Thursday, February 03, 2005

Preferred Frames

"Broken T4 symmetry of the Poincare group --> Einstein's 1916 GR (without torsion) seen in the nonholonomic Cartan tetrad with Bu^a as the compensating gauge potential."

should be replaced by

Locally gauged T4 symmetry of the Poincare group --> Einstein's 1916 GR (without torsion) seen in the nonholonomic Cartan tetrad with Bu^a as the compensating gauge potential. The Bu^a, in turn, come from spontaneous broken U(1) vacuum symmetry, same as in a superconductor. However, here we deal with neutral off-mass-shell virtual electron-positron bound pairs, not the charged on-mass-shell real electron bound pairs.

Locally gauging a group G breaks the global symmetry down to a local symmetry restoring the conservation law with the compensating gauge potential AKA connection field. This is different from spontaneous breakdown of the vacuum in which the symmetry is not restored. Preferred frames are the result of the latter not the former. The two kinds of symmetry breaking tango with each other in the Cosmic Dance.

On Feb 3, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


I don't think any of this discussion below between Z and Tony is on the right path to understanding the problem. If Cahill's empirical analysis of the Michelson-Morley data holds up (independent of his flow theory that is too contrived) then the tried-and-true battle-tested ideas of

1. Local gauge invariance

2. Broken gauge symmetry with local macro-quantum order parameters beautifully explains ALL "preferred frame" phenomena - more with less.

Examples of "More is different" (P.W. Anderson's emergent complexity theory):

Broken space-rotation O(3) group --> ferromagnet ground state, Hamiltonian is still rotation invariant as are the dynamical equations.

Broken U(1) EM symmetry --> BCS superconductor ground state with massive photon (Meissner effect), similar neutral U(1) effect in superfluid helium.

Broken T3 symmetry --> crystal lattice, phonons

Locally gauging the T4 symmetry subgroup of the Poincare group --> Einstein's 1916 GR (without torsion) seen in the nonholonomic Cartan tetrad with Bu^a as the compensating gauge potential.

eu^a = Kroneckeru^a + Bu^a

Bu = Bu^aPa/h

h = Planck's constant

{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4

Gauge transformations of Bu <---> Diff(4) GCT

Gestalt Shift the two pictures Old Woman/Young Girl (Brazilian paper)

Broken Boost Symmetry --> Cahill's absolute velocity ~ n(n^2 - 1) MM fringe shift in MM interferometer. Test Cahill's eq.2 p. 4 using atomic BEC's with resonant n peaks ~ 10^7 giving c/n ~ 17 meters/sec instead of 3x10^8 meters/sec.

Order parameter [from 3 Boost Generators z-t, y-t, x-t] in S2 space allowing topological hedgehog point defect with uniform zero point energy density exotic vacuum gradient /\zpf ~ H(t)/cr between two concentric spherical boundaries as actually seen in NASA Space Probe 10& 11 a_g = - cH(t), i.e. Cahill's measurement and Pioneer anomaly have COMMON EXPLANATION like in Maxwell's

c^2 = (electric permittivity)(magnetic permeability)^-1

Imagine a lot of global Lorentz transformations on the z-t plane. Broken symmetry selects ONE of them just like in a ferromagnet in a finite domain! The dynamical symmetry is still there in the laws of physics, only it is broken in the vacuum solution. This is standard physics! No big deal really! Well it is a big deal really and I think I am the first to really understand ALL of the anomalies including the dark energy problem in a single unified way using only

1. Local gauge symmetry with compensating fields.

2. More is different e.g. Higgs mechanism, Meissner effect, quantized circulation in He II, Hall effects (anyons)

BTW this broken Lorentz boost symmetry that Cahill seems to extract does not require the local gauging of O(1,3) to get new torsion fields. Spontaneously breaking the symmetry of a group G is not same as locally gauging G. When you do both you get a massive quasi-particle boson if the original gauge field is massless. That is, the massless Goldstone boson from the broken symmetry is merged with the massless gauge boson. BTW I did have a tutorial course with Robert Brout at Cornell in 1960 in group theory at same time I had course with Hans Bethe on experimental tests of special relativity. Of course, Brout was beginning to think of broken symmetry. This was right before he went to Brussels where I saw him again in 1973 when Prigogine and Jagdish Mehra invited me there from Abdus Salam's Trieste.

I was also at UCSD in 1967 when PW Anderson gave his first "More is different" talk! Curious.

On Feb 3, 2005, at 4:12 PM, art wagner wrote:

You mean, I had a good idea......?

No, I mean I had a good idea!

From: Jack Sarfatti
To: "art wagner"
Subject: Re: Cahill's Foam & C=8
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:41:23 -0800

On Feb 3, 2005, at 2:09 PM, art wagner wrote:

Could it be that Cahill's Foam ( probability factor (p) for dimensions corresponding to d=8 is connected to "something else" (, Anthropic?) which would constrain the Clifford space C=8 situation ( ? 'Just t.s.a.w. here to see if anything sticks .......


Memorandum For The Record

The Devil's Sonata

(Note on Russian torsion WMD R&D at end of this report.)

Think of the x-t 1 + 1 space-time plane, the broken boost symmetry selects a particular basis in a finite region of spacetime like the ferromagnetism coherent over a finite domain of the metal.

General reference "A Career in Theoretical Physics" by PW Anderson (World Scientific) on "More is different" emergence from spontaneous broken symmetries of the vacuum for virtual particles and the ground state for real particles.

Spontaneous broken vacuum (ground state) symmetry = PREFERRED FRAME (always! - different kinds of "frames" of course.

Also Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality" note the distinction between an affine space and a vector space is that the latter has a preferred origin and the former does not. We normally think of Lorentz covariance as an affine space, however, if Cahill, and apparently others, are correct it's a simple transition from affine to vector space picture - no fundamental modification in the basic dynamics of either special relativity or general relativity or quantum field theory is needed IF, e.g. Cahill's discussion of the Michelson-Morley data is correct.

First think of the U(1) local gauge theory of Maxwell's electromagnetic field in micro-quantum mechanics. The electron pilot wave is a projective ray, i.e. its amplitude has no direct meaning, only its phase is important in the complex plane! This is essential to SIGNAL LOCALITY depending, as Antony Valentini showed, i.e. need Born probability interpretation, i.e. equilibrium of hidden variables.

OK as Frank Wilczek shows in detail, think of a plane of one-handed clocks. If you want the hand of each clock to be set independently and keep the dynamical action invariant, you can do that by introducing the compensating 4-potential Au (AKA A 1-form) whose Lorentz covariant Curl is the Maxwell EM field Fuv (AKA F 2-form). You get all 4 Maxwell equations using Cartan's forms from "Boundary of a boundary is zero" (John Wheeler), i.e.

A is a 1-form

F = dA

d = topological Cartan exterior derivative

dF = 0 --> NO MAGNETIC MONOPOLES + Faraday's law of induction for electric motors etc.

Take Hodge dual F -> *F i.e. E to D, B to H (or other way? I forget - see Arnold Sommerfeld "Electrodynamics")

d*F = J --> Ampere's law + Gauss's law

So one sees a strong topological argument for absence of FREE MAGNETIC MONOPOLES

So this gives quantum electrodynamics with a massless photon from local gauge invariance. The Schrodinger eq (or Dirac) is linear, nonlocal for many electrons and unitary in time evolution.

MACRO-quantum theory for say bound real electron pairs is very different! The pilot wave is no longer a projective ray. The Higgs amplitude has meaning as the square root of the Bose-Einstein condensate density. The Goldstone phase is "rigid" - there is no fragile collapse, we have immunity from warm wet (brain) or, generally, environmental decoherence. There is no ensemble based Born probability. The MACRO-quantum Landau-Ginzburg equation is not unitary and it is local and nonlinear - "presponse" signal nonlocality is not excluded!

So what happens now is a PREFERRED FRAME! That is the clock hands line up in a pattern like the magnetic moments in a single domain of a ferromagnet! The preferred frame is the orientation of the macro-quantum order parameter in ordinary space in this example. The physics equations are still rotationally invariant, but the ground state is not. This is a UBIQUITOUS PATTERN in COMPLEX PHENOMENA studied in SOFT CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS! For a superfluid frictionless flow the phases are in momentum space. In the case of the superconductor, the broken U(1) symmetry means that the photon inside the superconductor has a rest mass. This is the Higgs mechanism in high energy physics for the SU(2) radioactivity group of the weak force, and it is the expulsion of magnetic flux (Meissner effect) for a bulk Type I superconductor, or a lattice of vortices with quantized magnetic fluxes in a Type II superconductor depending on ratio of Compton wavelength of the massive photon to a coherence length of the Giant Tsunami Ground State (or Vacuum) Wave!


U(1) symmetry is x^2 + y^2 = 1 as the invariant i.e.

x'^2 + y'^2 = x^2 + y^2 = 1

Where U(1) maps (x,y) to (x',y')

The U(1) phase parameter is theta - a rotation in the Euclidean plane.

OK do the Wick rotation y = ict

the 1 + 1 Little Lorentz group is

O(1,1) i.e.

x^2 - c^2t^2 = x'^2 - c^2t'^2

i.e. x-t rotations in the hyperbolic plane

See Penrose "The Road to Reality" for details.

The new "theta" is called the "rapidity".

Instead of cosine and sin trig functions of angle for U(1) = O(2) we have the sinh and cosh functions of rapidity.

x' = cosh(rapidity)x + sinh(rapidity)(ct)

ct' = sinh(rapidity)x + cosh(rapidity)(ct)

cosh^2 - sinh^2 = 1

instead of cos^2 + sin^2 = 1

x' = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2[x + ct]

ct' = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2[ct + vx/c]

So think of the x - t spacetime plane (do only simple case for easy visualization)

The broken Lorentz-boost symmetry selects out a preferred frame exactly analogous to the magnetization of the ferromagnet in a FINITE DOMAIN. This is WHY the LOCAL DOMAIN measured absolute velocity is NOT identical to the velocity of Earth relative to cosmic Hubble flow - that comes from breaking the T4 group.

Note that the macro-quantum vacuum order parameter for breaking the 3-parameter Lorentz boosts should live in the S2 order parameter factor space G/H giving point-defects (Hedgehogs - David Thouless) which we observe in the Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, i.e. a CONSTANT radial gravity tug

a_g = - cH(t) = 10^-7 cm/sec^2 directed back to Sun starting at a spherical boundary at 20 AU from Sun.

That is, there appears to be a correlation of Cahill's local absolute velocity of Earth relative to preferred frame and the local (20 AU is not cosmic scale) Pioneer anomaly although H(t) is the Hubble parameter

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

R(t) is dimensionless scale of 3D FLAT space of FLRW cosmological metric consistent with inflation but with anti-gravity dark energy = zero point fluctuation vacuum energy ~ 10^-7 ergs/cm^3 from negative vacuum micro-quantum pressure, w = -1.

10^-7 ergs/cm^3 ~ (H(t)/c)^2(c^4/8piG) = /\(c^4/8piG) ~ (10^28cm)^-2(SuperString Tension)

/\ = Einstein Cosmological Constant

Super String Tension = 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm

/\ = Lp^-2[1 - Lp^2|Higgs|^2] in FLRW large-scale limit

Using t'Hooft-Susskind world hologram normalization of Higgs field (Wilczek cosmic superconductor AKA partial vacuum coherence).

Entropy of universe from De Sitter Local Horizon "screen of world hologram" is via Bekenstein-Hawking radiation formula

S(Universe)/kB = (1/4Lp^2)(c/H(t))^2 = 10^122 c-bits

Think of the x-t plane, the broken boost symmetry selects a particular basis in a finite region of spacetime like the ferromagnetism coherent over a finite domain of the metal.

On Feb 2, 2005, at 5:46 PM, art wagner wrote:

Jack, I've been scouring about and found these: ( and ( - which are at least interesting and possibly quite important in the MM/Cahill mechuga......

Yes, they both look interesting thanks.

On Feb 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I had a big breakthrough on preferred frames. More in next few days. It's simply tried and true battle-tested local gauge invariance + spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum. If Cahill's MM data is correct then it's spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz boost symmetry and he would be correct it is different from the speed of Earth relative to Hubble flow. It ties in with Pioneer anomaly because the 3 Lorentz boosts seem to give the S^2 order parameter space needed to explain the hedgehog topological defect in the Pioneer anomaly i.e. uniform radial gradient a_g = -cH back to Sun between two concentric spherical boundaries, first at 20AU. The exotic vacuum is /\zpf ~ 1/r between the two spherical boundaries. Wilzcek's cosmic superconductor field (AKA my partial macro-quantum vacuum coherence has a point defect at center of Sun - probably ALL stars do. This is very tentative of course.

The math is pretty, i.e. the Ricci rotation coefficients Aa^bc play a key role (e.g. Brazilian paper).

Aa^bu = eu^cAa^bc

eu^a = T4 tetrad

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

Bu = Bu^aPa

Pa is mom-energy generator of T4 translation group

All this is pre-torsion field i.e. O(1,3) not locally gauged yet.

It's the T4 tetrad that provides the local "phase" invariance for tangent fiber O(1,4) that is spontaneously broken IF Cahill's interpretation of MM data is correct. This has nothing to do with his flow theory BTW.

Think of little group O(1,1) in analogy to U(1) where rapidity of rotation in z-t plane is like the U(1) phase angle in Maxwell theory. Then look at Frank Wilczek's explanation of Higgs effect - basically same story. See Jan 20 Nature I think. It's all standard stuff only the group is different. It's all PW Anderson's "More is different".

The vacuum solution need not have the full symmetry group of the dynamical action. This is well known for the internal weak gauge force, for superfluids, for ferromagnets and all sorts of complex systems in soft condensed matter physics. Here it's same story for boost part of local Lorentz group. Very simple really.

I have to go to Dentist. More anon.

On Feb 2, 2005, at 5:46 PM, art wagner wrote:

Jack, I've been scouring about and found these: ( and ( - which are at least interesting and possibly quite important in the MM/Cahill mechuga......

On Feb 2, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you say that "Cahill says there is an ABSOLUTE v = 0,
a preferred frame of absolute rest.".

Although I disagree with Cahill based on his failure to consider
that the refractive index n of a gas is changed when the gas
is subjected to Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction (as I said earlier),
I do NOT find fault with the existence of a preferred frame.

I need to think about that. In any case e.g. Cahill's eq 2 p. 4, the fringr shift for absolute velocity relative to the preferred frame using Lorentz transformations is ~ n(n^2 - 1) this should be tested for variable n = index of refraction of the gas placed inside the MM interferometer arms. For an atomic Bose-Einstein condensate you can get n ~ 10^7 and I suppose tune it over many powers of ten. Such an experiment should be considered - very fundamental.

One reason that I like such a preferred frame is that it makes
the Deutsch formulation of Many-Worlds work well.

I don't know that stuff.

Another reason is that it seems physically reasonable that
the common origin of everything in our universe in the Big Bang
would lead to such a preferred frame.

Bohm likes a preferred frame where the quantum potential acts instantly. He suggests Hubble flow. Volovik starts with a Galilean relativity substratum and gets Lorentz symmetry emergent for quasiparticles and collective modes at a fixed point in a renormalization group flow.

That is Galilean -> Lorentz-Poincare -> General Relativity

as a sequence of EMERGENT symmetries in sense "More is different" "soft condensed matter physics".

For instance, it can be useful to think of cosmic background
radiation as providing a kind of preferred frame.

Yes. Operationally it is. You cannot argue with experiments!

A beautiful theory is slain by an ugly fact.

The Hubble flow is the preferred global frame in which the CBR is maximally isotropic.

But this is a property of general relativity in the large-scale in the homogeneous isotropic FLRW metric of precision cosmology.

Now this is from the spontaneous breakdown of T4 translational symmetry giving the non-trivial nonholonomic Cartan tetrads

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

u is in the curved base space-time

Bu^a = locally gauged T4 anholonomic tetrad "gauge potential"

Bu = Bu^aPa/h

{Pa} is the mom-energy Lie algebra of globally flat T4.

Bu = (Macro-Quantum Goldstone Phase),u

[Bu] = 1/(Length)

guv(LNIF) = (Minkowski)uv + (Lp^2/2)[Bu,v + Bv,u] = eu^aev^bgab(LIF)

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

Wilzcek cosmic super-conducting vacuum field = |Higgs|e^i(Goldstone Phase)

e.g. Nature Jan 20, 2005

AKA partial vacuum coherence local order parameter from spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry

a is in the quasi-flat tangent space i.e.

goo(LIF at P') ~ -1 - R0a0b(P)(P'-P)^a(P'-P)^b

2V(Newton at P)/c^2 ~ R0a0b(P)(P'-P)^a(P'-P)^b

V(Newton at P) = gravity potential energy per unit test particle mass

In exotic vacuum w = -1 dark energy or dark matter (that mimics w = 0 at a distance)

2V(Newton)/c^2 replaced by /\zpfr^2

r = Schwarzschild radial coordinate

/\zpf is local micro-quantum zero point fluctuation vacuum curvature scalar field that in FLRW large-scale limits to Einstein cosmological constant

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 in exotic vacuum

Rcadb = Riemann curvature tensor in the LIF (Local Inertial Frame)

The gravimagnetic field for Lense-Thirring frame drag and Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" is

goc'(LIF at P') ~ - (2/3)R0abc'(P)(P'-P)^a(P'-P)^b

c' = 1,2,3

gc'd'(LIF at P') ~ (Kronecker Delta)c'd' - (1/3)Rc'ad'b(P'-P)^a(P'-P)^b

a,b = 0,1,2,3

c'd' = 1,2,3

PS - Jack, my Pioneer web page can be found at

Gennady Shipov's torsion theory is locally gauged Lorentz group O(1,3) in addition to translation group T4.

Note the Ricci rotation cofficients

Aa^bc in tangent space are not independent fields in torsion-free 1916 GR

Of course

Au^bc = eu^aAab^c

is locally variable from the T4 local gauge symmetry with Bu^a compensating field in tetrad eu^a.

Note the TORSION compensating field would be

Tu = Tu^bcSab

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


Replace the Ricci coefficients A of 1916 GR by

A*u^bc = Au^bc(Einstein) + Tu^bc(Shipov)

Note only the second term on RHS has independent dynamical degrees of freedom.

On Feb 3, 2005, at 10:49 AM, wrote:

Tony Smith wrote:

Z, you say that you "... should make it clear
that [you] didn't mean to suggest that the Lorentz contraction does
not apply to the individual molecules of a gas;
[you were]... questioning only whether there is also
a concomitant increase in the average particle density along
the direction of uniform motion through the vacuum (of the center
of mass of the gas) as observed from a "stationary frame". ...".

I did understand that was your meaning with respect to my immediately
preceding message which used RHIC and HERA accelerator data for
gluon cloud Color Glass Condensates.

My analogy was NOT that a given gluon cloud CGC corresponds
to a given individual gas molecule.

My analogy WAS that a given gluon cloud CGS corresponds
to the entire cloud of gas molecules in the immediate vicinity
of the experimental MM apparatus.
For example,
if the MM apparatus is in a cubical room with limited ventilation,
then the relevant cloud of gas molecules would be all the
air gas molecules in that room,
the point is that if the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction due to
motion along, say, the x-axis, of the cubic room (which is part of the
Earth surface, the motion of which is the subject of the experiment)
affects all the cubic room and its contents including the air gas
would contract the entire room itself (including air gas) along
its x-axis, so that the x-component of the density of the air gas
would be increased just as the apparatus oriented along the x-axis
would be contracted.

Yes, under the Einstein kinematic model this is definitely the case -- but
not necessarily under a dynamic Lorentzian model of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction. Under a Lorentzian model, different states of matter may or
may not be subject to such contraction, while of course in the Einsteinian
approach this is assumed to be a universal phenomenon.

The point is that contemporary microphysics is completely predicated on the
Einstein model (Lorentz invariance is universally imposed, at least locally,
as part of the axiomatic basis of any such theory), and so we have to be
careful when framing counterarguments against Lorentzian treatments like
Cahill's that we don't simply beg the question at issue.

In other words, unless there is some substantial wind blowing
into or out of the room, the air gas within the room should
act the same as a solid block of copper the size of the room,
and the same as the experimental apparatus,
with respect to the contraction.

Under the Einstein model, yes, since in that picture this is a universal
kinematic effect.

My analogy is that the air gas molecules in the room
correspond to the gluons in the gluon cloud CGC.

OK. Thanks for making this clear.

Of course, since universal contraction is assumed axiomatically in all
theories of elementary particles (because Lorentz invariance is imposed
*a priori* on any such theory), such a cloud will be subject to a
contraction interpreted according to the 1905 Einstein model.

I should note that I do agree with you that it is interesting that
"... using ... Cahill's ... approach, the calculation
for the speed of the Earth's motion through space agrees closely
with other calculations made on independent grounds (e.g. the 1991
De Witt coaxial cable results cited in the paper).

However, I also note that Cahill's paper at
"... DeWitte was never permitted to report to physicists the data
from his beautiful 1991 coaxial cable experiment. ..."
the relevant footnotes are only to other papers by Cahill himself,
not to anything showing DeWitte as author,
the physics/0501051 paper gave NO explanation WHY "... DeWitte was
never permitted to report to physicists ...".

To me, that raises a Big Red Flag about DeWitte's data.

Sure. However, one of Cahill's theses is that this kind of contrary
evidence is being systematically suppressed by the physics establishment
-- which from my POV is not inconceivable.

Herbert Dingle -- a professor of history and philosophy of science at the
University of London -- complained bitterly about this kind of repressive
dogmatism on the pert of the relativity establishment in the early 1960s.

But I agree that it is difficult to evaluate the cable experiments if
there is no peer-reviewed publication available.

As a person who is blacklisted by arXiv, I think that
data should not be disregarded in cases wherein somebody
was "never permitted to report to physicists".


What is your theory about why you've been "blacklisted"?

I clearly state on my web site, where all my work IS available,
that my more recent work is not found on arXiv because I am
blacklisted by arXiv, and any interested people can take that
into account in evaluating my work.

OK, so you obviously understand how these things can operate.

I would also understand if DeWitte had been barred from
reporting his work to physicists because his work was done
as part of a collaboration whose bureaucracy had concluded
that the consensus of the collaboration was that DeWitte's
work was inconclusive or flawed.

Then of course the solution is to publish it and expose it to public

I cannot understand the narrow mentality that supports this kind of prior
restraint even in an electronic preprint archive.

"There be serpents".

I wonder, what is De Witt's background?

Since Cahill does not mention ANY reason for DeWitte's work
being barred,
Cahill says that the establishment is (wittingly or otherwise) systematically
suppressing results that threaten the 1905 Einsteinian canon.

I do myself believe that this kind of thing goes on in gravitational physics with
regard to absolute interpretations of the equivalence hypothesis.

What I find really amusing about all this is that 1916 GR actually supersedes and
contradicts 1905 SR. They are in fact two incompatible theories -- although of
course there is a certain *correspondence* relationship between them.

As I understand the situation, Einstein's views on SR completely shifted after
~1916 toward a Lorentzian model (after he publicly repudiated Ernst Mach as
a "deplorable philosopher").

I see no reason (such as blacklisting or
hostile bureaucracy) for me to question the Big Red Flag that
I see about DeWitte's data that he was "never permitted to
report to physicists",
therefore my present personal opinion is
that I disregard DeWitte's results
based on the Big Red Flag and my intuitive picture that air
gas density variation is treated improperly by Cahill.

OK, of course you may well be right about this. But I still think this merits
further investigation.

Cahill is no dummy, so I have to wonder why -- knowing that he is in a vulnerable
position as to burden of proof -- he would cite such suspect material unless he
had had a good look at it himself, from his own neo-Lorentzian POV.

I should also note that I agree with you that new experiments
to "... directly show ...[whether or not]...volumes of gas are subject
to this contraction ..." would be necessary to clearly show
whether or not the physics model of Cahill and DeWitte is correct.


You are certainly entitled to your belief in a physics model
in which the contraction varies with respect to state of matter.
then so are some creationists entitled to their belief that
our entire universe was created instantly by G-d about 4000 years go,
with fossils etc intact to serve as interesting puzzles to
stimulate human intellectual activity.

But at this point I don't personally hold any such a belief. I am simply
pointing out, in a dialectical fashion, that a Lorentzian model could
accommodate such a differential contraction effect, although of course an
Einsteinian model guarantees universal contraction.

For me this is ultimately an empirical question: What is the *independent*
empirical evidence that shows, regardless of whether the data is evaluated within
an Einsteinian or a Lorentzian model, that the contraction applies to a volume
of gas, as well as to solid objects?

This should not be a difficult question to answer; and I think it is a reasonable
question -- unless you raise the Einsteinian *hypothesis* of universal contraction
to the status of a synthetic a priori proposition (which I don't).

In both cases, the relevant models seem to me to be
unnecessarily complicated when compared to competing models.

Who says that the world is simple?

Classical thermodynamics is "simple", but as you yourself mentioned, we still believe
in atoms, kinetic theory, Brownian motion, etc., which inject vast complexities into
the physics.

We now also understand that most physical systems are in reality non-linear, and thus
do not share the simplicity of behavior and computational facility of the linear
approximations that have traditionally been applied to them.

As I pointed out previously, even Einstein admitted in the 1920s that not taking account
of the microscopic constitution of measuring rods in accounting for the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
effect was an "original sin" of special relativity -- which certainly sounds "Lorentzian"
to me.

unless and until such new Cahill-DeWitte experiments are performed,
my opinion (based on what I have said in my recent messages)
is that they are wrong.


Perhaps unfortunately, I think that given current funding priorites
the likelihood of such new Cahill-DeWitte experiments being performed
pretty much the same as the likelihood of performing an experiment
to replicate
a creationist instantaneous universe-creation a la 4000 years ago.

Well, if I were in an ornery mood I could argue that the shoe is on the other
foot: from Cahill's POV it is the Einsteinian relativity establishment that has
erected a secular "theocracy" that treats Einstein's bold conjectures as Holy
Writ, and it is the Cahills of this world that are trying to bring the debate
back to more empirical considerations, returning the idea of universal contraction
to the status of a *physical hypothesis* (which is what it actually is) that must
always prove its mettle in the battleground of empirical observation, just like
any other.

I don't think Cahill's thesis relies on Biblical considerations. At least I don't
see any Biblical references in his papers. :-)



No comments: