## Monday, March 21, 2005

Oh Un-Brave New World that has such monsters in it? Something is rotten in the State of Ontology. Is truth beauty and beauty truth? Not if the New Manicheans have their way with us! ;-)

This Yilmaz theory in its ontology has to be spelled out very clearly. It is not so far. Hal's Tables in his PV theory seem to say that

c' = c/K

is locally measurable, but is in fact not? In any case there is confusion on the ontology.

Now in fact, the work of Arcos & Pereira may be a kind of Yilmaz without Yilmaz theory that is, in fact, very close to my theory! The bridge between the globally flat gauge force picture and the curved GR picture is via the Einstein-Cartan tetrad eu^a - my B field in

eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a

I is the identity

Bu^a the compensating gauge force field from T4 -> Diff(4) lives in globally flat space-time with a kind of torsion S, i.e.

B = dx^uBu^a(Pa/ih)(Goldstone Phase)

{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4

and Pa is the usual momentum operator on the macro-quantum vacuum OLDRO Goldstone Phase.

S = DB

D = d + B

d = Cartan exterior differentiation from p form to p + 1 form, with Yang-Mills equations

DS = 0

D*S = J*

The non-abelian analog to Maxwell's U(1) equations in flat space-time

F = dA

dF = 0

d*F = j

The connection to curved space-time is via EEP where

guv(LNIF) = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(LIF)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)

Shipov's theory is from an additional local gauging of O(1,3) i.e.

S' = dx^ueu^cAc^a^b(Sab/ih)(Goldstone Phase)

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

Ac^a^b are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are now arbitrary functions after O(1,3) is locally gauged to get Shipov's torsion field as the O(1,3) compensating gauge force field (actually "potential" not "force"). In 1916 GR they are the globally rigid phases conjugate to the rotation and boost generators of the Lorentz group.

On Mar 21, 2005, at 3:04 PM, michael ibison wrote:

What measurement problems do you refer to?

On 'global flat shadow metric': such is not viable in GR due to lack of
topological equivalence to (homeomorphism with) Minkowski space-time. But it MAY
be the case (I suspect but I don't know) that the metric tensor of Yilmaz theory
is constrained so that the physical coordinates are always homeomorphic to
Minkowski space-time. If so, then a classical field-theory point of view for the
metric components will be viable, i.e. where the components can then be regarded
as fields (in a prior - given - flat space time).

On 1913+16 pulsar data: PV was there found to fail, predicting the wrong decay
rate.

- Michael

Indeed, where plain vanilla Einstein 1916 GR is right on the mark to the incredible precision of I think it's 10^-15 cited by Penrose in "The Road to Reality".

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]

Subject: Re: Hal Puthoff allegedly changes his "toon" on PV - finally!

Oy vey! Yilmaz? From the frying pan into the fire. There is no coherent
plausible measurement ontology there - unless you can tie to Lorentz
theory and if Cahill is correct, then maybe. But Hal seems to invoke
the excess metaphysical baggage of a coexisting global flat shadow
metric for which there is no direct empirical evidence. Also, what
about 1913+16 pulsar data? There is also the new "fireball" that may
show little black holes with Hawking radiation.

On Mar 21, 2005, at 2:29 PM, michael ibison wrote:

It is my understanding that present observational data supports Yilmaz
theory as well as Einstein GR. (Yilmaz and others have disagreed with this
position, citing the Hughes-Drever result as favoring their theory over GR.
However, their position on this issue does not seem to have had any impact on the GR
community.) On the other hand, as far as I am aware, the predictions of Yilmaz
theory have not been worked out for gravitational radiation (decay of binary
pulsars) and Cosmology (evolution of the scale factor via the Friedmann equation
for that theory), so there is still some ground to make up. Nonetheless, Yilmaz
theory stands a good chance of correcting the error in PV to give the correct -
observed - result for radiation losses and decay of PSR 1916+13. (This has to do with number of degrees of freedom / polarization in the radiation
field.) In short, at present I can see no reason to strike Yilmaz off the list of
viable theories.

- Michael

Ask Daryl Leitner who now I think rejects Yilmaz after professing it for years.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:58 PM
To: Hal P; michael ibison

Subject: Hal Puthoff allegedly changes his "toon" on PV - finally!

Hal & Eric

I hear now from Mike Ibison that since March 1, 2005 you agree with me
that PV should not be promoted as a viable strategy for metric
engineering of advanced space-craft, that all such attempts should be
based on battle-tested Einstein's relativity - barring the kind of
revolution that Reg Cahill is professing of course about the
Michelson-Morley experiment. I am glad I learned this BEFORE Super
Cosmos went into final publication as I need to make extensive changes
in regard to your position. Can you and Eric please give me a statement
to print for the record in my book and on my website getting 30,000
visitors per month? Of course, Eric's USAF report on teleportation
still promotes PV as if it were the only game in town. Otherwise it is
a pretty good report.

BTW Jan 20, 2005 Nature has many experimental falsifications of Trevor
Marshall's SED on which your ZPF "drag" theory with Haisch & Rueda is
based - different from PV I realize.

On Mar 21, 2005, at 4:04 PM, michael ibison wrote:

If I am correct in my previous speculation, in Yilmaz theory you MAY use Ives /
Lorentz type visualization, but it is not mandatory - just like in SR, as I
think Paul is saying.

Will someone please spell out the Lorentz picture in full detail so that we are all on the same page?

HOWEVER, unless someone knows of a proof, it is quite premature to ASSUME that
Yilmaz theory can be regarded in this way (i.e. as always topologically
equivalent to flat-space field theory).

This is where Arcos & Pereira come in.

(PV, however, is a different story; it is possible to show that PV has this
property. But we are not discussing PV here.)

- Michael

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 5:33 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Hal Puthoff allegedly changes his "toon" on PV - finally!

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Oy vey! Yilmaz? From the frying pan into the fire. There is no
coherent plausible measurement ontology there - unless you can tie it to
Lorentz theory and if Cahill is correct, then maybe.

Of course you can. Yilmaz's theory is inherently neo-Lorentzian. Like
PV, it's based on a rubber-rod-and-clock model.

People are too glib with that. It has to be spelled out very carefully! How is the rubber rod and clock model consistent with both local Lorentz and local Diff(4) covariance, even with global Lorentz covariance when gravity vanishes? There may be some difficulties.

Let's posit the Cahill picture. Suppose there is a frame of absolute rest. Let's ignore gravity for now. Everything is global inertial frames only i.e. GIFs.

OK Alice is moving at absolute velocity v relative to Eve that REAL rest frame. The rods along v contract, the rods perpendicular to v do not. This asymmetry should be LOCALLY detectable by Alice by many experiments, not only the alleged n^2 - 1 Michelson-Morley shift of the fringe pattern on 90 degree rotation of the apparatus in Alice's rest frame using n =/= 1 gas in the two orthogonal flight paths. It should be possible to measure some kind of stretch/strain effect locally? OK now Bob is moving uniformly at v' relative to Eve. To make it simpler v & v' point along same space direction. Therefore their relative speed is

u = (v - v')/[1 - vv'/c^2]

We still assume c is inertial frame invariant right?

M = m[1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2

is a fact of many experiments.

My point here, is that it is not self-evident that you really can get the Lorentz rubber rods to really be globally consistent for all measurements that can now be carried out say with nano-technology and really sensitive detectors now on the shelf. Maybe you can, but it would have to be spelled out in great detail. It is far from self-evident.

In the above case, with Eve, Alice and Bob, it is not self-evident that the Lorentz rubber rod relation is a transitive equivalence relation among all three observers. That needs to be proved explicitly. That is we have "gamma" = "Y"

Y(Alice-Eve), Y(Alice-Bob), Y(Bob-Eve)

Will Alice & Bob see

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

with

u = (v - v')/[1 - vv'/c^2]

i.e.

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

Ugh! Ugh! This is beginning to LOOK UGLY, such a God is not subtle, but is MALICIOUS! Dirac is rising from his grave!

In Yilmaz's theory the underlying gravitational field can be treated as
a physical field that is just a more complicated version of the Maxwell field.

That's what I showed you above with my B field for the non-trivial part of the tetrad. Does Yilmaz use the tetrad? Does he know about local gauge invariance?

There is no fundamental difference. The g_uv metric is recovered from the underlying
physical potential via an exponential definition.

That is clearly hogwash. That's what Matt Visser thinks. He told me so at GR 17 in Dublin where the Guinness is sweet. Also, you need not make such an ad-hoc really silly move like that if you really have the right idea, which is tetrads from local gauge invariance, the unified principle for the theory of everything!

Also, what about ROTATION, gravimagnetism, frame drag? You still are back in square one.

But Hal seems to invoke the excess metaphysical baggage of a
coexisting global flat shadow metric for which there is no direct
empirical evidence.

Looking back at SR, if it turns out there is a preferred frame -- an
absolute physical vacuum -- then you are effectively back to a Lorentzian model for the SR formalism, and the underlying kinematics is then *automatically* Galilean.

I really do not know what that means either mathematically or physically. That really needs to be spelled out.

Of course you can in that case still define for pragmatic purposes a "physical"
kinematics that preserves the form of Maxwell's equations in inertial frames -- but that was the case in the final version of Lorentz's 1904 theory (e.g., Lorentz's "local time").

As far as I can see, the only real difference between the two models is that Einstein discards the underlying kinematics and takes the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and Lorentz's "local time" as fundamental, while Lorentz retains Galilean kinematics at the fundamental level in parallel with the phenomenologically adapted Lorentz transformation rules.

This is very unclear in terms of the logic and how the math and the operational definitions would really work. Has this been done really carefully in the literature?

Also, even Einstein himself acknowledged that a complete and
satisfactory theory should allow a microscopic explanation of
the "relativistic" contraction and dilatation effects.

Promises, promises. Put off to the future what you cannot do today. Einstein did say he was a "Lazy Dog" or was that only Minkowski speaking of him?

Of course all this feeds directly into the interpretative analysis of
1916 GR, since formally this is based on a modification
of Minkowski spacetime. If flat Minkowski space is a just a useful
fiction -- a "conceptual space" -- then so is the curved
Riemannian spacetime of 1916 GR.

I do not really know what you mean here scientifically. Arcos & Pereira do give a scientific distinction with the clear mathematics I have given above beyond even them since I have spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry for inflation and actually derive Einstein's GR formalism from the inflation Higgs-Goldstone field using EEP.

Interestingly, Riemann himself originally conceived his
higher-dimensional curved manifolds as representing purely conceptual
spaces -- e.g., color spaces.

Tell it to Ed Witten.

Z.

Also, what about 1913+16 pulsar data? There is also the new "fireball"
that may show little black holes with Hawking radiation.

## Sunday, March 20, 2005

New Scientist got it wrong on direction of Pioneer Anomaly

Yes, so I had it correct, Nature had it correct, but New Scientist has it wrong in their latest issue on 13 things that don't make sense.

On Mar 19, 2005, at 10:36 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:

Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123

Analysis of the radio-metric tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and
11 spacecraft at distances between 20--70 astronomical units (AU) from
the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of an anomalous,
small, constant Doppler frequency drift. The drift is a blue-shift,
uniformly changing at the rate $\dot{\nu} \sim (5.99 \pm 0.01) \times 10^{-9}$ Hz/s. The signal also can be interpreted as a constant
acceleration of $a_P = (8.74 \pm 1.33) \times 10^{-8}$ cm/s$^2$
directed towards the Sun. This interpretation has become known as the
Pioneer anomaly.
The nature of this anomaly remains unexplained. That is to say, up
to now no unambiguous explanation of the anomalous signal has been
found. To reach this conclusion a complicated interplay between
experiment and theory is needed to rule out systematics. However, in
the end many of the necessary calculations are amenable to students.
To elucidate this students would have a deeper understanding of the
workings of physics in space systems. We give a problem set devoted to
this cause.

## Saturday, March 19, 2005

Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly point?

Nature 30 Sept 2004 p. 494 and New Scientist 19 March 2005 p. 35 disagree. Nature says the force points back to the Sun, New Scientists says it points away from the Sun. One paper cites an anomalous blue shift, which seems consistent with Nature's account and not New Scientist's.

On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hi I have been in LA at Paul Harris's Time & Wonder Seminar at Loyola and need to catch up with e-mails. I literally just rolled in - been driving all day.

1. Reg where can I see a detailed derivation of your key n(n^2 - 1) equation from special relativity upon which your key claim rests?

2. Which way does the Pioneer Anomaly point, radially in or out? New Scientist in 13 things that don't make sense, March 19 - 25 says it's a repulsion of one nanometer per second per second. So I may have had it pointing wrong way in my earlier remarks. I need to check the original papers. Does anyone know for sure? Neither, Carlos nor Tony, nor Creon caught me on that error, if it is one? In any case I can model it as a hedgehog defect either way.

If it points out then /\zpf < 0 i.e. positive pressure. If it points in then /\zpf > 0 negative pressure.

In either case

|/\zpf| = H(t)/cr for r > 20 AU

r = radial distance to Sun

The Poisson eq. Green's function is 1/r, the volume element is r^2dr

Therefore, the integral for the gravity potential energy per unit test particle of the exotic vacuum is approximately

V(zpf) ~ c^2/\zpfr^2 ~ cHr = cv

v = Hubble velocity of recession from the expansion of space R(t) in FLRW even at 20AU!

a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr ~ cH ~ 1 nanometer per second per second pointing either way depending on sign of /\zpf.

Think of dropping a ball through hole drilled through center of the Earth.

3. Note for the Galactic dark matter halo, also an exotic vacuum effect

/\zpf = (v/c)1/r^2

V(zpf) ~ cv

a_g = 0

here v is the constant circulating speed of a star in flat part of the stellar rotation curve.

4. What about ultra-energetic cosmic rays above the GZK limit = 5x10^19 ev? Some kind of anti-gravity dark energy acceleration?

5. The little black holes - a triumph for string theory at last and for Hawking radiation?

On Mar 18, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:

Jack,

Ben Varcoe in the UK is setting up just such a Bose-Einstein experiment. However the problem is that no one knows how the refractive indices in the two orthogonal directions changes under rotation in such a system. In a gas we know they are uncorrelated. But in a transparent solid they are related, as one would expect. As well the problem with the Michelson interferometer is that it is a 2nd order device..the fringe shifts vary as (v/c)^2. Then various effects all compete: geometrical effects, length contractions, Fresnel drag, correlated refractive index effects,.. This is why we are setting up a coaxial cable experiment. The time variations are first order in v/c, and so relativistic effects are not important, there are no moving parts, and the effect is easily computer recorded. As well we can record in three orthogonal directions, which means a component of the absolute motion velocity in the vertical direction. No one has ever operated a Michelson interferometer in a vertical plane. The need for this vertical measurement is that we need to determine the in-flow component associated with the earth's gravity. This has a speed of 11km/s at the earth's surface. The inflow towards the sun has already been extracted from the Miller data..that speed is some 42 km/s.
Reg

Well clearly the logical foundations of special relativity need to be reexamined in case these data prove plausible & compelling. Suppose Lorentz was really right that length contractions and time dilations need to be referred directly to the Eve frame of absolute rest. Is there a way of seeing that directly in the rest frame of a uniformly moving nano-structure (uniformly moving relative to Eve frame)? After all, your alleged effect is a rest frame effect for the interferometer. The only frame in which your alleged shift would not be seen would be the Eve frame. Also, is the Eve frame, if it were to exist a spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry in the rapidity boost piece of O(1,3) just as a finite domain of a ferromagnet picks a preferred space direction for O(3) in the ground state even though the O(3) symmetry is still intact in the dynamical action and the local laws of nature?

On 19/03/2005, at 3:42 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

What about doing experiments with really large indices of refraction n to see the alleged n(n^2 - 1) effect? Perhaps a gas atomic Bose-Einstein condensate with n >> 1 in some kind of laser pulse experiment?

On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:

Tom,

It is not possible to determined the size of the effect that one would expect in this experiment because the two experimentalists didn't understand how the apparatus worked. To determine the size of the effect we now understand that one needs to know the refractive index of the He-Ne gas mixture. This is not given. However from the work of Jaseja et al Phys. Rev. A133(1964)1221 I could determine in that case that their He-Ne gas mixture had a refractive index of approx n=1.0000028, and so is very close to being a vacuum. So it appears that this experiment was essentially a vacuum experiment. Hils and Hall also used the wrong theory to analyse any signal, namely the Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl formalism.

This formalism is predicated on a spacetime ontology, and also makes no allowance for the effect of any gas present. The key point to appreciate is that until 2002 no one understood how one could and should measure absolute motion. So some techniques were lucky, ie they had the necessary technique, while others were unlucky. Miller, DeWitte and some 5 others were lucky experiments. This Hils and Hall experiment was an unlucky experiment..it simply was blind to the incredibly small effects of absolute motion. However being essentially a vacuum experiment one aspect of the physics that it did check was Lorentz symmetry. Remember that we also now understand that Lorentz symmetry and absolute motion are compatible properties of space, indeed absolute motion is the dynamical cause of the Lorentz symmetry effects. The detection of absolute motion is not a return to Newtonian physics, but it does invalidate Einstein's postulate about the invariance of the speed of light. We now understand, as of 2002, that this postulate was always in disagreement with experiment. What is emerging as the correct theory is essentially a neo-Lorentzian relativity, which predated Einstein's 1905 work. Then it is possible, for example, to write Maxwell's equations in a form that clearly separates the various physics involved. The original and usual covariant form of Maxwell's equations actually melds two different phenomena in such a way that neither is now clearly revealed. The major development is that the whole spacetime ontology, both flat and curved, was a house of cards, held up mainly by misunderstandings. It has now crumbled.

Reg

Reg:

I just realized that Hils and Hall's experiment is a direct test of your theory.

They used a laser mode-locked to a vacuum Fabry-Perot cavity interfering
with a single-mode He-Ne laser locked to an I_2 line, both fixed in the lab. They looked for sidereal variations in the beat frequency. As one laser's frequency is determined in vacuum, and one in gas, this seems to me to be a direct test of your theory.

Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), p 1697.

They found no variations at the level of 2*10^-13. I think your theory is in deep trouble here....

Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

--
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

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

## Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Remember the Future

On Mar 15, 2005, at 6:17 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

After all, the observer's world line is itself a geometric object, and thus from a purely mathematical standpoint itself has a coordinate-independent definition. Yet we find that in GR each observer world line is at the same time associated with a particular choice of coordinates -- which seems somewhat paradoxical. A kind of duplicity.

Not at all. Fix on the Schwarzschild

ds^2 = (1 - 2rs/r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2rs/r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)

OK.

There are the trivial GCT's like going to isotropic coordinates, or to Cartesian.
They all correspond to a kind of gauge freedom in which the LNIF observers are still hovering at fixed r (Schwarzschild).

Yes.

So what I mean is NON-TRIVIAL GCT's with TRIVIAL GCT's FACTORED OUT, i.e. a QUOTIENT SPACE. See Einstein's "HOLE PARADOX" before the gauge freedom was understood. Same thing happens in Yang-Mills (Faddeev).

OK, so you do make the distinction. But notice that every "non-trivial" GCT also has a parallel "trivial" definition.

I do not understand your sentence.

This is exactly what I mean by "duplicity". It's not simply that a subset of mathematically possible CSs is marked out as non-mathematical,
so much that a certain subset of mathematical CSs at the same time *also* have a physical interpretation as characterizing observer frames
of reference.

I understand this one less than I understood first, which was not at all! ;-)

I.e. NON-TRIVIAL GCTs connect physically distinct OBSERVER MATRICES

= ALL GCTs/TRIVIAL GCTs

I am asking if, in your gauge field model, these dual aspects of "general covariance" -- one mathematical, and one not just mathematical but also physical -- can be separated?

Yes, it's the gauge freedom.

So your "gauge freedom" is due purely to coordinate generality? It is a trivial consequence of formal general covariance?

It's worked out quite rigorously in a lot of books. As I recall John Baez has a pretty good discussion of all this on his website. Look and see what Penrose says in Road. I am on the road to LA and have almost no books with me. I am using a direct thought-computer interface given to me by ET Black Ops as I drive looking like a Borg. :-)

As I understand it, in Feynman's non-Abelian spin-2 model, not just covariance but also equivalence was explained in terms of an underlying
gauge freedom.

Of course he was working in a flat background spacetime.

Yes, basic idea is in Feynman. He did original stuff for Yang-Mills I think.

A GCT is to ANOTHER MATRIX of LNIF guys firing their rockets in space in a different way.

Sure, of course I know this is how 1916 GR actually works.

That is the PHYSICAL MEANING of LOCAL COORDINATE CHARTS! Physics is more than math. It's MATH PLUS.

Yes, I agree.

But at the same time, how then do you separate mere coordinate-generality from the extra-mathematical question of physical relativity? Or do you think these are not distinguishable in 1916 GR?

Gauge freedom. The physics is a quotient structure. The trivial GCTs are an equivalence relation.

OK, so you do seem to be saying that your "gauge freedom" is entirely due to formal covariance, as opposed to EEP equivalence.

Perhaps.

Local gauging of T4 IS Diff(4)! The compensating B field that gives REAL TIDAL WARPS is as real at the EM field!

OK. But what part of your "gauge freedom" is due purely to coordinate generality, and what part is due to "general relativity" (equivalence)?
Can you separate them? Can you even distinguish them?

Easy. B/gauge ~ -> Non-trivial GCT

OK.

B/gauge ~ done by Fadeev et-al in Yang-Mills theory.

OK.

In quantum field theory it's done with Feynman histories path integrals.

See A. Zee "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" that must have it. I am on road.

OK, this looks good.

Hey what are those strange lights up ahead? :-)

But aren't there two things going on here? (1) coordinate generality; and (2) inertial-gravitational equivalence?

I don't know. That's too vague. Spell it out using Norton quotes.

In this context, "coordinate generality" is the purely mathematical requirement that the *form* of the laws of physics in a formally covariant physical theory be the same in every mathematically well-behaved spacetime CS.

GCT/~

~ equivalence relation expressing gauge freedom, which are the mathematically distinct forms that correspond to INVARIANT OBSERVER MATRICES M, i.e.

~ is the set of TRIVIAL GCTs U such that

M -> M' = UMU^-1 = M

i.e. [M,U] = 0

"Inertial-gravitational equivalence", on the other hand, is a *physical* stipulation that entails that physical laws governing gravitation-inertia are actually the same in every *observer frame of reference* ("general relativity").

This means that the local laws must be tensor/spinor equations relative to the relevant symmetry group G,

Physical ("active") symmetry group, yes.

What do you mean by "active" exactly? Everything is LOCAL, i.e. at FIXED PHYSICAL EVENT P, which is not same as MANIFOLD POINT p. Everything "real" (in physics) is LOCALLY COINCIDENT - that's in Norton citing Einstein. I use that idea!

"Physics is simple only when it's local." Wheeler

Keep it simple, but not too simple. (Einstein's Rule violated in Hal Puthoff' PV).

which in the special case of 1916 GR is simply

Diff(4)xO(1,3) in the tangent bundle.

In Shipov's theory it's something like

But formal covariance alone demands that physical quantities be represented by coordinate-invariant objects -- and all such invariant objects must be tensors or spinors of various ranks.

There is sloppiness here - in the literature. If you mean LOCAL tensor/spinors like Fuv EM field intensities as representations of OBJECTIVE F = dA, then OK. But some of these guys want everything to be GLOBAL integrals and that's obviously stupid contradicting COINCIDENCE idea cited above. Also GR measurements are always local! One finds nonlocal correlations after the fact. Local relative to scale of curvature that is.

Any nonlinear GCT when B = 0 is simply SIMULATED GRAVITY in sense of Landau & Lifshitz Ch 10 Classical Theory of Fields.

OK.

But such GCT's even in flat space-time need not be dynamically trivial, e.g. Sagnac effect in flat space-time with g0i.

OK. Although I understand this involves rotating *sources*, as opposed to frames. There's a distinction in GR (according to Pauli p 5).

NO, ROTATING SOURCES AS IN Tuv, or as in vacuum Kerr Metric is TORNADO SWIRL OF SPACE-TIME, i.e. REAL GRAVIMAGNETIC FRAME DRAG that even drags along LIFs! Nothing escapes. Resistance is futile.

Forget all that. In Sagnac mount the interferometer, ring lasers what have you on your 78 RPM turntable, and, in principle you will get an effect out in far space in free float. I mean base of turn table is freely floating and the table is turning.
So call this an INERTIAL GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD, a FAKE ONE, like in Landau & Lifshitz.

Of course LOCALLY if you are a bit sloppy you cannot tell to first order. If you work hard enough you can tell, like with tidal curvature. Remember Einstein was a "Lazy Dog" - Minkowski said so.

Now, do you (or can you) distinguish here between mere mathematical "coordinate generality" and physical "EEP" equivalence?

I showed you above. The coordinate REPRESENTATION choice is a DYNAMICAL MATRIX of possible LNIF (and LIF) observers no holds barred - every possible PHYSICAL timelike motion.

Well, I suppose I'll have to take this as a tentative "no".

No, it's a YES, via moding out the trivial GCT's by the Faddeev type equivalence relation in the Yang-Mills B-representation.

OK. You now seem to have this resolved in your own mind.

Yeah, I knew it all the time in the Implicate Order. Plato's remembering FROM THE FUTURE.

## Saturday, March 12, 2005

Metric Engineering Flying Saucer Engines

The key quantity in Puthoff's PV model, a wrong model falsified by experiment, better than not-even-wrong models (W. Pauli) is g00. What is goo really? What it is, is

g00(LNIF) = (I0^a + LpB0^aPa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)(LIF)ab(I0^b + LpB0^bPb(Goldstone Phase)/ih)

Where (LIF)ab is the Minkowski metric i.e +1, -1,-1,-1 all off-diagonals = 0, and I is the Kronecker delta, i = 1,2,3

g00 = 1 + 2LpB0^0P0(GP)/ih - 2LpB0^iPi(GP)/ih - Lp^2(B0^0P0(GP)/ih)^2 - Lp^2(B0^iPi(GP)/ih)^2

if I did not make a mistake in algebra.

What is really interesting are the LINEAR terms in Lp that are much larger than the quadratic terms!

In particular, when there is a gravimagnetic field goi from a rotating high Tc superconducting part of the saucer fuselage maybe, we get something like

g0i(LNIF) = (I0^a + LpB0^aPa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)(LIF)ab(Ii^b + LpBi^bPb(Goldstone Phase)/ih)

Again there will be relatively large Lp terms in the gravimagnetic field to couple to the EM 3-vector potential Ai in the Ray Chiao "gravity radio transducer" idea.

This is a BRUTE FORCE method. Mine is more subtle like Tai Chi i.e. imagine a the control macro-quantum phase is something like

Theta = (e/hc)Integral A.dl

With Pa operating on the Josephson phase difference

Goldstone Phase (GP) - Theta

The local zero point energy density is ~ cos[GP - Theta].

When this zero point energy density is negative we have equal opposite positive pressure causing an attractive contractive warp. On the other hand, when this zero point energy density is positive we have a negative pressure repulsive expansive warp. This is exactly what the Alcubierre "G-Engine" weightless timelike geodesic glider globally faster-than-light (locally standing still) time travel machine needs! The objections of Matt Visser and Stephen Hawking et-al are obviously not fatal barriers since we see the damn things over our nuclear missile bases according to Peter Jennings ABC TV Special on Feb 24, 2005. The Cat is Alive and Out of the Box. You want Disclosure? Now you got it. What's up Pussy Cat? We got a Tiger Tiger Eyes Shining Bright in The Dark Energy of The Knight! :-)

On Mar 12, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Coming from someone who has now completely caved in to my position re: Einstein equivalence, this is hilarious.

Paul you continue in your delusion that somehow I renounce EEP? In fact, the opposite is true. EEP in math form is simply

g(LNIF) = (I + B)(Minkowski)(I + B)

e = (I + B) is Einstein-Cartan tetrad

B is the "gauge force" picture i.e. T4 -> Diff(4)

B is the compensating field that RESTORES conservation of Pu currents including the new dynamical degrees of freedom of the B connection field.

The B connection is not the same as the (LC) connection in the geometrodynamic picture.

The EEP is the BRIDGE between the Gauge Force picture and the Geometrodynamic picture!

I do not in any sense "renounce equivalence"!

Given a metric without gravimagnetism i.e. goi = 0 (no rotating sources)

ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - gijdx^idx^j

i,j = 1,2,3

Physically

dT = (goo)^1/2dt

dL = (gijdx^idx^j)^1/2

For a light ray

ds^2 = c^2dT^2 - dL^2 in the LNIF

ds = 0 (null geodesic)

Therefore, the PHYSICALLY MEASURED SPEED OF LIGHT for that LNIF observer who sees the above metric will be c the same as in special relativity, i.e.

dL/dT = c in the LNIF as well as the COINCIDENT LIFs.

The COINCIDENT LIFs and LNIFs are connected together by the Einstein-Cartan tetrad (I + B) where B is the compensating gauge potential connection field from locally gauging global T4 to Diff(4).

Z: Excuse me -- my contention was that *in 1916 Einstein GR* the locally measured speed of light is always c *only in free-fall frames*.

J: Well you are wrong!

Z: The above is not 1916 GR.

J: It certainly is. You do not know enough of the math to see GR when it is staring you in the face as it is.

dT = goo^1/2dt

dL = (gijdx^idx^j)^1/2

i,j = 1,2,3

in LNIFs is in GR text books.

You get rotational Sagnac interferometer shifts in SPEED of light only when there is a gravimagnetic field H = (goi) as defined by Ray Chiao in his "gravity radio" papers.

His superconducting high-efficiency transducer posits a H.A gravity-EM coupling where A is the 3-vector potential of EM in the NR Galilean relativity limit.

Z: It's really very simple. Suppose you have a plane wave in gravity-free spacetime, propagating at every point at the invariant speed c as measured in an inertial frame K. Now go to an accelerating frame K' that is accelerating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. The normals to the wave fronts of the formerly plane wave now appear to change continuously in time, tracing *curved* spatial trajectories.

J: Show the math Paul! This is essentially gravity lensing. It does not imply that magnitude is changing only refraction change of direction.

Z: According to the equivalence principle, the effect of some homogeneous gravitational field on the same wave, as observed from the original inertia frame K, must be identical to the effect of going to the accelerating frame K' Clearly, if the light path is now curved, then the speed of propagation of the waves must vary from point to point on any given wavefront,

J: NONSENSE PAUL! When the metric is of the form:

ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - gijdx^idx^j = (cdT)^2 - dL^2

i,j = 1,2,3

the LNIF measured speed of light when ds = 0 is still

dL/dT = c same as in the COINCIDENT LIF.

, either in a gravity-free accelerating frame, or in a gravitational field viewed from an inertial frame -- as consistently affirmed by Einstein himself:

". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity.  A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."

- A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity"

J: Hey Professor! Einstein uses "velocity" not "speed" there! Clean your glasses.

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the VELOCITY of propagation of light varies with position."

IS GENERALLY TRUE FOR ALL WARPED METRICS

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the SPEED of propagation of light varies with position."

IS FALSE and that is not what Einstein wrote! Paul, you garbled the difference between 'velocity" and "speed"!

A gravimagnetic field (Lense-Thirring frame drag) will IN ADDITION change the SPEED of light in vacuum, e.g. Sagnac effect, which even happens in special relativity and even in the Galilean limiting case since the fringe shifts are seen in lab experiments.

Now, if there is gravimagnetic Lense-Thirring "frame drag", then, in the LNIF

ds^2 = c^2dT^2 - dL^2 - Hcdt.dr

H is the gravimagnetic 3-vector with components (g0i) and dr is the 3-vector with components (dx^i)

Again ds = 0

(dL/dT)^2 = c^2 - cH(dt/dT).(dr/dT)

The speed of light in a gravimagnetic field is then

dL/dt = c[1 - (dt/dT)H.(dr/cdT)]^1/2

Note the effective sign inside the square root flips when you change the rotation sense. Of course, Paul you never formulated this mathematically, nor did he make any specific remarks of any utility on this problem.

Z: You are not addressing my actual statement, which is that *in 1916 Einstein GR* the locally measured speed of light is always c only in free-fall frames:

". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity.  A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."

- A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity"

J: Answered above. Your sloppy thinking again mistaking "velocity" a vector for "speed" the magnitude of the vector.

Puthoff also makes a similar mistake thinking that goo is a "dielectric", i.e. Puthoff-Davis-Yilmaz use:

ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - goo^-1(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

Therefore, when ds = 0

dL/dT = c

dl/dt = c/goo = c/K

goo = n = index of refraction in PV picture

goo = e^-2GM/c^2r is further assumed.

But of course this is wrong since dl/dt is never measured. Hal Puthoff does an ultra-heretical meta-theoretical song and dance Dog and Pony show here that makes Matt Visser and Cliff Will red in the face, that, no doubt, you will think is brilliant. "No possible doubt whatever!"(Gondoliers);-)

*The Sagnac effect for rotating interferometers is an example. This formula applies even in GLOBAL SR without tidal curvature in the rotating GNIF.

Z: That's another can of worms.

J: Not at all. It's simply until you mistify and mystify it with your ultra-heretical meta-theoretics

Z.

On Mar 12, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Mar 11, 2005, at 10:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"Replace light signals with sound to define time" - a genius idea from Zielinski! ;-)

Z: Well, the sophistication of this dialectical maneuver evidently went right over your head.

J: Oh yeah? Tell us how to do cosmology with sound waves? The point Paul is that the invariant light cone structure is essential to all practical applications in precision cosmology. Indeed, tidal curvature, as shown by Penrose, is a relative tilt between neighboring invariant light cones.

Z: Once you adopt 1905 Einstein kinematics, then of course it becomes fundamental to cosmology.

J: How else would YOU do cosmology? Also you cannot use Lorentz theory to get gravity!

Z: Except that GR, which is in fact the actual chronogeometric basis for modern cosmology, supersedes SR and only preserves the empirical predictions of SR locally, by way of correspondence -- and it even does away with invariant light speed as to local observations made in *non-inertial* frames!

J: Of course, so what? You characteristically state well-known facts of relativity AS IF somehow they are defects in it when just the opposite is true! You have no understanding of local gauge invariance, which, in this case is the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4) whose compensating field Bu^a is precisely the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad responsible for "intrinsic warpage" distinguishing the REAL gravity from the ARTIFICIAL gravity in Minkowski space-time. A problem you were interested in, that you never formulated properly, much less solve. I solved it. In Minkowski space-time Bu^a = 0, the Einstein-Cartan tetrad is the trivial identity Iu^a, the tangent bundle and the base space are degenerate and any GCT made on (Minkowski)uv is simply ARTIFICIAL gravity like in a rotating GNIF since the tidal curvature tensor vanishes in (Minkowski)uv it will vanish in any GCT made on it. You need the B field to get real gravity.

## Sunday, March 06, 2005

Richard Feynman did it before Stephen Hawking

I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few minutes but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual, and equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were discussing Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around to Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman, author of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme at Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR. He did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.

In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula. Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press, Saul Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of shining light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in at expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went back to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient model and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking formula!

A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about apparently.

## Friday, March 04, 2005

Squeezed Coherent Macro-Quantum States

So as not to give the wrong idea below about Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle and complementarity still hold. What is not true is the over-simplified view, apparently first introduced by Heisenberg himself, but he corrected his error quickly, is that ALWAYS looking at the quantum object disturbs the object.

"It is possible to devise experiments where the disturbance is totally negligible, but where the Heisenberg relations are still valid. They are enforced by the complementarity of quantum mechanics."

e.g. non-demolition measurements in gravity wave detectors.

A note on quantum optics. Let ak and a*k destroy and create photons in mode phi(x)k. This need not be a plane wave mode. It can be a localized cavity mode. k does not necessarily mean wave number.

For now assume the photons are real, i.e. on mass shell excited states OUTSIDE the vacuum, not virtual photons INSIDE the vacuum.

Real photons can make QED detectors click, virtual photons cannot. However, virtual photons, and ALL virtual quanta do have direct gravity effects IF they have a net random zero point energy density that is not absorbed into the vacuum condensate.

Roughly Zero Point Energy Density = (Incoherent ZPE density)[1 - Lp^n|Vacuum Condensate|^2]

n = 2, or 3 depending how one normalizes, e.g. n = 2 in the world hologram model.

The general single-mode squeezed state is of the form

|z,s> = e^(za*-z*a)e^(sa*a* - s*aa)|0>

= coherent superposition in Fock occupation number space.

In space time this is

Define P ~ i(a - a*), Q ~ (a + a')

Wigner phase space density is in the P-Q symplectic plane. This has nothing to do with actual position momentum space.

Roughly

P^2 + Q^2 =

tan(theta) = P/Q

The unsqueezed coherent state Wigner phase space density is a displaced circular base Gaussian peak in the P-Q plane as a complex plane, i.e. an arrow of length ^1/2 and orientation theta. The squeezed state is an ellipse base peak with major axis either along P or Q directions.

The trick now is to do same thing for virtual quanta INSIDE the vacuum!

On Mar 4, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I am sitting in a video conference at Kavli Institute Thoeretical Physics at UCSB with Peter Galison's face on a big screen and three actors reading from his book "Einstein's Clocks & Poincare's Maps" all about clock synchronization in modern technology!

"Heisenberg's formulation of a dynamical disturbance necessarily induced on a syatem by a measurement was experimentally proved wrong" Seth Lloyd et-al
ref Scully, Englert et-al NATURE 351, 111, (1991)

"Heisenberg's principle ... is not a principle in modern quantum mechanics" S. Lloyd ... ref. H.P. Robertson, Phys Rev 34, (1929)

We had readings from Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen" and Slyboots Stoppard's "Arcadia". Alan Lightman author of Einstein's Dreams will comment. Last night we had Penny Penniston's play "Now Then Again" on changing the past in parallel worlds via advanced destiny waves FROM the future. The playwright wanted presponse so I explained the issue of signal nonlocality to Penny who is a professor of theater at Northwestern. See also SCIENCE 19 Nov 2004, Vol 306, 5700 especially p.1331 Fig 1

"Heisenberg's formulation of a dynamical disturbance necessarily induced on a syatem by a measurement was experimentally proved wrong" Seth Lloyd et-al
ref Scully, Englert et-al NATURE 351, 111, (1991)

"Heisenberg's principle ... is not a principle in modern quantum mechanics" S. Lloyd ... ref. H.P. Robertson, Phys Rev 34, (1929)
Gauge Force/Geometrodynamic Duality

http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravityGauge.pdf

On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Written at Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB

I make notation change at end so as not to confound "T" as stress-energy density source tensor bending geometry from T as torsion field 1-form. I use S for torsion.

On longitudinal EM waves. If photon has a rest mass then there would be such a component. Vigier suggests a very small photon rest mass of

mc^2 = hH(t)

H(t) = Hubble.

What about vacuum phonons asks R. Kiehn? One would have to do make a calculation of the correlations of virtual electron-positron zero point density fluctuations to compute the effective elastic PV parameters from QED with vacuum coherence. However, Zielinski is still wrong since these hypothetical vacuum phonons would have to obey O(1,3)Diff(4) dynamical symmetry with possible SBS of course. No reason at all to impose Galilean boosts except as the limiting case of v/c < 0, where v is observer velocity relative to another observer. We know that the virtual quanta have NO direct "clicks" on QED-based detectors. They could only be detected by their DIRECT gravity effects via Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

Virtual electron-positron quasi BCS vacuum coherence macro-quantum local "More is different" order parameter is a complex numbered Cartan 0-form PSI with Higgs amplitude |PSI| and Goldstone phase argPSI.

Local gauge force picture:

e = I + B

I is the holonomic tetrad for pre-inflationary false-vacuum globally flat 1905 SR without gravity and without inertia, where the tangent space and base space are globally identical, i.e. Kronecker delta &u^a, u is in base space. All quantum field theories in the false vacuum are conformal with zero rest mass.

B is the anholonomic tetrad compensating field from locally gauging the translation group T4 generated by energy-momentum Pa, a is in tangent space.

*argPSI = 4-form

d^-1argPSI = 3-form

*d^-1argPSI = 1-form

Einstein's local equivalence principle EEP is

g(LNIF) = en(LIF)e' = (I + B)n(LIF)(I' + B')

= InI' + BnI' + InB' + BnB'

U(1)em SBS in the false vacuum triggers the post-inflationary Big Bang and the emergence of our universe (among many) with gravity and inertia, i.e. m =/= 0 rest masses of lepto-quarks, W bosons.

Gauge transforms on B in gauge force picture <---> Diff(4) in geometrodynamic picture

(LC) when we only locally gauge T4 is the Levi-Civita connection (with no torsion fields for now) in the geometrodynamic curved space-time representation.

D = d + (LC) =

The 4th rank tidal stretch-squeeze curvature tensor is

C = D(LC)

It's 2nd rank contraction is

G = T = stress-energy density source tensor

DG = 0 are the Bianchi identities

DT = 0 is local stress-energy current density source conservation

note again EEP

g(LNIF) = In(LIF)I' + Bn(LIFI' + In(LIF)B' + Bn(LIF)B'

this is the explicit connection of the gauge force picture to the geometrodynamic picture

Locally gauging O(1,3) gives the torsion field extension of above 1915 plain vanilla GR.

S = Su^a^bdx^u(d/dx^a)(d/dx^b) =Su^a^bdx^uSab/h = Torsion field in base space

{Sab} = Lie algebra of Lorentz group O(1,3).

D* = D + S

Sua^b = eu^cAc^a^b

Ac^a^b = Ricci rotation coefficients