Koen makes a good point. I opt for spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry of the O(1,3) group as the explanation.

All preferred frames can be understood that way.

There are only two important ideas in theoretical physics.

1. Locally gauging a symmetry group G (either external or internal).

2. Spontaneously breaking the vacuum (or ground state for real quanta) to make a "preferred frame" relative to the group G.

The Cahill effect, if confirmed, is no different from the preferred orientation of a ferromagnet, i.e. a preferred frame of orientation for the O(3) group, only the group G is different. For the Cahill effect it is O(1,3).

All phenomena from large-scale dark energy accelerating the universe to the small-scale weak force of beta radio-activity can be understood completely in terms of applications of 1 & 2 above.

Einstein's general relativity is simply the local gauge theory of the T4 subgroup of the conformal group.

The compensating gauge potential space-time connection field is the non-trivial piece of the Cartan tetrad

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

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

{Pa} = Lie Algebra of T4

guv(LNIF) = (Minkowski)uv + Lp^2(Bu,v + Bv,u)

Note when Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = quantum of area -> 0 gravity vanishes.

Gauge transforms of Bu --> Diff(4) GCT tensor transforms (e.g. Brazilian paper)

guv(LNIF) = [(Kronecker)u^a + Bu^a][(Kronecker)v^b + Bv^b](Minkowski)ab(LIF)

The Ricci rotation coefficients needed for the tidal stretch-squeeze Riemann curvature tensor field are

Au^bc = eu^aAa^bc

Note

eu'^a(P) = (GCT)u'^ueu^a

and

eu^a'(P) = (O(1,3)a^a'eu^a

Tu = Au^bcSab

{Sab} = Lie algebra of O(1,3), but Aa^bc are global phases until O(1,3) is locally gauged to get an independent torsion field Tu. Tu in 1916 GR is not an independent dynamical field but derives from eu^a

There are 4 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Smith's conclusion on Cahill's theory is wrong

From: Koen van Vlaenderen

2. Re: On Preferred Frames

From: Jack Sarfatti

3. Preferred Frames as Spontaneous Broken Lorentz Boost Vacuum Symmetry

From: Jack Sarfatti

4. The meaning of preferred frames

From: Jack Sarfatti

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1

Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:15:57 +0100

From: Koen van Vlaenderen

Subject: Smith's conclusion on Cahill's theory is wrong

Tony Smith's conclusion (based on the statement that n is not a constant because of the Lorentz contraction)

that Cahill's theory is flawed and wrong, is by itself premature and likely to be wrong.

Even if n is corrected for Lorentz contraction, that does not automatically mean that in the resulting model the measurements indicate a NULL result.

If Tony Smith can prove the latter, then he has a point. I think he can't show this. Probably the corrected n (for Lorentz contraction) is not too much different from a constant n, such that the interpretation of the measurements by Cahill will not be much different either.

Koen

## No comments:

Post a Comment