Writing from Dingle Bay, Ireland:
Penrose has a new book "The Road to Reality" that looks really good. It was too heavy for me to carry in luggage with my two other Wheeler 90th and Hawking 60th books, I shall order Penrose's book ASAP. All three will shape my own "Hidden Variable."
Fiction: String Theory.
I agree with Penrose, String Theory is really interesting pure math, but so far no evidence for it. No evidence for real on mass-shell-supersymmetry partners. Since supersymmetry is badly broken it probably won't make an infinity-free quantum field theory anyway. Penrose did not mention loop quantum gravity, but same objections apply to it. Penrose did mention that Ed. Witten is now in past 6 months using Twistors to get rid of the 11 dimensions and bring it back to 4 dimensions? Raising the supersymmetry partner mass scale all the time makes string theory Popper unfalsifiable said Penrose.
Fatih: That quantum theory applies at ALL levels like Hawking assumes in his "breakthrough" that information is not lost down a blackhole, but can be recovered after the black hole evaporates. My theory says linear unitary nonlocal micro-quantum theory (Schrodinger-Dirac equations) breaks down to nonlinear nonunitary local macro-quantum theory (Landau-Ginzburg equation) when the macro-world Einstein curved space-time non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamics emerges from it in a spontaneous breakdown of the unstable false globally flat vacuum without gravity guv and without inertia rest mass m in E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 mass shell to a lower energy density lower entropy metastable curved vacuum with exotic dark energy of negative ZPF pressure and exotic dark matter of positive ZPF pressure (not to be confused with the QED Casimir force).
In particular micro-quantum gravity and cosmology is an illusion. Macro-quantum gravity and cosmology is not. Penrose does not say this. I say it, but it is consistent with Penrose's intuition in his talk at GR 17 that a breakdown of micro-quantum theory at the macro-level is needed. This is why Hawking's solution at GR 17 is wrong in my opinion.
Fantasy: "Theoretical physics needs some fantasy, otherwise it is boring." said Penrose. I have often expressed the same sentiment. Penrose considers Andrei Linde's et-al inflation "fantasy" even though it may make some correct predictions like the scaling symmetry in the primordial fluctuations and spatial flatness, it still does not explain the fine tuning needed to set the arrow of time, i.e. the irreversibility of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Penrose points out that it is the geometry of space that must have low entropy in the Big Bang because the matter thermalizes quickly to high entropy. In my theory the geometry of space is from the phase ripples in the phase of the zero entropy giant quantum vacuum wave so this may solve Penrose's problem though I am not yet sure. That is, the phase transition from unstable globally flat micro-quantum vacuum to a more stable curved macro-quantum vacuum not only lowers the relative ZPF energy density but also lowers the relative entropy S ~ Bklog(Volume of Phase Space of the Vacuum).
For a universe of size R(t)Lp in the FRW metric, the Hawking entropy of the geometry is
S(t) = kR(t)^2/4
S(0) = 0
kB is Boltzmann's constant.
To be continued
On Jul 22, 2004, at 4:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Part 1 of several
First of all no one really understood what Hawking was saying in detail. This included Kip Thorne, John Preskill, Matt Visser and many others. The jury is still out. Hawking's paper with the details will be out in a month.
There are several levels of objections:
1. Can one apply micro-quantum theory to the universe at large? The "particle" or "hidden variable" in Bohm's ontology is an entire 3D space geometry which extends to billions of light years across as universe expands. So we run into the Schrodinger Cat problem with a vengeance! Hawking basically presented a huge quantum double slit analogy with one "slit" being topologically simple 3D metrics and the other "slit" being topologically multiply connected with a "fixed point" obstruction in the Euclidean signature domain without causal light cones before continuing into physical space-time with light cones where we live. Also there is the condensed matter approach of Sakharov and me that gravity is a PW Anderson "More is different" emergent collective ODLRO phenomenon from a pre-inflationary epoch without any gravity and without any inertial rest masses! The latter suggests no quantum foam corrections to cosmic ray spectrum at ultra-high energies and no dark matter as real particles whizzing through space to make detectors click with the right stuff.
2. Suppose we accept 1. Then can we use the Feynman path integral method to include topologically non-trivial 3D metrics that coherently interfere with the topologically simple ones? Matt Visser cited some old work by Bryce De Witt that says it is not possible.
3. Kip Thorne noted that Feynman's path integral is broader than conventional quantum theory that requires unitarity in the dynamical time evolution. One can have a post-quantum theory using Feynman's path integral of alternative histories that has nonunitary time evolution! Hawking simply assumes that the time evolution MUST be unitary and goes from there. Hawking's argument is probably correct given his initial assumptions. It is the initial assumptions that I think are wrong as a matter of fact as I explain in my book SUPER COSMOS and will explain even more clearly in my new book HIDDEN VARIABLE that I am writing based on this GR 17 Dublin Conference.
4. Hawking's argument in a nut shell is pretty simple:
I. Imagine light impinging on a double slit with a screen behind it. According to Feynman's histories rule for micro-quantum theory if you cannot tell which slit the light passes you must coherently add the complex gubit pilot waves before taking their squared modulus to see what happens at the screen. So then you interference fringes at the screen.
Hawking then makes a huge quantum leap of faith that this rule seen in particle scattering experiments applies to the entire multiverse!
The "light" impinging on the two slits is compared to the "information" falling down the black hole through the classical one-way membrane event horizon that Hal Puthoff in his PV theory says does not exist. No one here at GR 17 who has heard of Hal's idea takes it seriously. They consider Hal's particular positions on both PV and zero point energy metric engineering to be what Feynman called "Cargo Cult pseudo-science" ask Cliff Will, William Unruh and Matt Visser for example. They all volunteered their opinions to me in direct conversation that Marc Millis's NASA BPP project should never have been funded because the quality of its theoretical physics was too low. Indeed, this is what I say in my book SUPER COSMOS. They were all concerned that Hal's theoretical ideas on metric engineering would be bought by USG DOD and large aerospace companies. So was Professor X who is quite familiar with Hal's theories. Again this is not a personal attack on Hal Puthoff or even on some of his past work in physics. This is their honest judgment and they are just as hard on themselves and on their closest colleagues as on Hal. Indeed, Kip Thorne did not immediately embrace Hawking's argument here at GR 17 and neither did Preskill and they said so on stage. Preskill a particle physicist said on TV he could not follow Hawking's argument in detail.
II. Hawking then says that the only observables allowed in this extrapolation of micro-quantum theory to gravity are S-matrix observables connecting the information falling down the black hole to what a future observer at infinity will see. Well this is clearly no good at all for us physicists living now. It is one more argument why the whole micro-quantum gravity idea is a wrong idea from asking the wrong questions! Hawking then says that indeed the information in the topologically non-trivial black hole topology does exponentially decay in a non-unitary way along that "path" but that the future observer at the "screen" at future timelike/lightlike infinities, in the sense of the unitary analytic micro-quantum S-matrix of Geoff Chew and now Lenny Susskind, neverless sees BOTH Feynman path micro-quantum amplitudes add coherently at a point on the screen! This does make perfect sense logically ONLY in Bohm's ontology where EMPTY qubit waves have physical effects! The initial information I passing BOOTH slits is therefore recovered completely ONLY AFTER the black hole completely evaporates because I is REDUNDANTLY ENCODED in BOTH the topologically trivial "path" and the topologically non-trivial "path" where in fact it does get lost, but you only need it in one path. This is why Hawking says the black hole event horizon is "fuzzy" because he assumes quantum wave interference between macro trivial and non-trivial 3S SPACE topologies. Given all these dubious assumptions I suppose Hawking's argument will be correct as a matter of logic, though probably not as a matter of fact. So far of course what Hawking is saying is in W. Pauli's words "not even wrong" because there is as yet no way to falsify the idea in Karl Popper's sense. The same of course is true for John Baez's and Ashtekar's et-al "loop quantum gravity" and for Ed Witten's, Lenny Susskind's et-al "M theory" with superstrings - however the colliding "branes" may be testable along with idea of extra space dimensions making strong short-range gravity which is an idea I also arrive at independently from different simpler considerations using only Einstein's GR and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with notions of macro-quantum ODLRO.
* In this regard Feynman's path integral formalism is compatible with Bohm's ontology and is most general allowing the extension to macro-quantum theory with ODLRO. None of the Pundit Top Guns at this elite meeting have understood the role of macro-quantum ODLRO that can be put into Feynman's path integral formalism. What we need to do next is to see how Feynman or his students solve the superfluid helium or the BCS superconductor problem using the path integrals. Hawking would then need to reconsider since the MACRO-quantum Landau-Ginzburg ODLRO equations are already NONUNITARY as well as local and nonlinear unlike the micro-quantum Schrodinger, Dirac et-al equations that are nonlocal and linear - which is where Hawking & Co are stuck.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler
To be continued:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 12:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
I was extremely disappointed to read the following,
excerpted from a N Y Times AP article at
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Ireland-Black-Holes.html?hp
"... By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... Published: July 21, 2004 ...
... Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET ...
DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
said Wednesday that black holes ... do not destroy everything they consume
and instead can fire out matter and energy ``in a mangled form.''
Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper
to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity
and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle
to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking:
...
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons
but themselves eventually deteriorate and die.
As the black hole disintegrates,
they send their transformed contents back out
into the infinite universal horizons from which they came.
...
Hawking added, ``It is great to solve a problem
that has been troubling me for nearly 30 years ... ''
...
Hawking settled a 7-year-old bet made with Caltech astrophysicist
John Preskill, who ... said he looked forward to reading
the detailed paper that Hawking is expected to publish next month. ...".
...
The final questioner asked him what problem he intended to tackle next,
now that he had solved the paradox of the black hole.
``I don't know,'' Hawking quickly replied,
bringing the house down with laughter. ...".
---------------------------------------------------------
Tony Smith then wrote:
"In my opinion it is disgraceful that Hawking claimed full credit
for solving the "information paradox", completely ignoring
the work of others who (in my opinion) had already solved the paradox
over the past years."
Jack adds: Tony you cannot believe what is written in newspapers. Hawking was only talking about his independent thinking on the problem. I suspect he never read any of the papers you cite below. Also, even if he did, his method is I would guess completely independent of theirs?
Tony continued:
"Such earlier solutions include, but are not
necessarily limited to:
1 - In 1999 Cerf and Adami wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9904006
that used quantum information theory to solve it
by showing that "... Hawking radiation is effectively non-thermal
(in the sense that quantum correlations between the radiation and
the state of the black hole exist in principle) ...";.
2 - In 2000 Carlos Castro and Alex Granik wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0002019
that used a Feynman Path Integral Approach to solve it by
showing that "points" on a black hole event horizon are effectively,
from a quantum path integral point of view, complicated enough
to permit information flow.
This is the first paper for which Carlos Castro was blacklisted
by Cornell (a partial blacklist then - the paper was removed from
"hep-th" where it was posted and put into the less-widely read "physics"
archive).
It is interesting to me that Hawking's abstract at
http://www.dcu.ie/~nolanb/gr17_plenary.htm#hawking
refers to a path integral approach, so perhaps Hawking is
"rediscovering" (and getting credit for) the Castro/Granik solution
that was the start of the blacklisting of Carlos Castro.
3 - In 2000 Chapline wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0012094
that solved it by describing an event horizon as a quantum critical-
opalescent condensate;
4 - In January 2004 Mathur wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401115
that solved it in terms of string theory by describing a black
hole as a fuzz-ball with information distributed throughout
its interior (and not restricted to a so-called "holographic" smooth
surface ball boundary).
---------------------------------------------------------------
...
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Thursday, July 22, 2004
On Jul 22, 2004, at 7:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 22, 2004, at 4:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Part 1 of several
First of all no one really understood what Hawking was saying in detail. This included Kip Thorne, John Preskill, Matt Visser and many others. The jury is still out. Hawking's paper with the details will be out in a month.
There are several levels of objections:
1. Can one apply micro-quantum theory to the universe at large? The "particle" or "hidden variable" in Bohm's ontology is an entire 3D space geometry, which extends to billions of light years across as universe expands. Therefore, we run into the Schrodinger Cat problem with a vengeance! Hawking basically presented a huge quantum double slit analogy with one "slit" being topologically simple 3D metrics and the other "slit" being topologically non-simple multiply connected 3D metrics with a "fixed point" obstruction in the Euclidean signature domain without causal light cones before continuing into physical space-time with light cones where we live. Also there is the soft condensed matter approach of Sakharov and me that gravity is a PW Anderson "More is different" emergent collective ODLRO phenomenon from a pre-inflationary epoch without any gravity and without any inertial rest masses! The latter suggests no quantum foam corrections to the cosmic ray spectrum at ultra-high energies and no dark matter as real particles whizzing through space to make detectors click with the right stuff. Trying to measure dark matter real particles is like trying to measure the motion of the Earth through the Galilean-Newtonian mechanical aether. A null effect in both cases (subtracting out the Hubble flow GR effect of course).
2. Suppose we accept 1. Then can we use the Feynman path integral method to include topologically non-trivial 3D metrics that coherently interfere with the topologically simple ones? Matt Visser cited some old work by Bryce De Witt that says it is not possible.
3. Kip Thorne noted that Feynman's path integral is broader than conventional quantum theory that requires unitarity in the dynamical time evolution. One can have a post-quantum theory using Feynman's path integral of alternative histories that has nonunitary time evolution! Hawking simply assumes that the time evolution MUST be unitary and goes from there. Hawking's argument is probably correct given his initial assumptions. It is the initial assumptions that I think are wrong as a matter of fact as I explain in my book SUPER COSMOS and will explain even more clearly in my new book HIDDEN VARIABLE that I am writing based on this GR 17 Dublin Conference.
4. Hawking's argument in a nut shell is pretty simple:
I. Imagine light impinging on a double slit with a screen behind it. According to Feynman's histories rule for micro-quantum theory if you cannot tell which slit the light passes you must coherently add the complex qubit pilot waves before taking their squared modulus to see what happens at the screen. So then you interference fringes at the screen.
Hawking then makes a huge quantum leap of faith that this rule seen in particle scattering experiments applies to the entire multiverse!
The "light" impinging on the two slits is compared to the "information" falling down the black hole through the classical one-way membrane event horizon that Hal Puthoff in his PV theory says does not exist. No one here at GR 17 who has heard of Hal's idea takes it seriously. They consider Hal's particular positions on both PV and zero point energy metric engineering to be what Feynman called "Cargo Cult pseudo-science." Ask Cliff Will, William Unruh and Matt Visser for example - not need to take my word for it. They all volunteered their opinions to me in direct conversation that Marc Millis's NASA BPP project should never have been funded because the quality of its theoretical physics was too low. Indeed, this is what I say in my book SUPER COSMOS. They were all concerned that Hal's theoretical ideas on metric engineering would be bought by USG DOD and large aerospace companies. So was Professor X who is quite familiar with Hal's theories. Again this is not a personal attack on Hal Puthoff or even on some of his past work in physics. This is their honest judgment and they are just as hard on themselves and on their closest colleagues as on Hal. Indeed, Kip Thorne did not immediately embrace Hawking's argument here at GR 17 and neither did Preskill and they said so on stage before TV cameras broadcast to the entire planet. Preskill a particle physicist said on TV he could not follow Hawking's argument in detail.
II. Hawking then says that the only observables allowed in this extrapolation of micro-quantum theory to gravity are S-matrix observables connecting the information falling down the black hole to what a future observer at infinity will see. Well this is clearly no good at all for us physicists living now. It is one more argument why the whole micro-quantum gravity idea is a wrong idea from asking the wrong questions! Hawking then says that indeed the information in the non-trivial black hole topology does exponentially decay in a non-unitary way along that "path", but that the future observers at the "screen" at future timelike/lightlike infinities, in the sense of the unitary analytic micro-quantum S-matrix of Geoff Chew and now Lenny Susskind, nevertheless sees BOTH Feynman path micro-quantum amplitudes add coherently at a point on the screen! This does make perfect sense logically ONLY in Bohm's ontology where EMPTY qubit waves have physical effects! The initial information I passing BOTH slits is therefore recovered completely ONLY AFTER the black hole completely evaporates because I is REDUNDANTLY ENCODED in BOTH the topologically trivial "path" and the topologically non-trivial "path" where in fact it does get lost, but you only need it in one path. This is why Hawking says the black hole event horizon is "fuzzy" because he assumes quantum wave interference between macro trivial and non-trivial 3S SPACE topologies. Hawking's point is similar to Linus Pauling's introduction of "resonance" in chemical bonding in the early days of quantum chemistry! Given all these dubious assumptions I suppose Hawking's argument will be correct as a matter of logic, though probably not as a matter of fact. So far, of course, what Hawking is saying is in W. Pauli's words "not even wrong" because there is as yet no way to falsify the idea in Karl Popper's sense. The same of course is true for John Baez's and Ashtekar's et-al "loop quantum gravity" and for Ed Witten's, Lenny Susskind's et-al "M theory" with superstrings - however the colliding "branes" may be testable along with idea of LARGE extra space dimensions making strong short-range gravity which is an idea I also arrive at independently from different simpler considerations using only Einstein's GR and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with notions of macro-quantum ODLRO.
* In this regard Feynman's path integral formalism is compatible with Bohm's ontology and is most general allowing the extension to macro-quantum theory with ODLRO. None of the Pundit Top Guns at this elite meeting have understood the role of macro-quantum ODLRO in the context of partial coherence of the physical vacuum that solves the cosmological constant paradox and that can be put into Feynman's path integral formalism. What we need to do next is to see how Feynman, or his students, solve the superfluid helium or the BCS superconductor problem using the path integrals. Hawking would then need to reconsider since the MACRO-quantum Landau-Ginzburg ODLRO equations are already NONUNITARY as well as local and nonlinear unlike the micro-quantum Schrodinger, Dirac et-al equations that are nonlocal and linear - which is where Hawking & Co are stuck.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler
To be continued:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 12:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
I was extremely disappointed to read the following,
excerpted from a N Y Times AP article at
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Ireland-Black-Holes.html?hp
"... By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... Published: July 21, 2004 ...
... Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET ...
DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
said Wednesday that black holes ... do not destroy everything they consume
and instead can fire out matter and energy ``in a mangled form.''
Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper
to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity
and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle
to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking:
...
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons
but themselves eventually deteriorate and die.
As the black hole disintegrates,
they send their transformed contents back out
into the infinite universal horizons from which they came.
...
Hawking added, ``It is great to solve a problem
that has been troubling me for nearly 30 years ... ''
...
Hawking settled a 7-year-old bet made with Caltech astrophysicist
John Preskill, who ... said he looked forward to reading
the detailed paper that Hawking is expected to publish next month. ...".
...
The final questioner asked him what problem he intended to tackle next,
now that he had solved the paradox of the black hole.
``I don't know,'' Hawking quickly replied,
bringing the house down with laughter. ...".
---------------------------------------------------------
Tony Smith then wrote:
"In my opinion it is disgraceful that Hawking claimed full credit
for solving the "information paradox", completely ignoring
the work of others who (in my opinion) had already solved the paradox
over the past years."
Jack adds: Tony you cannot believe what is written in newspapers. Hawking was only talking about his independent thinking on the problem. I suspect he never read any of the papers you cite below. Also, even if he did, his method is I would guess completely independent of theirs?
Tony continued:
"Such earlier solutions include, but are not
necessarily limited to:
1 - In 1999 Cerf and Adami wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9904006
that used quantum information theory to solve it
by showing that "... Hawking radiation is effectively non-thermal
(in the sense that quantum correlations between the radiation and
the state of the black hole exist in principle) ...";.
2 - In 2000 Carlos Castro and Alex Granik wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0002019
that used a Feynman Path Integral Approach to solve it by
showing that "points" on a black hole event horizon are effectively,
from a quantum path integral point of view, complicated enough
to permit information flow.
This is the first paper for which Carlos Castro was blacklisted
by Cornell (a partial blacklist then - the paper was removed from
"hep-th" where it was posted and put into the less-widely read "physics"
archive).
It is interesting to me that Hawking's abstract at
http://www.dcu.ie/~nolanb/gr17_plenary.htm#hawking
refers to a path integral approach, so perhaps Hawking is
"rediscovering" (and getting credit for) the Castro/Granik solution
that was the start of the blacklisting of Carlos Castro.
3 - In 2000 Chapline wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0012094
that solved it by describing an event horizon as a quantum critical-
opalescent condensate;
4 - In January 2004 Mathur wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401115
that solved it in terms of string theory by describing a black
hole as a fuzz-ball with information distributed throughout
its interior (and not restricted to a so-called "holographic" smooth
surface ball boundary).
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Jul 22, 2004, at 5:14 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 1:32 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look it's fine for Hal to make a new kind of measurement theory, but he should not then say he is doing a simpler version of GR - he is not.
I totally agree that he is not doing this. But I think Hal also agrees with this. You have to look at the fine print.
That's not the way I read what Hal writes. However, he writes at both sides of this issue at different times. It is a fact that Cliff Will, Matt Visser and Professor X all see Hal doing what I see him doing.
He is doing Puthoff Relativity, which is fine if it works, but it doesn't compared to Einstein GR.
He says that it is a heuristic tool to be used heuristically *with reference* to the exact GR solutions.
He may say that, but that does not make it true. Matt Visser was quite clear on this point that so far Hal's published PV work can never in principle deal with anything like a Kerr solution for rotating sources. That's why Hal has never been able to do it! In no way is Hal's published stuff useful to the top people in the field who have taken the trouble to look at it. They ALL react the way I did and on these same points including the physical meaning of equivalence principle as a local principle and the physical meaning of covariance of the local laws of classical physics using tensors and spinors for some relevant symmetry group of observer frame transformations. Tensors and covariance are not simply a mathematical convenience as you and Hal appear to think? They are essential to the conceptual foundations of classical theory as objective science. Note Hal's PV model has no quantum theory in it, but similar deep considerations apply to quantum field theory as operator local field equations on a nonlocal Hilbert qubit space as well as explained by Wigner!
He is suggesting that IF a theory like Yilmaz's is eventually vindicated -- and I repeat IF -- that theory MIGHT
explain and support, in a fundamental quantitative manner, the pragmatic utility of models incorporating the
exponential metric, including PV.
Too many IF's. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten? John Baez? Brian Greene? :-) Then don't waste my time on this dead horse that has lost the race years ago and is lying rotting off the track. I am here at GROUND ZERO GR 17 Dublin and the large amounts of experimental data confirming the essential correctness of Einstein's
Guv + /\guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv
In the FRW regime of cosmology with inflation and in large black holes with in-falling matter (Martin Rees) is OVERWHELMING. If you are content to be irrelevant dwelling on trashed models in the dustbin of history you are welcome to do it. But as Bunthorne says in "Patience" that does certainly not suit me! Don't think anyone who really matters in this very vibrant fertile field will ever read anything you or Hal will write about it. Some scholars of the bizarre interested in the deranged thoughts of the brilliant and not-so-brilliant will perhaps of course and lecture on it to medical students. "It's alive Igor, It's alive." (Mel Brooks, "Young Frankenstein") :-) In any case I have reality-checked my own opinions on Hal's PV model with top guns like Cliff Will, Matt Visser and Professor X and they all agree with my assessment - indeed Visser took the words right out of my mouth on the "r" issue for example and on why Hal cannot solve the rotating source problem. Visser said explicitly that the mark of amateurish work like Hal's PV model is that the amateurs do not understand differential geometry and the analytic extensions of coordinate patches to cover a whole manifold of non-trivial topology. Of course Hal eschews all that with a Yilmazian globally flat non-dynamical background which flouts "Einstein's Vision" of no action without reaction and "background independence," i.e. a dynamical curved background on an equal footing with other matter fields. This needs tensors, spinors, twistors and all that. The final blow to Hal's media hype about his theory is that when it is tested it gives wrong answers for problems that Einstein's GR gives correct answers to. Serious physicists in the field are busy with all the exciting observations that FIT the existing theory based on Einstein's tensor equations quite well and do not want to be distracted with Hal's PV - except if they think USG DOD will fund it or some aerospace interests will because of the Aviation Week article "To the Stars" then they get concerned. That is my experience here at GR 17 Dublin.
I think you should be very careful not to misrepresent his position (even if inadvertently) without giving him the opportunity for a direct rebuttal.
Red Herring. When have I EVER done that? Never! Never! Never! And I'm never, never sick in Dirac's Sea. I always give Hal his soap box for his Hobby Horse.
Hal's theory in some ways is much better than Loop QM Gravity and M Theory which are not even wrong.
Hal's model can be very useful for engineering purposes, just as "floating models" of atomic and molecular
structure effectively guide theoretical chemists.
This is simply false. Give even one important example. Ibison did do one and it gave the wrong answer! (Pulsars).
Hal's PV is not useful for anything. All the interesting questions now involve rotating sources i.e. gravimagnetism - how useful is Hal's PV for that? Tell me. Show us.
There is no real mystery here. And PV does not even attempt to compete head-to-head either with GR, or
theories of quantum gravity such as your BEC model of the gravitational vacuum, at a fundamental level.
Again you are misrepresenting my theory here Paul. I am in no way COMPETING with Einstein's classical GR field equations. I am EXPLAINING them, I am DERIVING them from a pre-inflationary false vacuum without gravity! There is no competition here at all! What I am competing with is Loop Quantum Gravity and M-theory. Loop quantum gravity cannot even derive Einstein's gravity as a limiting case of spin foams! And even Ed Witten says that M theory is a hope of a solution looking for a problem than can falsify it in in Popper's sense. Both Loops and Strings are mathematical art and that's all. They are Art for Art's sake. There has been a Coup D' Etat of theoretical physicists by mathematicians just like the Trotskyites pretending to be Neo Cons took over the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon (OSP) and conned President Bush into handing a good part of Iraq over to Iran, which will probably happen relatively soon. They are not even wrong as theoretical physics!
As far as I know Hal never claimed that it did or could. In fact, he specifically and repeatedly *disclaimed*
this.
BTW Martin Rees said that so far no evidence for Kerr metrics and he quoted Saint Augusting on "faith". Bernard Carr told me he thinks Martin is being too conservative on the Kerr issue. I told Martin, that on basis of what he said there is more evidence for UFOS than for Kerr metrics. :-)
OK.
Hope you recover soon.
Thanks my tooth today Thursday is completely recovered thanks to Dr. Tunney down the Merrion Road from Royal Dublin Society near the American and British Embassies. I was in pretty bad pain from Sunday to Wednesday morning. I see Dr. Tunney on July 28 on way back from Dingle and Country Cork before flying back to London to see Uri Geller at his home on the Thames and flying back to Baghdad-by-the-Bay. I think next time I need a root canal it would be cheaper for me to fly to Dublin! :-)
The Republic of Ireland is very well run and is appreciative of their poets, artists and scientists. Indeed, here everyone is a poet! It must be the water. You have never tasted Guinness until you have had it on tap in Ireland. It is like Finians's Rainbow here. The Irish Language is like Italian in its beauty and one never tires of listening to The Irish speak, and the girls are lovely! The Irish are definitely the Lost Tribe of Israel! :-)
Z.
On Jul 21, 2004, at 2:03 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 20, 2004, at 3:53 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
What's not even wrong about what you say here is the following.
1. What do you mean by r?
Dicke means the isotropic radial coordinate that does not cover the entire manifold!
Since there is no curved chronogeometric "manifold", per se, in a PV-type model, as far as I can see
this looks like comparing an apple to an orange and then complaining that it's not an orange.
Is that what you mean by "not even wrong"? :-)
I do not have time for polemics now.
Well, OK. But I was simply responding to *your* polemic.
Look NO ONE AT GR 17 thinks Hal's PV is any good - period.
I take your word for this -- but why? Because it is not nearly as accurate as GR? Which, as far as I
am aware, no one denies?
If he changes measurement ideas then he can no longer claim he is simply doing a simpler version of GR.
That is not what he is claiming, as I understand him.
I did not mean to say Hal's PV is not even wrong only that your comments were not even wrong.
I know you meant that. But you are apparently unable to make some basic distinctions -- such as
that between the exponential *definition* of the metric in terms of an underlying potential, on the one hand,
and the form of the solution of the field equations for a particular problem, on the other.
Hal's theory is a wrong theory based on observations. No one in the elite here gives Hal's theory any serious consideration. It's a long dead horse. I have to go to dentist and do not have time to read this now.
OK. But before you do read what I wrote, please search and replace "Walker" with "Wheeler", and
"Walkerian" with "Wheelerian"...
Z.
Jack, I'm just trying to keep you reasonably honest here. I hate to see you go off half-cocked.
You need more than one coordinate patch to make the atlas.
Yes, that is a typical mathematical headache in standard GR that could be spun as a good argument
for a flat background spacetime -- as per N. Rosen.
In fact, the entire Levi-Civita parallel transport fandango is only made necessary when it is
decided to go to a curved *background* manifold, where you cannot directly compare
vectors at different points.
Of course PV knows nothing about all this. It doesn't *want* to know about it.
Why should it? Because you and others have spent so many years learning about tensors?
Puthoff does not even know what a "coordinate patch" and "atlas" means.
Why should he pound his head against that dense mathematical wall, if he can get along
without it?
I could argue that general covariance is a mere pragmatic convenience which does not reflect
any underlying deep physical principle of relativity; and that it has simply been fetishized by
applied mathematicians who took over spacetime and gravitational physics in the 1920s, and
want to keep it that way.
It is perfectly legitimate, IMO, to pick a convenient frame of reference and solve the problem
at hand in that.
After all -- why should the *physics* of the solutions depend on the mere choice of spacetime
coordinates?
Isn't that what caused the original event horizon to "evaporate"?
(I note that even Hawking now finally admits there are no Walkerian black holes after all. So
black holes do indeed "evaporate", if you get my drift...)
Or, at least, he ignores it in his published papers just as he ignores dark energy in his published papers dealing with metric engineering up to this point in time and in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week "To The Stars." Hal eschews differential geometry as well as tensors.
Because he is not doing Riemannian geometry in "curved spacetime". He is dealing with a polarizable vacuum --
which is a physical system, as opposed to a Poincarean chronogeometric construct.
After all, even Einstein himself admitted as early as 1921 that the gravitational vacuum is a physical system..
And Einstein's original motivation for the use of tensors -- the extension of the special principle of
relativity to arbitrary motion -- has "evaporated" much like Walker's mythical black holes.
There is NO SUCH THING as "general relativity". General *covariance* is an entirely different
animal.
Also he does not understand the LOCALITY of the equivalence principle, i.e. the distinction between LIFs and LNIFs at SAME EVENT P and the role of tetrads as compensating gauge force fields from the 4-parameter translation group.
Which is all required to make it look as if Einstein's "equivalence principle" is valid -- which it is
not (except in a very weak and limited sense of narrowly circumscribed empirical consistency with
SR inside an infinitesimal lab in free fall -- due to the inertial cancellation of translational g-forces).
Puthoff does a bait and switch totally distorting Dicke's original 1961 PV to a completely different theory using the same words the same labels in a new qualitatively different context! Puthoff's "r" in Dicke's formula is supposed to cover the whole manifold.
Are you claiming that Dicke's theory did not imply a flat background? Dicke assumes a curved
background chronogeometric manifold?
I think this qualifies as not even "not even wrong". :-)
Jack, it looks to me like you are erroneaously projecting GR into PV. The PV and Einstein GR models
(as far as I can determine what the GR model actually is, which isn't easy) are fundamentally different -- as
different as Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity.
2. Is the exponential metric without an event horizon supposed to be a vacuum solution like the black hole solution or not?
I'm not completely sure about PV, but in Yilmaz's theory, the exponential *definition* for the metric is what
connects the underlying physical field to the phenomenological geometrodynamics of moving test particles.
It is NOT tied to any particular problem.
So again, you seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. You might say that this is also "not even wrong" -- yet
another ill-posed question which arises because you are trying to understand PV using a warped GR optic.
If you cannot recognize the distinction between a general definition of a metric field in terms of an underlying potential,
on the one hand, and the form of the metric solution for a particular problem, on the other, then you are not even
getting to first base on this IMHO.
3. Do Einstein's field equations apply to Hal's version of PV or not?
I understand from Hal that a certain class of solutions of the GR field equations can -- to a good approximation --
be modeled in terms of the PV, in a manner that does not require the use of tensors for its application.
That doesn't mean that the theory *cannot* be made general covariant, since as we all know -- or at least should
know -- just about any consistent physical theory can.
4. Hal contradicts himself on the relation of his version of PV to Einstein's GR.
No, Jack. You are just tone-deaf to the subtleties. :-) Or acting like you are. :-)
5. Mike Ibison's test of Hal's version of PV on his own terms, since Mike works for Hal at IAS, shows disagreement with pulsar data where Einstein's GR gives the correct answer.
But PV is not competing head to head with GR for overall empirical accuracy. How many times
does this have to be explained?!
Hal is not insane -- at least as far as I can tell.:-)
Jack, you really do seem to be in a loop on these questions and I am just trying to alert you to some of
the pitfalls.
Z.
So why proceed any further with this? I will see at GR 17 in Dublin if any of the Big Wigs have even read Hal's PV papers taken so seriously by DIA, STAIF, MITRE, NASA BPP, Greenglow, Aviation Week, Janes Defence Weekly ... and see what they think of it.
On Jul 16, 2004, at 5:23 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 16, 2004, at 4:57 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack, remember that Einstein himself published a paper in the 1940s which cast serious doubt on the physical
reality of black holes.
Irrelevant. That was before the evidence, which is now abundant.
It might still be interesting to look at his paper.
Also, Einstein at one point himself proposed an exponential metric.
Again irrelevant because it only holds for the isotropic radial coordinate the way Einstein did it.
Can Einstein's exponential metric be expressed as or made into a tensor quantity with natural
transformation properties?
Also, Dicke was at Princeton with Einstein et al., where there must have been some very
interesting give and take.
Might be interesting to look at some of those papers.
Z.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
For example Hal denies black holes exist! Would Hawking agree to that? That is, Hal says there is no event horizon for a simple black hole at r = 2GM/c^2, therefore no Hawking radiation. Hal denies that what Hawking and everyone else is talking about makes any sense.
On Jul 22, 2004, at 4:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Part 1 of several
First of all no one really understood what Hawking was saying in detail. This included Kip Thorne, John Preskill, Matt Visser and many others. The jury is still out. Hawking's paper with the details will be out in a month.
There are several levels of objections:
1. Can one apply micro-quantum theory to the universe at large? The "particle" or "hidden variable" in Bohm's ontology is an entire 3D space geometry, which extends to billions of light years across as universe expands. Therefore, we run into the Schrodinger Cat problem with a vengeance! Hawking basically presented a huge quantum double slit analogy with one "slit" being topologically simple 3D metrics and the other "slit" being topologically non-simple multiply connected 3D metrics with a "fixed point" obstruction in the Euclidean signature domain without causal light cones before continuing into physical space-time with light cones where we live. Also there is the soft condensed matter approach of Sakharov and me that gravity is a PW Anderson "More is different" emergent collective ODLRO phenomenon from a pre-inflationary epoch without any gravity and without any inertial rest masses! The latter suggests no quantum foam corrections to the cosmic ray spectrum at ultra-high energies and no dark matter as real particles whizzing through space to make detectors click with the right stuff. Trying to measure dark matter real particles is like trying to measure the motion of the Earth through the Galilean-Newtonian mechanical aether. A null effect in both cases (subtracting out the Hubble flow GR effect of course).
2. Suppose we accept 1. Then can we use the Feynman path integral method to include topologically non-trivial 3D metrics that coherently interfere with the topologically simple ones? Matt Visser cited some old work by Bryce De Witt that says it is not possible.
3. Kip Thorne noted that Feynman's path integral is broader than conventional quantum theory that requires unitarity in the dynamical time evolution. One can have a post-quantum theory using Feynman's path integral of alternative histories that has nonunitary time evolution! Hawking simply assumes that the time evolution MUST be unitary and goes from there. Hawking's argument is probably correct given his initial assumptions. It is the initial assumptions that I think are wrong as a matter of fact as I explain in my book SUPER COSMOS and will explain even more clearly in my new book HIDDEN VARIABLE that I am writing based on this GR 17 Dublin Conference.
4. Hawking's argument in a nut shell is pretty simple:
I. Imagine light impinging on a double slit with a screen behind it. According to Feynman's histories rule for micro-quantum theory if you cannot tell which slit the light passes you must coherently add the complex qubit pilot waves before taking their squared modulus to see what happens at the screen. So then you interference fringes at the screen.
Hawking then makes a huge quantum leap of faith that this rule seen in particle scattering experiments applies to the entire multiverse!
The "light" impinging on the two slits is compared to the "information" falling down the black hole through the classical one-way membrane event horizon that Hal Puthoff in his PV theory says does not exist. No one here at GR 17 who has heard of Hal's idea takes it seriously. They consider Hal's particular positions on both PV and zero point energy metric engineering to be what Feynman called "Cargo Cult pseudo-science." Ask Cliff Will, William Unruh and Matt Visser for example - not need to take my word for it. They all volunteered their opinions to me in direct conversation that Marc Millis's NASA BPP project should never have been funded because the quality of its theoretical physics was too low. Indeed, this is what I say in my book SUPER COSMOS. They were all concerned that Hal's theoretical ideas on metric engineering would be bought by USG DOD and large aerospace companies. So was Professor X who is quite familiar with Hal's theories. Again this is not a personal attack on Hal Puthoff or even on some of his past work in physics. This is their honest judgment and they are just as hard on themselves and on their closest colleagues as on Hal. Indeed, Kip Thorne did not immediately embrace Hawking's argument here at GR 17 and neither did Preskill and they said so on stage before TV cameras broadcast to the entire planet. Preskill a particle physicist said on TV he could not follow Hawking's argument in detail.
II. Hawking then says that the only observables allowed in this extrapolation of micro-quantum theory to gravity are S-matrix observables connecting the information falling down the black hole to what a future observer at infinity will see. Well this is clearly no good at all for us physicists living now. It is one more argument why the whole micro-quantum gravity idea is a wrong idea from asking the wrong questions! Hawking then says that indeed the information in the non-trivial black hole topology does exponentially decay in a non-unitary way along that "path", but that the future observers at the "screen" at future timelike/lightlike infinities, in the sense of the unitary analytic micro-quantum S-matrix of Geoff Chew and now Lenny Susskind, nevertheless sees BOTH Feynman path micro-quantum amplitudes add coherently at a point on the screen! This does make perfect sense logically ONLY in Bohm's ontology where EMPTY qubit waves have physical effects! The initial information I passing BOTH slits is therefore recovered completely ONLY AFTER the black hole completely evaporates because I is REDUNDANTLY ENCODED in BOTH the topologically trivial "path" and the topologically non-trivial "path" where in fact it does get lost, but you only need it in one path. This is why Hawking says the black hole event horizon is "fuzzy" because he assumes quantum wave interference between macro trivial and non-trivial 3S SPACE topologies. Hawking's point is similar to Linus Pauling's introduction of "resonance" in chemical bonding in the early days of quantum chemistry! Given all these dubious assumptions I suppose Hawking's argument will be correct as a matter of logic, though probably not as a matter of fact. So far, of course, what Hawking is saying is in W. Pauli's words "not even wrong" because there is as yet no way to falsify the idea in Karl Popper's sense. The same of course is true for John Baez's and Ashtekar's et-al "loop quantum gravity" and for Ed Witten's, Lenny Susskind's et-al "M theory" with superstrings - however the colliding "branes" may be testable along with idea of LARGE extra space dimensions making strong short-range gravity which is an idea I also arrive at independently from different simpler considerations using only Einstein's GR and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with notions of macro-quantum ODLRO.
* In this regard Feynman's path integral formalism is compatible with Bohm's ontology and is most general allowing the extension to macro-quantum theory with ODLRO. None of the Pundit Top Guns at this elite meeting have understood the role of macro-quantum ODLRO in the context of partial coherence of the physical vacuum that solves the cosmological constant paradox and that can be put into Feynman's path integral formalism. What we need to do next is to see how Feynman, or his students, solve the superfluid helium or the BCS superconductor problem using the path integrals. Hawking would then need to reconsider since the MACRO-quantum Landau-Ginzburg ODLRO equations are already NONUNITARY as well as local and nonlinear unlike the micro-quantum Schrodinger, Dirac et-al equations that are nonlocal and linear - which is where Hawking & Co are stuck.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler
To be continued:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 12:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
I was extremely disappointed to read the following,
excerpted from a N Y Times AP article at
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Ireland-Black-Holes.html?hp
"... By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... Published: July 21, 2004 ...
... Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET ...
DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking
said Wednesday that black holes ... do not destroy everything they consume
and instead can fire out matter and energy ``in a mangled form.''
Hawking's radical new thinking, presented in a paper
to the 17th International Conference on General Relativity
and Gravitation in Dublin, capped his three-decade struggle
to explain an elemental paradox in scientific thinking:
...
Hawking's answer is that the black holes hold their contents for eons
but themselves eventually deteriorate and die.
As the black hole disintegrates,
they send their transformed contents back out
into the infinite universal horizons from which they came.
...
Hawking added, ``It is great to solve a problem
that has been troubling me for nearly 30 years ... ''
...
Hawking settled a 7-year-old bet made with Caltech astrophysicist
John Preskill, who ... said he looked forward to reading
the detailed paper that Hawking is expected to publish next month. ...".
...
The final questioner asked him what problem he intended to tackle next,
now that he had solved the paradox of the black hole.
``I don't know,'' Hawking quickly replied,
bringing the house down with laughter. ...".
---------------------------------------------------------
Tony Smith then wrote:
"In my opinion it is disgraceful that Hawking claimed full credit
for solving the "information paradox", completely ignoring
the work of others who (in my opinion) had already solved the paradox
over the past years."
Jack adds: Tony you cannot believe what is written in newspapers. Hawking was only talking about his independent thinking on the problem. I suspect he never read any of the papers you cite below. Also, even if he did, his method is I would guess completely independent of theirs?
Tony continued:
"Such earlier solutions include, but are not
necessarily limited to:
1 - In 1999 Cerf and Adami wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9904006
that used quantum information theory to solve it
by showing that "... Hawking radiation is effectively non-thermal
(in the sense that quantum correlations between the radiation and
the state of the black hole exist in principle) ...";.
2 - In 2000 Carlos Castro and Alex Granik wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0002019
that used a Feynman Path Integral Approach to solve it by
showing that "points" on a black hole event horizon are effectively,
from a quantum path integral point of view, complicated enough
to permit information flow.
This is the first paper for which Carlos Castro was blacklisted
by Cornell (a partial blacklist then - the paper was removed from
"hep-th" where it was posted and put into the less-widely read "physics"
archive).
It is interesting to me that Hawking's abstract at
http://www.dcu.ie/~nolanb/gr17_plenary.htm#hawking
refers to a path integral approach, so perhaps Hawking is
"rediscovering" (and getting credit for) the Castro/Granik solution
that was the start of the blacklisting of Carlos Castro.
3 - In 2000 Chapline wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0012094
that solved it by describing an event horizon as a quantum critical-
opalescent condensate;
4 - In January 2004 Mathur wrote a paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401115
that solved it in terms of string theory by describing a black
hole as a fuzz-ball with information distributed throughout
its interior (and not restricted to a so-called "holographic" smooth
surface ball boundary).
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Jul 22, 2004, at 5:14 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 1:32 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look it's fine for Hal to make a new kind of measurement theory, but he should not then say he is doing a simpler version of GR - he is not.
I totally agree that he is not doing this. But I think Hal also agrees with this. You have to look at the fine print.
That's not the way I read what Hal writes. However, he writes at both sides of this issue at different times. It is a fact that Cliff Will, Matt Visser and Professor X all see Hal doing what I see him doing.
He is doing Puthoff Relativity, which is fine if it works, but it doesn't compared to Einstein GR.
He says that it is a heuristic tool to be used heuristically *with reference* to the exact GR solutions.
He may say that, but that does not make it true. Matt Visser was quite clear on this point that so far Hal's published PV work can never in principle deal with anything like a Kerr solution for rotating sources. That's why Hal has never been able to do it! In no way is Hal's published stuff useful to the top people in the field who have taken the trouble to look at it. They ALL react the way I did and on these same points including the physical meaning of equivalence principle as a local principle and the physical meaning of covariance of the local laws of classical physics using tensors and spinors for some relevant symmetry group of observer frame transformations. Tensors and covariance are not simply a mathematical convenience as you and Hal appear to think? They are essential to the conceptual foundations of classical theory as objective science. Note Hal's PV model has no quantum theory in it, but similar deep considerations apply to quantum field theory as operator local field equations on a nonlocal Hilbert qubit space as well as explained by Wigner!
He is suggesting that IF a theory like Yilmaz's is eventually vindicated -- and I repeat IF -- that theory MIGHT
explain and support, in a fundamental quantitative manner, the pragmatic utility of models incorporating the
exponential metric, including PV.
Too many IF's. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten? John Baez? Brian Greene? :-) Then don't waste my time on this dead horse that has lost the race years ago and is lying rotting off the track. I am here at GROUND ZERO GR 17 Dublin and the large amounts of experimental data confirming the essential correctness of Einstein's
Guv + /\guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv
In the FRW regime of cosmology with inflation and in large black holes with in-falling matter (Martin Rees) is OVERWHELMING. If you are content to be irrelevant dwelling on trashed models in the dustbin of history you are welcome to do it. But as Bunthorne says in "Patience" that does certainly not suit me! Don't think anyone who really matters in this very vibrant fertile field will ever read anything you or Hal will write about it. Some scholars of the bizarre interested in the deranged thoughts of the brilliant and not-so-brilliant will perhaps of course and lecture on it to medical students. "It's alive Igor, It's alive." (Mel Brooks, "Young Frankenstein") :-) In any case I have reality-checked my own opinions on Hal's PV model with top guns like Cliff Will, Matt Visser and Professor X and they all agree with my assessment - indeed Visser took the words right out of my mouth on the "r" issue for example and on why Hal cannot solve the rotating source problem. Visser said explicitly that the mark of amateurish work like Hal's PV model is that the amateurs do not understand differential geometry and the analytic extensions of coordinate patches to cover a whole manifold of non-trivial topology. Of course Hal eschews all that with a Yilmazian globally flat non-dynamical background which flouts "Einstein's Vision" of no action without reaction and "background independence," i.e. a dynamical curved background on an equal footing with other matter fields. This needs tensors, spinors, twistors and all that. The final blow to Hal's media hype about his theory is that when it is tested it gives wrong answers for problems that Einstein's GR gives correct answers to. Serious physicists in the field are busy with all the exciting observations that FIT the existing theory based on Einstein's tensor equations quite well and do not want to be distracted with Hal's PV - except if they think USG DOD will fund it or some aerospace interests will because of the Aviation Week article "To the Stars" then they get concerned. That is my experience here at GR 17 Dublin.
I think you should be very careful not to misrepresent his position (even if inadvertently) without giving him the opportunity for a direct rebuttal.
Red Herring. When have I EVER done that? Never! Never! Never! And I'm never, never sick in Dirac's Sea. I always give Hal his soap box for his Hobby Horse.
Hal's theory in some ways is much better than Loop QM Gravity and M Theory which are not even wrong.
Hal's model can be very useful for engineering purposes, just as "floating models" of atomic and molecular
structure effectively guide theoretical chemists.
This is simply false. Give even one important example. Ibison did do one and it gave the wrong answer! (Pulsars).
Hal's PV is not useful for anything. All the interesting questions now involve rotating sources i.e. gravimagnetism - how useful is Hal's PV for that? Tell me. Show us.
There is no real mystery here. And PV does not even attempt to compete head-to-head either with GR, or
theories of quantum gravity such as your BEC model of the gravitational vacuum, at a fundamental level.
Again you are misrepresenting my theory here Paul. I am in no way COMPETING with Einstein's classical GR field equations. I am EXPLAINING them, I am DERIVING them from a pre-inflationary false vacuum without gravity! There is no competition here at all! What I am competing with is Loop Quantum Gravity and M-theory. Loop quantum gravity cannot even derive Einstein's gravity as a limiting case of spin foams! And even Ed Witten says that M theory is a hope of a solution looking for a problem than can falsify it in in Popper's sense. Both Loops and Strings are mathematical art and that's all. They are Art for Art's sake. There has been a Coup D' Etat of theoretical physicists by mathematicians just like the Trotskyites pretending to be Neo Cons took over the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon (OSP) and conned President Bush into handing a good part of Iraq over to Iran, which will probably happen relatively soon. They are not even wrong as theoretical physics!
As far as I know Hal never claimed that it did or could. In fact, he specifically and repeatedly *disclaimed*
this.
BTW Martin Rees said that so far no evidence for Kerr metrics and he quoted Saint Augusting on "faith". Bernard Carr told me he thinks Martin is being too conservative on the Kerr issue. I told Martin, that on basis of what he said there is more evidence for UFOS than for Kerr metrics. :-)
OK.
Hope you recover soon.
Thanks my tooth today Thursday is completely recovered thanks to Dr. Tunney down the Merrion Road from Royal Dublin Society near the American and British Embassies. I was in pretty bad pain from Sunday to Wednesday morning. I see Dr. Tunney on July 28 on way back from Dingle and Country Cork before flying back to London to see Uri Geller at his home on the Thames and flying back to Baghdad-by-the-Bay. I think next time I need a root canal it would be cheaper for me to fly to Dublin! :-)
The Republic of Ireland is very well run and is appreciative of their poets, artists and scientists. Indeed, here everyone is a poet! It must be the water. You have never tasted Guinness until you have had it on tap in Ireland. It is like Finians's Rainbow here. The Irish Language is like Italian in its beauty and one never tires of listening to The Irish speak, and the girls are lovely! The Irish are definitely the Lost Tribe of Israel! :-)
Z.
On Jul 21, 2004, at 2:03 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 20, 2004, at 3:53 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
What's not even wrong about what you say here is the following.
1. What do you mean by r?
Dicke means the isotropic radial coordinate that does not cover the entire manifold!
Since there is no curved chronogeometric "manifold", per se, in a PV-type model, as far as I can see
this looks like comparing an apple to an orange and then complaining that it's not an orange.
Is that what you mean by "not even wrong"? :-)
I do not have time for polemics now.
Well, OK. But I was simply responding to *your* polemic.
Look NO ONE AT GR 17 thinks Hal's PV is any good - period.
I take your word for this -- but why? Because it is not nearly as accurate as GR? Which, as far as I
am aware, no one denies?
If he changes measurement ideas then he can no longer claim he is simply doing a simpler version of GR.
That is not what he is claiming, as I understand him.
I did not mean to say Hal's PV is not even wrong only that your comments were not even wrong.
I know you meant that. But you are apparently unable to make some basic distinctions -- such as
that between the exponential *definition* of the metric in terms of an underlying potential, on the one hand,
and the form of the solution of the field equations for a particular problem, on the other.
Hal's theory is a wrong theory based on observations. No one in the elite here gives Hal's theory any serious consideration. It's a long dead horse. I have to go to dentist and do not have time to read this now.
OK. But before you do read what I wrote, please search and replace "Walker" with "Wheeler", and
"Walkerian" with "Wheelerian"...
Z.
Jack, I'm just trying to keep you reasonably honest here. I hate to see you go off half-cocked.
You need more than one coordinate patch to make the atlas.
Yes, that is a typical mathematical headache in standard GR that could be spun as a good argument
for a flat background spacetime -- as per N. Rosen.
In fact, the entire Levi-Civita parallel transport fandango is only made necessary when it is
decided to go to a curved *background* manifold, where you cannot directly compare
vectors at different points.
Of course PV knows nothing about all this. It doesn't *want* to know about it.
Why should it? Because you and others have spent so many years learning about tensors?
Puthoff does not even know what a "coordinate patch" and "atlas" means.
Why should he pound his head against that dense mathematical wall, if he can get along
without it?
I could argue that general covariance is a mere pragmatic convenience which does not reflect
any underlying deep physical principle of relativity; and that it has simply been fetishized by
applied mathematicians who took over spacetime and gravitational physics in the 1920s, and
want to keep it that way.
It is perfectly legitimate, IMO, to pick a convenient frame of reference and solve the problem
at hand in that.
After all -- why should the *physics* of the solutions depend on the mere choice of spacetime
coordinates?
Isn't that what caused the original event horizon to "evaporate"?
(I note that even Hawking now finally admits there are no Walkerian black holes after all. So
black holes do indeed "evaporate", if you get my drift...)
Or, at least, he ignores it in his published papers just as he ignores dark energy in his published papers dealing with metric engineering up to this point in time and in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week "To The Stars." Hal eschews differential geometry as well as tensors.
Because he is not doing Riemannian geometry in "curved spacetime". He is dealing with a polarizable vacuum --
which is a physical system, as opposed to a Poincarean chronogeometric construct.
After all, even Einstein himself admitted as early as 1921 that the gravitational vacuum is a physical system..
And Einstein's original motivation for the use of tensors -- the extension of the special principle of
relativity to arbitrary motion -- has "evaporated" much like Walker's mythical black holes.
There is NO SUCH THING as "general relativity". General *covariance* is an entirely different
animal.
Also he does not understand the LOCALITY of the equivalence principle, i.e. the distinction between LIFs and LNIFs at SAME EVENT P and the role of tetrads as compensating gauge force fields from the 4-parameter translation group.
Which is all required to make it look as if Einstein's "equivalence principle" is valid -- which it is
not (except in a very weak and limited sense of narrowly circumscribed empirical consistency with
SR inside an infinitesimal lab in free fall -- due to the inertial cancellation of translational g-forces).
Puthoff does a bait and switch totally distorting Dicke's original 1961 PV to a completely different theory using the same words the same labels in a new qualitatively different context! Puthoff's "r" in Dicke's formula is supposed to cover the whole manifold.
Are you claiming that Dicke's theory did not imply a flat background? Dicke assumes a curved
background chronogeometric manifold?
I think this qualifies as not even "not even wrong". :-)
Jack, it looks to me like you are erroneaously projecting GR into PV. The PV and Einstein GR models
(as far as I can determine what the GR model actually is, which isn't easy) are fundamentally different -- as
different as Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity.
2. Is the exponential metric without an event horizon supposed to be a vacuum solution like the black hole solution or not?
I'm not completely sure about PV, but in Yilmaz's theory, the exponential *definition* for the metric is what
connects the underlying physical field to the phenomenological geometrodynamics of moving test particles.
It is NOT tied to any particular problem.
So again, you seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. You might say that this is also "not even wrong" -- yet
another ill-posed question which arises because you are trying to understand PV using a warped GR optic.
If you cannot recognize the distinction between a general definition of a metric field in terms of an underlying potential,
on the one hand, and the form of the metric solution for a particular problem, on the other, then you are not even
getting to first base on this IMHO.
3. Do Einstein's field equations apply to Hal's version of PV or not?
I understand from Hal that a certain class of solutions of the GR field equations can -- to a good approximation --
be modeled in terms of the PV, in a manner that does not require the use of tensors for its application.
That doesn't mean that the theory *cannot* be made general covariant, since as we all know -- or at least should
know -- just about any consistent physical theory can.
4. Hal contradicts himself on the relation of his version of PV to Einstein's GR.
No, Jack. You are just tone-deaf to the subtleties. :-) Or acting like you are. :-)
5. Mike Ibison's test of Hal's version of PV on his own terms, since Mike works for Hal at IAS, shows disagreement with pulsar data where Einstein's GR gives the correct answer.
But PV is not competing head to head with GR for overall empirical accuracy. How many times
does this have to be explained?!
Hal is not insane -- at least as far as I can tell.:-)
Jack, you really do seem to be in a loop on these questions and I am just trying to alert you to some of
the pitfalls.
Z.
So why proceed any further with this? I will see at GR 17 in Dublin if any of the Big Wigs have even read Hal's PV papers taken so seriously by DIA, STAIF, MITRE, NASA BPP, Greenglow, Aviation Week, Janes Defence Weekly ... and see what they think of it.
On Jul 16, 2004, at 5:23 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 16, 2004, at 4:57 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack, remember that Einstein himself published a paper in the 1940s which cast serious doubt on the physical
reality of black holes.
Irrelevant. That was before the evidence, which is now abundant.
It might still be interesting to look at his paper.
Also, Einstein at one point himself proposed an exponential metric.
Again irrelevant because it only holds for the isotropic radial coordinate the way Einstein did it.
Can Einstein's exponential metric be expressed as or made into a tensor quantity with natural
transformation properties?
Also, Dicke was at Princeton with Einstein et al., where there must have been some very
interesting give and take.
Might be interesting to look at some of those papers.
Z.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
For example Hal denies black holes exist! Would Hawking agree to that? That is, Hal says there is no event horizon for a simple black hole at r = 2GM/c^2, therefore no Hawking radiation. Hal denies that what Hawking and everyone else is talking about makes any sense.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
The abstracts for GR 17 are online http://www.dcu.ie/~nolanb/gr17_schedule.htm and I am looking through them to see which talks I want to catch. Hawking's new result depends on the Feynman path integral over all Einstein metrics with non-trivial topologies, i.e. wormholes and star gates. He is still working in imaginary time I suspect and may be getting imaginary results? The point however, to to see macro-quantum ODLRO put into the Feynman micro-quantum formalism. The hologram AsS/CFT idea is that gravity in a curved 3+1 space derives from a massless conformal quantum field theory in a globally flat world. This is not incompatible with my picture where I also have a massless conformal flat quantum field theory in the pre-inflationary false vacuum. This would be like a virtual 2D quantum Hall fluid prior to the phase transition to a macro-quantum coherent state (i.e. the inflation field) forming the true vacuum with gravity and inertia (rest mass of lepto-quarks & W mesons). That is the virtual electron-positron plasma is confined to the 2D holographic screen that is the false vacuum.
On Jul 16, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
If you can't read this go to larger Acrobat file
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/nonequilibriumphysics.pdf
on the emergence of qualitatively new forms of matter and exotic vacua in pumped open systems.
The most important last part is tentative as things very busy in London. I also briefly comment why I
suspect that what Hawking is going to say in Dublin in a few days, while of great interest, is probably wrong.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
See a very interesting article by Marcelo Gleiser Dartmouth College
"The three origins: cosmos, life and mind." More on that later.
More on that anon. Gray day in London. Off to British Museum for Egyptology Skull and Bones
in the basement. A top archaeologist looked at Lloyd Pye's "Star Child" skull last night and
concluded it ain't ET - a child's skull intentionally deformed. Star-studded group in Egyptology assembled
at British Museum last night to hear about The Hyskos Pharoahs. Perhaps the Jews came from them?
That's not what the lecturer said - only my speculation since they came from the "East" (Levant)
ruled Egypt for awhile and when overthrown became a slave caste. Would perhaps explain Joseph & Moses stories.
I will be at Hawking's lecture next week. Like Einstein with cosmological constant, Hawking may be throwing in the towel to Susskind too fast because he is depending on micro-quantum physics when he should be using macro-quantum physics and the rules change!
Micro-quantum physics is nonlocal, linear, unitary with entanglements and signal locality and the Born probability.
Macro-quantum physics is local, nonlinear, nonunitary with entanglement suppressed in the macro-mode, with possible signal nonlocality and a breakdown in Born probability rule from "phase rigidity" that in special case is Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for the emergence of smooth curved space-time in the inflationary phase transition where the inflation field is a virtual electron-positron macro-quantum vacuum condensate that contains Einstein's metric field guv from the coherent phase of the local order as well as both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacuum zero point quantum pressures negative and positive respectively from the intensity of the local order parameter.
On Jul 16, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
If you can't read this go to larger Acrobat file
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/nonequilibriumphysics.pdf
on the emergence of qualitatively new forms of matter and exotic vacua in pumped open systems.
The most important last part is tentative as things very busy in London. I also briefly comment why I
suspect that what Hawking is going to say in Dublin in a few days, while of great interest, is probably wrong.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
See a very interesting article by Marcelo Gleiser Dartmouth College
"The three origins: cosmos, life and mind." More on that later.
More on that anon. Gray day in London. Off to British Museum for Egyptology Skull and Bones
in the basement. A top archaeologist looked at Lloyd Pye's "Star Child" skull last night and
concluded it ain't ET - a child's skull intentionally deformed. Star-studded group in Egyptology assembled
at British Museum last night to hear about The Hyskos Pharoahs. Perhaps the Jews came from them?
That's not what the lecturer said - only my speculation since they came from the "East" (Levant)
ruled Egypt for awhile and when overthrown became a slave caste. Would perhaps explain Joseph & Moses stories.
I will be at Hawking's lecture next week. Like Einstein with cosmological constant, Hawking may be throwing in the towel to Susskind too fast because he is depending on micro-quantum physics when he should be using macro-quantum physics and the rules change!
Micro-quantum physics is nonlocal, linear, unitary with entanglements and signal locality and the Born probability.
Macro-quantum physics is local, nonlinear, nonunitary with entanglement suppressed in the macro-mode, with possible signal nonlocality and a breakdown in Born probability rule from "phase rigidity" that in special case is Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for the emergence of smooth curved space-time in the inflationary phase transition where the inflation field is a virtual electron-positron macro-quantum vacuum condensate that contains Einstein's metric field guv from the coherent phase of the local order as well as both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacuum zero point quantum pressures negative and positive respectively from the intensity of the local order parameter.
On Jul 17, 2004, at 3:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Here is greatly revised, clarified, corrected second draft. I think there are some important new insights here?
On Jul 16, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
If you can't read this go to larger Acrobat file
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/nonequilibriumphysics.pdf
Also corrected to 2nd draft.
on the emergence of qualitatively new forms of matter and exotic vacua in pumped open systems.
The most important last part is tentative as things very busy in London. I also briefly comment why I
suspect that what Hawking is going to say in Dublin in a few days, while of great interest, is probably wrong.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
See a very interesting article by Marcelo Gleiser Dartmouth College
"The three origins: cosmos, life and mind." More on that later.
More on that anon. Gray day in London. Off to British Museum for Egyptology Skull and Bones
in the basement. Star-studded group in Egyptology assembled
at British Museum last night to hear about The Hyskos Pharoahs. Perhaps the Jews came from them?
That's not what the lecturer said - only my speculation since they came from the "East" (Levant)
ruled Egypt for awhile and when overthrown became a slave caste. Would perhaps explain Joseph & Moses stories.
I will be at Hawking's lecture next week. Like Einstein with cosmological constant, Hawking may be throwing in the towel to Susskind too fast because he is depending on micro-quantum physics when he should be using macro-quantum physics and the rules change!
Micro-quantum physics is nonlocal, linear, unitary with entanglements and signal locality and the Born probability.
Macro-quantum physics is local, nonlinear, nonunitary with entanglement suppressed in the macro-mode, with possible signal nonlocality and a breakdown in Born probability rule from "phase rigidity" that in special case is Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for the emergence of smooth curved space-time in the inflationary phase transition where the inflation field is a virtual electron-positron macro-quantum vacuum condensate that contains Einstein's metric field guv from the coherent phase of the local order as well as both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacuum zero point quantum pressures negative and positive respectively from the intensity of the local order parameter.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Non-equilibrium physics for Dummies. (Original presentation)
1. Equilibrium Stat Mech
Start with thermal equilibrium Boltzmann factor with a chemical potential u constraint conserving total particle number N.
Equilibrium Probability ~ e^-(E - uN)/kT
Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)
u = 0 signals at Tc and below onset of phase transition violating N-conservation where N = number of normal fluid particles not in the BEC.
The mean occupation number for IDEAL BOSE GAS is
n(E)/N = [e^(E - uN)/kT - 1]^-1
With u = 0 below the critical temperature Tc as T -> 0, n(E) --> Kronecker delta^E,0, where E = p^2/2m on mass shell for real bosons of rest mass m.
2. Non-equilibrium stat mech.
Every open system has a "cavity quality factor" Q.
Q = E/(dE/dt)
E = energy stored in the open system
dE/dt is rate of energy leak
Q < 0 is an active medium like a laser above threshold.
The NONEQUILIBRIUM Boltzman factor is simply
Non-Equilibrium Probability = e^-(E + QP - uN)/kT
P = pump power through-put to open system.
Note that as P -> infinity, the effective temperature
T* = T/(QP/E) --> 0
This explains emergence of order in pumped non-equilibrium systems as P --> infinity.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
One loose end in the charge clusters model is to explain how total charge is globally conserved over all. What happens to the positive charge image cluster (much heavier) twin to the electron cluster?
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Here is greatly revised, clarified, corrected second draft. I think there are some important new insights here?
On Jul 16, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
If you can't read this go to larger Acrobat file
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/nonequilibriumphysics.pdf
Also corrected to 2nd draft.
on the emergence of qualitatively new forms of matter and exotic vacua in pumped open systems.
The most important last part is tentative as things very busy in London. I also briefly comment why I
suspect that what Hawking is going to say in Dublin in a few days, while of great interest, is probably wrong.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
See a very interesting article by Marcelo Gleiser Dartmouth College
"The three origins: cosmos, life and mind." More on that later.
More on that anon. Gray day in London. Off to British Museum for Egyptology Skull and Bones
in the basement. Star-studded group in Egyptology assembled
at British Museum last night to hear about The Hyskos Pharoahs. Perhaps the Jews came from them?
That's not what the lecturer said - only my speculation since they came from the "East" (Levant)
ruled Egypt for awhile and when overthrown became a slave caste. Would perhaps explain Joseph & Moses stories.
I will be at Hawking's lecture next week. Like Einstein with cosmological constant, Hawking may be throwing in the towel to Susskind too fast because he is depending on micro-quantum physics when he should be using macro-quantum physics and the rules change!
Micro-quantum physics is nonlocal, linear, unitary with entanglements and signal locality and the Born probability.
Macro-quantum physics is local, nonlinear, nonunitary with entanglement suppressed in the macro-mode, with possible signal nonlocality and a breakdown in Born probability rule from "phase rigidity" that in special case is Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for the emergence of smooth curved space-time in the inflationary phase transition where the inflation field is a virtual electron-positron macro-quantum vacuum condensate that contains Einstein's metric field guv from the coherent phase of the local order as well as both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacuum zero point quantum pressures negative and positive respectively from the intensity of the local order parameter.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Non-equilibrium physics for Dummies. (Original presentation)
1. Equilibrium Stat Mech
Start with thermal equilibrium Boltzmann factor with a chemical potential u constraint conserving total particle number N.
Equilibrium Probability ~ e^-(E - uN)/kT
Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)
u = 0 signals at Tc and below onset of phase transition violating N-conservation where N = number of normal fluid particles not in the BEC.
The mean occupation number for IDEAL BOSE GAS is
n(E)/N = [e^(E - uN)/kT - 1]^-1
With u = 0 below the critical temperature Tc as T -> 0, n(E) --> Kronecker delta^E,0, where E = p^2/2m on mass shell for real bosons of rest mass m.
2. Non-equilibrium stat mech.
Every open system has a "cavity quality factor" Q.
Q = E/(dE/dt)
E = energy stored in the open system
dE/dt is rate of energy leak
Q < 0 is an active medium like a laser above threshold.
The NONEQUILIBRIUM Boltzman factor is simply
Non-Equilibrium Probability = e^-(E + QP - uN)/kT
P = pump power through-put to open system.
Note that as P -> infinity, the effective temperature
T* = T/(QP/E) --> 0
This explains emergence of order in pumped non-equilibrium systems as P --> infinity.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
One loose end in the charge clusters model is to explain how total charge is globally conserved over all. What happens to the positive charge image cluster (much heavier) twin to the electron cluster?
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
My abstract on Emergent Gravity for GR 17 next week in Dublin, where Hawking is announcing his new result, is on p. 181 of the official proceedings which is p. 234 of the pdf document from GR 17.
Ray Chiao's paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" is very important. The fractional quantized conductivity Hall effect in 2D electron gases in an external magnetic field may be the key to controlling exotic vacuum zero point energy for metric engineering practical warp drive like what is alleged in the UFO phenomenon.
The macro-quantum Hall effect also has a coherent order that may couple to the partial vacuum coherent order to make the warp field
/\zpf ~ Lp*^-2(volume factor)^5/2(density of virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate)^1/2 (density of control 2D quantum Hall condensate)^1/2cosine(Dynamical Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson Phase + Topological Berry Phase)
Where the exotic vacuum zero point energy density is
tuv(ZPF) = (c^4/8piG*)/\zpfguv
w = pressure/(energy density) = -1
Note also that my neat new non-equilibrium Boltzmann factor for open systems with power throughput P
e^-E*/kT
E* = E + QP
Q = quality factor of the open system leaky resonator like Fabry-Perot interferometer laser
Q = U/dU/dt
U = internal energy of the open system
Effective non-equilibrium temperature is
T* = T/(QP/E)
Note that Q < 0 is an active system like a laser which has an effective NEGATIVE TEMPERATURE!
A reversible Carnot cycle between a hot negative temperature and a cold positive temperature has efficiency
e = Work/(Hot Heat In) = 1 + |T(cold)/T(hot)| > 100%
This is a counter-intuitive consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Note the usual formula for positive temperatures is
e = 1 - |T(cold)/T(hot)| < 100%
On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Micro-quantum physics is nonlocal, linear, unitary with entanglements and signal locality and the Born probability.
Macro-quantum physics is local, nonlinear, nonunitary with entanglement suppressed in the macro-mode, with possible signal nonlocality and a breakdown in Born probability rule from "phase rigidity" that in special case is Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for the emergence of smooth curved space-time in the inflationary phase transition where the inflation field is a virtual electron-positron macro-quantum vacuum condensate that contains Einstein's metric field guv from the coherent phase of the local order as well as both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacuum zero point quantum pressures negative and positive respectively from the intensity of the local order parameter.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Non-equilibrium physics for Dummies. (Original presentation)
1. Equilibrium Stat Mech
Start with thermal equilibrium Boltzmann factor with a chemical potential u constraint conserving total particle number N.
Equilibrium Probability ~ e^-(E - uN)/kT
Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)
u = 0 signals at Tc and below onset of phase transition violating N-conservation where N = number of normal fluid particles not in the BEC.
The mean occupation number for IDEAL BOSE GAS is
n(E)/N = [e^(E - uN)/kT - 1]^-1
With u = 0 below the critical temperature Tc as T -> 0, n(E) --> Kronecker delta^E,0, where E = p^2/2m on mass shell for real bosons of rest mass m.
2. Non-equilibrium stat mech.
Every open system has a "cavity quality factor" Q.
Q = E/(dE/dt)
E = energy stored in the open system
dE/dt is rate of energy leak
Q < 0 is an active medium like a laser above threshold.
The NONEQUILIBRIUM Boltzman factor is simply
Non-Equilibrium Probability = e^-(E + QP - uN)/kT
P = pump power through-put to open system.
Note that as P -> infinity, the effective temperature
T* = T/(QP/E) --> 0
This explains emergence of order in pumped non-equilibrium systems as P --> infinity.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
One loose end in the charge clusters model is to explain how total charge is globally conserved over all. What happens to the positive charge image cluster (much heavier) twin to the electron cluster?
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Ray Chiao's paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" is very important. The fractional quantized conductivity Hall effect in 2D electron gases in an external magnetic field may be the key to controlling exotic vacuum zero point energy for metric engineering practical warp drive like what is alleged in the UFO phenomenon.
The macro-quantum Hall effect also has a coherent order that may couple to the partial vacuum coherent order to make the warp field
/\zpf ~ Lp*^-2(volume factor)^5/2(density of virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate)^1/2 (density of control 2D quantum Hall condensate)^1/2cosine(Dynamical Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson Phase + Topological Berry Phase)
Where the exotic vacuum zero point energy density is
tuv(ZPF) = (c^4/8piG*)/\zpfguv
w = pressure/(energy density) = -1
Note also that my neat new non-equilibrium Boltzmann factor for open systems with power throughput P
e^-E*/kT
E* = E + QP
Q = quality factor of the open system leaky resonator like Fabry-Perot interferometer laser
Q = U/dU/dt
U = internal energy of the open system
Effective non-equilibrium temperature is
T* = T/(QP/E)
Note that Q < 0 is an active system like a laser which has an effective NEGATIVE TEMPERATURE!
A reversible Carnot cycle between a hot negative temperature and a cold positive temperature has efficiency
e = Work/(Hot Heat In) = 1 + |T(cold)/T(hot)| > 100%
This is a counter-intuitive consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Note the usual formula for positive temperatures is
e = 1 - |T(cold)/T(hot)| < 100%
On Jul 14, 2004, at 11:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Micro-quantum physics is nonlocal, linear, unitary with entanglements and signal locality and the Born probability.
Macro-quantum physics is local, nonlinear, nonunitary with entanglement suppressed in the macro-mode, with possible signal nonlocality and a breakdown in Born probability rule from "phase rigidity" that in special case is Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for the emergence of smooth curved space-time in the inflationary phase transition where the inflation field is a virtual electron-positron macro-quantum vacuum condensate that contains Einstein's metric field guv from the coherent phase of the local order as well as both dark energy and dark matter as exotic vacuum zero point quantum pressures negative and positive respectively from the intensity of the local order parameter.
On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:09 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Non-equilibrium physics for Dummies. (Original presentation)
1. Equilibrium Stat Mech
Start with thermal equilibrium Boltzmann factor with a chemical potential u constraint conserving total particle number N.
Equilibrium Probability ~ e^-(E - uN)/kT
Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)
u = 0 signals at Tc and below onset of phase transition violating N-conservation where N = number of normal fluid particles not in the BEC.
The mean occupation number for IDEAL BOSE GAS is
n(E)/N = [e^(E - uN)/kT - 1]^-1
With u = 0 below the critical temperature Tc as T -> 0, n(E) --> Kronecker delta^E,0, where E = p^2/2m on mass shell for real bosons of rest mass m.
2. Non-equilibrium stat mech.
Every open system has a "cavity quality factor" Q.
Q = E/(dE/dt)
E = energy stored in the open system
dE/dt is rate of energy leak
Q < 0 is an active medium like a laser above threshold.
The NONEQUILIBRIUM Boltzman factor is simply
Non-Equilibrium Probability = e^-(E + QP - uN)/kT
P = pump power through-put to open system.
Note that as P -> infinity, the effective temperature
T* = T/(QP/E) --> 0
This explains emergence of order in pumped non-equilibrium systems as P --> infinity.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
One loose end in the charge clusters model is to explain how total charge is globally conserved over all. What happens to the positive charge image cluster (much heavier) twin to the electron cluster?
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Non-equilibrium physics for Dummies. (Original presentation)
1. Equilibrium Stat Mech
Start with thermal equilibrium Boltzmann factor with a chemical potential u constraint conserving total particle number N.
Equilibrium Probability ~ e^-(E - uN)/kT
Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)
u = 0 signals at Tc and below onset of phase transition violating N-conservation where N = number of normal fluid particles not in the BEC.
The mean occupation number for IDEAL BOSE GAS is
n(E)/N = [e^(E - uN)/kT - 1]^-1
With u = 0 below the critical temperature Tc as T -> 0, n(E) --> Kronecker delta^E,0, where E = p^2/2m on mass shell for real bosons of rest mass m.
2. Non-equilibrium stat mech.
Every open system has a "cavity quality factor" Q.
Q = E/(dE/dt)
E = energy stored in the open system
dE/dt is rate of energy leak
Q < 0 is an active medium like a laser above threshold.
The NONEQUILIBRIUM Boltzman factor is simply
Non-Equilibrium Probability = e^-(E + QP - uN)/kT
P = pump power through-put to open system.
Note that as P -> infinity, the effective temperature
T* = T/(QP/E) --> 0
This explains emergence of order in pumped non-equilibrium systems as P --> infinity.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
One loose end in the charge clusters model is to explain how total charge is globally conserved over all. What happens to the positive charge image cluster (much heavier) twin to the electron cluster?
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Non-equilibrium physics for Dummies. (Original presentation)
1. Equilibrium Stat Mech
Start with thermal equilibrium Boltzmann factor with a chemical potential u constraint conserving total particle number N.
Equilibrium Probability ~ e^-(E - uN)/kT
Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)
u = 0 signals at Tc and below onset of phase transition violating N-conservation where N = number of normal fluid particles not in the BEC.
The mean occupation number for IDEAL BOSE GAS is
n(E)/N = [e^(E - uN)/kT - 1]^-1
With u = 0 below the critical temperature Tc as T -> 0, n(E) --> Kronecker delta^E,0, where E = p^2/2m on mass shell for real bosons of rest mass m.
2. Non-equilibrium stat mech.
Every open system has a "cavity quality factor" Q.
Q = E/(dE/dt)
E = energy stored in the open system
dE/dt is rate of energy leak
Q < 0 is an active medium like a laser above threshold.
The NONEQUILIBRIUM Boltzman factor is simply
Non-Equilibrium Probability = e^-(E + QP - uN)/kT
P = pump power through-put to open system.
Note that as P -> infinity, the effective temperature
T* = T/(QP/E) --> 0
This explains emergence of order in pumped non-equilibrium systems as P --> infinity.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
One loose end in the charge clusters model is to explain how total charge is globally conserved over all. What happens to the positive charge image cluster (much heavier) twin to the electron cluster?
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
PS
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
It is important to understand why Hal Puthoff's previous attempts to explain this very same data of Ken Shoulders did not work. Hal did not ask the right question. He is not alone in that of course. Hal made the false assumption that it was the QED Casimir force that would hold the 100 billion electrons together in the charge cluster. In fact what is really going on is a completely different physical effect. It is ZPF induced gravity dependent on partial vacuum coherence. BTW when one reads "Science and Ultimate Reality" it is obvious how the string-brane theorists are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the Dark Cave. You do not now seem to need exorbitant new mathematical superstructures like "colliding branes" to explain any of the new cosmological observations nor any of the high energy physics particle observations.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by
strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero
point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are
self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary
unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero
point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum
Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of
this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters
available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in
Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave
miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of
the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray
Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and
Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion
from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a
small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force
argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to
the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom,
not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the
liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to
get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor
for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this
tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor
pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when
integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating
Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other
fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter
fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf
=/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
On Jul 11, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS: Ken's lab experiments seem to be relevant to this discussion.
His "charge clusters" (AKA "EVO") that I interpret as glued together by strong short-range effective gravity induced by micro-quantum zero point energy exotic vacuum cores on the mesoscopic scale are self-propelled charged geons. The self-propulsion comes for temporary unstable inhomogeneous distributions of positive and negative zero point quantum pressures at different parts of the EVO.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
SUPERLUMINAL PARTICLE MEASUREMENTS
by
Ken Shoulders and Dr. Jack Sarfatti
Abstract
Measurements made on clusters of electrons operating as Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs, show velocities exceeding that of light. A theory of this behavior is presented based on manipulation of parameters available in this new field of exotic vacuum engineering.
This paper can be downloaded from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken Shoulders
Note that Ken was a long-time collaborator of Hal Puthoff's way back in Hal's National Security Agency days. Ken has many patents in micro-wave miniaturization and has devoted many decades to these EVO measurements.
On Jul 11, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On testing macro-quantum theory of emergent gravity in cosmology
On Jul 10, 2004, at 12:10 PM,
This is the one to shoot down.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/CoherentCosmos.pdf
(expanded version posted last night)
If you can?
Show it is wrong, or not even wrong.
Happy Hunting.
:-)
Paul
On issue of the tidal stretch-squeeze liquid drop local measurement of the curvature tensor in free float LIF that is not a problem. As Ray Chiao points out in his "Conceptual Tensions" paper in "Science and Ultimate Reality" you need to distinguish the center of mass motion from the relative motion of a spatially extended object like even a small liquid drop with small enough surface tension. The g-force argument of local vanishing of the connection field applies only to the center of mass effective "point test particle" degree of freedom, not to the tidal stretch-squeeze relative motions of the pieces of the liquid drop, which must be "free" (ignorable interparticle forces) to get a good measurement.
Now, in terms of "nonlocality" of the pure gravity energy.
Obviously we can trivially define a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure vacuum gravity field as simply
tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/G)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
Einstein's 1916 field equation is then simply
tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter) = 0
In the classical vacuum with zero micro-quantum ZPF i.e. /\zpf = 0
and with Tuv(Matter) = 0
Then trivially
tuv(Geometry) = 0 in non-exotic vacuum.
MTW say this.
The problem is that you cannot get a global Pu from integrating this tuv(Geometry) over 3D space for a "Geon" in Wheeler's sense.
You need to split the tensor tuv(Geometry) into two pseudo-tensor pieces, one is a kind of background frame for the other, which when integrated gives a Pu for gravity waves from the rotating vibrating Geon.
Note, in terms of metric engineering.
When /\zpf = 0, at the given scale, with zero torsion and zero other fields from NOT locally gauging complete conformal group,
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
Separately. No intermixing between the geometrodynamics and the matter fields that live on the geometrodynamics.
This FORBIDS metric engineering. But the situation changes when /\zpf =/= 0!
I leave for airport to London in a few hours.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Paul
I am leaving for UK in a few days and probably will not have time for this till August.
I am meeting Alex in Dublin at GR 17. So keep up discussion with Alex.
Paul I think there are TWO different energy problems here. The one Alex is doing asks a different question from the one I am addressing. Asking about a TOTAL Pu in an asympototically flat space-time from a pure gravity field localized geon is what requires the pseudo-tensor and nonlocality of the energy of the pure gravity field (unless Alex has a new way to look at it) and is different from Einstein's field equation which can always be written as
tuv(pure gravity) + Tuv(matter) = 0
Where in GR 1916
Tuv^;v = 0
tuv^'v = 0
tuv(pure gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
tuv(pure gravity) = 0 when /\zpf = 0 in ALL frames geodesic LIF and non-geodesic LNIF as Wheeler says explicitly.
This is different from the above Pu(total) problem related to gravity waves.
SEPARATELY - a degenerate case for non-exotic vacuum without torsion et-al where /\zpf = 0.
The Question is: "What is The Question?" (Wheeler)
On Jul 6, 2004, at 12:39 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I don't see anything in Eddington that contradicts my position!
Spell it out - type the words you think inconsistent with what I am saying?
PZ: OK, let's look at what he says:
From p.39-41 of "Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (1923):
17. The Principle of Equivalence.
AE (Arthur Eddington): In § 15 we have stated the laws of motion of undisturbed material particles and of
light-pulses in a form independent of the coordinates chosen.
JS: Of course.
AE: Since a great deal
will depend upon the truth of these laws it is desirable to consider what justification
there is for believing them to be both accurate and universal. Three courses are open:
(a) It will be shown in Chapters IV and VI that these laws follow rigorously from a
more fundamental discussion of the nature of matter and of electromagnetic fields;
that is to say, the hypotheses underlying them may be pushed a stage further back.
(b) The track of a moving particle or light-pulse under specified initial conditions is
unique, and it does not seem to be possible to specify any unique tracks in terms
of intervals only other than those given by equations (15.7) and (15.8).
JS: Fine
AE: (c) We may arrive at these laws by induction from experiment.
JS: Indeed.
AE: If we rely solely on experimental evidence we cannot claim exactness for the laws.
JS: Sure
PZ: OK, this is the first point. Experiments alone cannot prove the validity of the laws of GR,
including the equivalence principle.
JS: So what? This is the case for ALL physics theories about anything. Physics, unlike math, cannot "prove."
Physics is completely pragmatic tested by observation and experiment and technology spin-off. Our most
cherished philosophical preconceptions are most frequently found to be worthless by the progress of science.
PZ: True. So why is Eddington reminding his readership of this here if it is so completely redundant?
JS: Ask Saul-Paul. AE wrote this a very long time ago and I guess the book is semi-popular?
PZ: Answer: Because he fears his readers may be taking the Equivalence Principle too seriously, perhaps
forgetting in their excitement that it is really just a tentative inductive hypothesis and that we should not
assume or even expect its universal validity in curved spacetime.
JS: You just lost me. The equivalence principle makes no sense in globally flat space-time where there is no gravity. Mathematically the local form of the equivalence principle is simply the tetrad map between coincident LIFs and LNIFs at approximately the same point event P. An astronaut in space makes such a tetrad switch by turning conventional rockets on or off - qualitatively different from ZPF warp drive!
JS: Universally the case for all physical theories.
PZ: Not so easy for entrenched principles, because they can function as "a priori synthetic propositions".
Try and refute the thermodynamic "no perpetual motion devices" principle with a single experiment.
Try and convince anyone you've seen a talking horse, even if you have.
JS: Replace "talking horse" by "flying saucer" and "paranormal events."
PZ: So there are some subtleties here. Eddington obviously feels that it is too early to crown Einstein
equivalence as an entrenched principle of physics, and even suggests that it is not in fact universally
valid.
JS: I know of no physical idea that is universally valid.
AE: Belief in the perfect accuracy of
(15.7) and (15.8) can only be justified on the theoretical grounds (a) or (b).
JS: No physicist "believes" in the "perfect accuracy" of ANY theoretical idea! If this is what your argument is based on, it is spurious.
Pz: From an epistemic standpoint, yes. But this is Eddington, not me. This is what *Eddington's* position is based on.
JS: AE could be wrong too. He wrote this in the early days.
PZ: I seem to recall that he was once one of the two -- maybe three -- people in the world who
were actually thought to understand general relativity ca. 1919?
JS: So like a journalist! :-)
PZ: His point here is that the equivalence principle is *no exception* and has no privileged a priori
or entrenched status.
JS: Who would disagree with that?
PZ: Of course, entrenchment of normative principles in physics is not really an epistemic matter.
However, it still occurs, and sceitnists proceed *as if* such principles are "proved".
JS: But "scientists" should not. :-)
PZ: Jack, I think you may have read too much Hume. :-)
JS: Mea Culpa
PZ: But the more
important consideration is the universality, rather than the accuracy, of the experimental laws;
we have to guard against a spurious generalisation extended to conditions intrinsically
dissimilar from those for which the laws have been established observationally.
JS: Again this is Philosophy of Science 101 for all scientific theories.
Obviously!
PZ: So we have to guard against spurious generalization to all posible physical conditions
of these laws.
Einstein proposed gravitational-inertial equivalence as an absolute fundamental principle, based on what
almost amounted to an *ontological identification*, for the purposes of physics, of gravitational with
inertial fields.
JS: So Al was over-enthusiastic when he was creating his theory.
PZ: This was the cornerstone for his entire theory of gravitation and this cast a huge spell over physics
for half a century and more.cYou don't seem to acknowledge this. He really believed that it *had* to be true. Because "the good Lord doesn't play tricks". It was all just too beautiful to be false.
JS: It's not "false" in its proper context domain of validity. All theoretical physics is heuristics!
PZ: Eddington was here acting as a counterweight to the immense charismatic authority and scientific
reputation of Einstein.
JS: Fine, but this is psychology, sociology, anthropology and politics of physicists not physics.
AE: We derived (15.7) [the geodesic law] from the equations (15.5) which describe the observed
behaviour of a particle moving under no field of force.
JS: Yes, that is a classical equation for an idealized point test particle - an approximation with a limited domain of validity.
PZ: Right. But GR takes this as fundamental, since it guarantees general covariance of the laws of motion,
and also the complete fundamental relativity of the *observed* appearance of such motion regardless of the
frame from which it is viewed. Otherwise you pick out a preferred frame of reference in which inertial motion looks straight as well as *being in fact actually straight*.
JS: Remember there are preferred frames at the level of SOLUTIONS. There are no preferred frames at the level of the local tensor-spinor field equations. The Hubble flow in which the cosmic black body radiation is isotropic to 10^-5 is such a preferred global frame in FRW cosmology. It's practical for interstellar and intergalactic navigation. One can get an absolute fix via local measurements only on "when" relative to Big Bang and "how fast" coming out of the star gate where no Earth person has gone before. You may not know "where," but definitely you know "when" and this includes time travel to the past if the wormhole is old enough. The wormhole is sustained by dark energy density's negative quantum ZPF pressure.
PZ: Eotvos equivalence makes this shift *possible*; the equivalence principle renders it *necessary*, as I understand Einstein's thinking. We assume that the result holds in all circumstances.
JS: No, not at all. First of all we assume no torsion and no other geometrodynamic field from locally gauging the full 15 parameter conformal space-time symmetry group. Einstein's 1916 GR only works if it is sufficient to only locally gauge the 4-parameter translation sub-group of the conformal group whose infinitesimal generators are the total momenergy Pu. The issue is, what is the connection field for parallel transport? Second, we ignore micro-quantum ZPF corrections and issues of extended spatial "string" structure and the breakdown of the passive point test particle approximation.
Everything depends upon the physical nature of the tetrads that are the local compensating gauge force fields of the relevant continuous symmetry groups. The tetrads are for gravity what the vector potential Au is for electromagnetism. Also hyperspace effects? Supersymmetry?
PZ: The risky point in the generalisation is not in introducing a field of force, because
that may be due to an attitude of mind of which the particle has no cognizance. The risk is in
passing from regions of the world where Galilean coordinates (x, y, z, t) are possible to
intrinsically dissimilar regions where no such coordinates exist-from flat space-time to space-time
which is not flat. So he is saying that the extension of the domain of applicability of the geodesic condition
Int ds stationary
to curved spacetime is hypothetical.
JS: I don't know what he is saying. It's too vague. Modern differential geometry of charts and atlases handles all this.
The geodesic principle here is simply the classical action principle for a passive point test particle of invariant mass m whose action differential dS is
dS = mc^2ds/c = mcds
ds^2 = guv(P)dx^udx^v
in curved or flat space-time. There is no direct back-reaction on the geometrodynamic field. Of course in warp drive there is! You can no longer think in terms of test particles when you metric engineer reactionless warp drive.
PZ: I mean he is saying that the exact applicability of the principle is hypothetical with respect to
curved regions of spacetime (in the presence of gravitational fields).
JS: This does not strike me as important. Everything is hypothetical ultimately.
"The risky point in the generalisation is not in introducing a field of force... The risk is in passing from
regions of the world where Galilean coordinates (x, y, z, t) are possible to intrinsically dissimilar regions
where no such coordinates exist -- *from flat space-time to space-time which is not flat*."
PZ: What I read him as saying here is that we cannot assume that the effect of a gravititational field can be
exhaustively determined in terms of geodesic motion in a connection field, since Riemann curvature
may also itself have direct local physical effects on the motion of a test particle -- and that is a matter
for experiment to decide.
JS: NO for a point test particle. YES for a spatially-extended structure if the detectors are sensitive enough.
The Principle of Equivalence asserts the legitimacy of this generalisation.
JS: Vague.
PZ: He is saying that if one fails, then so does the other. The logic is clear.
In other words, the principle of equivalence depends criticially on the unrestricted applicability
of the geodesic law to curved spacetime -- and thus extension of its own applicability to
general spacetime is itself hypothetical.
JS: I don't see how this is useful for solving the problems I am interested in i.e. nature of the dark energy and how to properly metric engineer space-time for industrial expansion into space.
...
PZ: In other words, in Eddington's view, there is nothing *a priori* compelling about this principle.
This is trite. So what? That is so for ALL theories!
Some principles are a lot more equal than others. Some are taken more seriously than others, and are
harder to dislodge.
Do you really think the great Eddington is just blowing hot air here? Filling up white space? Repeating the
painfully obvious?
JS: So it appears yes.
PZ: Or are you missing something?
JS: Always possible, but I see no evidence for that.
...
PZ: So there is a subset of phenomena for which the equivalence principle holds good -- but there
may be other phenomena for which equivalence breaks down. We cannot say in advance.
JS: No one disputes that.
PZ: OK.
...
The equivalence principle would be violated, and the pure geometric model of geodesic motion in curved
spacetime would then unravel.
Jack, it is becoming obvious that you do not understand Einstein's actual theory. You seem to be working
with a gutted-out version, which is a stripped-down formal-empirical system -- a husk. I suppose that is
why you do not see why these issues are even relevant.
JS: They are not relevant to any of the problems I am interested in. Or, if they are, you have not shown me how.
Eddington's book was in the early days and it is quaint interesting to historians, but I do not see how it is relevant? Of course, I could be wrong but the burden of proof is on you.
PZ: But Einstein himself certainly believed them to be relevant to the validity of his theory. That is why he insisted on the complete reduction of the gravitational field to a connection field, which does indeed completely cancel at at some point in every LIF.
JS: This is correct given the provisos above. I see no reason to give that idea up within it's proper empirical context i.e. set of useful approximations.
PZ: The modern view is quite different. Clearly there must be some phenomena of this kind which discriminate between a flat world and a curved world; otherwise we could have no knowledge of world-curvature.
JS: Ditto.
PZ: For these the Principle of Equivalence breaks down.
JS: Depends on what "breaks down" means.
PZ: He means it would then no longer hold as Einstein originally stated it.
JS: For passive point test particles there is no problem of consistency. The existence of tidal tensors in no way invalidates the equivalence principle for the non-tensor "g-force" connection field (at least in absence of torsion et-al). Measurements of the g-force in a LNIF and the tidal stretch-squeezes in ANY frame LIF or LNIF are not at all dependent on each other. There is no conflict at all. It's up to you to show in a particular case how I might be wrong in my last remark.
I have said that the equivalence principle says nothing about stretch-squeeze tidal effects measured by pairs of point test particles on neighboring timelike geodesics, it only speaks to g-force effects on one point test particle NOT on a timelike geodesic! So it's apples and oranges!
PZ: And of course all of this is an approximate model!
JS: Of course.
PZ: *You* say that, but that was not *Einstein's* position.
JS: I am not prepared to debate the historical accuracy of what you just said. I will leave that to experts in the history of the evolution of Einstein's informal language about how to understand his equations.
PZ: Yours was not the reasoning behind the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor, which assumes
exact universal Einstein equivalence as a fundamental principle. That is why Einstein was led
to this pseudo-tensor definition, and why he hung onto it tenaciously despite all its problems.
JS: Again Einstein was asking a question about a global Pu from a localized region of matter free curvature, i.e. a geon. The problem is relevant to gravity waves coming from multipole wobbles of the geon quadrupole and higher. This is my memory of it - I need to do some work on that.
PZ: From your POV, this must all be a total mystery. In which case I cannot imagine why you put
so much emphasis on the MTW p 456 et seq. argument against a tensorial gravitational stress-
energy, an argument which is based squarely on precisely this Einsteinian premise.
JS: The way I understand MTW there is simply
1. In ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 then there is a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure gravity field and it is exactly ZERO because Guv = 0. This includes EVERYTHING both far field and near field.
2. If you have a localized wobbling geon surrounded by flat space-time and you are interested in the gravity waves coming from it, you need a GLOBAL Pu in that flat asymptotic boundary region that is an integral over the space of the geon and its integrand is obviously NOT the zero tensor I defined in 1! That is the problem. The problem then is to separate out near-field and far-field dynamical degrees of freedom of the pure geometrodynamic field and one way of doing that is using that pseudo-tensor technique.
tuv(Geon in /\zpf = 0 vacuum) = tuv(Near Field) + tuv(Far Field) = 0
Something like that.
PZ: A good example would be local tidal forces, which are finite down to a point. Another example
would be quadrupole effects on spinning test particles, which do not diminsh with the relative
spacetime scale of the particle or the experimental apparatus.
CORRECTION: Here I should have written "... are measurable down to a point".
JS: This has nothing to do with the equivalence principle that is making an assertion at a different level, but is consistent with what you just said because
Ruvwl(LNIFP) = Eu^a Ev^b Ew^c El^d Rabcd(LIFP)
Where R is the stretch-squeeze tidal tensor
PZ: Then how do you account for the position taken in Ciufolini & Wheeler?
I quote:
"In general relativity, the content and meaning of the strong equivalence principle is that in a sufficiently
small neighborhood of any spacetime event, in a local freely falling frame, *no gravitational effects are
observable*." - C&W, p17
JS: The key phrase you block from your consciousness there is "in a sufficiently small neighborhood" i.e. below the radar of your stretch-squeeze measuring instruments and not so small that you may encounter quantum foam ZPF, which may not even exist BTW.
JS:In contrast, the g-force is the symmetric connection field that vanishes on a timelike geodesic! There is no problem here! Astronauts are weightless all the time on their free orbits round the Earth. Switching on a rocket motor is a Eu^a(P)!
PZ: "I see no ships!"
JS: Heads up.
...
This is all in Einstein 1907 and many of his later writings. And that's also the entire basis for the geometric
model of the gravitato-inertial field.
JS: Citing Einstein in 1907 is NOT fair.
...
Wheeler fully acknowledges the undeniable fact that the Riemann curvature tensor cannot
be made zero anywhere in spacetime by a mere coorinate transformation.
PZ: But here's what he says in Ciufolini & Wheeler:
"In general relativity, the content and meaning of the strong equivalence principle is that in a sufficiently
small neighborhood of any spacetime event, in a local freely falling frame, *no gravitational effects are
observable*."
"Here, neighborhood means neighborhood in space and time. Therefore, one might formulate the medium
strong equivalence principle, or Einstein equivalence principle, in the following form: for every spacetime
event (then excluding singularities), for any experimental apparatus, with some limiting accuracy, there
exists a neighborhood, in space and time, of the event, and infinitely many local freely falling frames, such
that for every nongravitational phenomenon the difference between the measurements performed (assuming
that the smallness of the spacetime neighborhood does not affect the experimental accuracy) and the
theoretical results predicted by special relativity (including the Minkowskian character of the geometry) is
less than the limiting accuracy and therefore undetectable in the neighborhood"
"In other words, in the spacetime neighborhood considered, in a freely falling frame all the nongravitational
laws of physics agree with the laws of special relativity (including the Minkowskian character of spacetime),
apart from a small difference due to the gravitational field that is; however, unmeasurable with the given
experimental accuracy."
"We might formulate the very strong equivalence principle in a similar way."
-- Ciufolini & Wheeler, Ch 2, pp 16- 17
JS: This is what I have been saying.
PZ: So what C&W are doing here is replacing Einstein's original version of the equivalence principle -- which literally identified gravitational with inertial fields -- with a weaker operational version which holds that within a sufficiently small neighborhood of spacetime, tidal *and any other effects* which might locally be used to empirically distinguish a true gravity field from an inertial field within a some limited spacetime neighborhood will *always* become operationally negligible when the neighborhood is made sufficiently small.
This rather desperate defense is immediately defeated by Ohanian & Ruffini's counterexample of the ratio of
transverse deformations of a water droplet, which simply does not diminish in this manner, but rather approaches a *finite empirically determinable limit* when the neighborhood is contracted to zero, under the influence of local tidal forces.
JS: There is no contradiction. The water droplet is no longer a POINT test particle. It has EXTENDED STRUCTURE and of course the tidal tensor stretch squeeze is a LOCAL FIELD. The point here however is that the POINT center of mass of the water droplet will free float along a timelike geodesic although its rotational/vibrational motion about that center may depend on the stretch-squeeze field? There is no basic contradiction here!
..
PZ: It is clear that C&W are trying to pretend here that this is not really the case, and that their version of "Einstein equivalence" is somehow defensible in some weaker operational form -- taking the restrictive model of a pair of test particles, or a gravitometer, as a cue.But as I have previously argued -- quite accurately, I think -- this is mere cardboard-cutout. Jus' sayin' it don't make it so.
JS: I think I just showed the error in your argument?
PZ: Now let us revisit the argument in MTW (p 456-7):
JAW: "No gammas, no gravitational field; no gravitational field, no gravitational stress-energy" (MTW p 457)
JS: Yes exactly! That is tuv(Pure Gravity, /\zpf = 0, NEAR + FAR overlap) = 0 because Guv = 0 in that case and
tuv = (c^4/8piG)Guv
Assumes no torsion field, no micro-quantum ZPF, no other exotic field contributions to the connection field.
PZ: That is, at at least some spacetime point in any LIF, the g-field must *entirely disappear* -- that is, be
*completely annihilated* -- because the "gammas" all cancel.
JS: To violate this would mean astronauts around Earth not weightless with rockets off.
I am leaving for UK in a few days and probably will not have time for this till August.
I am meeting Alex in Dublin at GR 17. So keep up discussion with Alex.
Paul I think there are TWO different energy problems here. The one Alex is doing asks a different question from the one I am addressing. Asking about a TOTAL Pu in an asympototically flat space-time from a pure gravity field localized geon is what requires the pseudo-tensor and nonlocality of the energy of the pure gravity field (unless Alex has a new way to look at it) and is different from Einstein's field equation which can always be written as
tuv(pure gravity) + Tuv(matter) = 0
Where in GR 1916
Tuv^;v = 0
tuv^'v = 0
tuv(pure gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
tuv(pure gravity) = 0 when /\zpf = 0 in ALL frames geodesic LIF and non-geodesic LNIF as Wheeler says explicitly.
This is different from the above Pu(total) problem related to gravity waves.
SEPARATELY - a degenerate case for non-exotic vacuum without torsion et-al where /\zpf = 0.
The Question is: "What is The Question?" (Wheeler)
On Jul 6, 2004, at 12:39 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I don't see anything in Eddington that contradicts my position!
Spell it out - type the words you think inconsistent with what I am saying?
PZ: OK, let's look at what he says:
From p.39-41 of "Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (1923):
17. The Principle of Equivalence.
AE (Arthur Eddington): In § 15 we have stated the laws of motion of undisturbed material particles and of
light-pulses in a form independent of the coordinates chosen.
JS: Of course.
AE: Since a great deal
will depend upon the truth of these laws it is desirable to consider what justification
there is for believing them to be both accurate and universal. Three courses are open:
(a) It will be shown in Chapters IV and VI that these laws follow rigorously from a
more fundamental discussion of the nature of matter and of electromagnetic fields;
that is to say, the hypotheses underlying them may be pushed a stage further back.
(b) The track of a moving particle or light-pulse under specified initial conditions is
unique, and it does not seem to be possible to specify any unique tracks in terms
of intervals only other than those given by equations (15.7) and (15.8).
JS: Fine
AE: (c) We may arrive at these laws by induction from experiment.
JS: Indeed.
AE: If we rely solely on experimental evidence we cannot claim exactness for the laws.
JS: Sure
PZ: OK, this is the first point. Experiments alone cannot prove the validity of the laws of GR,
including the equivalence principle.
JS: So what? This is the case for ALL physics theories about anything. Physics, unlike math, cannot "prove."
Physics is completely pragmatic tested by observation and experiment and technology spin-off. Our most
cherished philosophical preconceptions are most frequently found to be worthless by the progress of science.
PZ: True. So why is Eddington reminding his readership of this here if it is so completely redundant?
JS: Ask Saul-Paul. AE wrote this a very long time ago and I guess the book is semi-popular?
PZ: Answer: Because he fears his readers may be taking the Equivalence Principle too seriously, perhaps
forgetting in their excitement that it is really just a tentative inductive hypothesis and that we should not
assume or even expect its universal validity in curved spacetime.
JS: You just lost me. The equivalence principle makes no sense in globally flat space-time where there is no gravity. Mathematically the local form of the equivalence principle is simply the tetrad map between coincident LIFs and LNIFs at approximately the same point event P. An astronaut in space makes such a tetrad switch by turning conventional rockets on or off - qualitatively different from ZPF warp drive!
JS: Universally the case for all physical theories.
PZ: Not so easy for entrenched principles, because they can function as "a priori synthetic propositions".
Try and refute the thermodynamic "no perpetual motion devices" principle with a single experiment.
Try and convince anyone you've seen a talking horse, even if you have.
JS: Replace "talking horse" by "flying saucer" and "paranormal events."
PZ: So there are some subtleties here. Eddington obviously feels that it is too early to crown Einstein
equivalence as an entrenched principle of physics, and even suggests that it is not in fact universally
valid.
JS: I know of no physical idea that is universally valid.
AE: Belief in the perfect accuracy of
(15.7) and (15.8) can only be justified on the theoretical grounds (a) or (b).
JS: No physicist "believes" in the "perfect accuracy" of ANY theoretical idea! If this is what your argument is based on, it is spurious.
Pz: From an epistemic standpoint, yes. But this is Eddington, not me. This is what *Eddington's* position is based on.
JS: AE could be wrong too. He wrote this in the early days.
PZ: I seem to recall that he was once one of the two -- maybe three -- people in the world who
were actually thought to understand general relativity ca. 1919?
JS: So like a journalist! :-)
PZ: His point here is that the equivalence principle is *no exception* and has no privileged a priori
or entrenched status.
JS: Who would disagree with that?
PZ: Of course, entrenchment of normative principles in physics is not really an epistemic matter.
However, it still occurs, and sceitnists proceed *as if* such principles are "proved".
JS: But "scientists" should not. :-)
PZ: Jack, I think you may have read too much Hume. :-)
JS: Mea Culpa
PZ: But the more
important consideration is the universality, rather than the accuracy, of the experimental laws;
we have to guard against a spurious generalisation extended to conditions intrinsically
dissimilar from those for which the laws have been established observationally.
JS: Again this is Philosophy of Science 101 for all scientific theories.
Obviously!
PZ: So we have to guard against spurious generalization to all posible physical conditions
of these laws.
Einstein proposed gravitational-inertial equivalence as an absolute fundamental principle, based on what
almost amounted to an *ontological identification*, for the purposes of physics, of gravitational with
inertial fields.
JS: So Al was over-enthusiastic when he was creating his theory.
PZ: This was the cornerstone for his entire theory of gravitation and this cast a huge spell over physics
for half a century and more.cYou don't seem to acknowledge this. He really believed that it *had* to be true. Because "the good Lord doesn't play tricks". It was all just too beautiful to be false.
JS: It's not "false" in its proper context domain of validity. All theoretical physics is heuristics!
PZ: Eddington was here acting as a counterweight to the immense charismatic authority and scientific
reputation of Einstein.
JS: Fine, but this is psychology, sociology, anthropology and politics of physicists not physics.
AE: We derived (15.7) [the geodesic law] from the equations (15.5) which describe the observed
behaviour of a particle moving under no field of force.
JS: Yes, that is a classical equation for an idealized point test particle - an approximation with a limited domain of validity.
PZ: Right. But GR takes this as fundamental, since it guarantees general covariance of the laws of motion,
and also the complete fundamental relativity of the *observed* appearance of such motion regardless of the
frame from which it is viewed. Otherwise you pick out a preferred frame of reference in which inertial motion looks straight as well as *being in fact actually straight*.
JS: Remember there are preferred frames at the level of SOLUTIONS. There are no preferred frames at the level of the local tensor-spinor field equations. The Hubble flow in which the cosmic black body radiation is isotropic to 10^-5 is such a preferred global frame in FRW cosmology. It's practical for interstellar and intergalactic navigation. One can get an absolute fix via local measurements only on "when" relative to Big Bang and "how fast" coming out of the star gate where no Earth person has gone before. You may not know "where," but definitely you know "when" and this includes time travel to the past if the wormhole is old enough. The wormhole is sustained by dark energy density's negative quantum ZPF pressure.
PZ: Eotvos equivalence makes this shift *possible*; the equivalence principle renders it *necessary*, as I understand Einstein's thinking. We assume that the result holds in all circumstances.
JS: No, not at all. First of all we assume no torsion and no other geometrodynamic field from locally gauging the full 15 parameter conformal space-time symmetry group. Einstein's 1916 GR only works if it is sufficient to only locally gauge the 4-parameter translation sub-group of the conformal group whose infinitesimal generators are the total momenergy Pu. The issue is, what is the connection field for parallel transport? Second, we ignore micro-quantum ZPF corrections and issues of extended spatial "string" structure and the breakdown of the passive point test particle approximation.
Everything depends upon the physical nature of the tetrads that are the local compensating gauge force fields of the relevant continuous symmetry groups. The tetrads are for gravity what the vector potential Au is for electromagnetism. Also hyperspace effects? Supersymmetry?
PZ: The risky point in the generalisation is not in introducing a field of force, because
that may be due to an attitude of mind of which the particle has no cognizance. The risk is in
passing from regions of the world where Galilean coordinates (x, y, z, t) are possible to
intrinsically dissimilar regions where no such coordinates exist-from flat space-time to space-time
which is not flat. So he is saying that the extension of the domain of applicability of the geodesic condition
Int ds stationary
to curved spacetime is hypothetical.
JS: I don't know what he is saying. It's too vague. Modern differential geometry of charts and atlases handles all this.
The geodesic principle here is simply the classical action principle for a passive point test particle of invariant mass m whose action differential dS is
dS = mc^2ds/c = mcds
ds^2 = guv(P)dx^udx^v
in curved or flat space-time. There is no direct back-reaction on the geometrodynamic field. Of course in warp drive there is! You can no longer think in terms of test particles when you metric engineer reactionless warp drive.
PZ: I mean he is saying that the exact applicability of the principle is hypothetical with respect to
curved regions of spacetime (in the presence of gravitational fields).
JS: This does not strike me as important. Everything is hypothetical ultimately.
"The risky point in the generalisation is not in introducing a field of force... The risk is in passing from
regions of the world where Galilean coordinates (x, y, z, t) are possible to intrinsically dissimilar regions
where no such coordinates exist -- *from flat space-time to space-time which is not flat*."
PZ: What I read him as saying here is that we cannot assume that the effect of a gravititational field can be
exhaustively determined in terms of geodesic motion in a connection field, since Riemann curvature
may also itself have direct local physical effects on the motion of a test particle -- and that is a matter
for experiment to decide.
JS: NO for a point test particle. YES for a spatially-extended structure if the detectors are sensitive enough.
The Principle of Equivalence asserts the legitimacy of this generalisation.
JS: Vague.
PZ: He is saying that if one fails, then so does the other. The logic is clear.
In other words, the principle of equivalence depends criticially on the unrestricted applicability
of the geodesic law to curved spacetime -- and thus extension of its own applicability to
general spacetime is itself hypothetical.
JS: I don't see how this is useful for solving the problems I am interested in i.e. nature of the dark energy and how to properly metric engineer space-time for industrial expansion into space.
...
PZ: In other words, in Eddington's view, there is nothing *a priori* compelling about this principle.
This is trite. So what? That is so for ALL theories!
Some principles are a lot more equal than others. Some are taken more seriously than others, and are
harder to dislodge.
Do you really think the great Eddington is just blowing hot air here? Filling up white space? Repeating the
painfully obvious?
JS: So it appears yes.
PZ: Or are you missing something?
JS: Always possible, but I see no evidence for that.
...
PZ: So there is a subset of phenomena for which the equivalence principle holds good -- but there
may be other phenomena for which equivalence breaks down. We cannot say in advance.
JS: No one disputes that.
PZ: OK.
...
The equivalence principle would be violated, and the pure geometric model of geodesic motion in curved
spacetime would then unravel.
Jack, it is becoming obvious that you do not understand Einstein's actual theory. You seem to be working
with a gutted-out version, which is a stripped-down formal-empirical system -- a husk. I suppose that is
why you do not see why these issues are even relevant.
JS: They are not relevant to any of the problems I am interested in. Or, if they are, you have not shown me how.
Eddington's book was in the early days and it is quaint interesting to historians, but I do not see how it is relevant? Of course, I could be wrong but the burden of proof is on you.
PZ: But Einstein himself certainly believed them to be relevant to the validity of his theory. That is why he insisted on the complete reduction of the gravitational field to a connection field, which does indeed completely cancel at at some point in every LIF.
JS: This is correct given the provisos above. I see no reason to give that idea up within it's proper empirical context i.e. set of useful approximations.
PZ: The modern view is quite different. Clearly there must be some phenomena of this kind which discriminate between a flat world and a curved world; otherwise we could have no knowledge of world-curvature.
JS: Ditto.
PZ: For these the Principle of Equivalence breaks down.
JS: Depends on what "breaks down" means.
PZ: He means it would then no longer hold as Einstein originally stated it.
JS: For passive point test particles there is no problem of consistency. The existence of tidal tensors in no way invalidates the equivalence principle for the non-tensor "g-force" connection field (at least in absence of torsion et-al). Measurements of the g-force in a LNIF and the tidal stretch-squeezes in ANY frame LIF or LNIF are not at all dependent on each other. There is no conflict at all. It's up to you to show in a particular case how I might be wrong in my last remark.
I have said that the equivalence principle says nothing about stretch-squeeze tidal effects measured by pairs of point test particles on neighboring timelike geodesics, it only speaks to g-force effects on one point test particle NOT on a timelike geodesic! So it's apples and oranges!
PZ: And of course all of this is an approximate model!
JS: Of course.
PZ: *You* say that, but that was not *Einstein's* position.
JS: I am not prepared to debate the historical accuracy of what you just said. I will leave that to experts in the history of the evolution of Einstein's informal language about how to understand his equations.
PZ: Yours was not the reasoning behind the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor, which assumes
exact universal Einstein equivalence as a fundamental principle. That is why Einstein was led
to this pseudo-tensor definition, and why he hung onto it tenaciously despite all its problems.
JS: Again Einstein was asking a question about a global Pu from a localized region of matter free curvature, i.e. a geon. The problem is relevant to gravity waves coming from multipole wobbles of the geon quadrupole and higher. This is my memory of it - I need to do some work on that.
PZ: From your POV, this must all be a total mystery. In which case I cannot imagine why you put
so much emphasis on the MTW p 456 et seq. argument against a tensorial gravitational stress-
energy, an argument which is based squarely on precisely this Einsteinian premise.
JS: The way I understand MTW there is simply
1. In ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 then there is a local stress-energy density tensor for the pure gravity field and it is exactly ZERO because Guv = 0. This includes EVERYTHING both far field and near field.
2. If you have a localized wobbling geon surrounded by flat space-time and you are interested in the gravity waves coming from it, you need a GLOBAL Pu in that flat asymptotic boundary region that is an integral over the space of the geon and its integrand is obviously NOT the zero tensor I defined in 1! That is the problem. The problem then is to separate out near-field and far-field dynamical degrees of freedom of the pure geometrodynamic field and one way of doing that is using that pseudo-tensor technique.
tuv(Geon in /\zpf = 0 vacuum) = tuv(Near Field) + tuv(Far Field) = 0
Something like that.
PZ: A good example would be local tidal forces, which are finite down to a point. Another example
would be quadrupole effects on spinning test particles, which do not diminsh with the relative
spacetime scale of the particle or the experimental apparatus.
CORRECTION: Here I should have written "... are measurable down to a point".
JS: This has nothing to do with the equivalence principle that is making an assertion at a different level, but is consistent with what you just said because
Ruvwl(LNIFP) = Eu^a Ev^b Ew^c El^d Rabcd(LIFP)
Where R is the stretch-squeeze tidal tensor
PZ: Then how do you account for the position taken in Ciufolini & Wheeler?
I quote:
"In general relativity, the content and meaning of the strong equivalence principle is that in a sufficiently
small neighborhood of any spacetime event, in a local freely falling frame, *no gravitational effects are
observable*." - C&W, p17
JS: The key phrase you block from your consciousness there is "in a sufficiently small neighborhood" i.e. below the radar of your stretch-squeeze measuring instruments and not so small that you may encounter quantum foam ZPF, which may not even exist BTW.
JS:In contrast, the g-force is the symmetric connection field that vanishes on a timelike geodesic! There is no problem here! Astronauts are weightless all the time on their free orbits round the Earth. Switching on a rocket motor is a Eu^a(P)!
PZ: "I see no ships!"
JS: Heads up.
...
This is all in Einstein 1907 and many of his later writings. And that's also the entire basis for the geometric
model of the gravitato-inertial field.
JS: Citing Einstein in 1907 is NOT fair.
...
Wheeler fully acknowledges the undeniable fact that the Riemann curvature tensor cannot
be made zero anywhere in spacetime by a mere coorinate transformation.
PZ: But here's what he says in Ciufolini & Wheeler:
"In general relativity, the content and meaning of the strong equivalence principle is that in a sufficiently
small neighborhood of any spacetime event, in a local freely falling frame, *no gravitational effects are
observable*."
"Here, neighborhood means neighborhood in space and time. Therefore, one might formulate the medium
strong equivalence principle, or Einstein equivalence principle, in the following form: for every spacetime
event (then excluding singularities), for any experimental apparatus, with some limiting accuracy, there
exists a neighborhood, in space and time, of the event, and infinitely many local freely falling frames, such
that for every nongravitational phenomenon the difference between the measurements performed (assuming
that the smallness of the spacetime neighborhood does not affect the experimental accuracy) and the
theoretical results predicted by special relativity (including the Minkowskian character of the geometry) is
less than the limiting accuracy and therefore undetectable in the neighborhood"
"In other words, in the spacetime neighborhood considered, in a freely falling frame all the nongravitational
laws of physics agree with the laws of special relativity (including the Minkowskian character of spacetime),
apart from a small difference due to the gravitational field that is; however, unmeasurable with the given
experimental accuracy."
"We might formulate the very strong equivalence principle in a similar way."
-- Ciufolini & Wheeler, Ch 2, pp 16- 17
JS: This is what I have been saying.
PZ: So what C&W are doing here is replacing Einstein's original version of the equivalence principle -- which literally identified gravitational with inertial fields -- with a weaker operational version which holds that within a sufficiently small neighborhood of spacetime, tidal *and any other effects* which might locally be used to empirically distinguish a true gravity field from an inertial field within a some limited spacetime neighborhood will *always* become operationally negligible when the neighborhood is made sufficiently small.
This rather desperate defense is immediately defeated by Ohanian & Ruffini's counterexample of the ratio of
transverse deformations of a water droplet, which simply does not diminish in this manner, but rather approaches a *finite empirically determinable limit* when the neighborhood is contracted to zero, under the influence of local tidal forces.
JS: There is no contradiction. The water droplet is no longer a POINT test particle. It has EXTENDED STRUCTURE and of course the tidal tensor stretch squeeze is a LOCAL FIELD. The point here however is that the POINT center of mass of the water droplet will free float along a timelike geodesic although its rotational/vibrational motion about that center may depend on the stretch-squeeze field? There is no basic contradiction here!
..
PZ: It is clear that C&W are trying to pretend here that this is not really the case, and that their version of "Einstein equivalence" is somehow defensible in some weaker operational form -- taking the restrictive model of a pair of test particles, or a gravitometer, as a cue.But as I have previously argued -- quite accurately, I think -- this is mere cardboard-cutout. Jus' sayin' it don't make it so.
JS: I think I just showed the error in your argument?
PZ: Now let us revisit the argument in MTW (p 456-7):
JAW: "No gammas, no gravitational field; no gravitational field, no gravitational stress-energy" (MTW p 457)
JS: Yes exactly! That is tuv(Pure Gravity, /\zpf = 0, NEAR + FAR overlap) = 0 because Guv = 0 in that case and
tuv = (c^4/8piG)Guv
Assumes no torsion field, no micro-quantum ZPF, no other exotic field contributions to the connection field.
PZ: That is, at at least some spacetime point in any LIF, the g-field must *entirely disappear* -- that is, be
*completely annihilated* -- because the "gammas" all cancel.
JS: To violate this would mean astronauts around Earth not weightless with rockets off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
