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

- 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 []

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 []
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-----
From: []
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


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


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.


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

No comments: