Subject: Message from physics Nobel Laurerate Brian Josephson on signal nonlocality

Memorandum for the Record

Subject: Remote Viewing

Are there two independent modes of communication?

1. Classical electromagnetic signals.

2. Signal nonlocality in violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory?

On Feb 28, 2005, at 1:40 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

Please forward!

--On Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:13 pm -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:

J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I
have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only
possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of
micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.

The first manned Mars landing is about to take place (in the universal time frame of the Lorentzian interpretation). All are awaiting anxiously at the space centre on Earth. Then one of the astronaut's wives says "ah! they've landed safely, I can sense it". Eight minutes later a radio signal confirms this.

I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise,

I'm afraid it is. It is because science is an authority-based enterprise that cold fusion is regarded as non-existent despite the fact that many experiment(er)s have demonstrated otherwise (see e.g. lenr.org, newenergytimes.com)

Brian

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *

Waiting for GOD(D) Oh!

Bill Gates said that China graduated 6 times as many engineers as US did in 2002! India also graduates more. America is 16th in science and math compared to the 20 developed nations, which exclude China and India as "undeveloped". China will soon control the US deficit and therefore the stability of our currency, which is rapidly deteriorating. We fiddle-faddle as Rome burns. Well, when booking passage on The Titanic, go First Class!

George got his PhD in physics from UC with I think Henry Stapp or maybe it was Geof Chew. In any case George answers Paul with more patience than I have had and I agree with George's position that fleshes out what I have been trying to tell Paul without success. So I let George do it. ;-)

G: Here a reply to your last points. Sorry, Jack, I guess my reply could be called heavy on philosophy (because that's the level of Paul's argumentation) but I hope it's not philophauzzy (or whatever term Feynman used)

Z: As I understand it, in 1905 SR reciprocal kinematic time-dilatation in inertial frames depends on the adoption of a *convention* for clock synchronization using light beams, and the *a priori* identification of the empirically measured and actual speeds of light. I agree that once this convention is adopted, the observations with light beams will conform to the predictions of SR. But this is still consistent with a Lorentzian model in which the observed dilatation due to purely relative inertial motion is only *apparent*.

G: I think Einstein's idea that the presupposition of absolute time was at the core of the tremendous confusion and turmoil at the time is the core idea of special relativity, and his solution to insist on an experimental procedure to determine space-time differences between two points was the logical method to challenge that presupposition; the specific method he proposed (using light signals) is in my view canonical. Or do you have an alternative suggestion for how to do it?

J: One of my main points precisely nicely put.

Z: I think I understand what Einstein was trying to do in 1905, namely, find a way of doing electrodynamics without reference to a light medium in empty space -- which implied a revision of Galilean kinematics in order to make the canonical form of Maxwell's equations apply in every inertial frame under a common set of transformations. However, the vulgar-empiricist idea that "time" can be defined in terms of one or another "operational procedure" is really quite problematic,
since there is then no way of separating effects that are purely due to the behavior of, say, the light rays used for clock synchronization, and those that are due to the objective behavior of the system under observation.

G: Time is not defined that way; it is much too fundamental for that. But its measurement is operationalized by Einstein's light-clock method, and you have not answered my above challenge to suggest a suitable alternative - presumably because you can't. Neither can I, nor Jack, nor probably anyone. Calling something vulgar doesn't express anything but your aversion to it; as long as you're clear on that, I won't further comment on your characerization of the position I have been taking. 

J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.

G: As to your last point, you are begging the question with your distinction: what precisely (or even approximately) is this "objective behavior" you are supposedly distinguishing from our observation of the light rays and the signal values they carry (telling us how much time has elapsed, how far away an event is from the "here and now" of the observer, etc.)?

J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that. I have kept asking this same thing from Paul. It is the Achilles Heel of his spurious argument.

G: That such an objective reality exists and, more importantly, that it can be described in ways which are not founded on our sensory experiences which give us supposed knowledge about "it" (assuming for argument's sake that "it " has meaning and exists) is precisely the presupposition that stands in the way of understanding SR, GR and ultimately quantum theory. More, much more, on this later.

J: BINGO! Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the second degree! ;-)

G: Meanwhile I just challenge you to give experiential-experimental-operational meaning to your above point! 

J: The next remark is obscure so I will attribute it to Z not to G.:-) This is a good Turing Test to see if by now you can tell who is saying what. That tests your understanding of the text and these ideas are important to Western Physical Science.

Z? Einstein's further supposition that such effects are *universal* does not alter this, although from the Machian-Poincarean-empiricist-conventionalist POV this licenses a complete erasure of the distinction. In philosophical terms, Einstein's 1905 reduction of "time" to a particular operational definition fails to support a fundamental theoretic distinction between appearance and reality, which of course is the problem with this kind of empiricism.

G: My comment above applies ditto to this. What is the "reality" which you counterpose to mere "appearance"? I fail to support such a distinction too :-) Of course, I am thoroughly familiar with the physicalist-reductionist scientism that presupposes such a distinction, and which feels it has a handle on what this physical-reality-per-se is, even if it can't say one single fact about this supposed "Ding an sich", since this latter is always known through the senses (and, less commonly acknowledged, through the mind). But I see it as a childishly naive perspective (here I'm doing it :-) ), which can be picked apart and deconstructed in many ways cognitively, (and in quantum science, also experimentally) and more importantly, which one can directly see to be fatally flawed if one looks with fewer blinders. In Buddhist terms, you would say that the "objective reality" and the "knowing subject" codependently arise, and you cannot reduce one to the other. The classic question Einstein was asked on this was: "Why use light?". Einstein's best public answer was: "Because light is something we know something about". In this sense it is misleading to call it a convention.

Z: That's what Einstein 1905 called it.

G: I don't want to argue this on the historical level of what Einstein said or didn't say. I intuit that it's not just a convention; more on that another time.

J: Mine too.

G: But unless one can give a very solid justification for calling the method canonical, Einstein's concession of calling it a "convention" avoids criticism, for how can you criticize a convention especially when you yourself don't have an equivalently good, much less better way to operationalize space-time measurements than Einstein did? 

J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the third degree! ;-)

G: I think Einstein hit the nail on the head, and his fundamental method used then (insistence on operational definitions of basic concepts in physics) is one of the greatest revolutions in physics, far beyond just the SR or even GR.

J: Of course!

Z: Except that Einstein himself gave this up -- at least in its crude 1905 form -- in the 1920s.

J: Not to the degree you have taken it Paul.

Z: Einstein repudiated the "Machian" arguments that he deployed in the 1905 paper as "rubbish". This repudiation includes the attempt to reduce the meaning of a concept like "time" to a particular operational definition.

J: No, Paul you are distorting the facts here. It is false that Einstein abandoned the operational method. He refined it in 1915 beyond his immature use of it in 1905. He did not throw it away with complete abandon as you have! You have jumped way beyond Einstein's self-avowed "struggle" to free himself from a direct physical meaning of "coordinates" (i.e. "dr", "dt" etc. below) as is "common sense" in the Galilean relativity of engineering - and even in 1905 special relativity. In the simple case of the spherically symmetric static curved space-time

dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2

dR is the tiny element of length OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods oriented radially from the source M.

dL = r(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)^1/2

dL is the tiny element of length actually OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods confined in the tangent plane to the surface of a concentric sphere of area 4pir^2 in terms of the usual flat space spherical polar coordinates. That is, the radially oriented measuring rods LOCALLY SHRINK compared to the tangentially oriented ones, which stay as they are in flat space without any gravitational field! Puthoff's PV theory violates this LOCALLY.

dT = dt(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2

dT is the actual OPERATIONALLY measured time tick-tocked off by a resting "non-geodesic" LNIF clock. That is the LNIF clock held fixed in the attractive gravity field slows down in the gravity redshift! It will, in contrast, speed up in the repulsive gravity field of dark zero point energy density with equal and opposite negative micro-quantum pressure in the anti-gravity blue shift. Flying saucers show these strange red/blue shift patterns around the fuselage in silent weightless warp flight even at very slow speeds. Details of this are found in the Robert Bigelow NIDS reports of Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis as well as in my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II".

All of the above "LNIF" measuring rods and clocks are held at rest at fixed r etc by some non-gravity force. In contrast, the LOCAL equivalence principle is that momentarily coincident weightless freely-falling/floating "geodesic" LIF rods and clocks show no significant space and time warping like their LNIF non-geodesic "fixed" twins. There will be some tidal curvature stretch-squeezing of the LIF rods and clocks of course, but here on Earth the tidal effect is ultra-tiny. Kip Thorne & Company at Cal Tech work very hard to try to show these incredibly tiny stretch-squeeze tidal effects from gravity waves in their LIGO and LISA devices.

G to Z: I'd like to know more about this later Einstein position; do you have Internet-accessible references? So from a position of relative ignorance of what Einstein actually said about this issue and in which context and with which intention, I'll withhold further comment for now except to say that the later Einstein developed a very conservative bent; he realized that his own genius as a younger man had given strength to an empiricist-operationalist orientation amongst many physicists which led them to adopt positions in the emerging Great Quantum Controversy of the mid and late twenties and thirties which offended the objective-realist paradigm that Einstein clung to, fighting a more and more rearguard action in the process. I venture the fledgling hypothesis that at that point he may have regretted letting the geni out of the lamp, and gone back to critique and try to undermine his own method inasfar as this method had led to this for him very regrettable orientation of Bohr, Heisenberg and others. I would like to check this hypothesis by reading what "Einstein II" wrote.

Z: Einstein II's point (made forcefully to Heisenberg in 1926) was that the theoretic model that is adopted legitimately *corrects* empirical observations for distortions of the measuring instruments that are due to objective physical effects, and since after ~1920 the vacuum was considered even by Einstein to be both actively and passively physical, motion through the physical vacuum can have effects that are
fundamentally no different from, say, thermal contraction, and can therefore legitimately be accounted for by theoretic corrections..."

J: True.

Z ... which implies a reversion to a Lorentzian paradigm for interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism (at least on the metatheoretic level).

G: Can you quote a reference where HE actually said that? I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise, his actually saying the above would not prove the point

J: There you go again Z (not G). Give Z a nanometer and Z takes a megaparsec! In fact there is no contradiction at all between the Lorentzian and Einsteinian pictures any more than there is between the kinetic theory of gases and thermodynamics! The two go hand-in-hand like Love and Marriage between a Man and a Woman! ;-) Seriously, in moderns terms from the recent work of Arcos and Pereira in Brazil, you can equate the Lorentzian dynamical view to the gauge force method which meets up with Einstein's geometrodynamical view in the Einstein-Cartan tetrad mobile Cartan frame of four basic 4-vectors. The non-trival part of the tetrad is the space-time distortion compensating gauge field from locally gauging the global symmetry of translation group T4 generated by the total energy-momentum of the dynamical field of the world. This non-trivial part of the tetrad, in turn, comes primarily from the coherent holographic Goldstone phase of the spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) of the electromagnetic symmetry group U(1) of Maxwell's electromagnetic local gauge field that couples to the pre-inflationary turbulent Dirac Sea negative energy virtual electron-positron false-vacuum plasma in its Big Bang phase transition to the calm Higgs Ocean. Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity emerges simply, very simply from the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field. String theory? "Who ordered that?" (Isador Rabi)

G: A lot of the current bullshit (some of it brilliant bullshit, admittedly) going on in physics (including the bombastic claims of string theorists of having found the theory of all even though they haven't made a single observable prediction) could have been avoided if physicists had taken this basic point more to heart and insisted on relating everything back to experience.

J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the unsolvable Galois fifth degree! ;-)

Z: While I agree with you that operational *illustrations* of concepts and principles in physics impose a healthy discipline, I cannot agree that 1905-style operationalism -- which supposes that the meaning of high-level theoretic concepts like "time" can be reduced to one or another particular operational definition -- is rationally supportable, for reasons given by Einstein himself in the 1920s.

G: Again, please give me the reference to this supposed quote of Einstein. And again, time is not defined that way; its measurement is.

J: G just hoisted Z by his own petard!

Z: Back to the SR situation specifically: with the 1905 paper, the confusion surrounding Michelson-Morley and the Lorentz transformation dissolved; and simplicity, beauty, and the accuracy of experimental predictions reigned again. But in fact the Einstein-Minkowski formalism can be given a perfectly coherent Lorentzian interpretation, precisely due to the technical features of SR that are exposed in the analysis of my revised "Polish joke" version of the two-clock problem: the 1905 theory turns out to be much more "Lorentzian" than it first seemed to be, since the *reciprocal* effects of time dilatation on the observed retardation of clocks
-- a hallmark of Einstein 1905 theory vis a vis Lorentz's -- always automatically self-cancel when you bring clocks back together, exposing the "virtual" character of the once-supposed reciprocity.

J to Z: False Paul. You still don't understand it. The retardation does not always self-cancel when you bring the clocks back together. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't depending on the contingent histories of the clocks in a perfectly precise way!

G to Z: Again (I'm sorry I have to use this word so many times in this post) I would like to see your clean and according to you unassailable Gendankenexperimental statement of your critique of the Einstein (as contrasted to Lorentz). It is becoming very frustrating to me to hear statements from you to the above effect again and again, without having seen the corresponding formulation itself from you, except in forms which we have agreed were untenable. Please, out of consideration of my nerves ( :-)  ) refrain from such claims as above until you have produced such a statement.

J: Agreed. Z has been playing this false hand now for several years.  

Z: That doesn't mean that the Einstein model for SR is internally incoherent, or that the 1905 theory is mathematically inconsistent; it just means that when the technical details of the actual workings of the 1905 theory are properly understood, the *most natural interpretation* of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism is, ironically, Lorentzian.

G: I don't think Lorentz himself would have taken the position you are taking (once he had digested Einstein's approach), even though his name is associated with the position you are taking now because it was Lorentz's thinking BEFORE 1905.

Z: Actually that's not true: Lorentz never accepted Einstein's 1905 model. Here is Lorentz in 1920:

"It is not necessary to give up entirely even the ether.  Many natural philosophers
find satisfaction in the idea of a material intermediate substance in which the
vibrations of light take place, and they will very probably be all the more inclined
to imagine such a medium when they learn that, according to the Einstein theory,
gravitation itself does not spread instantaneously, but with a velocity that at the
first estimate may be compared with that of light.  Especially in former years were
such interpretations current and repeated attempts were made by speculations
about the nature of the ether and about the mutations and movements that might
take place in it to arrive at a clear presentation of electro-magnetic phenomena,
and also of the functioning of gravitation. ... In my opinion it is not impossible that in the future this road, indeed abandoned at present, will once more be followed with good results, if only because it can lead to the thinking out of new experimental tests.  Einstein’s theory need not keep us from so doing; only the ideas about the ether must accord with it."

- H. A. Lorentz, "The Einstein Theory of Relativity" (1920).

In other words, there can still be an ether, but any ether model, in order to be viable, must take account of the pragmatic-empirical success of Einstein's theories.
I think Lorentz died in 1929. If you read Einstein's Leyden address on the ether, you will see that by 1920 there was a convergence of the views of Einstein and Lorentz:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_English_pp160-163.pdf

G to Z: I haven't heard back from you regarding a defensible formulation of the supposed contradiction within SR itself that you have been arguing.

Z: As I have said, there is no mathematical contradiction in SR even in the two-clock case; but there is a "paradox" if you wish to treat the *reciprocal* time dilatation of 1905 SR as an objectively real physical effect.

G: I don't, because I don't know what that means; see above. and so there is, for me, no paradox and no "paradox", and not even a ""paradox""  :-)

J: Agreed.

Z: The reason why 1905 SR is consistent in its predictions is precisely because the reciprocity of time dilatation that you get in a single GIF is lost when you use multiple matching GIFs to account for time dilatation over more than one inertial segment -- and that is precisely the point of my re-formulation of the traditional two-clock problem, which IMHO exposes this "paradoxical" feature of the 1905 theory very clearly.


J: Pretense! All one need do is calculate the classical phase world line integrals of the path-dependent histories of the inexact differential frame-invariant proper time element ds/c for each clock in the space-time diagram. Nothing new here and every proper question has a true and consistent answer. There is no paradox! No possible doubt whatever!

G: As far as I know non-existent re-formulation (in the sense that it would not remain a constant moving target, to be reexpressed differently (and again vainly) the next time. If you think I am trying to provoke you to finally produce the actual valid statement of the "paradox" (operationally, and without reference to nebulous terms like "obejctively real") then you are DAMN RIGHT :-)

J: I tried to do exactly that with Paul and failed. Paul Z is Tar Baby in Uncle Remus. Arguing with Paul is like trying to struggle your way out of quicksand.

Z: It is this precisely feature of 1905 SR that allows a coherent interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism in *Lorentzian* terms.

G: I take it that we are then leaving it at that, and Einstein vs Zielinsky is settled. Phew, I am relieved :-)

Z: No this is Einstein_1 vs. Lorentz, and Einstein_1 vs. Einstein_2! You have to distinguish sharply between two quite different issues:

(1) The mathematical consistency of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism; and

(2) The question of which is the more natural physical interpretation of the
Einstein-Minkowski formalism. Alas, "natural" may turn out to be in the eye of the beholder, or rather a funsction of his/her fundamental paradigm (or structure. Issue (1) is settled by the existence of a geometric model for the 1905 theory (Lorentz-Einstein transformations in Minkowski spacetime); whereas (2) is not at all obvious -- although it is beginning to look like the Lorentz model for the standard SR formalism is the more useful in the present stage of development of physics, and is the more natural physical interpretation.

G: It is beginning to look TO YOU to be more useful, maybe, but you have been unable to clearly (that means with reference to experience rather than metaphysical presupposed terms) state it much less substantiate it -- Still waiting.

J: For Godot.

The Axes of Evil are East of Eden

A physicist in Flinders, Australia named Reg Cahill claims he detects the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley interferometer is rotated by a right angle provided that the light signals in the two interfering light paths pass through a gas whose index of refraction is not equal to 1. The effect will not occur in vacuum or solid state only in gas. We do not know if Cahill is making an error or not, but suppose he turns out to be correct? What would it mean? The theory of everything rests only on the intimate tango dance two battle-tested ideas – each a kind of broken symmetry:

1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.

The pre-Einsteinian Galilean relativity symmetry of Newton’s 17th Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute simultaneity with an aether or vacuum medium of what Newton called “absolute rest”. This is easy to prove like a theorem in Euclid’s geometry. Imagine a non-rotating uniformly moving “inertial frame” (GIF). By definition, no external forces are acting on this platform of detectors. The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called a “geodesic” path. Suppose the velocity vector of light in vacuum is measured by Alice in this frame to be the venerable c, whose magnitude speed c = 186,000 miles per second in a given direction in space. Now imagine Bob whizzing by Alice with a relative uniform velocity vector v. What is the speed of the same light signal that Bob measures in his inertial frame? According to the Galilean symmetry group that light velocity vector will either be c + v if Bob moves opposite to the light signal, or will be c – v if Bob tries to outrace the light signal in the same direction. In what frame then will we see the speed c? Clearly, only in the frame where v = 0! That is, the Galilean symmetry or relativity automatically demands the frame of absolute rest as a corollary not as an independent postulate! Indeed, that was the key idea of Michelson at Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1880s. He aligned one arm of his horizontal interferometer in the direction Earth’s motion where c’ = c +/- v and the other at right angles where c’ = c still in the horizontal plane. Michelson expected to see the pattern of light fringes where the two beams come together shift when he rotated his interferometer by a right angle 90 degrees about the perpendicular axis to the horizontal plane that depended on the ratio (v/c)2. In fact, he did not see any such shift beyond his expected errors. In other words, absolute velocity v could not be detected! Fitzgerald, in Dublin, explained this unexpected result by saying that the length L of the interferometer path in the same direction as the Earth’s absolute velocity shrunk to L’ = L[1 – (1/2)(v/c)2]1/2. In contrast, the length of the other path at right angles to the first in the horizon tal plane stayed the same. This adhoc mechanical aether conjecture would explain the data. Poincare and Lorentz further developed this idea before 1905 when Einstein published his “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, which did not take much notice of Michelson’s interferometer anomaly. Einstein was concerned with the fact that Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations did not preserve their form under the Galilean relativity inertial frame transformations and this resulted in further anomalies when say a bar magnet and a coil were in motion relative to each other. You get one thing when the magnet is at absolute rest and another when the coil is at absolute rest. Such a split is not ever observed. This caused Einstein at age 26, an outcast from the university to replace the Galilean frame shift with something else that we now call the “Lorentz boost”. These new transformations changed time as well as space, but left the “space-time interval” ds invariant, i.e. unchanging for all relatively uniformly moving observers like Alice and Bob. Newton’s point particle mechanical equations changed in structure in order to be consistent with Maxwell’s field equation’s form not changing in the frame shift. However, since the speed of light in vacuum was a fixed point invariant, there was, it appeared no way to measure v the absolute speed. No way Jose, until Cahill and another guy Consoli from Catania, Sicily came along in 2005 100 years later. On the other hand, Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity (SR) does not say that absolute velocity violates the laws of physics. It only says that if some new measurement like Cahill’s measures it, then absolute velocity must be appended like Euclid’s 5th Parallel Postulate and is not a theorem as it is in Galilean relativity! Along comes SBS of the vacuum to save the day giving a general theory of “preferred frames” that does not violate the symmetries of the laws of physics!

The ferromagnet below its Curie temperature has a preferred orientation frame in a finite 3D space domain in its macro-quantum SBS ground state. Similarly, what Cahill may be seeing would be a preferred orientation frame in a finite 4D space-time domain in the macro-quantum SBS vacuum containing the Earth’s orbit. It might be the same or different at the orbits of Mars and Venus et-al. That is, the existence of such a preferred frame of “rapidity” is a contingent “frozen accident” of history from the amplification of a random micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuation in the pre-> post inflation phase transition that created the Big Bang. Similarly, for the anomalous weak spatially uniform radial gravity tug pointing back to the Sun

ag = - cH(t) ~ 10-7 cm/sec2

H(t) = R(t)dR(t)/dt

ds2 = -(cdt)2 + R(t)2[dx2 + dy2 + dz2]

seen in both the NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 space probes suddenly starting only beyond Jupiter’s orbit out 20 AU. This is exactly what is expected for a contingent frozen accident of history called the “hedgehog topological defect” in the Higgs Ocean macro-quantum coherent “multi-layered multi-colored” cosmic superconducting vacuum field out of which Einstein’s gravity with both dark energy and dark matter emerge completing Andrei Sakharov’s 1967 conjecture.

But we are not yet done because some physicists looking at WMAP anomalies think they see the “Axis of Evil” that is a preferred axis in space of the universe as if it were a giant “ferromagnet”. They don’t know about Cahill’s similar preferred axis in space-time! As if that is not enough, still other physicists think they see multiple images in the WMAP data suggesting that our space is finite and closed in a giant dodecahedron! It’s too soon to know if any of these people are correct or are charging wind mills. However, all of these allegations are simply explained in principle by only two great battle-tested ideas cited above. i.e.,

1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.

Space-Time Warps & Theory of Everything

All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic “force-without-force”) fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical action. The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by the compensating gauge field. Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry intact. Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan “tetrad”/”Ricci rotation coefficients” extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium. In 1916 GR the Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields, but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 into Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in Shipov’s theory. There is a curious cross-play in that the disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear even in torsion-free 1916 GR. The curious cross-play is that the curvature disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging of the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J = L + S (space-space rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in instantaneously uniform relative motion. The curious cross-play is this dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The lack of preferred space-time frames with “absolute velocity”, as in the usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost sector of O(1,3). If there is such a broken symmetry then a particular “rapidity” (direction in4D space-time) of “absolute rest” is selected in a finite space-time domain, much like a particular 3D space direction is selected in a ferromagnetic domain. Cahill and Consoli have challenged this assumption in independent papers, which, however, are not consistent with each other. It’s too soon to know if there is any merit to these empirical claims, but if there is, their proper explanation is “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBR), this time in the off-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent vacuum relative to O(1,3) and possibly Diff(4) rather than the on-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent ground states of equilibrium superfluids (U(1)), ferromagnets (O(3)) and non-equilbrium lasers (U(1)) and living bio-membranes as in H. Frohlich's theory. (U(1)).

Bu = bu^aPa = (Goldstone Hologram Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4

guv(Einstein LNIF) = (&u^a + bu^a)(Minkowski LIF)ab(&v^b + bv^b)

&u^a are the trivial holonomic tetrads (Kronecker deltas) connecting the curved base space to the quasi-flat tangent space fiber.

Rubber Rods? JS Bell on Special Relativity

JS Bell in his "Unspeakable" book tells how almost entire Theory Division at CERN got an elementary SR problem wrong at first. Z made same error and I did not catch him in it.

Alice and Bob are in two rockets separated by distance L(0) at t = 0 in space when they fire their rockets equally to make a 1g artifical gravity field in their ships accelerating along z-axis. A taut string connects the rockets. What happens to the string? Correct answer is it will break. Most of the theorists in CERNs theory division guessed it would not break before they really thought about the problem. The problem is counter-intuitive because our Galilean relativity "common sense" assumes falsely that the separation between Alice and Bob L(t) is not changing when in fact it increases because the measuring rods along z shrink from the Einstein equivalence principle. See Kip Thorne "Black Holes and Time Warps" p. 30 picture for analogous spherically symmetric problem that also explains why the three real on-mass-shell quarks inside nucleons shrink to points in high magnification Heisenberg scattering microscopes using electron probes (e.g. SLAC deep inelastic "parton" data).

The effective artificial gravity metric, from the rockets inertial fields from Einstein's equivalence principle EEP, is

ds^2 = (1 - 2gz/c^2)(cdt)^2 - dz^2/(1 - 2gz/c^2)

The actually measured time and space intervals dT and dZ are

dT = dt(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2

dZ = dz/(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2

respectively.

Where dz ~ L(0)

In the weak field limit

x = 2gz/c^2 << 1

1/(1 - x^2)^1/2 ~ 1/(1 - (1/2)x^2) ~ 1 + (1/2)x^2

we can use the Newtonian kinematics of Galilean relativity to good approximation

z = (1/2)gt^2

1 - 2gz/c^2 = 1 - (gt/c))^2

L(t) ~ L(0)[1 + (1/2)(gt/c^2)] > L(0) if t > 0

That is, the actual physical separation between the two LNIF rockets each accelerating locally the same way actually increases so that the string will eventually snap and break!

On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:46 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

These Lorentz vs. Einstein arguments have already been made many times over. I mistakenly assumed you would be familiar with them.

Jack, you don't seem to have any intuitive appreciation of the difference between a Lorentzian "rubber-rod-and-clock" model and an Einsteinian "moving coordinates" model of the Lorentz transformations.

I am familiar. The argument is completely stupid as Kip Thorne says IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCE. The Cahill difference is not relevant to that distinction.

Didn't you read Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation"? He explains the difference from the standpoint of a spin-2 quantum field model quite vividly.

NO you completely MISUNDERSTAND Feynman. He is only talking about perturbation theory to finite order from a flat background and there you can maybe make the distinction you want to make implicit in Puthoff's PV "Tables I & II". As Penrose explains YOU CANNOT DO IT for the complete GR, which in Feyman's terms is a INFINITE SUM of flat diagrams! This is like in BCS theory

gap energy ~ (Debye Energy)e^-1/V(binding)(Density of Fermi Sea States Per Unit Energy at Fermi Surface)

You cannot get this SPONTANEOUS BREAKING of the VACUUM SYMMETRY from a FINITE NUMBER of flat back-ground diagrams.

Penrose distinguishes the "linear graviton" of Feynman here, also of Puthoff's Yilmazian PV from the "nonlinear graviton" in the book "Geometric Universe".

So your basic error here Paul is to take a limited approximate idea BEYOND its proper domain of validity.

Feynman's approximation and your distinction above violates what all the Big Boys today like Ashtekar, Smolin et-al call BACKGROUND INDEPENDENCE closely connected to the full meaning of the equivalence principle that your distinction essentially violates. That is NO RIGID BACKGROUNDS that act without direct back-reaction. Everything is a player. No stages. No fixed arenas - not even in quantum theory, hence the signal nonlocality of consciousness!

Theory of Everything?

On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:22 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

The only issue I am concerned with here is whether Lorentz invariance is universal and why.

I don't know what you mean and neither do you. The question is ill-posed.

In GR Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry not a global one because T(4) is locally gauged whose compensating field is the non-trivial part of the Cartan tetrad. This solves one of your problems, i.e. intrinsic vs coordinate.

Do you mean there are exotic vacua where O(1,3) is wrong even locally? No evidence for that at all.

G. E. Volovik has emergent O(1,3) at a fixed point low energy effective field theory in a renormalization group flow from a Galilean sub-stratum. Is that what you mean?


I am not arguing against spontaneously broken symmetry. Obviously you can get preferred frames in a physical vacuum by breaking the underlying dynamical symmetry in the solutions at the macro-level, which I think is what you are saying.

That's all the Cahill/Consoli data show, if they are real. Interesting and important to be sure - another triumph for PW Anderson's theory of emergent complexity! No change in paradigm needed.

The mainstream paradigm

1. Symmetries

2. Locally gauging symmetries to get forces (complementary to geometrodynamics)

3. "More is different" emergence via spontaneously broken symmetries in the locally lowest energy valleys of the landscape of the parallel worlds of the multi-verse.

This is all we need for the theory of everything from large-scale universe today to small-scale lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons.

From Stormy Pre-Inflationary Dirac Sea to Post-Inflationary Pacific Higgs Ocean. Oil on Water.

Einstein's gravity with anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter emerges as phase and amplitude modulations of the post-inflationary calm Higgs Ocean (AKA Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field, AKA vacuum coherence of ZPF).

I do not see what you are worried about. BTW the affine/vector space distinction for the space of Lorentz inertial frames is an elegant way to look at the contingent Einstein/Lorentz empirical significant difference. The alleged experimental anomaly is strictly isolated - no major damage control needed. Now if you could give me a counter example on that, then you would have something. At the moment you are charging windmills.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Stop making vague statements. Simply write a review paper in complete detail with logic like Euclid step-by-step what you think Einstein says, what you think Lorentz says etc. Stop using polemics. Don't talk about it. Do it.

Eve:The Mother Of All Inertial Frames

Paul

Of course I understand the data Cahill is alleging. But neither you nor Cahill understand the real meaning of that data!

When there is a n =/= 1 (index of gas) "v =/= 0" absolute velocity detected, that means a vacuum symmetry breaking of O(1,3). It does not mean a return to t' = t absolute time of Galilean relativity. You still must use O(1,3) to get from one inertial frame to another even though there is a preferred frame which is to O(1,3) as the ferromagnetic order parameter is to O(3). There is a local vacuum order parameter just like there is a ferromagnetic order parameter.

Let Eve be in the preferred frame v = 0. This means that no fringe shifts on 90 degree rotations of the MM interferometer at rest in Eve's frame.

If Alice (Bob) measures v(Alice(Bob)) that means the Lorentz boost between Alice(Bob) and Eve is via [1 - (v(Alice(Bob))/c)^2]^-1/2 with the usual Lorentz transformations!

On the other hand the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (do 1 + 1 to keep it simple for now) directly measured in their Doppler radar is

v(Alice - Bob) = - v(Bob - Alice) = [v(Alice) - v(Bob)]/[1 - v(Alice)v(Bob)/c^2]

So that a direct boost between Alice and Bob (bypassing Eve) is via

[1 - (v(Alice - Bob)/c)^2]^-1/2

There is no problem with reciprocity as you incorrectly allege.

Apart from Alice and Bob seeing anomalous MM fringe shifts on 90 deg rotations if n =/= 1 and Eve seeing none, everything else is completely normal! Nothing else changes.

The anomaly is truly isolated! It is contingent not fundamental. No change of paradigm is required. A spontaneous broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry in a finite space-time region simply means that the space of inertial frames is a vector space with an origin rather than an affine space with no origin, i.e. no preferred inertial Eve frame.

Ignoring GR curvature et-al for now, the kinematics of frame transforms is still O(1,3) and the dynamics is still O(1,3) covariant.

A revolution is not called for. There is no impending paradigm shift overturning Einstein as Cahill professes. There is no return to Galilean relativity. One simply punches an isolated hole in Einstein's affine space of inertial frames. End of story.

If you can find an inconsistency here show it. Cahill is the new Herbert Dingle even if his claims (and Consoli's in Catania) of the n =/= 1 Michelson-Morley fringe pattern shift on 90 degree rotations is confirmed. What he infers from that alleged fact is not justified by the evidence and the mainstream ideas of local gauge invariance with dynamics from compensating field and the "More is different" spontaneous breaking of vacuum (ground state) symmetries from the large-scale of cosmology to the shortest scales of high-energy physics.

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

"quasi-local approach" ... "super-potential, which is a Hamiltonian boundary term" "screen" of World Hologram i.e. local horizon on (anti) De Sitter space-time with Hawking radiation? That is the gravity energy only depends on the horizon surface not on local space volume elements! 3D Space is a holographic image! See p. 16 section E of Brazilian paper. They go on to get a local representation in the complementary or dual gauge-force picture that is physically equivalent to the nonlocal geometrodynamic picture.

The Brazilians Arcos & Pereira (2005) discuss the nonlocality of the gravity energy in Einstein's geometrodynamic representation with curvature and no torsion that is Bohr complementary to the gauge force representation with torsion and no curvature. However the Brazilian "torsion" should not be confused with Gennady Shipov's torsion. They are entirely different and different words should be used.

My own macro-quantum theory, for the emergence of Einstein's curvature in the post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene) AKA "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field (Frank Wilczek) AKA partial cohering of the pre-inflationary random micro-quantum zero point false vacuum fluctuations, is more naturally set in the Brazilian gauge force representation initially although I immediately transform to Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical representation as more heuristic for getting new insights.

Recall that the pre-inflationary unstable false vacuum is a conformal vacuum without gravitation or inertia admitting only massless lepto-quark and boson gauge force special relativistic quantum fields. U(1)SU(2)SU(3) is locally gauged in the false vacuum. No part of the 15 parameter conformal group is locally gauged pre-inflation.

Conformal Group C(4)

= Dilation*(Conformal Boosts to Uniformly Accelerating Hyperbolic Motion)*(Translations)*(Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts)

T4 = normal subgroup of translations generated by Wheeler's "mom-energy" = Lie algebra {Pa}

O(1,3) = (Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts) = Lorentz Group

Lorentz Boost = space-time rotation

real angles of rotation of an extended rigid body have imaginary extensions that are equivalent to the "rapidities" of the Lorentz boosts.

Spontaneous breaking of O(3) rotation group symmetry in the ground state of many spinning electrons is ferromagnetism. Ferromagnetism is a preferred frame of orientation in space without explicit O(3) breaking terms in the dynamical action.

Similarly, data like Cahill's and Consoli's claiming a preferred Lorentz inertial frame would, if corroborated, merely mean spontaneous breakdown of the O(1,3) group in the physical vacuum, particularly its boost sector. The preferred frame of absolute rest means a set of rapidities are chosen in a finite region of vacuum just like a set of rotation angles (only latitude and longitude on the celestial sphere, twist rotation (torsion field?) about the preferred space direction is another issue using ALL THREE Euler angles, is chosen in a finite domain of the ferromagnetic ground state.

Einstein, not knowing about spontaneous symmetry breakdown in 1905, thought of the space of global inertial frames (pre-GR 1916) as an affine space without a preferred origin. Lorentz thought of this space of frames as a vector space with an origin. This is a real experimental difference, but it is contingent not fundamental. The way the symmetry breaks in a ferromagnetic domain is contingent like a pimple on one's nose. Similarly, for Cahill's claim - a small blemish on Einstein's nose for The Truth! :-)

All dynamics comes from the minimal coupling local gauge principle of different symmetry groups both internal and external in 4D space-time. Roger Penrose says extra space dimensions are unstable so let's see if we can do without them. No supersymmetry needed as yet either since I predict supersymmetry will not be found in the LHC and also that dark matter detectors will never click with the right stuff, e.g. on-mass-shell neutralinos et-al do not exist. These are falsifiable predictions.

From Stormy Dirac Sea to Calm Higgs Ocean (Oil upon The Waters of Creation)

Looking only, for now, at the low-energy tail of the false pre-inflationary conformal vacuum sans gravity and inertia, both emergent properties, the Dirac negative energy virtual Fermi energy is E = 0 and the zero point PV virtual electron-positron pairs in a small thickness of the Fermi surface form virtual bound states fusing into the zero entropy BEC vacuum condensate "Higgs Ocean" that trigger the inflation and the emergence of Einstein's gravity along with all rest masses m and both dark energy and dark matter.

Post-inflation, the Cartan tetrad encoding the important part of the equivalence principle (EEP) is

eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a

Bu = Bu^aPa/h = (Higgs Ocean Goldstone Phase),u

{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4

i.e. the non-trivial curved intrinsic part - the actual or "real" gravitational field that is locally equivalent to an inertial field in a local non-inertial frame of reference, AKA "LNIF"

This is a spontaneous broken locally-gauged U(1)em vacuum symmetry exactly like in the BCS superconductor where, instead of on-mass-shell charged 2e electron pairs, we have neutral virtual electron-positron pairs in an off-mass-shell "bound state". The result is a locally-gauged T4 dynamical non-trivial tetrad field eu^a emergent from the spontaneous broken U(1)em vacuum symmetry. The release of binding energy of the virtual electron-positron pairs powers the Big Bang.

Message from Cahill

bcc
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Reg Cahill wrote:

Hi Jack,

What a story! It seems to me that you are approaching the issues from the wrong direction and whence the incredibly complicated path.

Seems pretty simple to me. Local gauge invariance and spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. :-)

The first issue is to get clear picture of what has emerged. The interferometer experiments have shown that (i) absolute motion is detectable, and (ii) that Newtonian physics is wrong.

Yes, I understand that. I have not understood all the technical details of the experiments in your paper(s) nor those of Consoli. The two of you seem to differ in some important details although generally you are reporting the same kind of qualitative effect. You get different absolute speeds in different directions I think? But neither are zero and that's the point. By "Newtonian physics" I assume you mean specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian relativity, i.e.

x -> x' = x - vt

t -> t' = t

is wrong (e.g. Ch 15, Panofsky & Phillips)

x -> x' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(x - vt)

t -> t' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(t - vx/c^2)

is correct even when there is a preferred global inertial frame that we call "absolute rest". Also for now we try to neglect general relativity, although that may not be possible in the end for these measurements.

This followed after the discovery that a theory for the interferometer must take account of relativistic effects and the effect of the refractive index of the gas present (Cahill and Kitto 2002). The results were confirmed by two coaxial cable experiments, which being 1st order in v/c don't need relativistic effect corrections. Then it follows that we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. This fits neatly in with the original 19th century Lorentz interpretation, namely that absolute motion is the cause of relativistic effects.

Can you elaborate on that? Exactly how is it the "cause"?

It also means that the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of these same effects is wrong..there is no spacetime.

Can you elaborate on that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanation. :-) My position, as you may have gathered is that there is no major change of interpretation needed assuming your experiments and Consoli's similar ones, stand the test of scrutiny. Renouncing the battle-tested special relativity i.e.

Require dynamical actions to be Lorentz-invariant with Lorentz-covariant Euler-Lagrange equations, with standard modifications of general relativity, is not at all affected, with all its consequences for the computation of scattering cross sections, atomic & nuclear spectra etc.

We do not have put in O(3) violating terms in the action for the Heisenberg ferromagnet with the Coulomb exchange interaction in order to explain the O(3) violation in the ferromagnetic ground state. In exactly the same way, we do not need to put O(1,3) violating terms in the actions of the fundamental quantum fields of physics (lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons) to explain your reports of O(1,3) violation in the vacuum.

Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state of a given model of quantum dynamics is the very definition of what a "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. This is an explanation "for all seasons" as it were. :-)

So the speed of light is c only relative to this space, and not relative to all non-accelerating observers.

That's so in a more general sense for all instances of spontaneous symmetry breakdown leaving the kinematics and the dynamics intact. Every symmetry group G defines its own class of "frames of reference" i.e. base states for a given representation of G. In the case of O(1,3) in real space-time we have the class of global inertial frames. The only significantdifference between Einstein's interpretation of O(1,3) and Lorentz's is that Einstein says that the space of frames is affine, and Lorentz says that it's a vector space with an "origin" = "preferred frame" = a chosen "rapidity" in the space-time vacuum just like the chosen "space orientation" in the ferromagnetic ground state. Occam's Razor is with me here. More with less.

So Einstein's main postulate is disproved by experiment.

I do not think you have proved that. Indeed, I think I just proved the very opposite! :-)

Nevertheless one can use a mathematical spacetime, because the spacetime encodes absolute motion effects, albeit in a manner that is well hidden.

You need to explain that in a lot more detail. :-)

So we have a 3-space and separately a time phenomenon. The 3-space is in relative motion, that is, different regions of it have relative motion, as well that motion is time-dependent.

I am not sure what you mean. Let's think of a ferromagnet. Is it like the buckling of tectonic plates? The different ferromagnetic domains are pressing against each other? This is no problem in vacuum because the vacuum has a local macro-quantum order parameter, e.g. Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered, multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field. (Nature Jan 20, 2005 "In Search of Symmetry Lost").


Presumably this space has some substratum structure, and that structure has relative motion. These two effects cause gravity.

How? Now I have shown exactly how. No if's and's and but's - but the actual equations.

An interferometer or coaxial cable device can detect motion relative to that space.

Yeah, no problemo, once one has the idea of spontaneous broken symmetry with the vacuum condensate as the "aether" or substratum. Frank Wilczek explains this pretty well in Jan 20, 2005 Nature. I suggest you look at it. :-)

That by itself does'nt imply some preferred direction intrinsic to the space..rather it simply means that the device is moving through that space.

You do not get my point. The ferromagnet is only an analogy. I never said that your data show a preferred direction in space. What I said was that your data, and Consoli's, if true show a preferred direction in space-time i.e. rapidity i.e. absolute velocity. So the preferred direction in space is a Red Herring. :-)

The intrinsic local direction in space is determined by the direction of the convective acceleration (=the spatial inhomogeneity direction) and the time-dependence of the velocity field.

I don't understand this. I assume this is your "flow" theory that I have not read in detail. It is not needed. It is too ad-hoc, too Rube Goldberg and we already have exactly what we need in the two battle-tested ideas of modern theoretical physics

1. Local gauge symmetry inducing compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the meta-stable state of lowest energy for the covariant dynamics relative to the above local gauge symmetry.

It works in the heavens of the internal dimensions (electro-weak/strong) as well as on the ground of being (space-time with gravity and maybe torsion and other fields).

We now know all this because (i) the Miller data is so extensive that one can extract from it the flow past the earth towards the sun (some 42 km/s), as well as galactic flow and turbulence (novel non-Einsteinain gravity waves) in that flow, (ii) both Newtonian gravity and GR (in those cases where it has been successfully tested) can be written in the form of a flow theory. Most importantly these flow formalisms can be generalised, and the new dynamical effects turn out to be the so-called `dark matter' effect.

I have a complete explanation of both gravitating "dark matter" and anti-gravitating "dark energy" in terms of Einstein's

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

and spontaneous breakdown of U(1)em vacuum symmetry. Done elsewhere.

This non-relativistic gravity effect is not in either NG or GR, so even NG is serioulsy wrong. That new effect has been tested against various experiments and observations as well. We are developing experiments at Flinders university to measure the flow component into the earth (the inhomogeneity of that flow is the cause of the earth's gravity, speed at surface is 11km/s). Because this is small compared to the galactic flow (some 400km/s) the earth in-flow is not easy to measure.

Well we will not settle this now. My position is that everything you see, if corroborated, can be explained simply and directly with only two battle-tested mainstream ideas

1. local gauge symmetry

2. spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry i.e. P.W. Anderson's emergent "More is different".

The Great Temple of Theoretical Physics Today rests firmly on the above two pillars and you are not Samson! :-)

Penrose, Hawking, Rees et-al can sleep in comfort tonite that you will not pull their covers off in the middle of a cold winter's night. :-)

Now what does that all give us? Take the simplest case first. (Classical) Maxwell's equations have a well known spacetime/covariant form. In that form the speed of light in vacuum is always c. But what does that really mean? How does one measure that? Well one can simply use a rod and clock, and sure enough one will find that the speed of light, no matter which observer does the measurment, and even for different observers in relative motion, all will find the speed to be c=300,000km/s. Howver we now know that an observer can measure the velocity of his rods and clocks through space. That motion will have changed their length/ticking rate. Then each observer must correct the data from his experiment..after all his rods/clocks are being affected by their motion. He will then find that the corrected speed is now only c relative to a particular frame, namely relative to a real 3-space.

I would need to see the detailed math for that. When I do the math I always get c as a the fixed point even when there is a preferred frame. Maybe I am doing something wrong? We shall see. However, Hal Puthoff will LOVE your theory here since it sounds very much like his PV theory in his Tables I & II! On the other hand, I bet you are wrong. I could be wrong of course and you could be right - we shall see. :-)

I will come back to this in the coming days.

So Maxwell's equations actually encode real physical effects of absolute motion upon the rods and clocks which are used to `define' the length and time scales. So these equations have BOTH absolute motion effects and the dynamics of the E and B fields. Then one can write Maxwell's equations in a form that explicitly reveals the preferred frame, and so separates these two effects.

Have you done that? Where?

This involves a non-linear change of variables. It leads to PDEs in which the partial time derivative is replaced by the Euler total derivative (which involves the velocity of the observer, and so the rods and clocks, relative to the 3-space). The covariant equations have Lorentz symmetry (of course). The new Maxwell equations have Galilean symmetry. Both symmetries are exact. They are being applied to different forms of the data. In the case of Lorentz symmetry the dynamical effects of absolute motion and the E-B field dynamics are not separated. In the Galilean form the absolute motion effects upon the rods and clocks are separated from the E-B dynamics, and we are left with a clean description of the E-B dynamics.

This sounds terribly complicated and I can assure you you have a steep Cliff to climb that will require a lot of Will. I do not think this story of yours will go over very well with the Top Guns of GR 17 for example. I'm sure you know that? :-) In any case where is this done in detail. I am sure Zielinski will read it for example. Also others. I am sure you will be proved wrong in the end of course. We need a Bookie. :-)

So the whole issue of covariance in physics has been incredibly misleading.

Have you read Tom Phipps "Heretical Vereties"? Some of your stuff about the convective derivative sounds like his?

It was simply gross confusion. Whence it is very misleading to try to understand the new physics by beginning with a covariant language, and then attempting to come up with some symmetry breaking that results in a preferred frame. This one sentence is the main point of this response to your suggestion, Jack.

Well fancy this, me defending the mainstream establishment against The Barbarian at The Gate from Down Under! :-) Time for a beer Mate? In any case you need to explain this in great detail - presumably you have already done so. However, as I say, no one will believe you. Also I think my explanation is better and simpler, but I am biased. :-)

I should add that a great deal of the new physics has been worked out already, particularly re: gravity.
One major discovery has been that the new theory of gravity involves the fine structure constant (that wasn't a prediction..but it emerged from the data). Some 25 paper re all this are available at the Mountanman graphics URL below. Much more in preparation. There is a revolution in progress.

Your enthusiasm is touching. :-)

PS By sending this reply e-mail to you Jack I'm not sure if others in the group also receive it?

Never fear, they will. They will. We have both drawn our lines in the sand.:-)

best wishes,

Reg Cahill


Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.

Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).

Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.

Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).

OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.

Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.

The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)

Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.

Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.

In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.

OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").

If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where

Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab

eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR

{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)

Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.

Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?

--

A/Prof. Reginald T.Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html

Does the preferred inertial frame demand a torsion field?

No it does not. The ferromagnet is an example. O(3) is broken in the ground state but O(3) is not locally gauged.

Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.

Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).

Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.

Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).

OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.

Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.

The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)

Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.

Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.

In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.

OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").

If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where

Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab

eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR

{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)

Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.

Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?

Bulgarian UFO Warp Drive Paper?

On Feb 11, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

1. I doubt the Puthoff-Davis PV approach in http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf can reproduce Ivanov's claim because PV does not use covariant derivatives.

2. In II Ivanov say need only two powers of ten more than 33.2 Tesla to get to 1g ~ 10^3 cm/sec^2 - a resonance would help get these fields down.

I do not have time right now to give Ivanov's paper the attention it deserves. It is definitely a solid paper and needs to be studied. There is too much work to do for any one physicist. It requires a good team - maybe at Los Alamos DOE - seems a natural place for such work in exotic propulsion. I would bring Ivanov over.

3. Ivanov's "eq 7" off by a factor of 1/2?

Ivanov is using the geodesic equation which is fine for weightless warp drive.

He starts with the covariant geodesic equation for a test particle

Dv^u/ds = 0

In the rest LIF of the test particle all we have is

v^0 = (g00)^-1/2

Dv^u/ds = dv^u/ds - (LC)^uwlv^wv^l = 0

Ivanov then looks at the "coordinate 4-acceleration" dv^u/ds because basically he will go back to the weak field Newtonian gravity force limit of Einstein's geometrodynamics.

Therefore

dv^u/ds = (LC)^uwlv^wv^l

Ivanov says

(LC)^uwlv^wv^l = gwl^,uv^wv^l

But in the instantaneous rest LIF of the test particle

v^i = 0, i = 1,2,3

dv^u/ds = g00^,uv^0v^0 = (goo)^-1(g00^,u) = (lngo00)^u

v^u = dx^u/ds by definition

dv^u/ds = d^2x^u/ds^2 has dimensions 1/length

Therefore the "coordinate acceleration", i.e. the Newtonian g-field in the weak curvature slow speed limit of GR is

g^u = c^2(lng00)^u ?

Consider ln(1 + x) when x << 1

ln(1 + x) ~ ln(1) + xdln(1 + x)/dx ~ x

In the Schwarzschild metric

goo = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)

So x = - 2GM/c^2r << 1 in Newtonian limit.

Ivanov is off by a factor of 1/2 in his eq 7 that is probably in the definition of (LC).

i.e. g^u = (c^2/2)ln(g00)^,u

4. My approach is very different.

Ivanov is using

Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(EM)

I am using

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

ignoring the direct term (8piG/c^4)Tuv(EM) << /\zpfguv initially - it's a small perturbation.

The EM field indirectly affects the exotic vacuum field /\zpf.

More anon.

On Feb 11, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On Feb 11, 2005, at 11:12 AM, art wagner wrote:

"...that was embarassing - please try"

(http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0502/0502047.pdf)


OK it looks interesting. Note the guy is from Bulgaria. I will take a look.

Physicists in the former Soviet Bloc, like Gennady Shipov in Moscow and Bangkok, are much more open to taking risks looking for dramatic breakthroughs in space propulsion. If you recall I recently did a rough model that near EM fields might allow propulsion if suitable resonances were in the dielectric and magnetic materials used in the fuselage and that it is barely plausible that the Nazis may have stumbled on something like that e.g. Nick Cook's "Nazi Bell Machine" in "The Hunt For Zero Point" that perhaps was not merely Grade B 1950's Sci Fi Pulp Fiction the way Robert Park makes it sound in his book review.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_26/ai_94044223
http://theory.creatingthefuture.org/books/huntforzeropoint.htm

On Feb 11, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, art wagner wrote:

"If we build it, they will fly" (known since ~1918)

"Linda, try to do an interview with Boyko ASAP & let me know if you can; Stan, maybe let Nick Cook know & be ready for some physics questions and/or interviews;"

Nick Cook seems strangely silent and not much interested in the real physics of UFO flight? Please send links that work so we can see what you are talking about?

"Bill, perhaps you could work on this, too...with Linda? If it is what it appears to be, the whole thing is going to blow open very soon - any connection with the Jennings/Rockefeller events of recent note, do you think (I don't, but you never really know...)?" Art

Waiting for Hinckle

A Theater of Important Ideas

Name of The Play: Waiting for Hinckle

From Oscar Wilde to Stalking The Wild Foucault Pendulum! :-)

"I've many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse."
Major General, Pirates of Penzance

Two Characters Abbott (AKA Z) & Costello (AKA J)

Both sitting in a dumpster outside Caffe Trieste in San Francisco's North Beach before an audience of aging hippies on SSI (as well as wannabe hippies with a lot of money slumming) sitting at the tables on the sidewalk drinking wine, smoking and playing guitars - badly!

Overture

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

In the Flying Grail Castle of Lubos Motl ET Harvard String Theorist
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
back in the good old days of The Da Vinci Code somewhere above Troyes, France 1000 years ago.

Curtain rises:

On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:16 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Neck of God

On Feb 8, 2005, at 12:56 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a preferred inertial frame that is empirically
detectable."

J: That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is a preferred frame.

Z: But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are then totally different.

J: So what?

Z: Very revealing.

J: Vague polemics again. The Jesuits are much more focused. The "physical reasons" are not that important here. You give too much weight to the verbal of the informal language. The difference between Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's is precise. Einstein's space of frames is affine. Lorentz's is vector space i.e. affine space + preferred "point of origin". This is an empirical distinction that leaves the kinematics and the dynamics essentially unchanged for ALL predictions other than those of the Cahill and Consoli type. Note they differ from each other in important details BTW. Einstein would say no fringe shift on rotation of the apparatus when n =/= 1, Lorentz says there is a shift. Consoli argues that ~ 10 km/sec shift actually seen is consistent with Earth's motion relative to Hubble flow once the index of refraction n =/= 1 correction is made.

Z: This goes to the heuristic core of Einstein's 1905 theory and its differences with respect to the Lorentzian model.

J: Too vague.

Z: I am alluding to the well-known contents of Einstein's 1905 paper. Have you ever studied it carefully? Observer-observed reciprocity of the Lorentz-Einstein transformations is dictated by the Einsteinian principle of *strict* relativity of *all* uniform motion through space. Without such reciprocity you do not get physically equivalent Lorentz transformations for moving *observers*.

J: I fail to see the connection of what you just wrote to the problem. Are you saying you cannot argue for O(1,3) if there is a preferred frame? If so, you are wrong. Einstein BTW had no conception of vacuum symmetry breakdown in 1905!

Z: Einstein's definitions of light speed and simultaneity are the result of adopting a *convention*. So Einstein's actual reasons for this reciprocity go deeper -- in Einstein's 1905 approach, such reciprocity is based on an *a priori* principle of *strict* physical relativity of *all* uniform motion, which "principle" is clearly
incompatible with the existence of an empirically detectable preferred inertial frame of reference.

J: Show how to connect these words to the math. As they stand they are too ambiguous. My response is "So what?" You must to better that that. You are hand-waving again Paul.

Z: Of course you can still say that all known dynamics exhibited by systems moving *with respect to the preferred frame* is subject to the Lorentz transformations -- which is the Lorentzian model -- but this does not give you substantive reciprocity and thus does not give you Einsteinian special relativity with the Lorentz transformations built into the kinematics and even into the structure of spacetime itself.

J: You are quibbling again. This is excess verbal baggage. What significant difference do your words make either mathematically or physically - beyond the detection of a preferred frame that I have characterized completely?

Z: So what you seem to be doing here, from my POV, is something half-way between Einstein and Lorentz. You have dynamical universality(Lorentz invariance of the field Lagrangian) without fundamental observer-observed reciprocity of the Lorentz transformations.

J: No Paul you have made an ERROR. There is still observer-observed reciprocity. You have confused "preferred frame" with "reciprocity". Just look at Alice, Bob and Eve who is in the preferred frame. There is complete reciprocity between Alice and Bob. Even will not see a fringe shift. Alice and Bob will. So what? In some frames magnetic fields are seen, in others (rest frame of charge) not while looking at the same charge from different frames. Until you look at concrete examples your meta-theoretics is not touching the ground of experience.

Z: I'm not even saying that this is wrong; I'm just trying to point out an important difference between what you are doing with Lorentz invariance and what Einstein was doing in 1905. What's missing from your picture is reciprocity.

J: I AM saying that what you are saying is not even wrong. Show a calculation in a concrete example where I violate reciprocity? Certainly Alice and Bob will see Cahill-Consoli fringe/frequency shifts when n =/= 1 while Eve will not in the Lorentz interpretation i.e. Vector Space of Frames. In contrast, in Einstein's interpretation no one will see these shifts. So far, it appears Einstein wrong and Lorentz right, but you make too much of it! Your judgment is WAY OFF like Howard Dean's "scream" that lost him the nomination. It's a MINOR POINT! Important philosophically but having no impact at all on previous tests of special relativity. It will not change much. It will make some new technology for space exploration, that's true.

Z: In a consistent Lorentzian model, you would back the Lorentz transformations out of the kinematics and and attribute them to the dynamics.

J: Meaningless. Show an example. I don't get what you are trying to say in the above sentence.

Z: Whether the dynamical laws do or do not have the same form in different inertial frames is then optional..It comes down to a pragmatic decisions about how to design the formalism.

J: False. Show me exactly what you mean with an example. You are making wild inferences with no evidence at all.

J: Paul give brief explanations of your understandings of the Lorentzian and Einsteinian different interpretations (informal language of Bohm) of the same equations, so we get the nuance of what you are talking about.

Z: See above. The key here, as I understand Einstein's 1905 model, is "reciprocity" of the transformations, without which you simply do not have 1905 Einstein relativity; and such reciprocity -- even if you can contrive it formally -- is no longer fundamental when there is a preferred inertial frame, which sets up a physical distinction between uniform motion of an object with respect to the vacuum, and uniform motion of an object with respect to an observer. There is no such distinction in 1905 Einstein relativity.

J: You are completely wrong about this Paul.

v(Alice) & v(Bob) are ABSOLUTE relative to Eve who is in the preferred Lorentz inertial frame of absolute rest from a local spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) symmetry in a finite vacuum region that selects Eve's frame as the preferred "point" in the space of frames. This is exactly like what happens in a ferromagnet in the space of O(3) frames of differing space orientations (say for z-axis that will be the direction of the ferromagnetic order parameter).

The RECIPROCITY-PRESERVING relative velocity (in 1+1 to keep it simple) between Alice and Bob is

v(Alice - Bob) = [v(Alice) - v(Bob)]/[1 - v(Alice)v(Bob)/c^2] = - v(Bob - Alice)

There is no problem with reciprocity at all!

Alice and Bob use [1 - (v(Alice - Bob)/c)^2]^-1/2

among themselves. Where is the problem Paul? I see no problem here.

The only way Alice and Bob can know about Eve's preferred frame is to do Cahill/Consoli type of measurements! They use O(1,3) in all of their data processing. There is no problem! For example, Bob keeps his rockets off in free space and Eve fires rockets to different velocities relative to Bob and in different directions and looks for a null reading on the Cahill/Consoli meters when n =/= 1, BTW both of them only consider the case that n^2 - 1 << 1, what happens in an atomic BEC where n ~ 10^7?

J earlier: ONLY A TRIVIAL INTERPRETATIONAL INFORMAL LANGUAGE PROVISO CHANGES. YOU ARE FOCUSED ON THE TRIVIAL!

Z: But I would say that *you* are focussing on the trivial, since you only seem to be concerned with formal O(1,3) symmetry of the field dynamics at the micro-level.

J: What else is important? Physics is an empirical science.

Z: True, but the physical model adopted -- and not just the empirical facts -- determines the physical meaning of things like O(1,3) dynamical invariance.

J: I don't think so. Show exactly what you mean with an example.

Z: For Einstein 1905, the physical meaning of O(1,3) invariance was the strict kinematical relativity of all uniform motion, which automatically forces itself onto all dynamics. For Lorentz, this would be interpreted as a contingent feature of
the dynamics.

J: No Paul. You are technically wrong. You are out of your depth here. You still obviously have no understanding of what spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the lowest energy state of the dynamics + initial + boundary conditions means. You cannot correctly apply it to this problem. Remember Brian Josephson wrote that C.N.Yang had trouble with it. PW Anderson wrote that Eugene Wigner even got it wrong at first. You are still getting it wrong. The kinematics and the dynamics are not at all affected. They are the same whether the space of inertial frames is an affine space without a preferred origin, or a vector space with a preferred origin. And, YES that IS CONTINGENT, but it is not a contingent feature of the dynamics, it is a contingent feature of the local vacuum structure analogous to a ferromagnetic domain!

Z: Einstein later seemed to equivocate on this point, and even wrote as if there is a contingent physical contraction of moving rods.

J: No Paul, you got this wrong. In no case, either Lorentzian or Einsteinian is there any issue of contingency of length contraction and time dilation. There may be another kind of theory like Volovik's where O(1,3) emerges at a fixed point of a renormalization group flow of a Galilean sub-stratum. The quasi-particles and collective modes have O(1,3) at the fixed point whilst the particles they come from obey Galilean relativity. But even there once the O(1,3) emerges there is no contingency of length contraction and time dilation. Where did you get that bad idea from? -- the Sea of Confusion in Dante's Inferno? :-)

Z: But that is certainly not what he was talking about in 1905, when he was still under the spell of Ernst Mach.

J: Einstein had no inkling of vacuum symmetry breakdown in 1905 - unless he thought about ferromagnets back then? I think he did later on. So that's an interesting historical problem.

J: We are interested in elegance of formulation of course - the Zen (Dirac) Ideal of More Empirics with Less Excess Verbal and Mathematical Baggage.

Z: Which as far as it goes is fine with me.

J: Then practice what I preach! :-)

J: Not math for math's sake,

Z: OK.

J: or long-winded reconstructionist post-modern verbosities that are neither here nor there,

Z: Jack, this just indicates to me that you haven't actually studied Einstein's 1905 paper in any depth. What I am talking about is all in the paper. I'm not making it up.

J: Paul you are making it up. I mean you are pulling Einstein's words out of context to fit your Hobby Horse. Also, we are now engaged in a post-modern reconstruction. Or should I say deconstruction? We've come a long way since 1905 Paul. I don't really care at all HOW Einstein argued PHILOSOPHICALLY back in 1905 to reach his equations. You know Einstein himself would agree with me because of what he told Heisenberg in 1925 or so! Einstein admitted to being an opportunist. All theoretical physicists must be. When new concepts come along we shed the old ones like a snake its skin! Einstein never liked Cartan tetrads and he had little feeling for the principle of local gauge invariance. Einstein did not think of his theory of general relativity as the local gauging of the T4 part of his special relativity for example. Or maybe he did as he lay dying because Yang and Mills only came out with the idea in ~ early 50's and Einstein died in 1955. Still less did he have the idea of spontaneous vacuum symmetry breakdown that Brian Josephson traces to ~ 1961 at the earliest in a PW Anderson paper!


Z: Why do you think Einstein's theory was considered to have superseded Lorentz's?

J: It's not important!

Z: Do you even distinguish between the two approaches? If you do, then what exactly is the difference in your view?

J: How many times do I have to repeat myself for you to get it?
Once more with feeling! In post-modern language based on Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality"

Einsteinian hypothesis on the physical meaning of the formalism of O(1,3) covariant dynamics and O(1,3) inertial frame shifts:

The space of inertial frames is affine with no "preferred" origin.

Lorentzian-Fitzgerald-Poincare hypothesis on the physical meaning of the formalism of O(1,3) covariant dynamics and O(1,3) inertial frame shifts:

The space of inertial frames is a vector space with a "preferred" origin.

The difference between the two hypotheses is strictly empirical and contingent on how a finite space-time region of vacuum might spontaneously break its O(1,3) symmetry just like a material may break its O(3) symmetry to form a ferromagnetic domain with a preferred spatial orientation.

The preferred frame of the alleged Cahill/Consoli classes of experiments show a preferred "rapidity" instead of a preferred space orientation. That is, for ferromagnets we are breaking space-space rotational symmetry, and for "preferred Lorentz frames we are breaking space-time rotational symmetry. It's only a difference of i (i^2 = -1) in the dangle of the angle i.e. cosx -> cosix = coshx

cosx trig for O(3)

coshx for boost part of O(1,3)

It's all pretty simple and can be taught in high school trigonometry courses!

and that dull the mind with little contact with observation and experiment.

Z: The direct contact is provided by Cahill's papers in which he revisits the MM experiments: there are residual fringe shifts that allow you to detect a preferred inertial frame.

J: Nice of you to repeat my aria with a chorus.

Z: There's your "contact". That's where the rubber hits the road.

J: That's what I have been telling you!

Z: I thought that this is what we have been talking about?

J: Yes, that is what we are talking about, but you completely misperceive it. You distort its meaning like Hunter Thompson on LSD in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", or like Cheech and Chong on The Bong, or like the stoned yuppies in that new novel by Tom Wolfe that President Bush likes so much and is telling all his friends to read!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340525,00.html
BTW Tom Wolfe's old amour Rasa Gustaitus wrote "Faster Than The Speeding Photon" about us in Francis Ford Coppola's CITY MAGAZINE back in 1976 where I first met Warren Hinckle and Stephen Schwartz.

Curtain Falls on Act I

Overture to Act II

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

Curtain Rises.

J & Z, now much plumper resembling SS, are now arguing inside the flying saucer buzzing around Washington Square in North Beach piloted by Harvard String Theorist Lubos Motl http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

Z: However, since the empirical predictions of the two models, Lorentz and Einstein, are the same,

J: No they are not! But the damage is contained and isolated ONLY in the Cahill/Consoli type of detectors. And it may not be so every where in the universe! The preferred point in the space of frames is also a kind of harmless isolated singularity in Einstein's informal interpretation - his philosophical "black hole" as it were.

Z: and both feature the Lorentz transformation formulas, the only way to decide between them is to engage in what you call "post-modern" critical discussion.

J: Not the only way, but certainly the chic fashionable way.

J: We are not interested in beautiful rigorous mathematical proofs unless they are directly relevant to the proper understanding of some important phenomenon - or better yet unify seemingly different phenomena under one insight.

Z: OK.

J: Let a thousand flowers bloom, but there are too many mathematical weeds in The Garden of Theoretical Physics that has grown decadent with the advent of string theory. Quite a tangled wood.

Z: Yes, exactly. We need a "razor". But please, not a Machian razor!

J: Tell that to James Woodward and Carlos Castro.

J earlier: The laws of nature either classical or quantum do not change their form, nor do they change their transformations under O(1,3). There are no explicit dynamical terms in any of the laws of nature that violate O(1,3) (not talking GR, if GR then I mean local O(1,3)).

Z: Would you say that this is also true in Lorentz's theory? If not, why not?


J: Of course it is! But I am not sure what YOU mean by "Lorentz's theory"? Spell out exactly what you mean as best you can and as concretely as you can.

Z: Measuring rods that physically contract due to objective uniform motion through a physical vacuum; clocks that physically slow down due to objective uniform motion through a physical vacuum. This is all to be distinguished, in Lorentz's theory, from the artifacts resulting from uniform observer motion relative to the object that appear in the rest frame of the observer. This is basically what distinguishes Lorentz's 1904 theory from Einstein's 1905 theory.

J: No Paul, there is no way to tell the difference between Einstein and Lorentz with the above. I think you even quoted Kip Thorne to this effect? The distinction you make above is NOT scientific. What is scientific is the claim of Cahill and also Consoli that have no impact on the above.

Z: From Lorentz's POV, Einstein 1905 simply *contrived* formal-empirical reciprocity of the Lorentz transformations by the adoption of a convention regarding the definition of simultaneity, but this is not physically the same as the actual physical distortions of objects in uniform motion through the vacuum.

J: Show me operationally how to empirically decide one or the other above - at least in principle as a gedankenexperiment? Well I am waiting -- for Godot, or, rather for Hinckle!


J earlier: The detection of the preferred frame is strictly in that isolated class of measurements like Cahill alleges. There is no contamination of other battle-tested effects.

Z: You are ignoring or discarding the classic Machian basis for Einstein's classic 1905 treatment. Which is OK, as long as you acknowledge it.


J: What are you talking about? Spell it out. I do not want to argue over undefined buzz words. Spell out what you mean here? Operationalism? Mach's idea that distant matter there makes inertia here? What?

Z: Maybe you should re-read Einstein's 1905 paper, and then re-read Bell.

J: You will have to wait for Hell to freeze over if you cannot explain what you mean clearly in your own words.

Z: It's all in there.

J: Prove it. You are hiding under Mileva's skirts.

J earlier: Paul, you still do not understand the difference between dynamics and the vacuum.

Z: Of course I do. Your field dynamics at the micro-level (as determined by a field Lagrangian) is Lorentz-invariant, while your physical vacuum ground state solution at the macro-level has less than full O(1,3) symmetry, and thus admits a preferred
inertial frame.

J: OK, so that is the end of the story! There is nothing more of interest there. You are chasing Phantoms like WMD in Iraq.

Z: If that's as far as you want to go with this, then OK.

J: I have gone where no human has gone before.

J earlier: Your remark is amateurish,

Z: It seems that anything that addresses the deep interpretation of formal dynamical invariance at the micro-level will be considered "amateurish" according to the current professional standards of modern physics.

J: Nice in a court room perhaps. But what are you talking about? You are much too "deep" for me.

Z: You are definitely in line with the dominant conventions and critical standards of theoretical physics as it is currently practiced.

J: Because we are results-oriented and in a hurry. The problem with your philofawzy Paul is that it remains stuck in the same place and leads nowhere. You act like you are immortal. The Earth is Ending, or haven't you noticed. Runaway Global Warming is an increasing probability whilst King George II fiddles as Rome burns. Have you been having your morning coffee in Berserkley?

Z: I'm trying to approach these issues from a very different neo-classical angle.


J: For Art stopped short in the cultivated Court of The Empress Josephine. (Patience G&S) Pardon me while I straighten my glasses. Neo-classical? Who ordered that?

Z: When you allow a Lorentzian distinction between objective uniform motion of an object with respect to the physical vacuum, and the *apparent* motion of an object as seen by a moving observer with co-moving measuring instruments, the whole Machian-Poincarean foundation of Einstein's 1905 relativity physics simply unravels, and you are then effectively in a neo-classical domain.

J: A delicate distinction, an undecidable proposition we have here that calls for all our wit.

Z: Remember that 1905 relativity was an important model for the development of quantum mechanics.

J: How? You mean Heisenberg talking to Einstein about operationalism?

Z: If Machism unravels in spacetime physics, then it also unravels in quantum physics.

J: What are you talking about? You are making a blind leap of faith through The Looking Glass right into a charging 70 ton tank on Iraqi Road.

J: BTW I hope you understand by now that the "classical world" "neo" or not is a fiction. It's a delusion like Our Man of La Rancha charging The Windmill thinking it was WMD and that Iraq was Iran. What a difference the "M" and the "n" make. We do not live in the classical world.

Z: I am not advocating a return to actual content of 19th century physics. For me this is primarily an epistemological and methodological issue. The question is, can you revert to an approach where the activity of the observer is disentangled from the behavior of the observed? I think this is definitively possible in spacetime and gravitational physics; so perhaps it's also past time for a fresh look at quantum mechanics.

J: This is not interesting because it is much too vague.

Z: So I agree with Bohm's general approach. Bohm's theory is definitely "neo-classical", according to my definition.

J: Yeah but Bohm had equations and was not as vague as you.

J: Bohr was wrong!

Z: OK.

J: We live in the MACRO-QUANTUM WORLD on spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry. The local smooth Einsteinian warped geometrodynamics, the rumpled twisted inelegant fabric of space-time emerges from the MACRO-QUANTUM "multi-layered multi-colored" Coat of Jacob the Cosmic Super Conducting Vacuum Field from the partial cohering of the virtual ZPF "PV" electron-positron plasma.

Z: The Copenhagenists argued that it is "scientifically meaningless" to enquire into the hidden machinery of the vacuum and hr matter-vacuum interaction, due to the mere fact of the quantum of action.

J: You have gone too far. Also, no one really believes that stuff anymore.

Z: This is one pseudo- positivist dogma that is rejected in a neo-classical approach.
A good example, of course, would be the explanation of atomic ground-state stability in terms of zero-point vacuum fluctuations.

J: That's in text books from 50 years ago. I think it's in Bohm's classic "Quantum Theory".

Z: But I can see that you are simply concerned with developing a workable Andersonian ODLRO formalism that gives sensible results at the macro level, while preserving Lorentz invariance of the field dynamics at the micro-level -- which is fine as far as it goes.

J: That's right. No need to go further than that! No excess verbal baggage allowed. Keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler than is possible. Puthoff makes that mistake. His "PV without PV" is simpler than is possible and your "meta-theoretics" is more complex than is desirable as is most of the disembodied theories today most likely.

Z: OK.

J earlier: the equivalent statement would be that the existence of ferromagnetism requires an explicit breaking of O(3) in the Hamiltonian of the ferromagnet. These phenomena are NOT like the Zeeman and Stark effects in atomic physics, nor is it like the Stern-Gerlach. This is a subtle idea that escapes your comprehension.

Z: Of course I'm not saying anything of the kind. Of course I understand that you are talking about a macro-solution of the micro- field equations that has less than the full O(1,3) symmetry of the underlying dynamics. I am not saying that there is a formal mathematical problem with this.

J: Your point has completely evaporated with a whimper like the pop of a tiny black hole at The End of Ordinary History.

Z: Lost on you. :-)

J: Paradise Lost.

Z: I guess what I am concerned with here is simply not within the scope of your project specification.

J: OK.

On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks Brian. I think Anderson's paper is in "A Career in Theoretical Physics". I will look when I get back to my office. Anderson writes that even Eugene Wigner did not get this same idea at first.

On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:

--On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:24 PM -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a preferred inertial frame that is empirically detectable."


That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is a preferred frame. ..


Paul is in good company, as C.N. Yang, co-discoverer of parity violation in the weak interaction, was in 1966 completely unable to understand my explanation of weakly superconductors in terms of states where phase invariance is broken even though the underlying symmetry is not. He maintained if the dynamics is symmetrical the states have to be also, which is of course wrong.

The description of this dates actually back to a paper by Anderson in Phys. Rev. in 1961 or 1962 (try vol. 112, p 1900), where he explained his pseudospin model for superconductivity. Possibly this can be seen on Google scholar, which has some classic papers on it.

Brian

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *



Intermission

http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Curtain rises on Act III

Appendix: The Meaning of Special Relativity: Einstein vs Lorentz

Z: This is conceptually orthogonal to the question of *universality* of the contraction/dilatation phenomena, i.e., the hypothesis that all physical objects are affected in exactly the same way when they are in relative uniform motion.

J: I think Lorentz and Einstein both would say they are universal. No significant difference there and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why dig up this Red Herring?

J previously: I don't know what this means operationally or mathematically. What are you talking about?

Z: What am I talking about?

J: Yeah Dude, what are you talking about?

Z: I'm talking about 1905 special relativity, as argued by Einstein. That's what.

J: How can you decide this? Give a procedure.

Z: Since the immediate empirical predictions of Lorentz's and Einstein's theories are identical, the choice between them is to that extent empirically undecidable.

J: If that were really true, then the problem would be of no interest to a blue collated metric engineer like me. Crank 'er up and see why she don't fly Hal! But, in fact, you contradict what you say below.

Z: It looks like you don't acknowledge how Einstein's 1905 paper fundamentally differs from Lorentz's theory. After all, both involve the same "Lorentz" transformation formulas, but obviously those formulas have very different physical meanings in the two theories.

J: What is the meaning of "physical meanings"?

Z: Einstein's rationale for building the Lorentz transformations into the kinematics -- thus forcing the formal expression of the dynamical laws to be Lorentz invariant -- was the supposed universality of the contraction and dilatation effects, which was in turn supported by Einstein's version of the relativity principle according to which the physical distinction between the apparent uniform motion of a system resulting from observer motion, and objective uniform motion of the system, was erased.

J: You are too vague here Paul. Give an example what you mean. In Einstein's picture, only the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (both inertial frame observers) matters.

Z: It's stronger than that. The distinction *has no scientific meaning* in Einstein's 1905 theory. It is one thing that within a certain class of measurements, the difference has no empirical consequences; it is another to say that the distinction is physically meaningless. The point is that the 1905 theory was riddled with a number of Machian prejudices that I would argue are no longer rationally supportable.

J: You lost me. The Cahill/Consoli allegations clearly allow us to decide between Einstein and Lorentz at least in the immediate neighborhood of Earth realizing that the empirical distinction is contingent on local vacuum conditions.

J: From Alice's POV Bob moves at v and from Bob's PV Alice moves at -v. But suppose Cahill and the Catanians are correct. Suppose the O(1,3) Lorentz group is spontaneously broken in the "empty" space that Earth moves in. Let Eve's inertial frame, be the preferred frame of not so "empty" space in the Earth's neighborhood. "There goes the neighborhood!" says Einstein. v(Alice) and v(Bob) are Alice's and Bob's absolute velocities relative to Eve's preferred inertial frame of rest that is like the preferred direction of the ferromagnetic pseudo-vector H (H3 = F12, H1 = F23, H2 = F13, F is the 4D curl of the A connection field from locally gauging U(1)) in a finite domain (permeability)H = B where the rotation group O(3) is spontaneously broken in the ferromagnetic ground state that is the analog of the vacuum for the spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz group O(1,3) connecting Alice, to Bob, to Eve etc.

Then, the relative velocity between Alice and Bob, from Einstein's kinematics that is identical in mathematical form to Lorentz's, is

v(Alice - Bob) = [v(Alice) - v(Bob)]/[1 - v(Alice)v(Bob)/c^2]

Note there is no change in rest energy measured locally, i.e. if Alice is a detector and Bob is an electron, then when v(Alice) - v(Bob) = 0, v(Alice - Bob) = 0.

Z: Clearly, the existence of an empirically detectable preferred frame in a vacuum breaks this Einsteinian conceit.

J: It is an inconsequential conceit that you blow out of all proportion.

Z: Inconsequential? It's the difference between Einstein and Lorentz!

J: Not a big deal Paul. You keep making this small claims case into a sham White Water!

Z: If these two theories are the essentially the same, then Lorentz gets priority since he published in 1904! All he had to do was put local time on the same mathematical footing as actual time.

J: Did Lorentz write E = mc^2? Was he explicit on time dilation? Did he show Maxwell's equations O(1,3) covariant in writing prior to Einstein in 1905?

It is a small mound that you make into a mountain. A tiny pimple, not the huge goiter on the Neck of God that you make it out to be!

Z: Jack, admit it -- you are adopting a Lorentzian model for the vacuum, and are clearly headed in a neo-classical (or at least neo-realist) direction.

J: Yes, of course, but it's not the BIG DEAL ON STOCKTON STREET you make it out to be.

Curtain Falls http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html