On Nov 10, 2005, at 7:03 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:
To address some of your points:
Vargas and colleagues are not interested in nor use string theory (or flying saucers). So, the calculation is probably inapplicable to the EIG. How the EIG works in principle in an engineering application is explained in some detail in the patent.
No engineering model of the EIG has been developed yet as far as I know. Before one does that, one first tries to detect the underlying effect - the EIG. Vargas is not motivated engineering applications unlike you (and PST). There are limited (due to funding) experimental searches underway to detect the EIG. One earlier, what I might call, more casual, one, by Datta et al., purportedly sees indications of the effect, but that is hardly the final word.
Is there a clear discussion of the EIG apart from patents, which are hard to read?
Vargas does not obtain a coupled Torsion-Curvature interaction term as you do. You both start from very different premises. Rather, the curvature ends up becoming a function of the torsion.
R' = D'W = (d + W/\ + S/\)W = R + S/\W
and if TP means
R' = 0
Then the GR curvature 2-form R = - S/\W = - exterior product of the torsion 1-form S with the spin-connection 1-form W.
Is that what Vargas and Shipov mean by "TP". Unless I see the exact algebra I do not understand the words.
As I've been trying to tell you now for multiple letters, Vargas uses Cartan notation!! In fact, he might be considered a master of it since he has generalized it and developed new mathematics (not just new physics) with it. To get the EIG you only need TP and Finsler Geometry. But to go further into an actual geometrical unification theory that also embraces quantum mechanics (without assuming it), he uses more math, such as Clifford Algebras and especially, the Kaehler Calculus. When you put all that math into the mix (without making the kinds of assumptions you make in your theory) you get complicated math even though the notation is relatively streamlined because he uses the Cartan (and generalizations thereof) for his notation.
Why do all that? Math for math's sake? My "Cornell" approach is to use the simplest math possible to get the most contact with observation. Also I don't much care about formal math rigor. Others can do that later. Most of theoretical physics today would not be acceptable to pure mathematicians.
You passed along another e-mail from someone else urging you to do a "drive the stake in the heart"
I am glad you forbeared. This certainly is not mainstream, string theory physics. However, there are some two dozen or more Papers spanning 20 years published in peer reviewed journals such as J. Math. Phys., GRG, FoP, etc. on this Vargas Theory. This is not some nutcase, though like any other theoretical proposal it needs to be borne out.
I know Vargas is not a nut. I met him. However, like 90% of theoretical physicists today I think he may have fallen for the Siren of Mathematical Beauty and gone off on paths far from experiment - math for math's sake. This probably includes most of string and loop theory. The more I read Witten for example, the less impressed I am with the contact with observation. Most of the papers on the archive are unreadable to my mind. After one reads them one wonders - what was the point?
On the other e-mail pointing out another "anti-gravity" type patent, I can shed some light on that as well. I do not know of the author of that patent or his work at all. However, he does reference the work of Ning Li and others (such as Podkletnov). The theory he describes in his patent is in part, based on Li-Torr Theory. Ning Li was another colleague who worked with Doug Torr on theory in the late 80s and early 90s (along with Vargas and myself)
Li-Torr theory posited greatly enhanced gravitomagnetic effects emanating from what she proposed as quantized coherent orbital motion (rotation) of superconductor lattice ions (not the Cooper Pairs). That was quite contr0versial and has never received broad acceptance, though she still holds to variations of that original concept. She worked closely with NASA to investigate the Podkletnov effect. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Li-Torr Effect has never had a confirmed detection, even in the Podkletnov context.
What do you mean "posited"? How exactly? Why would the gravimagnetism be "enhanced"? What was her physical motivation?
For my thesis, I wanted to see if I could find an analogous mechanism in HeII superfluids, where there are no background lattice ions as there are in a SC. I could not find an obvious analog in HeII and later concluded that the idea even in SC was probably not well founded. But along the way, that search led me to dream up the possibility that perhaps HeII ZPM might be coherent and provide such a background analog to SC Li-Torr Theory. That in turn led to Biswas-Shenoy and the rest of the story I mentioned in prior letters.
Oh so the coherent ZPM was your idea. OK I will cite you on that. It's really a good idea I can completely understand intuitively. Often it is said that in both the superfluid and the superconductor that the actual condensate density at T = 0K is only a few percent of the total density, yet the phenomenological superfluid density is 100% the total density. This always puzzled me and I never saw a good explanation. Your idea explains it nicely. The condensate is both locally non-random and nonlocally non-random. The coherent ZPM is locally random but nonlocally non-random, i.e. EPR phase locked i.e. long range coherent. In the gravity context, the coherent ZPM is dark energy if the pressure is negative and is dark matter if the pressure is positive. The Goldstone phase of the ODLRO vacuum condensate is the 0-form s(P) where P is a "local coincidence" in Einstein's sense as defined by Rovelli in his book in connection with the "Einstein hole problem" of 1917.
ds(P) is the local invariant space-time interval. I know Waldyr does not like this, but I will do it anyway with the caveat that it is not "mathematically rigorous" but it is a fruitful heuristic. "d" is the Cartan exterior derivative.
ds(P) = 1 + B(P)
B(P) is the 1-form potential from locally gauging T4
The Hodge dual *ds(P) would like to be an exact 3-form, but can't because of point defects in the coherent vacuum manifold G/H ~ S2 required by the Higgs mechanism of the standard model.
That is, *ds(P) = 'd'F where F is a new 2-form that when integrated around an S2 in 3D space that surrounds the point defect where the Higgs amplitude vanishes and the Goldstone phase s(P) is SINGULAR (undefined) is quantized!
It's quantized because the second homotopy group is Z the integer set of "wrapping numbers" around the S2 degenerate vacuum manifold.
I have just essentially DERIVED the Bekenstein quantization of areas. Also from Gauss's theorem we have the hologram principle that the information content of a volume is located entirely on its boundary! Only surface degrees of freedom are fundamental.
That is, the space integral of the 3-form *ds(P) = quantized integral of the GEOMETRODYNAMIC FLUX 2-FORM F over the surrounding surface. Note that the surrounding surface 2-cycle is not a boundary if it surrounds the point singularity.
Indeed ds = LINE OPERATOR 1-form ~ tetrad
*ds = VOLUME OPERATOR 3-form
*ds = 'd'F
F = Area Operator 2-form
in sense of LOOP GRAVITY.
The non-trivial second homotopy group of G/H = S2 is what enforces area quantization
S/k = A/Lp^2
I don't know how to derive the "4".
kT = hc/rc = hc/GM/c^2= hc^3/GM = (h/Lp)^2(1/M)
I get G/H ~ S2 from standard model i.e. origin of inertia of leptons and quarks is also the origin of gravity!
One point defect in universe is enough to make the world hologram when we take the area at infinity surrounding the whole universe - more precisely one must use the Penrose diagram method like in the discussions of ADS.