covariance + Heisenberg's uncertainty principle imply w =

pressure/energy density = -1.

On Jan 31, 2004, at 7:52 AM, vic xianto wrote:

>

> "Dear Prof. Sarfatti:

>

>

> Thanks for your clues and critics. Where do you find

> my article, and which of them ? I guess it is my

> recent article in Apeiron."

Probably. Google is a Magic Genie.

I do not understand the notation in your very first equation.

You do not give enough background context so that your

paper is incomprehensible to my mind. I do not have a year to devote to

your paper.

You do not show how your idea relates to the battle-tested

equations of Einstein's GR

You must show how your math at least in some limit

reduces to the c-number (macro-quantum ODLRO vacuum condensate phase

ripple equation)

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

otherwise no significant physicist working in astrophysics and cosmology

will consider your paper anything, but still another amateur crackpot

work

- and rightly so.

Also you give too many details without enough explanation of the

Grand Idea, the simple "organizing idea" behind your details.

Your empirics on planetary orbits in terms of Bohr's atom with something

like a giant Planck's constant may be curious, but it has no context.

You invoke many dangling unconnected mysteries to explain things

understood

by orthodox theory.

It seems to me you have less with more, although I do not have the time

to

seriously study your ideas because I am too busy with my own.

You do talk about a cosmic Bose-Einstein condensate but I see no math

that

fits my understanding of that idea. Also I deduce Einstein's equations

from

the coherent phase of that cosmic vacuum condensate, which I identify

with the inflation field.

You do not address the key observations of today's precision cosmology

as in, for example, the "Special Report" in Feb 2004 Scientific

American.

> VX:" If yes, allow me to make

> few remarks here in this regards:

>

> I would appreciate to see your own article on the same

> issues of gravitation from superfluid vortice.

JS: I have given these references a jillion times. Again

http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

also other papers in open directory

http://qedcorp.com/APS/

>

> VX: I know it is perhaps too simplistic, for this reason I

> considered it only as 'preliminary' version (or a

> sketch, if you wish). It is beyond my intention to

> consider it as the 'final theory' we seek after.

JS: I see not "theory" there. I mean a grand organizing idea with

a step by step mathematical development like in Euclid's elements.

I see no intuitive motivation for your first equations whose terms

are not even defined. You seem to use V as a velocity on the LHS

and then as a potential on the RHS?

Also you simply do not justify what the equation really means.

You start your theory from a totally obscure starting point.

> VX: In

> fact, I'm not so proud of it because it is published a

> year after I wrote it. I've attempted to write a newer

> version using partial wave analysis,

JS: Again you invoke an advance math tool totally out of context so it

is meaningless to my mind.

> VX: so I can send you

> if you like. But not something on metric yet....

JS: Don't bother because where you are coming from is totally

incomprehensible to me.

Start with Einstein's GR and then I have a context. Without that your

writing appears as

just more amateurish gibberish. You obviously have some kind of perhaps

engineering background?

Engineers often make fools of themselves when they try to do

theoretical physics in a fundamental

way challenging Einstein. Hal Puthoff's "PV" alternative to Einstein's

GR is a good example.

All these attempts to make "flat space-time" theories of gravity are

ultimately nonsense in my opinion.

When you try to do perturbation theory on flat space-background it

fails. You need a non-perturbative

summation of an infinity of Feynman diagrams of a special class at

least to get to Einstein's equations.

This is a qualitative collapse or phase transition of the fundamentally

unstable globally flat rigid non-dynamical vacuum

to a non-rigid dynamical locally curved vacuum. This is why Puthoff's

whole PV idea is basically nonsense in my

opinion, which is also what John Baez has basically said of it.

>

> VX: But I do want to develop such a metric idea to become

> more mature ---

JS: You are wasting your time reinventing a crooked wheel, when we have

an excellent wheel from Einstein.

You are not working on anything worth working on because you have not

identified the interesting questions.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" (JA Wheeler).

> VX: especially for critical readers like

> you (I appreciate any criticism). I do believe that

> you know much better concerning superfluidity and

> metric (I guess your PhD was on superfluidity). I

> merely attempt to bring it forward to cosmological

> setting ( though Zurek & Volovik

JS: I have read Volovik's book cover to cover and it is good work.

He has an equation in a special case that is very similar to my

heuristic "two-fluid" ansatz

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2

- 1]

Volovik's explanation of why Einstein's Cosmological Constant is zero

in the "equilibrium" non-exotic vacuum

is correct in my opinion. Although you cite Volovik, and also cite

Carlos Castro, I see nothing in your math that

essentially connects to their math, nor do I see any matching of

heuristic concepts. Of course, I did not spend

a lot of time trying to penetrate your obscure writing.

> VX:has done this, I

> guess few has attempted to compare superfluid

> prediction with astronomical data). I've found that

> you mentioned on Visser's articles,

JS: You also cite Visser. I read his book "Lorentzian Wormholes" cover

to cover and you appear

to not at all understand elementary things in his book. You completely

misread him from

what I can gather from your short e-mails.

> VX: so this was why I

> guess you could provide further clues on how to

> describe superfluidity in metrical terms which is more

> common for large scale

JS: I have done that in math detail already.

> VX:...(the simpler version is

> merely to convert Euler-Lagrange equation into

> Newton-FRW metric like Coles', but I didn't find it

> much convincing for superfluidity, so I guess perhaps

> Arnowit-Deser-Misner could be a better approach etc.)

JS: Meaningless. What "Euler-Lagrange equation" from what action.

You have a global action. You make the action extremal and

using calculus of variations get local Euler-Lagrange equations.

Or do you mean some hydrodynamics? What?

If hydrodynamics you pull it out of a hat without motivation

and some silly talk about negative mass Planck black holes.

>

>

> VX: For the first step, this CSV idea began few years ago

> when I found that Nottale's equation

> (Schrodinger-Euler) cannot describe outer planets

> properly. Yup, I didn't start with any metrical

> approach, instead I rederived Schrodinger equation for

> gravity case.

JS: Incomprehensible.

> I found that most related articles

> (including Neto et al. 2002) make use of second

> quantum number, which seems to me not required, but

> after some calculation I found (rather

> serendipitously) that this could be reconciled if we

> could minimize the standard deviation of the Jovian

> planets, and then find the m2 mass from reduced mass

> equation.

JS: Ditto.

>

> VX: And then I come up with assumption of negative

> energies and negative mass, which is so far could only

> be explained using:

>

> a. Bradford's idea of negative mass and its equation

> of motion

> b. DeAquino's theory of cosmological consequence of

> superconducting phenomena

> c. Frohlich's polaron (or something like dipole

> gravity etc.)

> d. Hall effect (see my endnote in this article)

> e. Dirac equation (see Hestenes' spinor particle

> mechanics)

JS: Incomprehensible sequence of loosely associated buzz words dangling

in cognitive limbo out of context.

Professor Irwin Corey can use the above in the Comedy Club.

No one can understand what you are trying to say here.

This is not a valid communication.

Again you do not understand that "negative mass" in cosmology

means "anti-gravity" "Dark Energy" from positive energy density with

equal and opposite negative pressure.

w = -1

You do not need any of your less with more excess baggage that you

write above to explain the observed fact that

96% of the stuff of the universe is not protons electrons photon et-al

"on mass shell".

>

> VX: Dirac's equation seems to me as the nearest argument

> so far (pls note here that I do not need NEGATIVE

> CURVATURE), because he conjectures of 'sea of negative

> energies', which could be interpreted as Hall liquid.

JS: Not even wrong. BTW I have shown how Dirac's vacuum is unstable

and causes the vacuum coherence (in a toy model as the dominant effect).

> VX: I guess this is what Susskind recently wrote of

> (2001:Hall liquid and noncommutative theory, arxiv) --

> though I'm not sure he wants to apply this into

> cosmological setting.

JS: I have not seen that. What's the exact URL?

>

>

> VX: I know that no such negative mass was observed in

> solar system,

JS: Ill-posed.

> VX: thus far. For instance, in Zel'dovich's

> book Konstantinov has proposed of the presence of

> antimatter in the nearby of solar system, but so far

> it is not found.

JS: Irrelevant detail out of context.

>

> VX: But there is clue from antihydrogen experiments

> (ATHENA) that seems to suggest that it is possible to

> find a kind of antihydrogen in low energies. Provided

> that our solar system is analogous to hydrogen (>60%

> matter in this universe consists of hydrogen), I guess

> there is chance to observe the same in solar system

> (low energy physics analogous to cosmology, Volovik).

> I'd greatly appreciate if your own theory does predict

> the similar things.

JS: More irrelevant gibberish to my mind.

>

>

> VX: With regards to Riemann's metric, I've got no more

> argument, partly because you're right that I'm not so

> much trained in such metric.

JS: I rest my case. You are wasting everyone's time.

You have not mastered your craft sufficiently to make

an interesting contribution.

I have no further patience for your random rambles below.

68 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004

Critique #1

George Divali wrote:

"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so

confused. Although our standard model of cosmology

has been confirmed by recent observations, it still

has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the universe

is accelerating."

JS: I think I do. http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

GD: "If you throw a stone straight up, the pull

of Earth’s gravity will cause it to slow down; it will not accelerate

away from the planet. Similarly, distant galaxies, thrown

apart by the big bang expansion, should pull on one another

and slow down. Yet they are accelerating apart. Researchers

commonly attribute the acceleration to some mysterious entity

called dark energy, but there is little physics to back up these

fine words."

JS: That is false in my opinion. An exotic vacuum phase with net total cumulative random positive zero point vacuum fluctuation energy density, hence negative pressure with w = -1, from all physical quantum fields does the trick. One must realize that the degree of randomness of the zero point vacuum fluctuations is tempered by the local inflation vacuum coherence field whose phase variation is the dominant smooth c-number non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamic field of Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity upon which precision cosmology is predicated in the equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

GD: "The only thing that is becoming clear is that at the

largest observable distances, gravity behaves in a rather strange

way, turning into a repulsive force."

JS: Agreed. We can also, I bet, do this on a small scale for exotic warp drive time travel through traversable wormholes.

GD: "The laws of physics say that gravity is generated by matter

and energy, so they attribute a strange sort of gravity to a

strange sort of matter or energy. That is the rationale for dark

energy. But maybe the laws themselves need to be changed."

JS: That is "too cheap" as Einstein mistakenly told Bohm. However, I am not mistaken I think in my opinion that a drastic overhaul of the known laws of physics is needed for this problem.

GD: Physicists have a precedent for such a change: the law of gravity

that Newton formulated in the 17th century, which had various

conceptual and experimental limitations, gave way to Einstein’s

general theory of relativity in 1915. Relativity, too, has

limitations; in particular, it runs into trouble when applied to

extremely short distances, which are the domain of quantum

mechanics. Much as relativity subsumed Newtonian physics, a

quantum theory of gravity will ultimately subsume relativity.

Over the years, physicists have come up with a few plausible

approaches to quantum gravity, the most prominent being

string theory."

JS: Smolin, Ashtekar, Baez, Rovelli et-al will strongly disagree on that against Greene, Witten, et-al. Of course neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have made hard predictions of any facts nor have they provided compelling explanations of the observational mysteries of precision cosmology and particle physics. Yet many of the Guardians of respectability and ideological purity reminiscent of Stalinism in the Soviet Union on the LANL Cornell Archive and in mass media like Scientific American and NOVA PBS are quick to embrace these radical speculations which in fact

are little more than pretty mathematical vaporware.

GD: "When gravity operates over microscopic distances

—for instance, at the center of a black hole, where a huge

mass is packed into a subatomic volume—the bizarre quantum

properties of matter come into play, and string theory describes

how the law of gravity changes.

Over greater distances, string theorists have generally assumed

that quantum effects are unimportant. Yet the cosmological

discoveries of the past several years have encouraged researchers

to reconsider. Four years ago my colleagues and I

asked whether string theory would change the law of gravity

not just on the smallest scales but also on the largest ones. The

feature of string theory that could bring about this revision is

its extra dimensions—additional directions in which particles

can roam. The theory adds six or seven dimensions to the usual

three."

JS: Theorists today are willing to pay any price to avoid signal nonlocality.

GD: In the past, string theorists have argued that the extra dimensions

are too small for us to see or move in. But recent progress

reveals that some or all of the new dimensions could actually

be infinite in size. They are hidden from view not because

they are small but because the particles that make up our bodies

are trapped in three dimensions. The one particle that eludes

confinement is the particle that transmits the force of gravity,

and as a result, the law of gravity changes.

Quintessence Even from Nothingness

WHEN ASTRONOMERS ENCOUNTERED the cosmic acceleration,

their first reaction was to attribute it to the so-called cosmological

constant. Notoriously introduced and then retracted

by Einstein, the constant represents the energy inherent in space

Maybe cosmic acceleration isn’t caused by dark energy after all

but by an inexorable leakage of gravity out of our world

COPYRIGHT 2004 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

GD: "A completely empty volume of space, devoid of all matter,

would still contain this energy—equivalent to roughly 10–26

kilogram per cubic meter. Although the cosmological constant

is consistent with all the existing data so far, many physicists find

it unsatisfying. The problem is its inexplicable smallness,"

JS: This is only a problem because The Pundits have not properly used the idea of "vacuum coherence" in which the cosmological term in Einstein's equation has a subsidiary equation

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Where the tetrad gravity field Cartan 1-form in the sense of Rovelli's book on Quantum Gravity is

euadx^a = Kronecker Deltau^adx^a + (Quantum of Area)(argVacuum Coherence),u

A vanishing Vacuum Coherence means maximally random zero point energy fluctuations from all fields in unstable globally flat spacetime with no gravity.

Critique #1

George Divali wrote:

"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so

confused. Although our standard model of cosmology

has been confirmed by recent observations, it still

has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the universe

is accelerating."

JS: I think I do. http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

GD: "If you throw a stone straight up, the pull

of Earth’s gravity will cause it to slow down; it will not accelerate

away from the planet. Similarly, distant galaxies, thrown

apart by the big bang expansion, should pull on one another

and slow down. Yet they are accelerating apart. Researchers

commonly attribute the acceleration to some mysterious entity

called dark energy, but there is little physics to back up these

fine words."

JS: That is false in my opinion. An exotic vacuum phase with net total cumulative random positive zero point vacuum fluctuation energy density, hence negative pressure with w = -1, from all physical quantum fields does the trick. One must realize that the degree of randomness of the zero point vacuum fluctuations is tempered by the local inflation vacuum coherence field whose phase variation is the dominant smooth c-number non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamic field of Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity upon which precision cosmology is predicated in the equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

GD: "The only thing that is becoming clear is that at the

largest observable distances, gravity behaves in a rather strange

way, turning into a repulsive force."

JS: Agreed. We can also, I bet, do this on a small scale for exotic warp drive time travel through traversable wormholes.

GD: "The laws of physics say that gravity is generated by matter

and energy, so they attribute a strange sort of gravity to a

strange sort of matter or energy. That is the rationale for dark

energy. But maybe the laws themselves need to be changed."

JS: That is "too cheap" as Einstein mistakenly told Bohm. However, I am not mistaken I think in my opinion that a drastic overhaul of the known laws of physics is needed for this problem.

GD: Physicists have a precedent for such a change: the law of gravity

that Newton formulated in the 17th century, which had various

conceptual and experimental limitations, gave way to Einstein’s

general theory of relativity in 1915. Relativity, too, has

limitations; in particular, it runs into trouble when applied to

extremely short distances, which are the domain of quantum

mechanics. Much as relativity subsumed Newtonian physics, a

quantum theory of gravity will ultimately subsume relativity.

Over the years, physicists have come up with a few plausible

approaches to quantum gravity, the most prominent being

string theory."

JS: Smolin, Ashtekar, Baez, Rovelli et-al will strongly disagree on that against Greene, Witten, et-al. Of course neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity have made hard predictions of any facts nor have they provided compelling explanations of the observational mysteries of precision cosmology and particle physics. Yet many of the Guardians of respectability and ideological purity reminiscent of Stalinism in the Soviet Union on the LANL Cornell Archive and in mass media like Scientific American and NOVA PBS are quick to embrace these radical speculations which in fact

are little more than pretty mathematical vaporware.

GD: "When gravity operates over microscopic distances

—for instance, at the center of a black hole, where a huge

mass is packed into a subatomic volume—the bizarre quantum

properties of matter come into play, and string theory describes

how the law of gravity changes.

Over greater distances, string theorists have generally assumed

that quantum effects are unimportant. Yet the cosmological

discoveries of the past several years have encouraged researchers

to reconsider. Four years ago my colleagues and I

asked whether string theory would change the law of gravity

not just on the smallest scales but also on the largest ones. The

feature of string theory that could bring about this revision is

its extra dimensions—additional directions in which particles

can roam. The theory adds six or seven dimensions to the usual

three."

JS: Theorists today are willing to pay any price to avoid signal nonlocality.

GD: In the past, string theorists have argued that the extra dimensions

are too small for us to see or move in. But recent progress

reveals that some or all of the new dimensions could actually

be infinite in size. They are hidden from view not because

they are small but because the particles that make up our bodies

are trapped in three dimensions. The one particle that eludes

confinement is the particle that transmits the force of gravity,

and as a result, the law of gravity changes.

Quintessence Even from Nothingness

WHEN ASTRONOMERS ENCOUNTERED the cosmic acceleration,

their first reaction was to attribute it to the so-called cosmological

constant. Notoriously introduced and then retracted

by Einstein, the constant represents the energy inherent in space

Maybe cosmic acceleration isn’t caused by dark energy after all

but by an inexorable leakage of gravity out of our world

COPYRIGHT 2004 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

GD: "A completely empty volume of space, devoid of all matter,

would still contain this energy—equivalent to roughly 10–26

kilogram per cubic meter. Although the cosmological constant

is consistent with all the existing data so far, many physicists find

it unsatisfying. The problem is its inexplicable smallness,"

JS: This is only a problem because The Pundits have not properly used the idea of "vacuum coherence" in which the cosmological term in Einstein's equation has a subsidiary equation

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Where the tetrad gravity field Cartan 1-form in the sense of Rovelli's book on Quantum Gravity is

euadx^a = Kronecker Deltau^adx^a + (Quantum of Area)(argVacuum Coherence),u

A vanishing Vacuum Coherence means maximally random zero point energy fluctuations from all fields in unstable globally flat spacetime with no gravity.

## Friday, January 30, 2004

PS

Hal’s remark that the randomness of the zero point energy tends toward self-cancellation is obviously wrong. The mean is zero, but the root mean square fluctuation is not zero. Neither Hal Puthoff nor Bernie Haisch have ever explicitly mentioned "vacuum coherence" in any of their published papers nor have they mentioned the role of w = pressure/energy density = -1 for the zero point energy, nor have they explicitly included the virtual electron-positron pairs in spite of Hal's use of "PV" for "Polarized Vacuum" in their allegations that the rest mass of the electron etc and gravity itself emerge from only the transverse electromagnetic zero point fluctuations that they interpret semi-classically as "stochastic electrodynamics" with h as some kind of fudge factor.

Hal’s remark that the randomness of the zero point energy tends toward self-cancellation is obviously wrong. The mean is zero, but the root mean square fluctuation is not zero. Neither Hal Puthoff nor Bernie Haisch have ever explicitly mentioned "vacuum coherence" in any of their published papers nor have they mentioned the role of w = pressure/energy density = -1 for the zero point energy, nor have they explicitly included the virtual electron-positron pairs in spite of Hal's use of "PV" for "Polarized Vacuum" in their allegations that the rest mass of the electron etc and gravity itself emerge from only the transverse electromagnetic zero point fluctuations that they interpret semi-classically as "stochastic electrodynamics" with h as some kind of fudge factor.

Lecture 6 The gravitational influence of virtual zero point exotic vacuum fluctuation stress-energy density.

On Jan 30, 2004, at 4:29 PM, a beginning student zenodestiny wrote:

J.S. All zero point vacuum fluctuations (ZPF) from any quantum field

has

w = -1.

J.H. Now you are contradicting yourself again. In between a capacitor

with the same sign charge on each plate there is a positive energy

density in the zpf. This is coming straight from the horse's mouth.

Jack: Who? Hal Puthoff? This is irrelevant to what I said. Did you mean his

http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html

which completely misses the important idea of "vacuum coherence."

e.g. Puthoff wrote:

"Those with a practical bent of mind may be left with yet one more unanswered question. Can this emerging Rosetta Stone of physics be used to translate such lofty insights into mundane application? Could the engineer of the future specialize in "vacuum engineering?" Could the energy crisis be solved by harnessing the energies of the zero-point sea? After all, since the basic zero-point energy form is highly random in nature, and tending towards self-cancellation, if a way could be found to bring order out of chaos, the, because of the highly energetic nature of the vacuum fluctuations, relatively large effects could in principle be produced. Given our relative ignorance at this point, we must fall back on a quote given by Podolny (12) when contemplating this same issue."

Completely random zpf virtual photon fields do have positive zero point

energy density.

Therefore, they have negative pressure because in that case w = -1.

pressure = w(energy density)

However, the gravity influence of that zpf is

(energy density)(1 + 3w)

Therefore, in that situation you have repulsive anti-gravity.

Charges on plates are completely irrelevant!

In contrast the completely random virtual-electron vacuum polarizationhas negative zpf energy density

again with w = -1 and that has positive pressure hence that will attractively gravitate.

See Milonni's text book "The Quantum Vacuum."

All of the above, including Hal's http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html completely neglects the Vacuum Coherence Field which changes the

story!

Let too(zpf)* be the total random zero point energy density from ALL

physical fields of all spins.

The actual total zero point stress-energy density tensor is then

tuv(zpf) = too(zpf)*[(Loop Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 -

1]guv

The vacuum coherence control parameter X = (Loop Quantum of

Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 has the domain 0 to a large real number

1.

Therefore X - 1 can be negative, zero or positive.

The better way to look at this is the weak field GR Poisson equation

limiting case for the exotic zpf vacuum

Grad^2V(exotic vacuum) ~ c^2/\zpf

/\zpf = (Loop Quantum of Area)^-1[(Loop Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum

Coherence|^2 - 1]

Side problem for a sphere of exotic vacuum with uniform /\zpf of radius R (e.g. the Galactic Halo when /\zpf < 0)

V = -GMeff/r

mtu

r > R

dV/dr = +GMeff1/r^2

d^2V/dr^2 = -2GMeff/r^3

GMeff = (4pi/3)c^2/\R3

There is no electric charge here. There is no Casimir effect here. That is a wrong turn off the true path. All that glitters is not gold. Skim milk masquerades as cream.

Therefore /\zpf < 0 gravitates and /\zpf > 0 anti-gravitates.

On Jan 30, 2004, at 4:29 PM, a beginning student zenodestiny wrote:

J.S. All zero point vacuum fluctuations (ZPF) from any quantum field

has

w = -1.

J.H. Now you are contradicting yourself again. In between a capacitor

with the same sign charge on each plate there is a positive energy

density in the zpf. This is coming straight from the horse's mouth.

Jack: Who? Hal Puthoff? This is irrelevant to what I said. Did you mean his

http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html

which completely misses the important idea of "vacuum coherence."

e.g. Puthoff wrote:

"Those with a practical bent of mind may be left with yet one more unanswered question. Can this emerging Rosetta Stone of physics be used to translate such lofty insights into mundane application? Could the engineer of the future specialize in "vacuum engineering?" Could the energy crisis be solved by harnessing the energies of the zero-point sea? After all, since the basic zero-point energy form is highly random in nature, and tending towards self-cancellation, if a way could be found to bring order out of chaos, the, because of the highly energetic nature of the vacuum fluctuations, relatively large effects could in principle be produced. Given our relative ignorance at this point, we must fall back on a quote given by Podolny (12) when contemplating this same issue."

Completely random zpf virtual photon fields do have positive zero point

energy density.

Therefore, they have negative pressure because in that case w = -1.

pressure = w(energy density)

However, the gravity influence of that zpf is

(energy density)(1 + 3w)

Therefore, in that situation you have repulsive anti-gravity.

Charges on plates are completely irrelevant!

In contrast the completely random virtual-electron vacuum polarizationhas negative zpf energy density

again with w = -1 and that has positive pressure hence that will attractively gravitate.

See Milonni's text book "The Quantum Vacuum."

All of the above, including Hal's http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html completely neglects the Vacuum Coherence Field which changes the

story!

Let too(zpf)* be the total random zero point energy density from ALL

physical fields of all spins.

The actual total zero point stress-energy density tensor is then

tuv(zpf) = too(zpf)*[(Loop Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 -

1]guv

The vacuum coherence control parameter X = (Loop Quantum of

Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 has the domain 0 to a large real number

1.

Therefore X - 1 can be negative, zero or positive.

The better way to look at this is the weak field GR Poisson equation

limiting case for the exotic zpf vacuum

Grad^2V(exotic vacuum) ~ c^2/\zpf

/\zpf = (Loop Quantum of Area)^-1[(Loop Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum

Coherence|^2 - 1]

Side problem for a sphere of exotic vacuum with uniform /\zpf of radius R (e.g. the Galactic Halo when /\zpf < 0)

V = -GMeff/r

mtu

r > R

dV/dr = +GMeff1/r^2

d^2V/dr^2 = -2GMeff/r^3

GMeff = (4pi/3)c^2/\R3

There is no electric charge here. There is no Casimir effect here. That is a wrong turn off the true path. All that glitters is not gold. Skim milk masquerades as cream.

Therefore /\zpf < 0 gravitates and /\zpf > 0 anti-gravitates.

Lecture 5: Rovelli’s History of Quantum Gravity to 1999 pp. 287 – 301

Preamble to Smolin’s and Rovelli’s “Three Royal Roads to Quantum Gravity.”

What does it mean to quantize a theory? This is a top -> down idea. You start with a classical physics theory. What are the key classical theories?

(i) Newton’s test particle mechanics in Galilean relativity with an infinite speed of light, Einstein’s 1905 special relativity with a finite speed of light barrier but without gravity and Einstein’s geometrodynamic 1915 general relativity with gravity.

(ii) Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory that cannot be consistently formulated in Galilean relativity because electromagnetic waves propagate at the finite speed of light that is the same number for all observers independent of their speed or motion or their acceleration. Maxwell’s theory is automatically special relativistic and can be extended to general relativity with gravity as seen in the cosmological red shifts of our expanding universe accelerated by repulsive exotic vacua “dark energy”, and in the gravitational lensing showing clumps of attractive exotic vacuum “dark matter.”

(iii) Yang-Mills field theories of the weak and strong short-range forces.

(iv) Einstein’s geometrodynamic field theory of gravity as the curving of a dynamical space-time that is not merely a rigid stage, like in special relativity where the full action-reaction principle is violated and on which all the other fields play, but is, rather, itself a player in “two-way relation” (Bohm and Hiley) obeying the full action-reaction principle.

The top -> down approach then replaces the real number particle and field “observables” by square arrays of complex numbers called “matrices” that are “representations” or faithful images of certain mathematical groups of transformations of different kinds of “frames of reference” that represent configurations of macroscopic detectors making “measurements” of these observables. The measured numbers are real “eigenvalues” of the square matrix arrays corresponding to columns (or rows) of complex numbers called “eigenstates”. These matrices are “quantum computers” or “gates”. The set of eigenstates are strings of a new kind of non-classical information called “qubits” and they form a “basis” in which the square matrices are “diagonal” i.e. the real eigenvalues are on the diagonal positions and all the off-diagonal positions in the matrix array are zero. A key property is that these eigenstates can be coherently superposed posed to form a set of eigenstates that are a basis for a different set of matrices that represent a different incompatible configuration of detectors. The “basis” spans a “Hilbert space” or “house” or “container” (the “Bayt” of Qabala), as it were, where all the quantum strings “live.” This is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from -- that not all observable properties of a system can be measured simultaneously to arbitrarily high precision, i.e vanishingly small errors. There is also another important counter-intuitive property called “entanglement” (technically a “tensor product of Hilbert spaces” – one space for each part of the entangled whole) in which several quantum systems share a common pool of quantum information and do not have qubit strings of their own. Quantum wholes are greater than the simple sum of their parts. The quantum information comes in two forms called “active” and “inactive.” This is explained in detail in David Bohm’s and Basil Hiley’s “The Undivided Universe.” Entanglement is important in quantum computing applications like “teleportation of qubits” and “untappable cryptography.” It also is the key idea in “environmental decoherence”, which is an attempt, only partly successful, that tries to explain the irreversible thermodynamic flow or “arrow of time” and the “collapse of the quantum state” or “Von Neumann projection”, i.e. why the large-scale world of ordinary experience seems “definite” without us being alive and dead at the same time in the same place as a naÃ¯ve extrapolation of the quantum properties of tiny simple objects suggests. Note that while our inner perceptions of the outer world seem definite without the same object being in two places at the same time, our pure inner conscious thought has quantum superposition in which we hold two, or more, incompatible ideas in our mind’s eye simultaneously as in Hamlet’s speech “To be, or not to be. That is The Question …” On the other hand John Archibald Wheeler says “The Question is: What is The Question.” “Quantum logic” is the study of “quantum binary questions” arranged in a non-Boolean partially-ordered lattice. This is very different from our computers whose logic is that of a Boolean lattice. The non-Boolean lattice, where each question is a node on a graph, has “Isles of Boolean lattices” corresponding to compatible questions that can be answered definitely simultaneously with the same configuration of detectors. There is an approach to quantum gravity called “consistent histories” which consists of a “story line” of questions (Lee Smolin’s “The Three Roads to Quantum Gravity”) the problem is that knowing which questions to ask to tell the story is an insolvable problem, or perhaps I should say, is an undecidable question in the sense of Godel’s “incompleteness theorem” of 1931 and it’s corollaries like the “Halting Problem” of computer theory asking the question “When exactly will the program stop?” So this is what Wheeler is alluding to in his cryptographic remark: “The Question is: What is The Question?”

Now first thing we need to understand in looking at Rovelli’s version of Lee Smolin’s “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity” is that all three roads are top -> down. But there is a Gurdjieffian “Fourth (bottom -> up) Way” of “emergence”, ignored completely by Smolin and Rovelli and All The King’s Men trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again, due to the great Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov and also the Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson. Sakharov called it “metric elasticity”. Anderson called it “More is different” with an information-rich (low thermodynamic entropy) giant quantum coherence field that is local without entanglement with “generalized phase rigidity” making it immune to “environmental decoherence” that in a special case is Sakharov’s metric elasticity and also the “tension” of “string theory”. The fact that the giant quantum coherence field is local automatically explains why the outer world is definite without the same object being in two places at the same time and why we are not alive and dead at the same time like Schrodinger’s Cat out of a story by Lewis Carroll. As Wheeler wrote: “Physics is simple when it is local.” P.W. Anderson’s “More is different” explains why large –scale physics is local without needing Oxford’s David Deutsch’s “excess metaphysical baggage” (Wheeler’s term) of the quantum “Multiverse” of “shadow objects”. This is not to exclude “parallel universes”, but one must be vary careful on how “universe" is defined. It all depends on what you mean by "is". It's the ontology stupid! J

Preamble to Smolin’s and Rovelli’s “Three Royal Roads to Quantum Gravity.”

What does it mean to quantize a theory? This is a top -> down idea. You start with a classical physics theory. What are the key classical theories?

(i) Newton’s test particle mechanics in Galilean relativity with an infinite speed of light, Einstein’s 1905 special relativity with a finite speed of light barrier but without gravity and Einstein’s geometrodynamic 1915 general relativity with gravity.

(ii) Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory that cannot be consistently formulated in Galilean relativity because electromagnetic waves propagate at the finite speed of light that is the same number for all observers independent of their speed or motion or their acceleration. Maxwell’s theory is automatically special relativistic and can be extended to general relativity with gravity as seen in the cosmological red shifts of our expanding universe accelerated by repulsive exotic vacua “dark energy”, and in the gravitational lensing showing clumps of attractive exotic vacuum “dark matter.”

(iii) Yang-Mills field theories of the weak and strong short-range forces.

(iv) Einstein’s geometrodynamic field theory of gravity as the curving of a dynamical space-time that is not merely a rigid stage, like in special relativity where the full action-reaction principle is violated and on which all the other fields play, but is, rather, itself a player in “two-way relation” (Bohm and Hiley) obeying the full action-reaction principle.

The top -> down approach then replaces the real number particle and field “observables” by square arrays of complex numbers called “matrices” that are “representations” or faithful images of certain mathematical groups of transformations of different kinds of “frames of reference” that represent configurations of macroscopic detectors making “measurements” of these observables. The measured numbers are real “eigenvalues” of the square matrix arrays corresponding to columns (or rows) of complex numbers called “eigenstates”. These matrices are “quantum computers” or “gates”. The set of eigenstates are strings of a new kind of non-classical information called “qubits” and they form a “basis” in which the square matrices are “diagonal” i.e. the real eigenvalues are on the diagonal positions and all the off-diagonal positions in the matrix array are zero. A key property is that these eigenstates can be coherently superposed posed to form a set of eigenstates that are a basis for a different set of matrices that represent a different incompatible configuration of detectors. The “basis” spans a “Hilbert space” or “house” or “container” (the “Bayt” of Qabala), as it were, where all the quantum strings “live.” This is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from -- that not all observable properties of a system can be measured simultaneously to arbitrarily high precision, i.e vanishingly small errors. There is also another important counter-intuitive property called “entanglement” (technically a “tensor product of Hilbert spaces” – one space for each part of the entangled whole) in which several quantum systems share a common pool of quantum information and do not have qubit strings of their own. Quantum wholes are greater than the simple sum of their parts. The quantum information comes in two forms called “active” and “inactive.” This is explained in detail in David Bohm’s and Basil Hiley’s “The Undivided Universe.” Entanglement is important in quantum computing applications like “teleportation of qubits” and “untappable cryptography.” It also is the key idea in “environmental decoherence”, which is an attempt, only partly successful, that tries to explain the irreversible thermodynamic flow or “arrow of time” and the “collapse of the quantum state” or “Von Neumann projection”, i.e. why the large-scale world of ordinary experience seems “definite” without us being alive and dead at the same time in the same place as a naÃ¯ve extrapolation of the quantum properties of tiny simple objects suggests. Note that while our inner perceptions of the outer world seem definite without the same object being in two places at the same time, our pure inner conscious thought has quantum superposition in which we hold two, or more, incompatible ideas in our mind’s eye simultaneously as in Hamlet’s speech “To be, or not to be. That is The Question …” On the other hand John Archibald Wheeler says “The Question is: What is The Question.” “Quantum logic” is the study of “quantum binary questions” arranged in a non-Boolean partially-ordered lattice. This is very different from our computers whose logic is that of a Boolean lattice. The non-Boolean lattice, where each question is a node on a graph, has “Isles of Boolean lattices” corresponding to compatible questions that can be answered definitely simultaneously with the same configuration of detectors. There is an approach to quantum gravity called “consistent histories” which consists of a “story line” of questions (Lee Smolin’s “The Three Roads to Quantum Gravity”) the problem is that knowing which questions to ask to tell the story is an insolvable problem, or perhaps I should say, is an undecidable question in the sense of Godel’s “incompleteness theorem” of 1931 and it’s corollaries like the “Halting Problem” of computer theory asking the question “When exactly will the program stop?” So this is what Wheeler is alluding to in his cryptographic remark: “The Question is: What is The Question?”

Now first thing we need to understand in looking at Rovelli’s version of Lee Smolin’s “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity” is that all three roads are top -> down. But there is a Gurdjieffian “Fourth (bottom -> up) Way” of “emergence”, ignored completely by Smolin and Rovelli and All The King’s Men trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again, due to the great Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov and also the Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson. Sakharov called it “metric elasticity”. Anderson called it “More is different” with an information-rich (low thermodynamic entropy) giant quantum coherence field that is local without entanglement with “generalized phase rigidity” making it immune to “environmental decoherence” that in a special case is Sakharov’s metric elasticity and also the “tension” of “string theory”. The fact that the giant quantum coherence field is local automatically explains why the outer world is definite without the same object being in two places at the same time and why we are not alive and dead at the same time like Schrodinger’s Cat out of a story by Lewis Carroll. As Wheeler wrote: “Physics is simple when it is local.” P.W. Anderson’s “More is different” explains why large –scale physics is local without needing Oxford’s David Deutsch’s “excess metaphysical baggage” (Wheeler’s term) of the quantum “Multiverse” of “shadow objects”. This is not to exclude “parallel universes”, but one must be vary careful on how “universe" is defined. It all depends on what you mean by "is". It's the ontology stupid! J

The new issue of Scientific American Feb 2004 has several very relevant articles on all this.

On Jan 30, 2004, at 8:20 AM, Johan M ...wrote:

I appreciate your comments and have responded marked ***.

On Jan 29, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Johan M... wrote:

"Dear Jack,

I have just read the first chapter in your book and agree with you that the task of reconciling QM with GR is most important. If you read my paper and also studiedwww.estfound.orgyou will realize that we might be very close to this goal. But, we have to take a few steps backward and ask some fundamental soul-searching questions. For example, how can time have a beginning and how can something be created from nothing I think Parmenides was right: He reasoned: Only being is - non-being is not. But, if only being is, there can be nothing outside this being that articulates it or could bring about change. Hence being must be conceived as eternal, uniform and unlimited in space and time."

Jack: I think you should read Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" about stuff like that. Also chaotic inflation is that picture on a very large scale of an infinity of parallel Hubble bubble universes with baby universes sprouting off at different levels. See Max Tegmark's article in May 2003 Scientific American.

JM :The answer proposed by my .. theory is that the cosmological expansion is a scale expansion:

ds^2=S(t)(dt^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)"

Jack: I think is this called a conformal dilation?

The problem is that your equation here is probably not a cosmological large-scale solution to Einstein's field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv + 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv = 0

JM: I agree, Einstein's equation is based on a continuous manifold, but both you and I know that the quantum world is discontinuous. So, Einstein's equations cannot model the universe at the quantum level. In the EST this is overcome by extending GR to include discrete scale changes, which do not alter the equations. This corresponds to discrete changes in the pace of proper time."

Jack: Your error here is in confusing scales. You have confused the cosmological scale with the tiny micro-quantum scales. The simple fact is that Einstein's equation as I wrote it above agrees with all the known observational facts to about 2% error as shown in all the references I have given you. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

that is in accord with the observational facts of precision cosmology.

"JM: But, it is not in accord with facts. There are many severe disagreements with observations. See my web pagewww.estfound.orgor for example Alan Lightman's book "Ancient light". In fact, the disagreement with observations should be an embarrassment. I will list a few:

Fundamental problems:

-The creation event.

-There is no explanation to the progression of time.

-The incompatibility between GR and QM.

Cosmological problems:

-The horizon problem and its "fix" - Inflation theory

-The Omega problem

-The age problem

-Galaxy formation

-Dark Matter

-Dark Energy

-Accelerating universe

-Preceded by decelerating universe.

Observational discrepancies with the standard model predictions:

-The angular size test

-The number count test

-The surface brightness test

-The supernovae Ia observations

-Metal rich old galaxies

-The CMB smoothness

-Galaxies in the Hubble far field are too small

As you see the problems with the big bang picture are many and are steadily increasing the more we learn."

Jack: I strongly disagree with your assessment of the facts here. Yes, there are issues like the dark energy and dark matter whose nature I have explained as standard exotic vacuum micro-quantum zero point fluctuation effects consistent with battle-tested physics especially Einstein's equation that I wrote above. Inflation theory is working very well! Most of the problems you list above have in fact been solved. Most importantly I do not see how your simple metric solves any of these problems.

JM: "S(t)=exp(t/T); T=Hubble time "

Jack: What is your definition of "Hubble time"? Is it a constant in your model? How do you measure it?

JM: "This models a universe in which the metrics of space and time change with time. However, this line element is GR equivalent only if the temporal expansion is discrete.

t+=t-+delta t

With this discrete model the GR equations never change - the universe always remains the same."

Jack: Your argument here makes no sense to me.

That contradicts observations. How do you explain cosmic black body radiation and its temperature fluctuations all over the sky? How do you explain the spectra of Type Ia supernovae and all the other facts shown on http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/ ?

JM: "***The CMB is easy to explain since Planck's spectrum is preserved in a scale expanding cosmos. It is the natural relaxation spectrum. The universe is in thermal equilibrium where radiated energy equals energy lost by tired light redshift.

The SNe Ia observations have unfortunately been misinterpreted. They presume:

a. That SNe Ia are standard candles. This is not true; 20+/-7% are more powerful and 16+/- 7% less powerful, see Li et. al., 2000, astro-ph 0006292

b. That there is time dilation, which is not the case in the EST universe.

The SNe Ia observations were obtained by taking photos of the night sky to detect sources that increase in strength and then fades. This will favor more luminous SNe with wider light curves. The lightcurve widths are then adjusted for time dilation. The conclusion that the cosmological expansion accelerates is based on this procedure. However, the wider light curves might have been chosen by selection bias and without time dilation there is no discrepancy with the EST model. In the EST we see what we expect to see in the SNe Ia observations."

Jack: Thanks, but no thanks. Talk to the experts in the field on that like Saul Perlmutter at Berkeley. Also I see no evidence that the universe as a whole on all scales is in thermal equilibrium even though we see the large-scale cosmic microwave background. The CMB T is not the "temperature of the universe".

How do you explain the "organic" large-scale structure of cosmic walls, filaments and voids that looks like an electron microscope image of a biological cell?

JM: ***If the universe is eternal these huge structures may form over very long times.

Jack: Scientifically meaningless as a proper explanation. Much too vague.

JM: "Thus, the EST universe could be eternal, resolving Parmenides puzzle. Also, since the progression of time occurs in scale "beyond spacetime" it is no wonder that it cannot be modeled by GR.

The EST universe agrees with observations much better than the Big Bang model and also explains the Pioneer anomaly.

This could have fundamental impact on quantum gravity since it no longer is the 3-space that changes with the cosmological expansion, but the 4-space of GR is updated at a high frequency. Furthermore, discrete scale expansion may operate across the spacetime of GR regardless of coordinate representation. What we give up is the continuous GR manifold. What we gain is better agreement with observations, the resolution of fundamental cosmological enigmas, and a clear link between GR and QM."

Jack: Scientifically meaningless as a proper explanation. Much too vague. I have no idea of what you are talking about with your use of "high frequency".

JM: "How would this approach work out in the context of your quantum loop theory?"

Jack: It's not my loop theory. There are a large number of Big Shots working on it. I am just learning it.

First of all real the three articles by Turner, Schwarzschild and Perlmutter in the April 2003 Physics Today on the observed facts and then show how your math model is consistent with those facts. :-)

You can see some of that data in myhttp://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

JM: " What I think should be of most interest to anyone working on quantum gravity is that the use of a scale increment rather than a time increment (with the progression of time) will preserve the four-dimensional GR manifold and its diffeomorphism. There is no longer a need to partition spacetime artificially into time and space. This would eliminate a very severe problem with quantum gravity."

Jack: Scientifically meaningless as a proper explanation. Much too vague. I have no idea of what you are talking about.

On Jan 30, 2004, at 8:20 AM, Johan M ...wrote:

I appreciate your comments and have responded marked ***.

On Jan 29, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Johan M... wrote:

"Dear Jack,

I have just read the first chapter in your book and agree with you that the task of reconciling QM with GR is most important. If you read my paper and also studiedwww.estfound.orgyou will realize that we might be very close to this goal. But, we have to take a few steps backward and ask some fundamental soul-searching questions. For example, how can time have a beginning and how can something be created from nothing I think Parmenides was right: He reasoned: Only being is - non-being is not. But, if only being is, there can be nothing outside this being that articulates it or could bring about change. Hence being must be conceived as eternal, uniform and unlimited in space and time."

Jack: I think you should read Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" about stuff like that. Also chaotic inflation is that picture on a very large scale of an infinity of parallel Hubble bubble universes with baby universes sprouting off at different levels. See Max Tegmark's article in May 2003 Scientific American.

JM :The answer proposed by my .. theory is that the cosmological expansion is a scale expansion:

ds^2=S(t)(dt^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)"

Jack: I think is this called a conformal dilation?

The problem is that your equation here is probably not a cosmological large-scale solution to Einstein's field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv + 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv = 0

JM: I agree, Einstein's equation is based on a continuous manifold, but both you and I know that the quantum world is discontinuous. So, Einstein's equations cannot model the universe at the quantum level. In the EST this is overcome by extending GR to include discrete scale changes, which do not alter the equations. This corresponds to discrete changes in the pace of proper time."

Jack: Your error here is in confusing scales. You have confused the cosmological scale with the tiny micro-quantum scales. The simple fact is that Einstein's equation as I wrote it above agrees with all the known observational facts to about 2% error as shown in all the references I have given you. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

that is in accord with the observational facts of precision cosmology.

"JM: But, it is not in accord with facts. There are many severe disagreements with observations. See my web pagewww.estfound.orgor for example Alan Lightman's book "Ancient light". In fact, the disagreement with observations should be an embarrassment. I will list a few:

Fundamental problems:

-The creation event.

-There is no explanation to the progression of time.

-The incompatibility between GR and QM.

Cosmological problems:

-The horizon problem and its "fix" - Inflation theory

-The Omega problem

-The age problem

-Galaxy formation

-Dark Matter

-Dark Energy

-Accelerating universe

-Preceded by decelerating universe.

Observational discrepancies with the standard model predictions:

-The angular size test

-The number count test

-The surface brightness test

-The supernovae Ia observations

-Metal rich old galaxies

-The CMB smoothness

-Galaxies in the Hubble far field are too small

As you see the problems with the big bang picture are many and are steadily increasing the more we learn."

Jack: I strongly disagree with your assessment of the facts here. Yes, there are issues like the dark energy and dark matter whose nature I have explained as standard exotic vacuum micro-quantum zero point fluctuation effects consistent with battle-tested physics especially Einstein's equation that I wrote above. Inflation theory is working very well! Most of the problems you list above have in fact been solved. Most importantly I do not see how your simple metric solves any of these problems.

JM: "S(t)=exp(t/T); T=Hubble time "

Jack: What is your definition of "Hubble time"? Is it a constant in your model? How do you measure it?

JM: "This models a universe in which the metrics of space and time change with time. However, this line element is GR equivalent only if the temporal expansion is discrete.

t+=t-+delta t

With this discrete model the GR equations never change - the universe always remains the same."

Jack: Your argument here makes no sense to me.

That contradicts observations. How do you explain cosmic black body radiation and its temperature fluctuations all over the sky? How do you explain the spectra of Type Ia supernovae and all the other facts shown on http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/ ?

JM: "***The CMB is easy to explain since Planck's spectrum is preserved in a scale expanding cosmos. It is the natural relaxation spectrum. The universe is in thermal equilibrium where radiated energy equals energy lost by tired light redshift.

The SNe Ia observations have unfortunately been misinterpreted. They presume:

a. That SNe Ia are standard candles. This is not true; 20+/-7% are more powerful and 16+/- 7% less powerful, see Li et. al., 2000, astro-ph 0006292

b. That there is time dilation, which is not the case in the EST universe.

The SNe Ia observations were obtained by taking photos of the night sky to detect sources that increase in strength and then fades. This will favor more luminous SNe with wider light curves. The lightcurve widths are then adjusted for time dilation. The conclusion that the cosmological expansion accelerates is based on this procedure. However, the wider light curves might have been chosen by selection bias and without time dilation there is no discrepancy with the EST model. In the EST we see what we expect to see in the SNe Ia observations."

Jack: Thanks, but no thanks. Talk to the experts in the field on that like Saul Perlmutter at Berkeley. Also I see no evidence that the universe as a whole on all scales is in thermal equilibrium even though we see the large-scale cosmic microwave background. The CMB T is not the "temperature of the universe".

How do you explain the "organic" large-scale structure of cosmic walls, filaments and voids that looks like an electron microscope image of a biological cell?

JM: ***If the universe is eternal these huge structures may form over very long times.

Jack: Scientifically meaningless as a proper explanation. Much too vague.

JM: "Thus, the EST universe could be eternal, resolving Parmenides puzzle. Also, since the progression of time occurs in scale "beyond spacetime" it is no wonder that it cannot be modeled by GR.

The EST universe agrees with observations much better than the Big Bang model and also explains the Pioneer anomaly.

This could have fundamental impact on quantum gravity since it no longer is the 3-space that changes with the cosmological expansion, but the 4-space of GR is updated at a high frequency. Furthermore, discrete scale expansion may operate across the spacetime of GR regardless of coordinate representation. What we give up is the continuous GR manifold. What we gain is better agreement with observations, the resolution of fundamental cosmological enigmas, and a clear link between GR and QM."

Jack: Scientifically meaningless as a proper explanation. Much too vague. I have no idea of what you are talking about with your use of "high frequency".

JM: "How would this approach work out in the context of your quantum loop theory?"

Jack: It's not my loop theory. There are a large number of Big Shots working on it. I am just learning it.

First of all real the three articles by Turner, Schwarzschild and Perlmutter in the April 2003 Physics Today on the observed facts and then show how your math model is consistent with those facts. :-)

You can see some of that data in myhttp://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

JM: " What I think should be of most interest to anyone working on quantum gravity is that the use of a scale increment rather than a time increment (with the progression of time) will preserve the four-dimensional GR manifold and its diffeomorphism. There is no longer a need to partition spacetime artificially into time and space. This would eliminate a very severe problem with quantum gravity."

Jack: Scientifically meaningless as a proper explanation. Much too vague. I have no idea of what you are talking about.

## Thursday, January 29, 2004

Lecture 4: Gauge Symmetries and Invariances as Plato’s Theory of Forms

See 2.1.3 on p. 28 and study the complex list on p. 29 with the three kinds of gauge symmetries and how they act differently on the set of fundamental objects .

(i) are the spin gauge force symmetries that can be viewed as internal symmetries of Lie group G, or as symmetries in extra dimensions like in the Kaluza-Klein hyperspace Geometrodynamics of electric charge from the radius R of a curled up (AKA “compactified”) fourth space dimension. This has been generalized to “Calabi-Yau” spaces of “string theory” in the sense of Brian Greene’s NOVA PBS TV show “The Elegant Universe.” The gravity field tetrad e from locally gauging the translation group T4 and the spin connection W for parallel transport in warped base space-time from the Lie algebra of the tangent vector fiber space Lorentz group of rotations in 4D space-time are invariants under these Yang-Mills electro-weak-strong spin 1 gauge force symmetry transformations. See eqs. (2.47) to (2.51) on p.29. Note (2.49) how the gauge force potentials, AKA the connection field for parallel transport along paths in the extra dimensions, do not transform homogeneously like a multi-linear tensor of the group G.

(ii) LIF Lorentz transformation in the quasi-flat tangent vector fiber space to the warped base space-time. I use the term “quasi-flat” because the local curvature tensor, if it does not vanish, can still be locally measured in a LIF whose approximate metric is that of globally flat special relativity. See eqs. (2.52) to (2.56) on p. 29. Note (2.56) how the so(3,1) spin connection transforms inhomogeneously under O(3,1). This is what Tesla & “Philadelphia Experiment” expert” Jim Corum called the “anholonomic object” in his Ph.D. electrical engineering thesis under John Kraus at Ohio State that caused a lot of confusion at ISSO’s UFO Physics Project in 1999-2000. See my two books “Destiny Matrix” and “Space-Time and Beyond II” both published 2002 for that story. Kraus’s radio telescope also got the “WOW” possible ET signal I think in the 1970’s? Nick Herbert, author of “Quantum Realty” also worked on that telescope for Kraus.

(iii) Finally the vexing “active” (“pullback”) nonlocal x -> x’ =/= x Diffeomorphisms and their relation to the local passive general coordinate transformations at fixed space-time event x that even seemed to confuse Einstein for awhile. Look at (2.57) to (2.61) on p. 29. Note (2.61) which is a tensor transformation, but only on the one LNIF index. The two other indices are LIF in class (ii) above. Go back to the mixed LIF/LNIF equation (2.56) in (ii) for the O(3,1) Group LIF -> LIF’ transformations at fixed x. Note there is a typo error in the indices in Rovelli’s (2.56). Let o denote a O(3,1) LIF -> LIF’ transformation.

W^IvJ -> o^IKWv^KLo^LJ + o^Iko^KJ,v (2.56)

The first term on the RHS is the homogeneous multi-linear O(3,1) tensor transformation. The second term on the RHS is the inhomogeneous part that spoils the O(3,1) tensor property for the spin connection field for these tangent space fiber transformations.

How do we get Einstein’s 1915 Levi-Civita Christoffel connection field {^uvw} for parallel transport of tensors in the curved (warped) LNIF “base” space-time? What is the relation of it to the spin connection? On p. 27 eq. (2.42) is

{^uvw} = e^lJ e^J^u(elIe^I(,v w) + ewIe ^I[,vl] + evIe^I[,wl])

( ) is symmetrized anti-commutator of the LNIF Diff(4)indices and [ ] is the anti-symmetrized commutator of the indices. The comma denotes ordinary partial differentiation. Note, for example that e^I(,v w) means (1/2)[e^Iw,v + e^Iv,w]. Applying eq. (2.60) to eq. (2.42) gives a non-tensor transformation under the Diff(4) gauge symmetry group that is similar in form to eq. (2.56) for a different group of course!

Note that the active Diff(4) symmetry group of (iii) comes from locally gauging the global T4 translation group of the Poincare space-time symmetry group of special relativity. T4 is intertwined with the O(3,1) Lorentz group as a semi-direct product, which is why the spin connection valued in the Lorentz group comes into the notion of parallel transport even in the curved space-time. Look again at eq. (2.3) on p. 23 for the covariant derivative

DuV^I = V^I,u + Wu^IJV^J i.e. (2.3) p. 23 in a mixed LNIF/LIF representation.

V^I = e^IvV^v (S8a)

Therefore

V^I,u = (V^ve^Iv),u (S8b)

Wu^IJ = Wu^vwe^IveJ^w (S8c)

V^J = V^v’e^Jv’ (S8d)

Therefore (2.3) is equivalent to

Du e^IvV^v = (V^ve^Iv),u + Wu^vwe^IveJ^w V^v’e^Jv’ (S8e)

Assume metricity, so that

Due^Iv = 0 (S8f)

Therefore, by the chain rule of elementary calculus

Du e^IvV^v = e^IvDuV^v (S8g)

Also by the product rule of elementary calculus

(V^ve^Iv),u = e^IvV^v,u + e^Iv,uV^v (S8h)

Therefore

e^IvDuV^v = e^IvV^v,u + e^Iv,uV^v + e^IvWu^vweJ^w V^v’e^Jv’ (S8i)

Hence

DuV^v = V^v,u + Wu^vweJ^w e^Jl V^l + eI^v^e^Il,uV^l (S8j)

However, we know that

DuV^v = V^v,u + {^vul}V^l (S8k)

Therefore

{^vul} = Wu^vweJ^w e^Jl + eI^v^e^Il,u (S8l)

We now have deduced the relationship between the connection field in the curved base space-time and the spin connection in the tangent vector bundle as the above inhomogeneous non-tensor expression. Whew! Let me wipe the sweat off my brow.

“Elegance is for tailors.” ;-)

See 2.1.3 on p. 28 and study the complex list on p. 29 with the three kinds of gauge symmetries and how they act differently on the set of fundamental objects .

(i) are the spin gauge force symmetries that can be viewed as internal symmetries of Lie group G, or as symmetries in extra dimensions like in the Kaluza-Klein hyperspace Geometrodynamics of electric charge from the radius R of a curled up (AKA “compactified”) fourth space dimension. This has been generalized to “Calabi-Yau” spaces of “string theory” in the sense of Brian Greene’s NOVA PBS TV show “The Elegant Universe.” The gravity field tetrad e from locally gauging the translation group T4 and the spin connection W for parallel transport in warped base space-time from the Lie algebra of the tangent vector fiber space Lorentz group of rotations in 4D space-time are invariants under these Yang-Mills electro-weak-strong spin 1 gauge force symmetry transformations. See eqs. (2.47) to (2.51) on p.29. Note (2.49) how the gauge force potentials, AKA the connection field for parallel transport along paths in the extra dimensions, do not transform homogeneously like a multi-linear tensor of the group G.

(ii) LIF Lorentz transformation in the quasi-flat tangent vector fiber space to the warped base space-time. I use the term “quasi-flat” because the local curvature tensor, if it does not vanish, can still be locally measured in a LIF whose approximate metric is that of globally flat special relativity. See eqs. (2.52) to (2.56) on p. 29. Note (2.56) how the so(3,1) spin connection transforms inhomogeneously under O(3,1). This is what Tesla & “Philadelphia Experiment” expert” Jim Corum called the “anholonomic object” in his Ph.D. electrical engineering thesis under John Kraus at Ohio State that caused a lot of confusion at ISSO’s UFO Physics Project in 1999-2000. See my two books “Destiny Matrix” and “Space-Time and Beyond II” both published 2002 for that story. Kraus’s radio telescope also got the “WOW” possible ET signal I think in the 1970’s? Nick Herbert, author of “Quantum Realty” also worked on that telescope for Kraus.

(iii) Finally the vexing “active” (“pullback”) nonlocal x -> x’ =/= x Diffeomorphisms and their relation to the local passive general coordinate transformations at fixed space-time event x that even seemed to confuse Einstein for awhile. Look at (2.57) to (2.61) on p. 29. Note (2.61) which is a tensor transformation, but only on the one LNIF index. The two other indices are LIF in class (ii) above. Go back to the mixed LIF/LNIF equation (2.56) in (ii) for the O(3,1) Group LIF -> LIF’ transformations at fixed x. Note there is a typo error in the indices in Rovelli’s (2.56). Let o denote a O(3,1) LIF -> LIF’ transformation.

W^IvJ -> o^IKWv^KLo^LJ + o^Iko^KJ,v (2.56)

The first term on the RHS is the homogeneous multi-linear O(3,1) tensor transformation. The second term on the RHS is the inhomogeneous part that spoils the O(3,1) tensor property for the spin connection field for these tangent space fiber transformations.

How do we get Einstein’s 1915 Levi-Civita Christoffel connection field {^uvw} for parallel transport of tensors in the curved (warped) LNIF “base” space-time? What is the relation of it to the spin connection? On p. 27 eq. (2.42) is

{^uvw} = e^lJ e^J^u(elIe^I(,v w) + ewIe ^I[,vl] + evIe^I[,wl])

( ) is symmetrized anti-commutator of the LNIF Diff(4)indices and [ ] is the anti-symmetrized commutator of the indices. The comma denotes ordinary partial differentiation. Note, for example that e^I(,v w) means (1/2)[e^Iw,v + e^Iv,w]. Applying eq. (2.60) to eq. (2.42) gives a non-tensor transformation under the Diff(4) gauge symmetry group that is similar in form to eq. (2.56) for a different group of course!

Note that the active Diff(4) symmetry group of (iii) comes from locally gauging the global T4 translation group of the Poincare space-time symmetry group of special relativity. T4 is intertwined with the O(3,1) Lorentz group as a semi-direct product, which is why the spin connection valued in the Lorentz group comes into the notion of parallel transport even in the curved space-time. Look again at eq. (2.3) on p. 23 for the covariant derivative

DuV^I = V^I,u + Wu^IJV^J i.e. (2.3) p. 23 in a mixed LNIF/LIF representation.

V^I = e^IvV^v (S8a)

Therefore

V^I,u = (V^ve^Iv),u (S8b)

Wu^IJ = Wu^vwe^IveJ^w (S8c)

V^J = V^v’e^Jv’ (S8d)

Therefore (2.3) is equivalent to

Du e^IvV^v = (V^ve^Iv),u + Wu^vwe^IveJ^w V^v’e^Jv’ (S8e)

Assume metricity, so that

Due^Iv = 0 (S8f)

Therefore, by the chain rule of elementary calculus

Du e^IvV^v = e^IvDuV^v (S8g)

Also by the product rule of elementary calculus

(V^ve^Iv),u = e^IvV^v,u + e^Iv,uV^v (S8h)

Therefore

e^IvDuV^v = e^IvV^v,u + e^Iv,uV^v + e^IvWu^vweJ^w V^v’e^Jv’ (S8i)

Hence

DuV^v = V^v,u + Wu^vweJ^w e^Jl V^l + eI^v^e^Il,uV^l (S8j)

However, we know that

DuV^v = V^v,u + {^vul}V^l (S8k)

Therefore

{^vul} = Wu^vweJ^w e^Jl + eI^v^e^Il,u (S8l)

We now have deduced the relationship between the connection field in the curved base space-time and the spin connection in the tangent vector bundle as the above inhomogeneous non-tensor expression. Whew! Let me wipe the sweat off my brow.

“Elegance is for tailors.” ;-)

On Jan 29, 2004, at 6:47 PM, ... wrote:

Dear Jack,

"I have just read the first chapter in your book and agree with you that the task of reconciling QM with GR is most important. If you read my paper and also studiedwww.estfound.orgyou will realize that we might be very close to this goal. But, we have to take a few steps backward and ask some fundamental soul-searching questions. For example, how can time have a beginning and how can something be created from nothing."

Did you know that Werner Erhard had an "est Foundation"?

"I think Parmenides was right: He reasoned: Only being is - non-being is not. But, if only being is, there can be nothing outside this being that articulates it or could bring about change. Hence being must be conceived as eternal, uniform and unlimited in space and time."

I think you should read Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" about stuff like that.

"The answer proposed by my EST theory is that the cosmological expansion is a scale expansion:

ds^2=S(t)(dt^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) "

I think is this called a conformal dilation? The problem is that your equation here is probably not a cosmological large-scale solution to Einstein's field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv + 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv = 0

that is in accord with the observational facts of precision cosmology.

"S(t)=exp(t/T); T=Hubble time

This models a universe in which the metrics of space and time change with time. However, this line element is GR equivalent only if the temporal expansion is discrete.

t+=t-+delta t

With this discrete model the GR equations never change - the universe always remains the same."

That contradicts observations. How do you explain cosmic black body radiation and its temperature fluctuations all over the sky? How do you explain the spectra of Type Ia supernovae and all the other facts shown on http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/ ?

How do you explain the "organic" large-scale structure of cosmic walls, filaments and voids that looks like an electron microscope image of a biological cell?

"Thus, the EST universe could be eternal, resolving Parmenides puzzle. Also, since the progression of time occurs in scale "beyond spacetime" it is no wonder that it cannot be modeled by GR. The EST universe agrees with observations much better than the Big Bang model and also explains the Pioneer anomaly. This could have fundamental impact on quantum gravity since it no longer is the 3-space that changes with the cosmological expansion, but the 4-space of GR is updated at a high frequency. Furthermore, discrete scale expansion may operate across the spacetime of GR regardless of coordinate representation. What we give up is the continuous GR manifold. What we gain is better agreement with observations, the resolution of fundamental cosmological enigmas, and a clear link between GR and QM. How would this approach work out in the context of your quantum loop theory?"

It's not my loop theory. There are a large number of Big Shots working on it. I am just learning it.

First of all read the three articles by Turner, Schwarzschild and Perlmutter in the April 2003 Physics Today on the observed facts and then show how your math model is consistent with those facts. :-)

You can see some of that data in my http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

Lecture 3 is at the end. I have also modified Lectures 1 and 2. Please delete previous versions.

Also the page references to Rovelli's text book for this "Star Fleet Academy" course have

been fixed to match Rovelli's and not Adobe's labeling. Rovelli makes a "mistake"

it seems in confusing the tangent spaces of LIFs with the base space of LNIFs in the

sense of MTW's "Gravitation". Perhaps it is only a linguistic problem with Rovelli's

English or perhaps it is something deep I have missed. So I give this Caveat.

Sarfatti Lecture 1 on the Zero Point Dark Energy Metric Engineering of UFOs

“the article's online version at

http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-1carroll/ .

Owing to the fact that a Living Reviews article can evolve over time, we

recommend to cite the article as follows:

Carroll, S.M.,

“The Cosmological Constant",

Living Rev. Relativity, 4, (2001),

“General relativity is a paradigmatic example of a scientific theory of impressive

power and simplicity. The cosmological constant, meanwhile, is a paradigmatic

example of a modification, originally introduced [81] to help fit the data, which appears at least on the surface to be superfluous and unattractive. Its original role, to allow static homogeneous solutions to Einstein's equations in the presence of matter, turned out to be unnecessary when the expansion of the universe was discovered [131], and there have been a number of subsequent episodes in which a nonzero cosmological constant was put forward as an explanation for a set of observations and later withdrawn when the observational case evaporated. Meanwhile, particle theorists have realized that the cosmological constant can be interpreted as a measure of the energy density of the vacuum. This energy density is the sum of a number of apparently unrelated contributions, each of magnitude much larger than the upper limits on the cosmological

constant today; the question of why the observed vacuum energy is so small in comparison to the scales of particle physics has become a celebrated puzzle, although it is usually thought to be easier to imagine an unknown mechanism which would set it precisely to zero than one which would suppress it by just the right amount to yield an observationally accessible cosmological constant. This checkered history has led to a certain reluctance to consider further invocations of a nonzero cosmological constant; however, recent years have provided the best evidence yet that this elusive quantity does play an important dynamical role in the universe.”

Note in the above excerpt:

“particle theorists have realized that the cosmological constant can be interpreted as a measure of the energy density of the vacuum. This energy density is the sum of a number of apparently unrelated contributions, each of magnitude much larger than the upper limits on the cosmological constant today; the question of why the observed vacuum energy is so small in comparison to the scales of particle physics has become a celebrated puzzle”

I allege I have solved this problem using the idea of “vacuum coherence” missing from the orthodox theory in the precise way I use it. The idea of “vacuum condensate” is in orthodox theory. It is a related idea, but not exactly the way I mean it.

Einstein’s GR local geometrodynamical field equation with the cosmological term /\guv is

Ruv – (1/2)Rguv + /\guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv (1)

Impose the large-scale coarse-grained isotropic homogeneous Friedman-Robert-Walker solution

ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + a^2(t)Ro^2[(dr)^2/(1 – kr^2) + r^2dO^2] (2)

r is dimensionless and the Her Majesty’s Royal Navy’s navigational “celestial sphere” spherical angular line element is

dO^2 = (dtheta)^2 + (sintheta)^2(dphi)^2 (3)

in usual polar coordinates for latitude theta and longitude phi on the 2D sphere of unit radius. a(t) is dimensionless = R(t)/Ro. Subscript o means “now”. k is +1 (closed universe in 3D like a sphere) or 0 (spatially flat like an infinite plane in Euclid’s geometry) or – 1 like a hyperboloid. Both k = 0 and k = -1 are open universes of infinite spatial extent.

The cosmological redshift z of retarded radiation from a co-moving source in the “Hubble flow” where the Cosmic Black Body Radiation (CBR) is maximally isotropic from the past till now obeys the equation

a(past) = [1 + z(now)]^-1 (4)

The symmetric stress-energy density tensor Tuv for “stuff” on the RHS of eq (1) is of the form

Tuv = (energy density + pressure)UuUv + pressure guv

= (energy density)[(1 + w)UuUv + wguv] (5)

Uv is the dimensionless 4-velocity dx^u/ds of this “cosmic fluid” stuff.

w = 0 for cold matter (6a)

w = 1/3 for electromagnetic radiation (far field) (6b)

w = -1 for any kind of zero point vacuum fluctuation (ZPF) of any quantum field including string and brane fields (6c)

An “exotic vacuum” is any kind of virtual stuff with w = -1 and a non-vanishing pressure.

Virtual stuff will not make any particle detector click, but it still has “dark” gravity and anti-gravity properties bending EM radiation signals for example. Dark matter exotic vacuum in a clump will act like a convex converging gravity lens. Dark energy in a clump will act like a diverging gravity lens. Dark matter makes a gravity red shift and dark energy makes a gravity blue shift.

The global cosmic time t (~ 1/(Absolute temperature of CBR) as a convenient measure) dependent Hubble parameter is

H(t) = a^-1(da/dt) (7)

Einstein’s tensor field equation (1) forced into the highly symmetric “Killing vector field” mold of FRW eq (2) simplifies to TWO ordinary differential equations:

H^2 = 8pi(G/c^2)(energy density) + c^2/\/3 –kc^2/a^2Ro^2 (8a)

Note that H^2 is analogous to Newton’s Laplacian of the Gravity Potential Energy of ANY Source Stuff (real or virtual in sense of quantum field theory’s “on” or “off” “mass shell”) per unit test particle that has dimensions of (time)^-2. But an even closer fit analogy to Newton’s Poisson equation in this spatially homogeneous strictly large-scale approximation is the second equation

a^-1d^2a/dt^2 = -(4pi/3)(G/c^2)[(energy density) + 3(pressure)] + c^2/\/3

= -(4pi/3)(G/c^2)(energy density)[(1 + 3w) + c^2/\/3 (8b)

to be continued

PROBLEM SET #1

1.1 Term Paper Project # 1

What does Hal Puthoff write about zero point energy and gravity and its relation to “interstellar flight” and UFOs?

Go to http://www.earthtech.org/publications/

Also download all articles by Eric Davis at

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/articles3.html

Compare what Puthoff and Davis profess with the physics in these lectures.

Sarfatti Lecture 2 on Metric Engineering the Zero Point Dark Energy

Rovelli’s formalism in http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf

Note indices I,J,K,L… are in the LIF representation and indices u,v,w, l are in the LNIF representation. The two are connected by Einstein’s local version of the equivalence principle. “Physics is simple when it is local.” (John A. Wheeler). There is also a global version of the equivalence principle that Hal Puthoff prefers that I shall not use unless explicitly noted. Problems of interpretation arise as mentioned by Paul Zielinski because the local tidal curvature tensor is an absolute distinction between a timelike geodesic LIF near a large source mass warping space-time and a timelike geodesic LIF far away from that same large source mass. Similarly with LNIFs near and far from the same large source mass.

e^I(x) = eu^I(x)dx^u = “gravitational field” Cartan 1-form in the LIF representation i.e. his eq. 2.1 p. 23

I in Minkowski “LIF”space, but Rovelli says u in Tangent vector space TxM not in base space M. This is odd since the local tangent space has the Minkowski metric and the curved base space has guv metric.

*Note that the locally variable tetrad components eu^I(x) and its inverse eI^u(x) at space-time event x express Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP) of the passive transformation between the Locally Inertial Frame (LIF) that is non-rotating on a timelike geodesic and a momentarily concident Locally Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) that can be rotating and whose center is on a timelike non-geodesic that intersects the timelike geodesic at x. This is not the same as the active “gauge-equivalent” diffeomorphisms where x -> x’ =/= x.

The globally flat solution is

eu^I(x) = (Kronecker Delta)u^I i.e. eq 2.44 p. 27

With a globally vanishing spin-connection WIJ = 0 in a region of space-time not only at a point or on timelike geodesic world lines.

My elastic-plastic Kleinert “world crystal” distortion field must be in the LNIF representation on the LHS

L^u(x) = [e^uI(x) - (Kronecker Delta)^uI]dx^I

= (Loop Gravity Quantum of Area)arg(Vacuum Coherence),u (S1a)

,u is ordinary partial derivative in the LNIF representation

L^I(x) = eu^I L^u(x) (S1b) in the LIF representation,

Next introduce the antisymmetric Lorentz group algebra “spin connection” that will apply to spinning tops for example. The spin connection is also a Cartan 1-form

W^IJ(x) = Wu^Ijdx^u i.e. eq. (2.2) p. 23

There are 6 of these generators of the Lie algebra so(3,1)of the 6 parameter Lorentz group of 3 space-time rotations (boosts) and 3 space-space rotations (total angular momentum)

WIJ = - WJI (S2) in the LIF representation.

Note that L^u(x) is the local gauge force compensating field restoring the broken 4-parameter translation group symmetry T4. However, while the T4 and so(3,1) are intertwined as a “semi-direct product” and as seen in the Thomas precession and the Sagnac effect, there is no local gauge force compensating field for Lie algebra so(3,1) when we use a torsion-free spin connection to define the tidal force tensor curvature that intimately uses so(3,1). Thus, the generally covariant partial derivative of General Relativity in the Cartan formalism starts from

DuV^I = V^I,u + Wu^IJV^J i.e. (2.3) p. 23 in a mixed LNIF/LIF representation.

More generally the generally covariant Cartan exterior derivative on a 1-form v^I is the 2-form

DV^I = dV^I + W^IJ/\V^J i.e. (2.4) p. 24 in the LIF representation

Where d is the Cartan exterior derivative and /\ is the wedge product. Do not confuse this “/\” the exterior wedge product with “/\zpf” the “metric engineering” random micro-quantum zero point exotic vacuum dark energy/matter induced curvature scale. What is the relation of /\ to Clifford algebra? Note that the Lorentz group Lie algebra so(3,1) is the fundamental connection field from the breaking of the global symmetry of T4 whose Lie algebra is total energy-momentum. This total “mom-energy” (Wheeler) is not a natural concept in General Relativity because locally variable curvature breaks global translational symmetry even though curvature’s definition involves the rotations of so(3,1) since local curvature is the anholonomy disclination “Berry phase” in the orientation of a vector parallel transported around a closed space-time loop as the area of the loop shrinks to zero. Torsion T^I means that the loop in tangent fiber space is broken or dislocated for a closed loop in base space or vice versa. That is, with torsion, closed loops do not map to closed loops in parallel transport.

The condition of zero torsion gauge force field is the vanishing Cartan torsion field 2-form

T^I = De^I = de^I + W^IJ/\e^J = 0 i.e. (2.6) p. 24

Again note that it is the spin connection from so(3,1) that plays the vital role!

Finally the tidal relative acceleration or timelike geodesic deviation is also a Cartan 2-form from the zero torsion so(3,1) spin connection (which allows fermions as well as bosons)

R^IJ = dW^IJ + W^IK/\W^KJ i.e. (2.8) p. 24

i.e. tidal curvature is the nonlinear self-organizing spin connection covariant exterior derivative on itself! This is why there are curved vacuums independent of real mass-energy sources! Gravity acts on itself in a non-Abelian way.

The Einstein local field equation with the zero point energy cosmological /\zpf term is in Cartan formalism is the Euler-Lagrange equation

[IJKL]e^I/\R^J^K + /\zpf e^I/\e^J/\e^K = 0 i.e. (2.9) p. 24

where [IJKL] is the anti-symmetric 4-symbol

Note the cubic nonlinearity in the zero point energy /\ “metric engineering” term.

The dynamical action density is ~

e^I/\e^J/\R^K^L + /\zpf e^I/\e^J/\e^K/\e^L contracted with [IJKL] to make an invariant scalar i.e. eq. (2.10) p. 24

Sarfatti Lecture 3 on Metric Engineering Super Cosmos

Rovelli in Footnote 3 p. 42 in http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf makes an important remark for metric engineering that the space-time stiffness factor is only important in the coupling of ordinary mass-energy to the warped spacetime geometrodynamic field. The space-time stiffness factor is G/c^4 with the dimensions of length/energy = (string tension)^-1 = Witten’s alpha’/hc ~ (Loop Quantum of Area)/hc.

Coupling of gravity warped space-time to ordinary mass-energy sources. Here one can think of the Kaluza-Klein extra space dimensions or, alternatively, internal dimensions, which is not as “geometrodynamic” lacking a common super-metric.

1. Electromagnetism spin 1 compensating gauge force field from breaking global U(1) phase symmetry: here the so(3,1) spin connection WIJ is replaced by the U(1) “Maxwell potential” connection Cartan 1-form in the extra dimensions

A(x) = Au(x)dx^u i.e. eq. (2.25) p. 26

This 1x1 connection field for parallel transport in the extra dimensions restores the broken global U(1) symmetry generated by electric charge just as the so(3,1) spin connection restores the broken global T4 symmetry generated by mom-energy. A(x)’s globally flat exterior U(1) gauge-invariant derivative is the EM field tensor internal (fiber)curvature 2-form:

F = dA = Fuvdx^u/\dx^v (S3a)

Fuv = Au,v – Av,u (S3b)

The dynamical action density is

Lem = (1/4)F*/\F i.e.

Where F* is the Hodge star transform, in flat spacetime

F*IJ = [IJKL]F^K^L i.e. eq. (3) p. xiv

* Always with summation over repeated lower and upper pairs of tensor indices.

And in curved spacetime

Fuv* = (-detg)^1/2[uvwl]F^w&l = |dete|[uvwl]F^w&l i.e. eq. (4) p. xiv

2. Yang-Mills non-Abelian e.g. G -> SU(2) weak beta decay radioactive spin 1 W+0- bosons “flavor” gauge force, or G -> SU(3) gluon “color” strong sub-nuclear spin 1 gauge force, have the connection field 1-form A(YM) that is a matrix representation of the Lie algebra of whatever the Lie group G is e.g. (2.27) p. 26.

3. See also the boson scalar spin 1 fields and the fermion O(3,1) Lorentz group spinor fields on p. 26.

The complete local Einstein field equation with the ordinary mass-energy source term and the exotic vacuum random micro-quantum zero point dark energy/matter term in Cartan form notation is in the locally quasi-flat non-rotating timelike geodesic “LIF” (Local Inertial Frame) is the Cartan 3-form equation

[IJKL](e^I/\R^J^K + /\zpf e^I/\e^J/\e^K) = 8pi(G/c^4)TI i.e. eq. (2.34) p. 27

Where the source stress-energy density Cartan 3-form is

TI = T^uI[uvwl]dx^v/\dx^w/\dx^w i.e. eq. (2.35) p. 27

This stress-energy density 3-form comes from the functional derivative of the dynamical action of the ordinary matter-energy S(matter) with respect to the tetrad gravity field eu^I(x), i.e. in mixed LIF/LNIF representation

T^uI(x) = &S(matter)/&eu^I(x) (2.36) p. 27

The stress-energy density tensor of ordinary vacuum is zero. The Yilmaz theory is plain wrong IMHO. There is a micro-quantum stress-energy tensor for exotic vacuum of course that is in pure LNIF representation

Tuv(Exotic Vacuum Zero Point Energy) ~ (String Tension)/\zpf guv (S4)

What is the anti-symmetric spin-connection.? Let o(3,1)IJ be the 6 independent generator elements of the Lie Algebra of the Lorentz group O(3,1). I propose for consideration

WIJ(x) = [IJKL]eK^u(x)eL^u(argVacuum Coherence)[,u,v] (S5) ????

Where [ , ] is the anti-symmetrizer or commutator of the partial derivatives ,u and ,v.

This is a “Goldstone” phase anholonomy where the mixed partial derivatives of the MACRO-QUANTUM vacuum coherent phase are not equal. This only happens in string superfluid “vortex cores” that are topological defects where the virtual off-mass-shell superfluid condensate inflation field “Higgs” amplitude |Vacuum Coherence| -> 0 inside a “coherence length”. This picture of string defects for the complex numbered Vacuum Coherence inflation field fits Hagen Kleinert’s world crystal lattice long-wave Infra Red (IR) curvature and torsion as string disclination and dislocation lattice defect densities.

WIJ(x) = WIJ(x)disclination + WIJ(x)dislocation (S6)

This idea gets us to the key notion of nonlocal string holonomies and “Wilson loops”of lattice gauge theory and the resolution scale dependent “wavelet transform” renormalization group flows to “fixed points”. Rovelli in 1.2.1 on pp. 10-11 traces the origin of this idea back to Michael Faraday’s idea of the “field” as “lines of force” in the early 19th Century. Given any connection field Cartan 1-form, the “holonomy” is the parallel transport of the “force vector” around a closed string loop. Now one can, no doubt, probably generalize this “holonomy” to higher-dimensional “branes” like in the Clifford Algebra “Extended Relativity” of Castro and Pavsic, for example, and in other probably equivalent algebraic matrix formalisms.

In Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) the nonlocal holonomy becomes a quantum matrix operator and an elementary closed string loop quantum state |l> is where the “force vector” vanishes everywhere except on the closed string loop. An example is shown in Fig 1.1 with equation (1.6) on p. 11. Now our example in eq. (S6) is an inverted image of what Rovelli is talking about. We have a phase singularity or anholonomy in which the Higgs amplitude |Vacuum Coherence| vanishes on the closed string loop so that the mixed second order partial derivatives of the Goldstone phase of the Vacuum Coherence field are not equal.

3D “pre-space-like” SU(2) group quantum bit (qubit) computer spintronic networks (I use “spintronic” rather than “spin” to call attention to the technology applications pursued with DARPA funding) are coherent superpositions of these elementary loop states. These become interesting when the loops intertwine and intersect and form “knots”. One can form a finite-norm orthogonal basis of a separable Hilbert space of these 3D spintronic network quantum computer states in the pre-geometry prior to the emergence of classical c-number warped space-time provided that there is a world crystal lattice structure whose unit cells do not vanish in the continuum limit. That is there is an indivisible “Loop Gravity Quantum of Area”.

One can do continuous active diffeomorphisms on these discrete lattice qubit spintronic network states. Infinitesimal active diffeomorphisms on a spintronic net make “gauge group equivalent representation” of the same nonlocal network state. These equivalent representations that are connected by infinitesimal active diffeomorphisms equivalence relation ~ must be factored out in a “quotient set = set/~” of “cosets” algebraic process.

See Rovelli’s argument on p. 12 how these ideas of gauge equivalence of infinitesimal continuous active diffeomorphisms with a quantum of area in a discrete combinatoric qubit computing network pre-space-time lead to a separable kosher quantum Hilbert space of spintronic networks that permit a dynamical “background independent” quantum gravity theory and indeed a background independent quantum field string theory for all fields in a purely relational frame work. Rovelli pictures pre-space-time as the Hobbes-Melville “Great Leviathan” the “Great White Whale” “Big Fish” with the other fermion and boson fields like smaller fish clinging to it and sliding relative to it and each other.

The condition that the loops cannot shrink in area to zero also leads to the Witten M-theory string duality generalized “conformal inversion”

w = z + z^-1 uncertainty principle in which

Uncertainty in position ~ h/(uncertainty in momentum) + (cWitten alpha’)(uncertainty in momentum) (S7a)

And its dual:

Uncertainty in momentum = h/(uncertainty in position) + (1/cWitten alpha’)(uncertainty in position) (S7b)

Recall that:

Witten alpha’ = (String Tension)^-1 = (Loop Gravity Quantum of Area)/hc (S7c)

cWitten alpha’ = Loop Gravity Quantum of Area/h (S7d)

Also the page references to Rovelli's text book for this "Star Fleet Academy" course have

been fixed to match Rovelli's and not Adobe's labeling. Rovelli makes a "mistake"

it seems in confusing the tangent spaces of LIFs with the base space of LNIFs in the

sense of MTW's "Gravitation". Perhaps it is only a linguistic problem with Rovelli's

English or perhaps it is something deep I have missed. So I give this Caveat.

Sarfatti Lecture 1 on the Zero Point Dark Energy Metric Engineering of UFOs

“the article's online version at

http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume4/2001-1carroll/ .

Owing to the fact that a Living Reviews article can evolve over time, we

recommend to cite the article as follows:

Carroll, S.M.,

“The Cosmological Constant",

Living Rev. Relativity, 4, (2001),

“General relativity is a paradigmatic example of a scientific theory of impressive

power and simplicity. The cosmological constant, meanwhile, is a paradigmatic

example of a modification, originally introduced [81] to help fit the data, which appears at least on the surface to be superfluous and unattractive. Its original role, to allow static homogeneous solutions to Einstein's equations in the presence of matter, turned out to be unnecessary when the expansion of the universe was discovered [131], and there have been a number of subsequent episodes in which a nonzero cosmological constant was put forward as an explanation for a set of observations and later withdrawn when the observational case evaporated. Meanwhile, particle theorists have realized that the cosmological constant can be interpreted as a measure of the energy density of the vacuum. This energy density is the sum of a number of apparently unrelated contributions, each of magnitude much larger than the upper limits on the cosmological

constant today; the question of why the observed vacuum energy is so small in comparison to the scales of particle physics has become a celebrated puzzle, although it is usually thought to be easier to imagine an unknown mechanism which would set it precisely to zero than one which would suppress it by just the right amount to yield an observationally accessible cosmological constant. This checkered history has led to a certain reluctance to consider further invocations of a nonzero cosmological constant; however, recent years have provided the best evidence yet that this elusive quantity does play an important dynamical role in the universe.”

Note in the above excerpt:

“particle theorists have realized that the cosmological constant can be interpreted as a measure of the energy density of the vacuum. This energy density is the sum of a number of apparently unrelated contributions, each of magnitude much larger than the upper limits on the cosmological constant today; the question of why the observed vacuum energy is so small in comparison to the scales of particle physics has become a celebrated puzzle”

I allege I have solved this problem using the idea of “vacuum coherence” missing from the orthodox theory in the precise way I use it. The idea of “vacuum condensate” is in orthodox theory. It is a related idea, but not exactly the way I mean it.

Einstein’s GR local geometrodynamical field equation with the cosmological term /\guv is

Ruv – (1/2)Rguv + /\guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv (1)

Impose the large-scale coarse-grained isotropic homogeneous Friedman-Robert-Walker solution

ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + a^2(t)Ro^2[(dr)^2/(1 – kr^2) + r^2dO^2] (2)

r is dimensionless and the Her Majesty’s Royal Navy’s navigational “celestial sphere” spherical angular line element is

dO^2 = (dtheta)^2 + (sintheta)^2(dphi)^2 (3)

in usual polar coordinates for latitude theta and longitude phi on the 2D sphere of unit radius. a(t) is dimensionless = R(t)/Ro. Subscript o means “now”. k is +1 (closed universe in 3D like a sphere) or 0 (spatially flat like an infinite plane in Euclid’s geometry) or – 1 like a hyperboloid. Both k = 0 and k = -1 are open universes of infinite spatial extent.

The cosmological redshift z of retarded radiation from a co-moving source in the “Hubble flow” where the Cosmic Black Body Radiation (CBR) is maximally isotropic from the past till now obeys the equation

a(past) = [1 + z(now)]^-1 (4)

The symmetric stress-energy density tensor Tuv for “stuff” on the RHS of eq (1) is of the form

Tuv = (energy density + pressure)UuUv + pressure guv

= (energy density)[(1 + w)UuUv + wguv] (5)

Uv is the dimensionless 4-velocity dx^u/ds of this “cosmic fluid” stuff.

w = 0 for cold matter (6a)

w = 1/3 for electromagnetic radiation (far field) (6b)

w = -1 for any kind of zero point vacuum fluctuation (ZPF) of any quantum field including string and brane fields (6c)

An “exotic vacuum” is any kind of virtual stuff with w = -1 and a non-vanishing pressure.

Virtual stuff will not make any particle detector click, but it still has “dark” gravity and anti-gravity properties bending EM radiation signals for example. Dark matter exotic vacuum in a clump will act like a convex converging gravity lens. Dark energy in a clump will act like a diverging gravity lens. Dark matter makes a gravity red shift and dark energy makes a gravity blue shift.

The global cosmic time t (~ 1/(Absolute temperature of CBR) as a convenient measure) dependent Hubble parameter is

H(t) = a^-1(da/dt) (7)

Einstein’s tensor field equation (1) forced into the highly symmetric “Killing vector field” mold of FRW eq (2) simplifies to TWO ordinary differential equations:

H^2 = 8pi(G/c^2)(energy density) + c^2/\/3 –kc^2/a^2Ro^2 (8a)

Note that H^2 is analogous to Newton’s Laplacian of the Gravity Potential Energy of ANY Source Stuff (real or virtual in sense of quantum field theory’s “on” or “off” “mass shell”) per unit test particle that has dimensions of (time)^-2. But an even closer fit analogy to Newton’s Poisson equation in this spatially homogeneous strictly large-scale approximation is the second equation

a^-1d^2a/dt^2 = -(4pi/3)(G/c^2)[(energy density) + 3(pressure)] + c^2/\/3

= -(4pi/3)(G/c^2)(energy density)[(1 + 3w) + c^2/\/3 (8b)

to be continued

PROBLEM SET #1

1.1 Term Paper Project # 1

What does Hal Puthoff write about zero point energy and gravity and its relation to “interstellar flight” and UFOs?

Go to http://www.earthtech.org/publications/

Also download all articles by Eric Davis at

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/articles3.html

Compare what Puthoff and Davis profess with the physics in these lectures.

Sarfatti Lecture 2 on Metric Engineering the Zero Point Dark Energy

Rovelli’s formalism in http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf

Note indices I,J,K,L… are in the LIF representation and indices u,v,w, l are in the LNIF representation. The two are connected by Einstein’s local version of the equivalence principle. “Physics is simple when it is local.” (John A. Wheeler). There is also a global version of the equivalence principle that Hal Puthoff prefers that I shall not use unless explicitly noted. Problems of interpretation arise as mentioned by Paul Zielinski because the local tidal curvature tensor is an absolute distinction between a timelike geodesic LIF near a large source mass warping space-time and a timelike geodesic LIF far away from that same large source mass. Similarly with LNIFs near and far from the same large source mass.

e^I(x) = eu^I(x)dx^u = “gravitational field” Cartan 1-form in the LIF representation i.e. his eq. 2.1 p. 23

I in Minkowski “LIF”space, but Rovelli says u in Tangent vector space TxM not in base space M. This is odd since the local tangent space has the Minkowski metric and the curved base space has guv metric.

*Note that the locally variable tetrad components eu^I(x) and its inverse eI^u(x) at space-time event x express Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP) of the passive transformation between the Locally Inertial Frame (LIF) that is non-rotating on a timelike geodesic and a momentarily concident Locally Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF) that can be rotating and whose center is on a timelike non-geodesic that intersects the timelike geodesic at x. This is not the same as the active “gauge-equivalent” diffeomorphisms where x -> x’ =/= x.

The globally flat solution is

eu^I(x) = (Kronecker Delta)u^I i.e. eq 2.44 p. 27

With a globally vanishing spin-connection WIJ = 0 in a region of space-time not only at a point or on timelike geodesic world lines.

My elastic-plastic Kleinert “world crystal” distortion field must be in the LNIF representation on the LHS

L^u(x) = [e^uI(x) - (Kronecker Delta)^uI]dx^I

= (Loop Gravity Quantum of Area)arg(Vacuum Coherence),u (S1a)

,u is ordinary partial derivative in the LNIF representation

L^I(x) = eu^I L^u(x) (S1b) in the LIF representation,

Next introduce the antisymmetric Lorentz group algebra “spin connection” that will apply to spinning tops for example. The spin connection is also a Cartan 1-form

W^IJ(x) = Wu^Ijdx^u i.e. eq. (2.2) p. 23

There are 6 of these generators of the Lie algebra so(3,1)of the 6 parameter Lorentz group of 3 space-time rotations (boosts) and 3 space-space rotations (total angular momentum)

WIJ = - WJI (S2) in the LIF representation.

Note that L^u(x) is the local gauge force compensating field restoring the broken 4-parameter translation group symmetry T4. However, while the T4 and so(3,1) are intertwined as a “semi-direct product” and as seen in the Thomas precession and the Sagnac effect, there is no local gauge force compensating field for Lie algebra so(3,1) when we use a torsion-free spin connection to define the tidal force tensor curvature that intimately uses so(3,1). Thus, the generally covariant partial derivative of General Relativity in the Cartan formalism starts from

DuV^I = V^I,u + Wu^IJV^J i.e. (2.3) p. 23 in a mixed LNIF/LIF representation.

More generally the generally covariant Cartan exterior derivative on a 1-form v^I is the 2-form

DV^I = dV^I + W^IJ/\V^J i.e. (2.4) p. 24 in the LIF representation

Where d is the Cartan exterior derivative and /\ is the wedge product. Do not confuse this “/\” the exterior wedge product with “/\zpf” the “metric engineering” random micro-quantum zero point exotic vacuum dark energy/matter induced curvature scale. What is the relation of /\ to Clifford algebra? Note that the Lorentz group Lie algebra so(3,1) is the fundamental connection field from the breaking of the global symmetry of T4 whose Lie algebra is total energy-momentum. This total “mom-energy” (Wheeler) is not a natural concept in General Relativity because locally variable curvature breaks global translational symmetry even though curvature’s definition involves the rotations of so(3,1) since local curvature is the anholonomy disclination “Berry phase” in the orientation of a vector parallel transported around a closed space-time loop as the area of the loop shrinks to zero. Torsion T^I means that the loop in tangent fiber space is broken or dislocated for a closed loop in base space or vice versa. That is, with torsion, closed loops do not map to closed loops in parallel transport.

The condition of zero torsion gauge force field is the vanishing Cartan torsion field 2-form

T^I = De^I = de^I + W^IJ/\e^J = 0 i.e. (2.6) p. 24

Again note that it is the spin connection from so(3,1) that plays the vital role!

Finally the tidal relative acceleration or timelike geodesic deviation is also a Cartan 2-form from the zero torsion so(3,1) spin connection (which allows fermions as well as bosons)

R^IJ = dW^IJ + W^IK/\W^KJ i.e. (2.8) p. 24

i.e. tidal curvature is the nonlinear self-organizing spin connection covariant exterior derivative on itself! This is why there are curved vacuums independent of real mass-energy sources! Gravity acts on itself in a non-Abelian way.

The Einstein local field equation with the zero point energy cosmological /\zpf term is in Cartan formalism is the Euler-Lagrange equation

[IJKL]e^I/\R^J^K + /\zpf e^I/\e^J/\e^K = 0 i.e. (2.9) p. 24

where [IJKL] is the anti-symmetric 4-symbol

Note the cubic nonlinearity in the zero point energy /\ “metric engineering” term.

The dynamical action density is ~

e^I/\e^J/\R^K^L + /\zpf e^I/\e^J/\e^K/\e^L contracted with [IJKL] to make an invariant scalar i.e. eq. (2.10) p. 24

Sarfatti Lecture 3 on Metric Engineering Super Cosmos

Rovelli in Footnote 3 p. 42 in http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf makes an important remark for metric engineering that the space-time stiffness factor is only important in the coupling of ordinary mass-energy to the warped spacetime geometrodynamic field. The space-time stiffness factor is G/c^4 with the dimensions of length/energy = (string tension)^-1 = Witten’s alpha’/hc ~ (Loop Quantum of Area)/hc.

Coupling of gravity warped space-time to ordinary mass-energy sources. Here one can think of the Kaluza-Klein extra space dimensions or, alternatively, internal dimensions, which is not as “geometrodynamic” lacking a common super-metric.

1. Electromagnetism spin 1 compensating gauge force field from breaking global U(1) phase symmetry: here the so(3,1) spin connection WIJ is replaced by the U(1) “Maxwell potential” connection Cartan 1-form in the extra dimensions

A(x) = Au(x)dx^u i.e. eq. (2.25) p. 26

This 1x1 connection field for parallel transport in the extra dimensions restores the broken global U(1) symmetry generated by electric charge just as the so(3,1) spin connection restores the broken global T4 symmetry generated by mom-energy. A(x)’s globally flat exterior U(1) gauge-invariant derivative is the EM field tensor internal (fiber)curvature 2-form:

F = dA = Fuvdx^u/\dx^v (S3a)

Fuv = Au,v – Av,u (S3b)

The dynamical action density is

Lem = (1/4)F*/\F i.e.

Where F* is the Hodge star transform, in flat spacetime

F*IJ = [IJKL]F^K^L i.e. eq. (3) p. xiv

* Always with summation over repeated lower and upper pairs of tensor indices.

And in curved spacetime

Fuv* = (-detg)^1/2[uvwl]F^w&l = |dete|[uvwl]F^w&l i.e. eq. (4) p. xiv

2. Yang-Mills non-Abelian e.g. G -> SU(2) weak beta decay radioactive spin 1 W+0- bosons “flavor” gauge force, or G -> SU(3) gluon “color” strong sub-nuclear spin 1 gauge force, have the connection field 1-form A(YM) that is a matrix representation of the Lie algebra of whatever the Lie group G is e.g. (2.27) p. 26.

3. See also the boson scalar spin 1 fields and the fermion O(3,1) Lorentz group spinor fields on p. 26.

The complete local Einstein field equation with the ordinary mass-energy source term and the exotic vacuum random micro-quantum zero point dark energy/matter term in Cartan form notation is in the locally quasi-flat non-rotating timelike geodesic “LIF” (Local Inertial Frame) is the Cartan 3-form equation

[IJKL](e^I/\R^J^K + /\zpf e^I/\e^J/\e^K) = 8pi(G/c^4)TI i.e. eq. (2.34) p. 27

Where the source stress-energy density Cartan 3-form is

TI = T^uI[uvwl]dx^v/\dx^w/\dx^w i.e. eq. (2.35) p. 27

This stress-energy density 3-form comes from the functional derivative of the dynamical action of the ordinary matter-energy S(matter) with respect to the tetrad gravity field eu^I(x), i.e. in mixed LIF/LNIF representation

T^uI(x) = &S(matter)/&eu^I(x) (2.36) p. 27

The stress-energy density tensor of ordinary vacuum is zero. The Yilmaz theory is plain wrong IMHO. There is a micro-quantum stress-energy tensor for exotic vacuum of course that is in pure LNIF representation

Tuv(Exotic Vacuum Zero Point Energy) ~ (String Tension)/\zpf guv (S4)

What is the anti-symmetric spin-connection.? Let o(3,1)IJ be the 6 independent generator elements of the Lie Algebra of the Lorentz group O(3,1). I propose for consideration

WIJ(x) = [IJKL]eK^u(x)eL^u(argVacuum Coherence)[,u,v] (S5) ????

Where [ , ] is the anti-symmetrizer or commutator of the partial derivatives ,u and ,v.

This is a “Goldstone” phase anholonomy where the mixed partial derivatives of the MACRO-QUANTUM vacuum coherent phase are not equal. This only happens in string superfluid “vortex cores” that are topological defects where the virtual off-mass-shell superfluid condensate inflation field “Higgs” amplitude |Vacuum Coherence| -> 0 inside a “coherence length”. This picture of string defects for the complex numbered Vacuum Coherence inflation field fits Hagen Kleinert’s world crystal lattice long-wave Infra Red (IR) curvature and torsion as string disclination and dislocation lattice defect densities.

WIJ(x) = WIJ(x)disclination + WIJ(x)dislocation (S6)

This idea gets us to the key notion of nonlocal string holonomies and “Wilson loops”of lattice gauge theory and the resolution scale dependent “wavelet transform” renormalization group flows to “fixed points”. Rovelli in 1.2.1 on pp. 10-11 traces the origin of this idea back to Michael Faraday’s idea of the “field” as “lines of force” in the early 19th Century. Given any connection field Cartan 1-form, the “holonomy” is the parallel transport of the “force vector” around a closed string loop. Now one can, no doubt, probably generalize this “holonomy” to higher-dimensional “branes” like in the Clifford Algebra “Extended Relativity” of Castro and Pavsic, for example, and in other probably equivalent algebraic matrix formalisms.

In Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) the nonlocal holonomy becomes a quantum matrix operator and an elementary closed string loop quantum state |l> is where the “force vector” vanishes everywhere except on the closed string loop. An example is shown in Fig 1.1 with equation (1.6) on p. 11. Now our example in eq. (S6) is an inverted image of what Rovelli is talking about. We have a phase singularity or anholonomy in which the Higgs amplitude |Vacuum Coherence| vanishes on the closed string loop so that the mixed second order partial derivatives of the Goldstone phase of the Vacuum Coherence field are not equal.

3D “pre-space-like” SU(2) group quantum bit (qubit) computer spintronic networks (I use “spintronic” rather than “spin” to call attention to the technology applications pursued with DARPA funding) are coherent superpositions of these elementary loop states. These become interesting when the loops intertwine and intersect and form “knots”. One can form a finite-norm orthogonal basis of a separable Hilbert space of these 3D spintronic network quantum computer states in the pre-geometry prior to the emergence of classical c-number warped space-time provided that there is a world crystal lattice structure whose unit cells do not vanish in the continuum limit. That is there is an indivisible “Loop Gravity Quantum of Area”.

One can do continuous active diffeomorphisms on these discrete lattice qubit spintronic network states. Infinitesimal active diffeomorphisms on a spintronic net make “gauge group equivalent representation” of the same nonlocal network state. These equivalent representations that are connected by infinitesimal active diffeomorphisms equivalence relation ~ must be factored out in a “quotient set = set/~” of “cosets” algebraic process.

See Rovelli’s argument on p. 12 how these ideas of gauge equivalence of infinitesimal continuous active diffeomorphisms with a quantum of area in a discrete combinatoric qubit computing network pre-space-time lead to a separable kosher quantum Hilbert space of spintronic networks that permit a dynamical “background independent” quantum gravity theory and indeed a background independent quantum field string theory for all fields in a purely relational frame work. Rovelli pictures pre-space-time as the Hobbes-Melville “Great Leviathan” the “Great White Whale” “Big Fish” with the other fermion and boson fields like smaller fish clinging to it and sliding relative to it and each other.

The condition that the loops cannot shrink in area to zero also leads to the Witten M-theory string duality generalized “conformal inversion”

w = z + z^-1 uncertainty principle in which

Uncertainty in position ~ h/(uncertainty in momentum) + (cWitten alpha’)(uncertainty in momentum) (S7a)

And its dual:

Uncertainty in momentum = h/(uncertainty in position) + (1/cWitten alpha’)(uncertainty in position) (S7b)

Recall that:

Witten alpha’ = (String Tension)^-1 = (Loop Gravity Quantum of Area)/hc (S7c)

cWitten alpha’ = Loop Gravity Quantum of Area/h (S7d)

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)