Thursday, February 10, 2005

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 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.


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:

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

"...that was embarassing - please try"


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.

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

No comments: