Subject: Message from physics Nobel Laurerate Brian Josephson on signal nonlocality

Memorandum for the Record

Subject: Remote Viewing

Are there two independent modes of communication?

1. Classical electromagnetic signals.

2. Signal nonlocality in violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory?

On Feb 28, 2005, at 1:40 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

Please forward!

--On Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:13 pm -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:

J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I
have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only
possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of
micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.

The first manned Mars landing is about to take place (in the universal time frame of the Lorentzian interpretation). All are awaiting anxiously at the space centre on Earth. Then one of the astronaut's wives says "ah! they've landed safely, I can sense it". Eight minutes later a radio signal confirms this.

I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise,

I'm afraid it is. It is because science is an authority-based enterprise that cold fusion is regarded as non-existent despite the fact that many experiment(er)s have demonstrated otherwise (see e.g. lenr.org, newenergytimes.com)

Brian

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *

Waiting for GOD(D) Oh!

Bill Gates said that China graduated 6 times as many engineers as US did in 2002! India also graduates more. America is 16th in science and math compared to the 20 developed nations, which exclude China and India as "undeveloped". China will soon control the US deficit and therefore the stability of our currency, which is rapidly deteriorating. We fiddle-faddle as Rome burns. Well, when booking passage on The Titanic, go First Class!

George got his PhD in physics from UC with I think Henry Stapp or maybe it was Geof Chew. In any case George answers Paul with more patience than I have had and I agree with George's position that fleshes out what I have been trying to tell Paul without success. So I let George do it. ;-)

G: Here a reply to your last points. Sorry, Jack, I guess my reply could be called heavy on philosophy (because that's the level of Paul's argumentation) but I hope it's not philophauzzy (or whatever term Feynman used)

Z: As I understand it, in 1905 SR reciprocal kinematic time-dilatation in inertial frames depends on the adoption of a *convention* for clock synchronization using light beams, and the *a priori* identification of the empirically measured and actual speeds of light. I agree that once this convention is adopted, the observations with light beams will conform to the predictions of SR. But this is still consistent with a Lorentzian model in which the observed dilatation due to purely relative inertial motion is only *apparent*.

G: I think Einstein's idea that the presupposition of absolute time was at the core of the tremendous confusion and turmoil at the time is the core idea of special relativity, and his solution to insist on an experimental procedure to determine space-time differences between two points was the logical method to challenge that presupposition; the specific method he proposed (using light signals) is in my view canonical. Or do you have an alternative suggestion for how to do it?

J: One of my main points precisely nicely put.

Z: I think I understand what Einstein was trying to do in 1905, namely, find a way of doing electrodynamics without reference to a light medium in empty space -- which implied a revision of Galilean kinematics in order to make the canonical form of Maxwell's equations apply in every inertial frame under a common set of transformations. However, the vulgar-empiricist idea that "time" can be defined in terms of one or another "operational procedure" is really quite problematic,
since there is then no way of separating effects that are purely due to the behavior of, say, the light rays used for clock synchronization, and those that are due to the objective behavior of the system under observation.

G: Time is not defined that way; it is much too fundamental for that. But its measurement is operationalized by Einstein's light-clock method, and you have not answered my above challenge to suggest a suitable alternative - presumably because you can't. Neither can I, nor Jack, nor probably anyone. Calling something vulgar doesn't express anything but your aversion to it; as long as you're clear on that, I won't further comment on your characerization of the position I have been taking. 

J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.

G: As to your last point, you are begging the question with your distinction: what precisely (or even approximately) is this "objective behavior" you are supposedly distinguishing from our observation of the light rays and the signal values they carry (telling us how much time has elapsed, how far away an event is from the "here and now" of the observer, etc.)?

J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that. I have kept asking this same thing from Paul. It is the Achilles Heel of his spurious argument.

G: That such an objective reality exists and, more importantly, that it can be described in ways which are not founded on our sensory experiences which give us supposed knowledge about "it" (assuming for argument's sake that "it " has meaning and exists) is precisely the presupposition that stands in the way of understanding SR, GR and ultimately quantum theory. More, much more, on this later.

J: BINGO! Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the second degree! ;-)

G: Meanwhile I just challenge you to give experiential-experimental-operational meaning to your above point! 

J: The next remark is obscure so I will attribute it to Z not to G.:-) This is a good Turing Test to see if by now you can tell who is saying what. That tests your understanding of the text and these ideas are important to Western Physical Science.

Z? Einstein's further supposition that such effects are *universal* does not alter this, although from the Machian-Poincarean-empiricist-conventionalist POV this licenses a complete erasure of the distinction. In philosophical terms, Einstein's 1905 reduction of "time" to a particular operational definition fails to support a fundamental theoretic distinction between appearance and reality, which of course is the problem with this kind of empiricism.

G: My comment above applies ditto to this. What is the "reality" which you counterpose to mere "appearance"? I fail to support such a distinction too :-) Of course, I am thoroughly familiar with the physicalist-reductionist scientism that presupposes such a distinction, and which feels it has a handle on what this physical-reality-per-se is, even if it can't say one single fact about this supposed "Ding an sich", since this latter is always known through the senses (and, less commonly acknowledged, through the mind). But I see it as a childishly naive perspective (here I'm doing it :-) ), which can be picked apart and deconstructed in many ways cognitively, (and in quantum science, also experimentally) and more importantly, which one can directly see to be fatally flawed if one looks with fewer blinders. In Buddhist terms, you would say that the "objective reality" and the "knowing subject" codependently arise, and you cannot reduce one to the other. The classic question Einstein was asked on this was: "Why use light?". Einstein's best public answer was: "Because light is something we know something about". In this sense it is misleading to call it a convention.

Z: That's what Einstein 1905 called it.

G: I don't want to argue this on the historical level of what Einstein said or didn't say. I intuit that it's not just a convention; more on that another time.

J: Mine too.

G: But unless one can give a very solid justification for calling the method canonical, Einstein's concession of calling it a "convention" avoids criticism, for how can you criticize a convention especially when you yourself don't have an equivalently good, much less better way to operationalize space-time measurements than Einstein did? 

J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the third degree! ;-)

G: I think Einstein hit the nail on the head, and his fundamental method used then (insistence on operational definitions of basic concepts in physics) is one of the greatest revolutions in physics, far beyond just the SR or even GR.

J: Of course!

Z: Except that Einstein himself gave this up -- at least in its crude 1905 form -- in the 1920s.

J: Not to the degree you have taken it Paul.

Z: Einstein repudiated the "Machian" arguments that he deployed in the 1905 paper as "rubbish". This repudiation includes the attempt to reduce the meaning of a concept like "time" to a particular operational definition.

J: No, Paul you are distorting the facts here. It is false that Einstein abandoned the operational method. He refined it in 1915 beyond his immature use of it in 1905. He did not throw it away with complete abandon as you have! You have jumped way beyond Einstein's self-avowed "struggle" to free himself from a direct physical meaning of "coordinates" (i.e. "dr", "dt" etc. below) as is "common sense" in the Galilean relativity of engineering - and even in 1905 special relativity. In the simple case of the spherically symmetric static curved space-time

dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2

dR is the tiny element of length OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods oriented radially from the source M.

dL = r(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)^1/2

dL is the tiny element of length actually OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods confined in the tangent plane to the surface of a concentric sphere of area 4pir^2 in terms of the usual flat space spherical polar coordinates. That is, the radially oriented measuring rods LOCALLY SHRINK compared to the tangentially oriented ones, which stay as they are in flat space without any gravitational field! Puthoff's PV theory violates this LOCALLY.

dT = dt(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2

dT is the actual OPERATIONALLY measured time tick-tocked off by a resting "non-geodesic" LNIF clock. That is the LNIF clock held fixed in the attractive gravity field slows down in the gravity redshift! It will, in contrast, speed up in the repulsive gravity field of dark zero point energy density with equal and opposite negative micro-quantum pressure in the anti-gravity blue shift. Flying saucers show these strange red/blue shift patterns around the fuselage in silent weightless warp flight even at very slow speeds. Details of this are found in the Robert Bigelow NIDS reports of Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis as well as in my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II".

All of the above "LNIF" measuring rods and clocks are held at rest at fixed r etc by some non-gravity force. In contrast, the LOCAL equivalence principle is that momentarily coincident weightless freely-falling/floating "geodesic" LIF rods and clocks show no significant space and time warping like their LNIF non-geodesic "fixed" twins. There will be some tidal curvature stretch-squeezing of the LIF rods and clocks of course, but here on Earth the tidal effect is ultra-tiny. Kip Thorne & Company at Cal Tech work very hard to try to show these incredibly tiny stretch-squeeze tidal effects from gravity waves in their LIGO and LISA devices.

G to Z: I'd like to know more about this later Einstein position; do you have Internet-accessible references? So from a position of relative ignorance of what Einstein actually said about this issue and in which context and with which intention, I'll withhold further comment for now except to say that the later Einstein developed a very conservative bent; he realized that his own genius as a younger man had given strength to an empiricist-operationalist orientation amongst many physicists which led them to adopt positions in the emerging Great Quantum Controversy of the mid and late twenties and thirties which offended the objective-realist paradigm that Einstein clung to, fighting a more and more rearguard action in the process. I venture the fledgling hypothesis that at that point he may have regretted letting the geni out of the lamp, and gone back to critique and try to undermine his own method inasfar as this method had led to this for him very regrettable orientation of Bohr, Heisenberg and others. I would like to check this hypothesis by reading what "Einstein II" wrote.

Z: Einstein II's point (made forcefully to Heisenberg in 1926) was that the theoretic model that is adopted legitimately *corrects* empirical observations for distortions of the measuring instruments that are due to objective physical effects, and since after ~1920 the vacuum was considered even by Einstein to be both actively and passively physical, motion through the physical vacuum can have effects that are
fundamentally no different from, say, thermal contraction, and can therefore legitimately be accounted for by theoretic corrections..."

J: True.

Z ... which implies a reversion to a Lorentzian paradigm for interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism (at least on the metatheoretic level).

G: Can you quote a reference where HE actually said that? I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise, his actually saying the above would not prove the point

J: There you go again Z (not G). Give Z a nanometer and Z takes a megaparsec! In fact there is no contradiction at all between the Lorentzian and Einsteinian pictures any more than there is between the kinetic theory of gases and thermodynamics! The two go hand-in-hand like Love and Marriage between a Man and a Woman! ;-) Seriously, in moderns terms from the recent work of Arcos and Pereira in Brazil, you can equate the Lorentzian dynamical view to the gauge force method which meets up with Einstein's geometrodynamical view in the Einstein-Cartan tetrad mobile Cartan frame of four basic 4-vectors. The non-trival part of the tetrad is the space-time distortion compensating gauge field from locally gauging the global symmetry of translation group T4 generated by the total energy-momentum of the dynamical field of the world. This non-trivial part of the tetrad, in turn, comes primarily from the coherent holographic Goldstone phase of the spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) of the electromagnetic symmetry group U(1) of Maxwell's electromagnetic local gauge field that couples to the pre-inflationary turbulent Dirac Sea negative energy virtual electron-positron false-vacuum plasma in its Big Bang phase transition to the calm Higgs Ocean. Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity emerges simply, very simply from the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field. String theory? "Who ordered that?" (Isador Rabi)

G: A lot of the current bullshit (some of it brilliant bullshit, admittedly) going on in physics (including the bombastic claims of string theorists of having found the theory of all even though they haven't made a single observable prediction) could have been avoided if physicists had taken this basic point more to heart and insisted on relating everything back to experience.

J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the unsolvable Galois fifth degree! ;-)

Z: While I agree with you that operational *illustrations* of concepts and principles in physics impose a healthy discipline, I cannot agree that 1905-style operationalism -- which supposes that the meaning of high-level theoretic concepts like "time" can be reduced to one or another particular operational definition -- is rationally supportable, for reasons given by Einstein himself in the 1920s.

G: Again, please give me the reference to this supposed quote of Einstein. And again, time is not defined that way; its measurement is.

J: G just hoisted Z by his own petard!

Z: Back to the SR situation specifically: with the 1905 paper, the confusion surrounding Michelson-Morley and the Lorentz transformation dissolved; and simplicity, beauty, and the accuracy of experimental predictions reigned again. But in fact the Einstein-Minkowski formalism can be given a perfectly coherent Lorentzian interpretation, precisely due to the technical features of SR that are exposed in the analysis of my revised "Polish joke" version of the two-clock problem: the 1905 theory turns out to be much more "Lorentzian" than it first seemed to be, since the *reciprocal* effects of time dilatation on the observed retardation of clocks
-- a hallmark of Einstein 1905 theory vis a vis Lorentz's -- always automatically self-cancel when you bring clocks back together, exposing the "virtual" character of the once-supposed reciprocity.

J to Z: False Paul. You still don't understand it. The retardation does not always self-cancel when you bring the clocks back together. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't depending on the contingent histories of the clocks in a perfectly precise way!

G to Z: Again (I'm sorry I have to use this word so many times in this post) I would like to see your clean and according to you unassailable Gendankenexperimental statement of your critique of the Einstein (as contrasted to Lorentz). It is becoming very frustrating to me to hear statements from you to the above effect again and again, without having seen the corresponding formulation itself from you, except in forms which we have agreed were untenable. Please, out of consideration of my nerves ( :-)  ) refrain from such claims as above until you have produced such a statement.

J: Agreed. Z has been playing this false hand now for several years.  

Z: That doesn't mean that the Einstein model for SR is internally incoherent, or that the 1905 theory is mathematically inconsistent; it just means that when the technical details of the actual workings of the 1905 theory are properly understood, the *most natural interpretation* of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism is, ironically, Lorentzian.

G: I don't think Lorentz himself would have taken the position you are taking (once he had digested Einstein's approach), even though his name is associated with the position you are taking now because it was Lorentz's thinking BEFORE 1905.

Z: Actually that's not true: Lorentz never accepted Einstein's 1905 model. Here is Lorentz in 1920:

"It is not necessary to give up entirely even the ether.  Many natural philosophers
find satisfaction in the idea of a material intermediate substance in which the
vibrations of light take place, and they will very probably be all the more inclined
to imagine such a medium when they learn that, according to the Einstein theory,
gravitation itself does not spread instantaneously, but with a velocity that at the
first estimate may be compared with that of light.  Especially in former years were
such interpretations current and repeated attempts were made by speculations
about the nature of the ether and about the mutations and movements that might
take place in it to arrive at a clear presentation of electro-magnetic phenomena,
and also of the functioning of gravitation. ... In my opinion it is not impossible that in the future this road, indeed abandoned at present, will once more be followed with good results, if only because it can lead to the thinking out of new experimental tests.  Einstein’s theory need not keep us from so doing; only the ideas about the ether must accord with it."

- H. A. Lorentz, "The Einstein Theory of Relativity" (1920).

In other words, there can still be an ether, but any ether model, in order to be viable, must take account of the pragmatic-empirical success of Einstein's theories.
I think Lorentz died in 1929. If you read Einstein's Leyden address on the ether, you will see that by 1920 there was a convergence of the views of Einstein and Lorentz:

http://www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_English_pp160-163.pdf

G to Z: I haven't heard back from you regarding a defensible formulation of the supposed contradiction within SR itself that you have been arguing.

Z: As I have said, there is no mathematical contradiction in SR even in the two-clock case; but there is a "paradox" if you wish to treat the *reciprocal* time dilatation of 1905 SR as an objectively real physical effect.

G: I don't, because I don't know what that means; see above. and so there is, for me, no paradox and no "paradox", and not even a ""paradox""  :-)

J: Agreed.

Z: The reason why 1905 SR is consistent in its predictions is precisely because the reciprocity of time dilatation that you get in a single GIF is lost when you use multiple matching GIFs to account for time dilatation over more than one inertial segment -- and that is precisely the point of my re-formulation of the traditional two-clock problem, which IMHO exposes this "paradoxical" feature of the 1905 theory very clearly.


J: Pretense! All one need do is calculate the classical phase world line integrals of the path-dependent histories of the inexact differential frame-invariant proper time element ds/c for each clock in the space-time diagram. Nothing new here and every proper question has a true and consistent answer. There is no paradox! No possible doubt whatever!

G: As far as I know non-existent re-formulation (in the sense that it would not remain a constant moving target, to be reexpressed differently (and again vainly) the next time. If you think I am trying to provoke you to finally produce the actual valid statement of the "paradox" (operationally, and without reference to nebulous terms like "obejctively real") then you are DAMN RIGHT :-)

J: I tried to do exactly that with Paul and failed. Paul Z is Tar Baby in Uncle Remus. Arguing with Paul is like trying to struggle your way out of quicksand.

Z: It is this precisely feature of 1905 SR that allows a coherent interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism in *Lorentzian* terms.

G: I take it that we are then leaving it at that, and Einstein vs Zielinsky is settled. Phew, I am relieved :-)

Z: No this is Einstein_1 vs. Lorentz, and Einstein_1 vs. Einstein_2! You have to distinguish sharply between two quite different issues:

(1) The mathematical consistency of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism; and

(2) The question of which is the more natural physical interpretation of the
Einstein-Minkowski formalism. Alas, "natural" may turn out to be in the eye of the beholder, or rather a funsction of his/her fundamental paradigm (or structure. Issue (1) is settled by the existence of a geometric model for the 1905 theory (Lorentz-Einstein transformations in Minkowski spacetime); whereas (2) is not at all obvious -- although it is beginning to look like the Lorentz model for the standard SR formalism is the more useful in the present stage of development of physics, and is the more natural physical interpretation.

G: It is beginning to look TO YOU to be more useful, maybe, but you have been unable to clearly (that means with reference to experience rather than metaphysical presupposed terms) state it much less substantiate it -- Still waiting.

J: For Godot.

The Axes of Evil are East of Eden

A physicist in Flinders, Australia named Reg Cahill claims he detects the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley interferometer is rotated by a right angle provided that the light signals in the two interfering light paths pass through a gas whose index of refraction is not equal to 1. The effect will not occur in vacuum or solid state only in gas. We do not know if Cahill is making an error or not, but suppose he turns out to be correct? What would it mean? The theory of everything rests only on the intimate tango dance two battle-tested ideas – each a kind of broken symmetry:

1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.

The pre-Einsteinian Galilean relativity symmetry of Newton’s 17th Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute simultaneity with an aether or vacuum medium of what Newton called “absolute rest”. This is easy to prove like a theorem in Euclid’s geometry. Imagine a non-rotating uniformly moving “inertial frame” (GIF). By definition, no external forces are acting on this platform of detectors. The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called a “geodesic” path. Suppose the velocity vector of light in vacuum is measured by Alice in this frame to be the venerable c, whose magnitude speed c = 186,000 miles per second in a given direction in space. Now imagine Bob whizzing by Alice with a relative uniform velocity vector v. What is the speed of the same light signal that Bob measures in his inertial frame? According to the Galilean symmetry group that light velocity vector will either be c + v if Bob moves opposite to the light signal, or will be c – v if Bob tries to outrace the light signal in the same direction. In what frame then will we see the speed c? Clearly, only in the frame where v = 0! That is, the Galilean symmetry or relativity automatically demands the frame of absolute rest as a corollary not as an independent postulate! Indeed, that was the key idea of Michelson at Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1880s. He aligned one arm of his horizontal interferometer in the direction Earth’s motion where c’ = c +/- v and the other at right angles where c’ = c still in the horizontal plane. Michelson expected to see the pattern of light fringes where the two beams come together shift when he rotated his interferometer by a right angle 90 degrees about the perpendicular axis to the horizontal plane that depended on the ratio (v/c)2. In fact, he did not see any such shift beyond his expected errors. In other words, absolute velocity v could not be detected! Fitzgerald, in Dublin, explained this unexpected result by saying that the length L of the interferometer path in the same direction as the Earth’s absolute velocity shrunk to L’ = L[1 – (1/2)(v/c)2]1/2. In contrast, the length of the other path at right angles to the first in the horizon tal plane stayed the same. This adhoc mechanical aether conjecture would explain the data. Poincare and Lorentz further developed this idea before 1905 when Einstein published his “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, which did not take much notice of Michelson’s interferometer anomaly. Einstein was concerned with the fact that Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations did not preserve their form under the Galilean relativity inertial frame transformations and this resulted in further anomalies when say a bar magnet and a coil were in motion relative to each other. You get one thing when the magnet is at absolute rest and another when the coil is at absolute rest. Such a split is not ever observed. This caused Einstein at age 26, an outcast from the university to replace the Galilean frame shift with something else that we now call the “Lorentz boost”. These new transformations changed time as well as space, but left the “space-time interval” ds invariant, i.e. unchanging for all relatively uniformly moving observers like Alice and Bob. Newton’s point particle mechanical equations changed in structure in order to be consistent with Maxwell’s field equation’s form not changing in the frame shift. However, since the speed of light in vacuum was a fixed point invariant, there was, it appeared no way to measure v the absolute speed. No way Jose, until Cahill and another guy Consoli from Catania, Sicily came along in 2005 100 years later. On the other hand, Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity (SR) does not say that absolute velocity violates the laws of physics. It only says that if some new measurement like Cahill’s measures it, then absolute velocity must be appended like Euclid’s 5th Parallel Postulate and is not a theorem as it is in Galilean relativity! Along comes SBS of the vacuum to save the day giving a general theory of “preferred frames” that does not violate the symmetries of the laws of physics!

The ferromagnet below its Curie temperature has a preferred orientation frame in a finite 3D space domain in its macro-quantum SBS ground state. Similarly, what Cahill may be seeing would be a preferred orientation frame in a finite 4D space-time domain in the macro-quantum SBS vacuum containing the Earth’s orbit. It might be the same or different at the orbits of Mars and Venus et-al. That is, the existence of such a preferred frame of “rapidity” is a contingent “frozen accident” of history from the amplification of a random micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuation in the pre-> post inflation phase transition that created the Big Bang. Similarly, for the anomalous weak spatially uniform radial gravity tug pointing back to the Sun

ag = - cH(t) ~ 10-7 cm/sec2

H(t) = R(t)dR(t)/dt

ds2 = -(cdt)2 + R(t)2[dx2 + dy2 + dz2]

seen in both the NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 space probes suddenly starting only beyond Jupiter’s orbit out 20 AU. This is exactly what is expected for a contingent frozen accident of history called the “hedgehog topological defect” in the Higgs Ocean macro-quantum coherent “multi-layered multi-colored” cosmic superconducting vacuum field out of which Einstein’s gravity with both dark energy and dark matter emerge completing Andrei Sakharov’s 1967 conjecture.

But we are not yet done because some physicists looking at WMAP anomalies think they see the “Axis of Evil” that is a preferred axis in space of the universe as if it were a giant “ferromagnet”. They don’t know about Cahill’s similar preferred axis in space-time! As if that is not enough, still other physicists think they see multiple images in the WMAP data suggesting that our space is finite and closed in a giant dodecahedron! It’s too soon to know if any of these people are correct or are charging wind mills. However, all of these allegations are simply explained in principle by only two great battle-tested ideas cited above. i.e.,

1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.

Space-Time Warps & Theory of Everything

All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic “force-without-force”) fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical action. The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by the compensating gauge field. Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry intact. Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan “tetrad”/”Ricci rotation coefficients” extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium. In 1916 GR the Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields, but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 into Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in Shipov’s theory. There is a curious cross-play in that the disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear even in torsion-free 1916 GR. The curious cross-play is that the curvature disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging of the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J = L + S (space-space rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in instantaneously uniform relative motion. The curious cross-play is this dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The lack of preferred space-time frames with “absolute velocity”, as in the usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost sector of O(1,3). If there is such a broken symmetry then a particular “rapidity” (direction in4D space-time) of “absolute rest” is selected in a finite space-time domain, much like a particular 3D space direction is selected in a ferromagnetic domain. Cahill and Consoli have challenged this assumption in independent papers, which, however, are not consistent with each other. It’s too soon to know if there is any merit to these empirical claims, but if there is, their proper explanation is “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBR), this time in the off-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent vacuum relative to O(1,3) and possibly Diff(4) rather than the on-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent ground states of equilibrium superfluids (U(1)), ferromagnets (O(3)) and non-equilbrium lasers (U(1)) and living bio-membranes as in H. Frohlich's theory. (U(1)).

Bu = bu^aPa = (Goldstone Hologram Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4

guv(Einstein LNIF) = (&u^a + bu^a)(Minkowski LIF)ab(&v^b + bv^b)

&u^a are the trivial holonomic tetrads (Kronecker deltas) connecting the curved base space to the quasi-flat tangent space fiber.

Rubber Rods? JS Bell on Special Relativity

JS Bell in his "Unspeakable" book tells how almost entire Theory Division at CERN got an elementary SR problem wrong at first. Z made same error and I did not catch him in it.

Alice and Bob are in two rockets separated by distance L(0) at t = 0 in space when they fire their rockets equally to make a 1g artifical gravity field in their ships accelerating along z-axis. A taut string connects the rockets. What happens to the string? Correct answer is it will break. Most of the theorists in CERNs theory division guessed it would not break before they really thought about the problem. The problem is counter-intuitive because our Galilean relativity "common sense" assumes falsely that the separation between Alice and Bob L(t) is not changing when in fact it increases because the measuring rods along z shrink from the Einstein equivalence principle. See Kip Thorne "Black Holes and Time Warps" p. 30 picture for analogous spherically symmetric problem that also explains why the three real on-mass-shell quarks inside nucleons shrink to points in high magnification Heisenberg scattering microscopes using electron probes (e.g. SLAC deep inelastic "parton" data).

The effective artificial gravity metric, from the rockets inertial fields from Einstein's equivalence principle EEP, is

ds^2 = (1 - 2gz/c^2)(cdt)^2 - dz^2/(1 - 2gz/c^2)

The actually measured time and space intervals dT and dZ are

dT = dt(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2

dZ = dz/(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2

respectively.

Where dz ~ L(0)

In the weak field limit

x = 2gz/c^2 << 1

1/(1 - x^2)^1/2 ~ 1/(1 - (1/2)x^2) ~ 1 + (1/2)x^2

we can use the Newtonian kinematics of Galilean relativity to good approximation

z = (1/2)gt^2

1 - 2gz/c^2 = 1 - (gt/c))^2

L(t) ~ L(0)[1 + (1/2)(gt/c^2)] > L(0) if t > 0

That is, the actual physical separation between the two LNIF rockets each accelerating locally the same way actually increases so that the string will eventually snap and break!

On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:46 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

These Lorentz vs. Einstein arguments have already been made many times over. I mistakenly assumed you would be familiar with them.

Jack, you don't seem to have any intuitive appreciation of the difference between a Lorentzian "rubber-rod-and-clock" model and an Einsteinian "moving coordinates" model of the Lorentz transformations.

I am familiar. The argument is completely stupid as Kip Thorne says IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCE. The Cahill difference is not relevant to that distinction.

Didn't you read Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation"? He explains the difference from the standpoint of a spin-2 quantum field model quite vividly.

NO you completely MISUNDERSTAND Feynman. He is only talking about perturbation theory to finite order from a flat background and there you can maybe make the distinction you want to make implicit in Puthoff's PV "Tables I & II". As Penrose explains YOU CANNOT DO IT for the complete GR, which in Feyman's terms is a INFINITE SUM of flat diagrams! This is like in BCS theory

gap energy ~ (Debye Energy)e^-1/V(binding)(Density of Fermi Sea States Per Unit Energy at Fermi Surface)

You cannot get this SPONTANEOUS BREAKING of the VACUUM SYMMETRY from a FINITE NUMBER of flat back-ground diagrams.

Penrose distinguishes the "linear graviton" of Feynman here, also of Puthoff's Yilmazian PV from the "nonlinear graviton" in the book "Geometric Universe".

So your basic error here Paul is to take a limited approximate idea BEYOND its proper domain of validity.

Feynman's approximation and your distinction above violates what all the Big Boys today like Ashtekar, Smolin et-al call BACKGROUND INDEPENDENCE closely connected to the full meaning of the equivalence principle that your distinction essentially violates. That is NO RIGID BACKGROUNDS that act without direct back-reaction. Everything is a player. No stages. No fixed arenas - not even in quantum theory, hence the signal nonlocality of consciousness!

Theory of Everything?

On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:22 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

The only issue I am concerned with here is whether Lorentz invariance is universal and why.

I don't know what you mean and neither do you. The question is ill-posed.

In GR Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry not a global one because T(4) is locally gauged whose compensating field is the non-trivial part of the Cartan tetrad. This solves one of your problems, i.e. intrinsic vs coordinate.

Do you mean there are exotic vacua where O(1,3) is wrong even locally? No evidence for that at all.

G. E. Volovik has emergent O(1,3) at a fixed point low energy effective field theory in a renormalization group flow from a Galilean sub-stratum. Is that what you mean?


I am not arguing against spontaneously broken symmetry. Obviously you can get preferred frames in a physical vacuum by breaking the underlying dynamical symmetry in the solutions at the macro-level, which I think is what you are saying.

That's all the Cahill/Consoli data show, if they are real. Interesting and important to be sure - another triumph for PW Anderson's theory of emergent complexity! No change in paradigm needed.

The mainstream paradigm

1. Symmetries

2. Locally gauging symmetries to get forces (complementary to geometrodynamics)

3. "More is different" emergence via spontaneously broken symmetries in the locally lowest energy valleys of the landscape of the parallel worlds of the multi-verse.

This is all we need for the theory of everything from large-scale universe today to small-scale lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons.

From Stormy Pre-Inflationary Dirac Sea to Post-Inflationary Pacific Higgs Ocean. Oil on Water.

Einstein's gravity with anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter emerges as phase and amplitude modulations of the post-inflationary calm Higgs Ocean (AKA Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field, AKA vacuum coherence of ZPF).

I do not see what you are worried about. BTW the affine/vector space distinction for the space of Lorentz inertial frames is an elegant way to look at the contingent Einstein/Lorentz empirical significant difference. The alleged experimental anomaly is strictly isolated - no major damage control needed. Now if you could give me a counter example on that, then you would have something. At the moment you are charging windmills.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Stop making vague statements. Simply write a review paper in complete detail with logic like Euclid step-by-step what you think Einstein says, what you think Lorentz says etc. Stop using polemics. Don't talk about it. Do it.

Eve:The Mother Of All Inertial Frames

Paul

Of course I understand the data Cahill is alleging. But neither you nor Cahill understand the real meaning of that data!

When there is a n =/= 1 (index of gas) "v =/= 0" absolute velocity detected, that means a vacuum symmetry breaking of O(1,3). It does not mean a return to t' = t absolute time of Galilean relativity. You still must use O(1,3) to get from one inertial frame to another even though there is a preferred frame which is to O(1,3) as the ferromagnetic order parameter is to O(3). There is a local vacuum order parameter just like there is a ferromagnetic order parameter.

Let Eve be in the preferred frame v = 0. This means that no fringe shifts on 90 degree rotations of the MM interferometer at rest in Eve's frame.

If Alice (Bob) measures v(Alice(Bob)) that means the Lorentz boost between Alice(Bob) and Eve is via [1 - (v(Alice(Bob))/c)^2]^-1/2 with the usual Lorentz transformations!

On the other hand the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (do 1 + 1 to keep it simple for now) directly measured in their Doppler radar is

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

So that a direct boost between Alice and Bob (bypassing Eve) is via

[1 - (v(Alice - Bob)/c)^2]^-1/2

There is no problem with reciprocity as you incorrectly allege.

Apart from Alice and Bob seeing anomalous MM fringe shifts on 90 deg rotations if n =/= 1 and Eve seeing none, everything else is completely normal! Nothing else changes.

The anomaly is truly isolated! It is contingent not fundamental. No change of paradigm is required. A spontaneous broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry in a finite space-time region simply means that the space of inertial frames is a vector space with an origin rather than an affine space with no origin, i.e. no preferred inertial Eve frame.

Ignoring GR curvature et-al for now, the kinematics of frame transforms is still O(1,3) and the dynamics is still O(1,3) covariant.

A revolution is not called for. There is no impending paradigm shift overturning Einstein as Cahill professes. There is no return to Galilean relativity. One simply punches an isolated hole in Einstein's affine space of inertial frames. End of story.

If you can find an inconsistency here show it. Cahill is the new Herbert Dingle even if his claims (and Consoli's in Catania) of the n =/= 1 Michelson-Morley fringe pattern shift on 90 degree rotations is confirmed. What he infers from that alleged fact is not justified by the evidence and the mainstream ideas of local gauge invariance with dynamics from compensating field and the "More is different" spontaneous breaking of vacuum (ground state) symmetries from the large-scale of cosmology to the shortest scales of high-energy physics.

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

"quasi-local approach" ... "super-potential, which is a Hamiltonian boundary term" "screen" of World Hologram i.e. local horizon on (anti) De Sitter space-time with Hawking radiation? That is the gravity energy only depends on the horizon surface not on local space volume elements! 3D Space is a holographic image! See p. 16 section E of Brazilian paper. They go on to get a local representation in the complementary or dual gauge-force picture that is physically equivalent to the nonlocal geometrodynamic picture.

The Brazilians Arcos & Pereira (2005) discuss the nonlocality of the gravity energy in Einstein's geometrodynamic representation with curvature and no torsion that is Bohr complementary to the gauge force representation with torsion and no curvature. However the Brazilian "torsion" should not be confused with Gennady Shipov's torsion. They are entirely different and different words should be used.

My own macro-quantum theory, for the emergence of Einstein's curvature in the post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene) AKA "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field (Frank Wilczek) AKA partial cohering of the pre-inflationary random micro-quantum zero point false vacuum fluctuations, is more naturally set in the Brazilian gauge force representation initially although I immediately transform to Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical representation as more heuristic for getting new insights.

Recall that the pre-inflationary unstable false vacuum is a conformal vacuum without gravitation or inertia admitting only massless lepto-quark and boson gauge force special relativistic quantum fields. U(1)SU(2)SU(3) is locally gauged in the false vacuum. No part of the 15 parameter conformal group is locally gauged pre-inflation.

Conformal Group C(4)

= Dilation*(Conformal Boosts to Uniformly Accelerating Hyperbolic Motion)*(Translations)*(Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts)

T4 = normal subgroup of translations generated by Wheeler's "mom-energy" = Lie algebra {Pa}

O(1,3) = (Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts) = Lorentz Group

Lorentz Boost = space-time rotation

real angles of rotation of an extended rigid body have imaginary extensions that are equivalent to the "rapidities" of the Lorentz boosts.

Spontaneous breaking of O(3) rotation group symmetry in the ground state of many spinning electrons is ferromagnetism. Ferromagnetism is a preferred frame of orientation in space without explicit O(3) breaking terms in the dynamical action.

Similarly, data like Cahill's and Consoli's claiming a preferred Lorentz inertial frame would, if corroborated, merely mean spontaneous breakdown of the O(1,3) group in the physical vacuum, particularly its boost sector. The preferred frame of absolute rest means a set of rapidities are chosen in a finite region of vacuum just like a set of rotation angles (only latitude and longitude on the celestial sphere, twist rotation (torsion field?) about the preferred space direction is another issue using ALL THREE Euler angles, is chosen in a finite domain of the ferromagnetic ground state.

Einstein, not knowing about spontaneous symmetry breakdown in 1905, thought of the space of global inertial frames (pre-GR 1916) as an affine space without a preferred origin. Lorentz thought of this space of frames as a vector space with an origin. This is a real experimental difference, but it is contingent not fundamental. The way the symmetry breaks in a ferromagnetic domain is contingent like a pimple on one's nose. Similarly, for Cahill's claim - a small blemish on Einstein's nose for The Truth! :-)

All dynamics comes from the minimal coupling local gauge principle of different symmetry groups both internal and external in 4D space-time. Roger Penrose says extra space dimensions are unstable so let's see if we can do without them. No supersymmetry needed as yet either since I predict supersymmetry will not be found in the LHC and also that dark matter detectors will never click with the right stuff, e.g. on-mass-shell neutralinos et-al do not exist. These are falsifiable predictions.

From Stormy Dirac Sea to Calm Higgs Ocean (Oil upon The Waters of Creation)

Looking only, for now, at the low-energy tail of the false pre-inflationary conformal vacuum sans gravity and inertia, both emergent properties, the Dirac negative energy virtual Fermi energy is E = 0 and the zero point PV virtual electron-positron pairs in a small thickness of the Fermi surface form virtual bound states fusing into the zero entropy BEC vacuum condensate "Higgs Ocean" that trigger the inflation and the emergence of Einstein's gravity along with all rest masses m and both dark energy and dark matter.

Post-inflation, the Cartan tetrad encoding the important part of the equivalence principle (EEP) is

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

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

{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4

i.e. the non-trivial curved intrinsic part - the actual or "real" gravitational field that is locally equivalent to an inertial field in a local non-inertial frame of reference, AKA "LNIF"

This is a spontaneous broken locally-gauged U(1)em vacuum symmetry exactly like in the BCS superconductor where, instead of on-mass-shell charged 2e electron pairs, we have neutral virtual electron-positron pairs in an off-mass-shell "bound state". The result is a locally-gauged T4 dynamical non-trivial tetrad field eu^a emergent from the spontaneous broken U(1)em vacuum symmetry. The release of binding energy of the virtual electron-positron pairs powers the Big Bang.

Message from Cahill

bcc
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Reg Cahill wrote:

Hi Jack,

What a story! It seems to me that you are approaching the issues from the wrong direction and whence the incredibly complicated path.

Seems pretty simple to me. Local gauge invariance and spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. :-)

The first issue is to get clear picture of what has emerged. The interferometer experiments have shown that (i) absolute motion is detectable, and (ii) that Newtonian physics is wrong.

Yes, I understand that. I have not understood all the technical details of the experiments in your paper(s) nor those of Consoli. The two of you seem to differ in some important details although generally you are reporting the same kind of qualitative effect. You get different absolute speeds in different directions I think? But neither are zero and that's the point. By "Newtonian physics" I assume you mean specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian relativity, i.e.

x -> x' = x - vt

t -> t' = t

is wrong (e.g. Ch 15, Panofsky & Phillips)

x -> x' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(x - vt)

t -> t' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(t - vx/c^2)

is correct even when there is a preferred global inertial frame that we call "absolute rest". Also for now we try to neglect general relativity, although that may not be possible in the end for these measurements.

This followed after the discovery that a theory for the interferometer must take account of relativistic effects and the effect of the refractive index of the gas present (Cahill and Kitto 2002). The results were confirmed by two coaxial cable experiments, which being 1st order in v/c don't need relativistic effect corrections. Then it follows that we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. This fits neatly in with the original 19th century Lorentz interpretation, namely that absolute motion is the cause of relativistic effects.

Can you elaborate on that? Exactly how is it the "cause"?

It also means that the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of these same effects is wrong..there is no spacetime.

Can you elaborate on that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanation. :-) My position, as you may have gathered is that there is no major change of interpretation needed assuming your experiments and Consoli's similar ones, stand the test of scrutiny. Renouncing the battle-tested special relativity i.e.

Require dynamical actions to be Lorentz-invariant with Lorentz-covariant Euler-Lagrange equations, with standard modifications of general relativity, is not at all affected, with all its consequences for the computation of scattering cross sections, atomic & nuclear spectra etc.

We do not have put in O(3) violating terms in the action for the Heisenberg ferromagnet with the Coulomb exchange interaction in order to explain the O(3) violation in the ferromagnetic ground state. In exactly the same way, we do not need to put O(1,3) violating terms in the actions of the fundamental quantum fields of physics (lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons) to explain your reports of O(1,3) violation in the vacuum.

Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state of a given model of quantum dynamics is the very definition of what a "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. This is an explanation "for all seasons" as it were. :-)

So the speed of light is c only relative to this space, and not relative to all non-accelerating observers.

That's so in a more general sense for all instances of spontaneous symmetry breakdown leaving the kinematics and the dynamics intact. Every symmetry group G defines its own class of "frames of reference" i.e. base states for a given representation of G. In the case of O(1,3) in real space-time we have the class of global inertial frames. The only significantdifference between Einstein's interpretation of O(1,3) and Lorentz's is that Einstein says that the space of frames is affine, and Lorentz says that it's a vector space with an "origin" = "preferred frame" = a chosen "rapidity" in the space-time vacuum just like the chosen "space orientation" in the ferromagnetic ground state. Occam's Razor is with me here. More with less.

So Einstein's main postulate is disproved by experiment.

I do not think you have proved that. Indeed, I think I just proved the very opposite! :-)

Nevertheless one can use a mathematical spacetime, because the spacetime encodes absolute motion effects, albeit in a manner that is well hidden.

You need to explain that in a lot more detail. :-)

So we have a 3-space and separately a time phenomenon. The 3-space is in relative motion, that is, different regions of it have relative motion, as well that motion is time-dependent.

I am not sure what you mean. Let's think of a ferromagnet. Is it like the buckling of tectonic plates? The different ferromagnetic domains are pressing against each other? This is no problem in vacuum because the vacuum has a local macro-quantum order parameter, e.g. Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered, multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field. (Nature Jan 20, 2005 "In Search of Symmetry Lost").


Presumably this space has some substratum structure, and that structure has relative motion. These two effects cause gravity.

How? Now I have shown exactly how. No if's and's and but's - but the actual equations.

An interferometer or coaxial cable device can detect motion relative to that space.

Yeah, no problemo, once one has the idea of spontaneous broken symmetry with the vacuum condensate as the "aether" or substratum. Frank Wilczek explains this pretty well in Jan 20, 2005 Nature. I suggest you look at it. :-)

That by itself does'nt imply some preferred direction intrinsic to the space..rather it simply means that the device is moving through that space.

You do not get my point. The ferromagnet is only an analogy. I never said that your data show a preferred direction in space. What I said was that your data, and Consoli's, if true show a preferred direction in space-time i.e. rapidity i.e. absolute velocity. So the preferred direction in space is a Red Herring. :-)

The intrinsic local direction in space is determined by the direction of the convective acceleration (=the spatial inhomogeneity direction) and the time-dependence of the velocity field.

I don't understand this. I assume this is your "flow" theory that I have not read in detail. It is not needed. It is too ad-hoc, too Rube Goldberg and we already have exactly what we need in the two battle-tested ideas of modern theoretical physics

1. Local gauge symmetry inducing compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the meta-stable state of lowest energy for the covariant dynamics relative to the above local gauge symmetry.

It works in the heavens of the internal dimensions (electro-weak/strong) as well as on the ground of being (space-time with gravity and maybe torsion and other fields).

We now know all this because (i) the Miller data is so extensive that one can extract from it the flow past the earth towards the sun (some 42 km/s), as well as galactic flow and turbulence (novel non-Einsteinain gravity waves) in that flow, (ii) both Newtonian gravity and GR (in those cases where it has been successfully tested) can be written in the form of a flow theory. Most importantly these flow formalisms can be generalised, and the new dynamical effects turn out to be the so-called `dark matter' effect.

I have a complete explanation of both gravitating "dark matter" and anti-gravitating "dark energy" in terms of Einstein's

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

and spontaneous breakdown of U(1)em vacuum symmetry. Done elsewhere.

This non-relativistic gravity effect is not in either NG or GR, so even NG is serioulsy wrong. That new effect has been tested against various experiments and observations as well. We are developing experiments at Flinders university to measure the flow component into the earth (the inhomogeneity of that flow is the cause of the earth's gravity, speed at surface is 11km/s). Because this is small compared to the galactic flow (some 400km/s) the earth in-flow is not easy to measure.

Well we will not settle this now. My position is that everything you see, if corroborated, can be explained simply and directly with only two battle-tested mainstream ideas

1. local gauge symmetry

2. spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry i.e. P.W. Anderson's emergent "More is different".

The Great Temple of Theoretical Physics Today rests firmly on the above two pillars and you are not Samson! :-)

Penrose, Hawking, Rees et-al can sleep in comfort tonite that you will not pull their covers off in the middle of a cold winter's night. :-)

Now what does that all give us? Take the simplest case first. (Classical) Maxwell's equations have a well known spacetime/covariant form. In that form the speed of light in vacuum is always c. But what does that really mean? How does one measure that? Well one can simply use a rod and clock, and sure enough one will find that the speed of light, no matter which observer does the measurment, and even for different observers in relative motion, all will find the speed to be c=300,000km/s. Howver we now know that an observer can measure the velocity of his rods and clocks through space. That motion will have changed their length/ticking rate. Then each observer must correct the data from his experiment..after all his rods/clocks are being affected by their motion. He will then find that the corrected speed is now only c relative to a particular frame, namely relative to a real 3-space.

I would need to see the detailed math for that. When I do the math I always get c as a the fixed point even when there is a preferred frame. Maybe I am doing something wrong? We shall see. However, Hal Puthoff will LOVE your theory here since it sounds very much like his PV theory in his Tables I & II! On the other hand, I bet you are wrong. I could be wrong of course and you could be right - we shall see. :-)

I will come back to this in the coming days.

So Maxwell's equations actually encode real physical effects of absolute motion upon the rods and clocks which are used to `define' the length and time scales. So these equations have BOTH absolute motion effects and the dynamics of the E and B fields. Then one can write Maxwell's equations in a form that explicitly reveals the preferred frame, and so separates these two effects.

Have you done that? Where?

This involves a non-linear change of variables. It leads to PDEs in which the partial time derivative is replaced by the Euler total derivative (which involves the velocity of the observer, and so the rods and clocks, relative to the 3-space). The covariant equations have Lorentz symmetry (of course). The new Maxwell equations have Galilean symmetry. Both symmetries are exact. They are being applied to different forms of the data. In the case of Lorentz symmetry the dynamical effects of absolute motion and the E-B field dynamics are not separated. In the Galilean form the absolute motion effects upon the rods and clocks are separated from the E-B dynamics, and we are left with a clean description of the E-B dynamics.

This sounds terribly complicated and I can assure you you have a steep Cliff to climb that will require a lot of Will. I do not think this story of yours will go over very well with the Top Guns of GR 17 for example. I'm sure you know that? :-) In any case where is this done in detail. I am sure Zielinski will read it for example. Also others. I am sure you will be proved wrong in the end of course. We need a Bookie. :-)

So the whole issue of covariance in physics has been incredibly misleading.

Have you read Tom Phipps "Heretical Vereties"? Some of your stuff about the convective derivative sounds like his?

It was simply gross confusion. Whence it is very misleading to try to understand the new physics by beginning with a covariant language, and then attempting to come up with some symmetry breaking that results in a preferred frame. This one sentence is the main point of this response to your suggestion, Jack.

Well fancy this, me defending the mainstream establishment against The Barbarian at The Gate from Down Under! :-) Time for a beer Mate? In any case you need to explain this in great detail - presumably you have already done so. However, as I say, no one will believe you. Also I think my explanation is better and simpler, but I am biased. :-)

I should add that a great deal of the new physics has been worked out already, particularly re: gravity.
One major discovery has been that the new theory of gravity involves the fine structure constant (that wasn't a prediction..but it emerged from the data). Some 25 paper re all this are available at the Mountanman graphics URL below. Much more in preparation. There is a revolution in progress.

Your enthusiasm is touching. :-)

PS By sending this reply e-mail to you Jack I'm not sure if others in the group also receive it?

Never fear, they will. They will. We have both drawn our lines in the sand.:-)

best wishes,

Reg Cahill


Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.

Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).

Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.

Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).

OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.

Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.

The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)

Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.

Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.

In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.

OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").

If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where

Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab

eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR

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

Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.

Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?

--

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

Does the preferred inertial frame demand a torsion field?

No it does not. The ferromagnet is an example. O(3) is broken in the ground state but O(3) is not locally gauged.

Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.

Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).

Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.

Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).

OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.

Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.

The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)

Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.

Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.

In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.

OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").

If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where

Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab

eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR

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

Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.

Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?

Bulgarian UFO Warp Drive Paper?

On Feb 11, 2005, at 7:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

1. I doubt the Puthoff-Davis PV approach in http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf can reproduce Ivanov's claim because PV does not use covariant derivatives.

2. In II Ivanov say need only two powers of ten more than 33.2 Tesla to get to 1g ~ 10^3 cm/sec^2 - a resonance would help get these fields down.

I do not have time right now to give Ivanov's paper the attention it deserves. It is definitely a solid paper and needs to be studied. There is too much work to do for any one physicist. It requires a good team - maybe at Los Alamos DOE - seems a natural place for such work in exotic propulsion. I would bring Ivanov over.

3. Ivanov's "eq 7" off by a factor of 1/2?

Ivanov is using the geodesic equation which is fine for weightless warp drive.

He starts with the covariant geodesic equation for a test particle

Dv^u/ds = 0

In the rest LIF of the test particle all we have is

v^0 = (g00)^-1/2

Dv^u/ds = dv^u/ds - (LC)^uwlv^wv^l = 0

Ivanov then looks at the "coordinate 4-acceleration" dv^u/ds because basically he will go back to the weak field Newtonian gravity force limit of Einstein's geometrodynamics.

Therefore

dv^u/ds = (LC)^uwlv^wv^l

Ivanov says

(LC)^uwlv^wv^l = gwl^,uv^wv^l

But in the instantaneous rest LIF of the test particle

v^i = 0, i = 1,2,3

dv^u/ds = g00^,uv^0v^0 = (goo)^-1(g00^,u) = (lngo00)^u

v^u = dx^u/ds by definition

dv^u/ds = d^2x^u/ds^2 has dimensions 1/length

Therefore the "coordinate acceleration", i.e. the Newtonian g-field in the weak curvature slow speed limit of GR is

g^u = c^2(lng00)^u ?

Consider ln(1 + x) when x << 1

ln(1 + x) ~ ln(1) + xdln(1 + x)/dx ~ x

In the Schwarzschild metric

goo = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)

So x = - 2GM/c^2r << 1 in Newtonian limit.

Ivanov is off by a factor of 1/2 in his eq 7 that is probably in the definition of (LC).

i.e. g^u = (c^2/2)ln(g00)^,u

4. My approach is very different.

Ivanov is using

Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(EM)

I am using

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

ignoring the direct term (8piG/c^4)Tuv(EM) << /\zpfguv initially - it's a small perturbation.

The EM field indirectly affects the exotic vacuum field /\zpf.

More anon.

On Feb 11, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On Feb 11, 2005, at 11:12 AM, art wagner wrote:

"...that was embarassing - please try"

(http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0502/0502047.pdf)


OK it looks interesting. Note the guy is from Bulgaria. I will take a look.

Physicists in the former Soviet Bloc, like Gennady Shipov in Moscow and Bangkok, are much more open to taking risks looking for dramatic breakthroughs in space propulsion. If you recall I recently did a rough model that near EM fields might allow propulsion if suitable resonances were in the dielectric and magnetic materials used in the fuselage and that it is barely plausible that the Nazis may have stumbled on something like that e.g. Nick Cook's "Nazi Bell Machine" in "The Hunt For Zero Point" that perhaps was not merely Grade B 1950's Sci Fi Pulp Fiction the way Robert Park makes it sound in his book review.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_26/ai_94044223
http://theory.creatingthefuture.org/books/huntforzeropoint.htm

On Feb 11, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 11, 2005, at 11:06 AM, art wagner wrote:

"If we build it, they will fly" (known since ~1918)

"Linda, try to do an interview with Boyko ASAP & let me know if you can; Stan, maybe let Nick Cook know & be ready for some physics questions and/or interviews;"

Nick Cook seems strangely silent and not much interested in the real physics of UFO flight? Please send links that work so we can see what you are talking about?

"Bill, perhaps you could work on this, too...with Linda? If it is what it appears to be, the whole thing is going to blow open very soon - any connection with the Jennings/Rockefeller events of recent note, do you think (I don't, but you never really know...)?" Art

Waiting for Hinckle

A Theater of Important Ideas

Name of The Play: Waiting for Hinckle

From Oscar Wilde to Stalking The Wild Foucault Pendulum! :-)

"I've many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse."
Major General, Pirates of Penzance

Two Characters Abbott (AKA Z) & Costello (AKA J)

Both sitting in a dumpster outside Caffe Trieste in San Francisco's North Beach before an audience of aging hippies on SSI (as well as wannabe hippies with a lot of money slumming) sitting at the tables on the sidewalk drinking wine, smoking and playing guitars - badly!

Overture

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

In the Flying Grail Castle of Lubos Motl ET Harvard String Theorist
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
back in the good old days of The Da Vinci Code somewhere above Troyes, France 1000 years ago.

Curtain rises:

On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:16 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Neck of God

On Feb 8, 2005, at 12:56 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a preferred inertial frame that is empirically
detectable."

J: That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is a preferred frame.

Z: But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are then totally different.

J: So what?

Z: Very revealing.

J: Vague polemics again. The Jesuits are much more focused. The "physical reasons" are not that important here. You give too much weight to the verbal of the informal language. The difference between Einstein's interpretation and Lorentz's is precise. Einstein's space of frames is affine. Lorentz's is vector space i.e. affine space + preferred "point of origin". This is an empirical distinction that leaves the kinematics and the dynamics essentially unchanged for ALL predictions other than those of the Cahill and Consoli type. Note they differ from each other in important details BTW. Einstein would say no fringe shift on rotation of the apparatus when n =/= 1, Lorentz says there is a shift. Consoli argues that ~ 10 km/sec shift actually seen is consistent with Earth's motion relative to Hubble flow once the index of refraction n =/= 1 correction is made.

Z: This goes to the heuristic core of Einstein's 1905 theory and its differences with respect to the Lorentzian model.

J: Too vague.

Z: I am alluding to the well-known contents of Einstein's 1905 paper. Have you ever studied it carefully? Observer-observed reciprocity of the Lorentz-Einstein transformations is dictated by the Einsteinian principle of *strict* relativity of *all* uniform motion through space. Without such reciprocity you do not get physically equivalent Lorentz transformations for moving *observers*.

J: I fail to see the connection of what you just wrote to the problem. Are you saying you cannot argue for O(1,3) if there is a preferred frame? If so, you are wrong. Einstein BTW had no conception of vacuum symmetry breakdown in 1905!

Z: Einstein's definitions of light speed and simultaneity are the result of adopting a *convention*. So Einstein's actual reasons for this reciprocity go deeper -- in Einstein's 1905 approach, such reciprocity is based on an *a priori* principle of *strict* physical relativity of *all* uniform motion, which "principle" is clearly
incompatible with the existence of an empirically detectable preferred inertial frame of reference.

J: Show how to connect these words to the math. As they stand they are too ambiguous. My response is "So what?" You must to better that that. You are hand-waving again Paul.

Z: Of course you can still say that all known dynamics exhibited by systems moving *with respect to the preferred frame* is subject to the Lorentz transformations -- which is the Lorentzian model -- but this does not give you substantive reciprocity and thus does not give you Einsteinian special relativity with the Lorentz transformations built into the kinematics and even into the structure of spacetime itself.

J: You are quibbling again. This is excess verbal baggage. What significant difference do your words make either mathematically or physically - beyond the detection of a preferred frame that I have characterized completely?

Z: So what you seem to be doing here, from my POV, is something half-way between Einstein and Lorentz. You have dynamical universality(Lorentz invariance of the field Lagrangian) without fundamental observer-observed reciprocity of the Lorentz transformations.

J: No Paul you have made an ERROR. There is still observer-observed reciprocity. You have confused "preferred frame" with "reciprocity". Just look at Alice, Bob and Eve who is in the preferred frame. There is complete reciprocity between Alice and Bob. Even will not see a fringe shift. Alice and Bob will. So what? In some frames magnetic fields are seen, in others (rest frame of charge) not while looking at the same charge from different frames. Until you look at concrete examples your meta-theoretics is not touching the ground of experience.

Z: I'm not even saying that this is wrong; I'm just trying to point out an important difference between what you are doing with Lorentz invariance and what Einstein was doing in 1905. What's missing from your picture is reciprocity.

J: I AM saying that what you are saying is not even wrong. Show a calculation in a concrete example where I violate reciprocity? Certainly Alice and Bob will see Cahill-Consoli fringe/frequency shifts when n =/= 1 while Eve will not in the Lorentz interpretation i.e. Vector Space of Frames. In contrast, in Einstein's interpretation no one will see these shifts. So far, it appears Einstein wrong and Lorentz right, but you make too much of it! Your judgment is WAY OFF like Howard Dean's "scream" that lost him the nomination. It's a MINOR POINT! Important philosophically but having no impact at all on previous tests of special relativity. It will not change much. It will make some new technology for space exploration, that's true.

Z: In a consistent Lorentzian model, you would back the Lorentz transformations out of the kinematics and and attribute them to the dynamics.

J: Meaningless. Show an example. I don't get what you are trying to say in the above sentence.

Z: Whether the dynamical laws do or do not have the same form in different inertial frames is then optional..It comes down to a pragmatic decisions about how to design the formalism.

J: False. Show me exactly what you mean with an example. You are making wild inferences with no evidence at all.

J: Paul give brief explanations of your understandings of the Lorentzian and Einsteinian different interpretations (informal language of Bohm) of the same equations, so we get the nuance of what you are talking about.

Z: See above. The key here, as I understand Einstein's 1905 model, is "reciprocity" of the transformations, without which you simply do not have 1905 Einstein relativity; and such reciprocity -- even if you can contrive it formally -- is no longer fundamental when there is a preferred inertial frame, which sets up a physical distinction between uniform motion of an object with respect to the vacuum, and uniform motion of an object with respect to an observer. There is no such distinction in 1905 Einstein relativity.

J: You are completely wrong about this Paul.

v(Alice) & v(Bob) are ABSOLUTE relative to Eve who is in the preferred Lorentz inertial frame of absolute rest from a local spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) symmetry in a finite vacuum region that selects Eve's frame as the preferred "point" in the space of frames. This is exactly like what happens in a ferromagnet in the space of O(3) frames of differing space orientations (say for z-axis that will be the direction of the ferromagnetic order parameter).

The RECIPROCITY-PRESERVING relative velocity (in 1+1 to keep it simple) between Alice and Bob is

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

There is no problem with reciprocity at all!

Alice and Bob use [1 - (v(Alice - Bob)/c)^2]^-1/2

among themselves. Where is the problem Paul? I see no problem here.

The only way Alice and Bob can know about Eve's preferred frame is to do Cahill/Consoli type of measurements! They use O(1,3) in all of their data processing. There is no problem! For example, Bob keeps his rockets off in free space and Eve fires rockets to different velocities relative to Bob and in different directions and looks for a null reading on the Cahill/Consoli meters when n =/= 1, BTW both of them only consider the case that n^2 - 1 << 1, what happens in an atomic BEC where n ~ 10^7?

J earlier: ONLY A TRIVIAL INTERPRETATIONAL INFORMAL LANGUAGE PROVISO CHANGES. YOU ARE FOCUSED ON THE TRIVIAL!

Z: But I would say that *you* are focussing on the trivial, since you only seem to be concerned with formal O(1,3) symmetry of the field dynamics at the micro-level.

J: What else is important? Physics is an empirical science.

Z: True, but the physical model adopted -- and not just the empirical facts -- determines the physical meaning of things like O(1,3) dynamical invariance.

J: I don't think so. Show exactly what you mean with an example.

Z: For Einstein 1905, the physical meaning of O(1,3) invariance was the strict kinematical relativity of all uniform motion, which automatically forces itself onto all dynamics. For Lorentz, this would be interpreted as a contingent feature of
the dynamics.

J: No Paul. You are technically wrong. You are out of your depth here. You still obviously have no understanding of what spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the lowest energy state of the dynamics + initial + boundary conditions means. You cannot correctly apply it to this problem. Remember Brian Josephson wrote that C.N.Yang had trouble with it. PW Anderson wrote that Eugene Wigner even got it wrong at first. You are still getting it wrong. The kinematics and the dynamics are not at all affected. They are the same whether the space of inertial frames is an affine space without a preferred origin, or a vector space with a preferred origin. And, YES that IS CONTINGENT, but it is not a contingent feature of the dynamics, it is a contingent feature of the local vacuum structure analogous to a ferromagnetic domain!

Z: Einstein later seemed to equivocate on this point, and even wrote as if there is a contingent physical contraction of moving rods.

J: No Paul, you got this wrong. In no case, either Lorentzian or Einsteinian is there any issue of contingency of length contraction and time dilation. There may be another kind of theory like Volovik's where O(1,3) emerges at a fixed point of a renormalization group flow of a Galilean sub-stratum. The quasi-particles and collective modes have O(1,3) at the fixed point whilst the particles they come from obey Galilean relativity. But even there once the O(1,3) emerges there is no contingency of length contraction and time dilation. Where did you get that bad idea from? -- the Sea of Confusion in Dante's Inferno? :-)

Z: But that is certainly not what he was talking about in 1905, when he was still under the spell of Ernst Mach.

J: Einstein had no inkling of vacuum symmetry breakdown in 1905 - unless he thought about ferromagnets back then? I think he did later on. So that's an interesting historical problem.

J: We are interested in elegance of formulation of course - the Zen (Dirac) Ideal of More Empirics with Less Excess Verbal and Mathematical Baggage.

Z: Which as far as it goes is fine with me.

J: Then practice what I preach! :-)

J: Not math for math's sake,

Z: OK.

J: or long-winded reconstructionist post-modern verbosities that are neither here nor there,

Z: Jack, this just indicates to me that you haven't actually studied Einstein's 1905 paper in any depth. What I am talking about is all in the paper. I'm not making it up.

J: Paul you are making it up. I mean you are pulling Einstein's words out of context to fit your Hobby Horse. Also, we are now engaged in a post-modern reconstruction. Or should I say deconstruction? We've come a long way since 1905 Paul. I don't really care at all HOW Einstein argued PHILOSOPHICALLY back in 1905 to reach his equations. You know Einstein himself would agree with me because of what he told Heisenberg in 1925 or so! Einstein admitted to being an opportunist. All theoretical physicists must be. When new concepts come along we shed the old ones like a snake its skin! Einstein never liked Cartan tetrads and he had little feeling for the principle of local gauge invariance. Einstein did not think of his theory of general relativity as the local gauging of the T4 part of his special relativity for example. Or maybe he did as he lay dying because Yang and Mills only came out with the idea in ~ early 50's and Einstein died in 1955. Still less did he have the idea of spontaneous vacuum symmetry breakdown that Brian Josephson traces to ~ 1961 at the earliest in a PW Anderson paper!


Z: Why do you think Einstein's theory was considered to have superseded Lorentz's?

J: It's not important!

Z: Do you even distinguish between the two approaches? If you do, then what exactly is the difference in your view?

J: How many times do I have to repeat myself for you to get it?
Once more with feeling! In post-modern language based on Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality"

Einsteinian hypothesis on the physical meaning of the formalism of O(1,3) covariant dynamics and O(1,3) inertial frame shifts:

The space of inertial frames is affine with no "preferred" origin.

Lorentzian-Fitzgerald-Poincare hypothesis on the physical meaning of the formalism of O(1,3) covariant dynamics and O(1,3) inertial frame shifts:

The space of inertial frames is a vector space with a "preferred" origin.

The difference between the two hypotheses is strictly empirical and contingent on how a finite space-time region of vacuum might spontaneously break its O(1,3) symmetry just like a material may break its O(3) symmetry to form a ferromagnetic domain with a preferred spatial orientation.

The preferred frame of the alleged Cahill/Consoli classes of experiments show a preferred "rapidity" instead of a preferred space orientation. That is, for ferromagnets we are breaking space-space rotational symmetry, and for "preferred Lorentz frames we are breaking space-time rotational symmetry. It's only a difference of i (i^2 = -1) in the dangle of the angle i.e. cosx -> cosix = coshx

cosx trig for O(3)

coshx for boost part of O(1,3)

It's all pretty simple and can be taught in high school trigonometry courses!

and that dull the mind with little contact with observation and experiment.

Z: The direct contact is provided by Cahill's papers in which he revisits the MM experiments: there are residual fringe shifts that allow you to detect a preferred inertial frame.

J: Nice of you to repeat my aria with a chorus.

Z: There's your "contact". That's where the rubber hits the road.

J: That's what I have been telling you!

Z: I thought that this is what we have been talking about?

J: Yes, that is what we are talking about, but you completely misperceive it. You distort its meaning like Hunter Thompson on LSD in "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", or like Cheech and Chong on The Bong, or like the stoned yuppies in that new novel by Tom Wolfe that President Bush likes so much and is telling all his friends to read!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340525,00.html
BTW Tom Wolfe's old amour Rasa Gustaitus wrote "Faster Than The Speeding Photon" about us in Francis Ford Coppola's CITY MAGAZINE back in 1976 where I first met Warren Hinckle and Stephen Schwartz.

Curtain Falls on Act I

Overture to Act II

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/coffee.html

Curtain Rises.

J & Z, now much plumper resembling SS, are now arguing inside the flying saucer buzzing around Washington Square in North Beach piloted by Harvard String Theorist Lubos Motl http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

Z: However, since the empirical predictions of the two models, Lorentz and Einstein, are the same,

J: No they are not! But the damage is contained and isolated ONLY in the Cahill/Consoli type of detectors. And it may not be so every where in the universe! The preferred point in the space of frames is also a kind of harmless isolated singularity in Einstein's informal interpretation - his philosophical "black hole" as it were.

Z: and both feature the Lorentz transformation formulas, the only way to decide between them is to engage in what you call "post-modern" critical discussion.

J: Not the only way, but certainly the chic fashionable way.

J: We are not interested in beautiful rigorous mathematical proofs unless they are directly relevant to the proper understanding of some important phenomenon - or better yet unify seemingly different phenomena under one insight.

Z: OK.

J: Let a thousand flowers bloom, but there are too many mathematical weeds in The Garden of Theoretical Physics that has grown decadent with the advent of string theory. Quite a tangled wood.

Z: Yes, exactly. We need a "razor". But please, not a Machian razor!

J: Tell that to James Woodward and Carlos Castro.

J earlier: The laws of nature either classical or quantum do not change their form, nor do they change their transformations under O(1,3). There are no explicit dynamical terms in any of the laws of nature that violate O(1,3) (not talking GR, if GR then I mean local O(1,3)).

Z: Would you say that this is also true in Lorentz's theory? If not, why not?


J: Of course it is! But I am not sure what YOU mean by "Lorentz's theory"? Spell out exactly what you mean as best you can and as concretely as you can.

Z: Measuring rods that physically contract due to objective uniform motion through a physical vacuum; clocks that physically slow down due to objective uniform motion through a physical vacuum. This is all to be distinguished, in Lorentz's theory, from the artifacts resulting from uniform observer motion relative to the object that appear in the rest frame of the observer. This is basically what distinguishes Lorentz's 1904 theory from Einstein's 1905 theory.

J: No Paul, there is no way to tell the difference between Einstein and Lorentz with the above. I think you even quoted Kip Thorne to this effect? The distinction you make above is NOT scientific. What is scientific is the claim of Cahill and also Consoli that have no impact on the above.

Z: From Lorentz's POV, Einstein 1905 simply *contrived* formal-empirical reciprocity of the Lorentz transformations by the adoption of a convention regarding the definition of simultaneity, but this is not physically the same as the actual physical distortions of objects in uniform motion through the vacuum.

J: Show me operationally how to empirically decide one or the other above - at least in principle as a gedankenexperiment? Well I am waiting -- for Godot, or, rather for Hinckle!


J earlier: The detection of the preferred frame is strictly in that isolated class of measurements like Cahill alleges. There is no contamination of other battle-tested effects.

Z: You are ignoring or discarding the classic Machian basis for Einstein's classic 1905 treatment. Which is OK, as long as you acknowledge it.


J: What are you talking about? Spell it out. I do not want to argue over undefined buzz words. Spell out what you mean here? Operationalism? Mach's idea that distant matter there makes inertia here? What?

Z: Maybe you should re-read Einstein's 1905 paper, and then re-read Bell.

J: You will have to wait for Hell to freeze over if you cannot explain what you mean clearly in your own words.

Z: It's all in there.

J: Prove it. You are hiding under Mileva's skirts.

J earlier: Paul, you still do not understand the difference between dynamics and the vacuum.

Z: Of course I do. Your field dynamics at the micro-level (as determined by a field Lagrangian) is Lorentz-invariant, while your physical vacuum ground state solution at the macro-level has less than full O(1,3) symmetry, and thus admits a preferred
inertial frame.

J: OK, so that is the end of the story! There is nothing more of interest there. You are chasing Phantoms like WMD in Iraq.

Z: If that's as far as you want to go with this, then OK.

J: I have gone where no human has gone before.

J earlier: Your remark is amateurish,

Z: It seems that anything that addresses the deep interpretation of formal dynamical invariance at the micro-level will be considered "amateurish" according to the current professional standards of modern physics.

J: Nice in a court room perhaps. But what are you talking about? You are much too "deep" for me.

Z: You are definitely in line with the dominant conventions and critical standards of theoretical physics as it is currently practiced.

J: Because we are results-oriented and in a hurry. The problem with your philofawzy Paul is that it remains stuck in the same place and leads nowhere. You act like you are immortal. The Earth is Ending, or haven't you noticed. Runaway Global Warming is an increasing probability whilst King George II fiddles as Rome burns. Have you been having your morning coffee in Berserkley?

Z: I'm trying to approach these issues from a very different neo-classical angle.


J: For Art stopped short in the cultivated Court of The Empress Josephine. (Patience G&S) Pardon me while I straighten my glasses. Neo-classical? Who ordered that?

Z: When you allow a Lorentzian distinction between objective uniform motion of an object with respect to the physical vacuum, and the *apparent* motion of an object as seen by a moving observer with co-moving measuring instruments, the whole Machian-Poincarean foundation of Einstein's 1905 relativity physics simply unravels, and you are then effectively in a neo-classical domain.

J: A delicate distinction, an undecidable proposition we have here that calls for all our wit.

Z: Remember that 1905 relativity was an important model for the development of quantum mechanics.

J: How? You mean Heisenberg talking to Einstein about operationalism?

Z: If Machism unravels in spacetime physics, then it also unravels in quantum physics.

J: What are you talking about? You are making a blind leap of faith through The Looking Glass right into a charging 70 ton tank on Iraqi Road.

J: BTW I hope you understand by now that the "classical world" "neo" or not is a fiction. It's a delusion like Our Man of La Rancha charging The Windmill thinking it was WMD and that Iraq was Iran. What a difference the "M" and the "n" make. We do not live in the classical world.

Z: I am not advocating a return to actual content of 19th century physics. For me this is primarily an epistemological and methodological issue. The question is, can you revert to an approach where the activity of the observer is disentangled from the behavior of the observed? I think this is definitively possible in spacetime and gravitational physics; so perhaps it's also past time for a fresh look at quantum mechanics.

J: This is not interesting because it is much too vague.

Z: So I agree with Bohm's general approach. Bohm's theory is definitely "neo-classical", according to my definition.

J: Yeah but Bohm had equations and was not as vague as you.

J: Bohr was wrong!

Z: OK.

J: We live in the MACRO-QUANTUM WORLD on spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry. The local smooth Einsteinian warped geometrodynamics, the rumpled twisted inelegant fabric of space-time emerges from the MACRO-QUANTUM "multi-layered multi-colored" Coat of Jacob the Cosmic Super Conducting Vacuum Field from the partial cohering of the virtual ZPF "PV" electron-positron plasma.

Z: The Copenhagenists argued that it is "scientifically meaningless" to enquire into the hidden machinery of the vacuum and hr matter-vacuum interaction, due to the mere fact of the quantum of action.

J: You have gone too far. Also, no one really believes that stuff anymore.

Z: This is one pseudo- positivist dogma that is rejected in a neo-classical approach.
A good example, of course, would be the explanation of atomic ground-state stability in terms of zero-point vacuum fluctuations.

J: That's in text books from 50 years ago. I think it's in Bohm's classic "Quantum Theory".

Z: But I can see that you are simply concerned with developing a workable Andersonian ODLRO formalism that gives sensible results at the macro level, while preserving Lorentz invariance of the field dynamics at the micro-level -- which is fine as far as it goes.

J: That's right. No need to go further than that! No excess verbal baggage allowed. Keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler than is possible. Puthoff makes that mistake. His "PV without PV" is simpler than is possible and your "meta-theoretics" is more complex than is desirable as is most of the disembodied theories today most likely.

Z: OK.

J earlier: the equivalent statement would be that the existence of ferromagnetism requires an explicit breaking of O(3) in the Hamiltonian of the ferromagnet. These phenomena are NOT like the Zeeman and Stark effects in atomic physics, nor is it like the Stern-Gerlach. This is a subtle idea that escapes your comprehension.

Z: Of course I'm not saying anything of the kind. Of course I understand that you are talking about a macro-solution of the micro- field equations that has less than the full O(1,3) symmetry of the underlying dynamics. I am not saying that there is a formal mathematical problem with this.

J: Your point has completely evaporated with a whimper like the pop of a tiny black hole at The End of Ordinary History.

Z: Lost on you. :-)

J: Paradise Lost.

Z: I guess what I am concerned with here is simply not within the scope of your project specification.

J: OK.

On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks Brian. I think Anderson's paper is in "A Career in Theoretical Physics". I will look when I get back to my office. Anderson writes that even Eugene Wigner did not get this same idea at first.

On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:

--On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:24 PM -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a preferred inertial frame that is empirically detectable."


That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is a preferred frame. ..


Paul is in good company, as C.N. Yang, co-discoverer of parity violation in the weak interaction, was in 1966 completely unable to understand my explanation of weakly superconductors in terms of states where phase invariance is broken even though the underlying symmetry is not. He maintained if the dynamics is symmetrical the states have to be also, which is of course wrong.

The description of this dates actually back to a paper by Anderson in Phys. Rev. in 1961 or 1962 (try vol. 112, p 1900), where he explained his pseudospin model for superconductivity. Possibly this can be seen on Google scholar, which has some classic papers on it.

Brian

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *



Intermission

http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Curtain rises on Act III

Appendix: The Meaning of Special Relativity: Einstein vs Lorentz

Z: This is conceptually orthogonal to the question of *universality* of the contraction/dilatation phenomena, i.e., the hypothesis that all physical objects are affected in exactly the same way when they are in relative uniform motion.

J: I think Lorentz and Einstein both would say they are universal. No significant difference there and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why dig up this Red Herring?

J previously: I don't know what this means operationally or mathematically. What are you talking about?

Z: What am I talking about?

J: Yeah Dude, what are you talking about?

Z: I'm talking about 1905 special relativity, as argued by Einstein. That's what.

J: How can you decide this? Give a procedure.

Z: Since the immediate empirical predictions of Lorentz's and Einstein's theories are identical, the choice between them is to that extent empirically undecidable.

J: If that were really true, then the problem would be of no interest to a blue collated metric engineer like me. Crank 'er up and see why she don't fly Hal! But, in fact, you contradict what you say below.

Z: It looks like you don't acknowledge how Einstein's 1905 paper fundamentally differs from Lorentz's theory. After all, both involve the same "Lorentz" transformation formulas, but obviously those formulas have very different physical meanings in the two theories.

J: What is the meaning of "physical meanings"?

Z: Einstein's rationale for building the Lorentz transformations into the kinematics -- thus forcing the formal expression of the dynamical laws to be Lorentz invariant -- was the supposed universality of the contraction and dilatation effects, which was in turn supported by Einstein's version of the relativity principle according to which the physical distinction between the apparent uniform motion of a system resulting from observer motion, and objective uniform motion of the system, was erased.

J: You are too vague here Paul. Give an example what you mean. In Einstein's picture, only the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (both inertial frame observers) matters.

Z: It's stronger than that. The distinction *has no scientific meaning* in Einstein's 1905 theory. It is one thing that within a certain class of measurements, the difference has no empirical consequences; it is another to say that the distinction is physically meaningless. The point is that the 1905 theory was riddled with a number of Machian prejudices that I would argue are no longer rationally supportable.

J: You lost me. The Cahill/Consoli allegations clearly allow us to decide between Einstein and Lorentz at least in the immediate neighborhood of Earth realizing that the empirical distinction is contingent on local vacuum conditions.

J: From Alice's POV Bob moves at v and from Bob's PV Alice moves at -v. But suppose Cahill and the Catanians are correct. Suppose the O(1,3) Lorentz group is spontaneously broken in the "empty" space that Earth moves in. Let Eve's inertial frame, be the preferred frame of not so "empty" space in the Earth's neighborhood. "There goes the neighborhood!" says Einstein. v(Alice) and v(Bob) are Alice's and Bob's absolute velocities relative to Eve's preferred inertial frame of rest that is like the preferred direction of the ferromagnetic pseudo-vector H (H3 = F12, H1 = F23, H2 = F13, F is the 4D curl of the A connection field from locally gauging U(1)) in a finite domain (permeability)H = B where the rotation group O(3) is spontaneously broken in the ferromagnetic ground state that is the analog of the vacuum for the spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz group O(1,3) connecting Alice, to Bob, to Eve etc.

Then, the relative velocity between Alice and Bob, from Einstein's kinematics that is identical in mathematical form to Lorentz's, is

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

Note there is no change in rest energy measured locally, i.e. if Alice is a detector and Bob is an electron, then when v(Alice) - v(Bob) = 0, v(Alice - Bob) = 0.

Z: Clearly, the existence of an empirically detectable preferred frame in a vacuum breaks this Einsteinian conceit.

J: It is an inconsequential conceit that you blow out of all proportion.

Z: Inconsequential? It's the difference between Einstein and Lorentz!

J: Not a big deal Paul. You keep making this small claims case into a sham White Water!

Z: If these two theories are the essentially the same, then Lorentz gets priority since he published in 1904! All he had to do was put local time on the same mathematical footing as actual time.

J: Did Lorentz write E = mc^2? Was he explicit on time dilation? Did he show Maxwell's equations O(1,3) covariant in writing prior to Einstein in 1905?

It is a small mound that you make into a mountain. A tiny pimple, not the huge goiter on the Neck of God that you make it out to be!

Z: Jack, admit it -- you are adopting a Lorentzian model for the vacuum, and are clearly headed in a neo-classical (or at least neo-realist) direction.

J: Yes, of course, but it's not the BIG DEAL ON STOCKTON STREET you make it out to be.

Curtain Falls http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html

Discussion with R. Kiehn

Thanks! :-)

On Feb 9, 2005, at 2:43 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:


Jack
Matrix Affine connections are transitive.  All points move.  There are no fixed points (such as an absolute origin).

Right. In Einstein's informal language the space of global Lorentz inertial frames (really flat spacetime everywhere) where each "point" is a possible inertial frame (set of 3 rapidities and 3 orientation angles, a rapidity is an imaginary angle), there is no preferred point. In Lorentz's there is. People like Cahill and Consoli claim experimental evidence for Lorentz's preferred point breaking the affine transitivity that I explain as a vacuum condensate effect analogous to ground state preferred magnetization in a ferromagnet.

In 4D, the affine group has 13 arbitrary functions.
**
If the affine group in 4D is constrained to have a "fixed direction",
then the number of arbitrary functions is reduced to 10.  The group dimension is 10.

Precisely the dimension of the Lie Algebra of the Poincare group of global special relativity. Curious.

Such constrained matrices can be interpreted as a change of axes without shifting the direction of the origin.
(Three axes change, the fourth axis does not direction.)
No metric has been imposed.
**
If the affine group is constrained to be orthogonal, then the group dimension is 4.
**
In all cases, the determinant is NOT zero.

Hence all such matrices can be used as basis elements for a vector space. 

As groups, all such basis elements have a well defined connection,
 if the group matrix of functions is differentiable once.
**
Note that Projective connections have group dimension = 15.

Same as dimension of the conformal group in 4D used by Penrose in twistor theory.

The Poincare invariance of Maxwell equations is related to the 15 element group,
not the affine 13 (or less) sub group.

Yes, of course.
**
SOURCE = Turnbull "The theory of determinants, matrices and invariants" Dover 1960 p. 162-163

*******************************************************
When a metric is imposed, then a key property of general relativity appears to be related to the question of
when and if the functional form of the metric goes to zero, or its associated Gauss curvature goes to infinity.

That's a singularity e.g. Big Bang initial singularity, black holes.
 
*
IF metric is an artifact of the presence of matter, then the question arises:
are there points or domains in the 4D space where the metric exhibits a singularity?
What are the states of matter in such disparate regions?

That was all done by Penrose & Hawking and you do not even need matter, i.e. the vacuum field equations

Ruv = 0 (neglecting exotic vacuum w = -1 "dark" zero point energy density (c^4/8piG)/\zpf of either positive or negative micro-quantum pressure) has singular black hole solutions even when Tuv = 0.
*
For example, in certain regions of 4D space can the metric change (can the states of matter change)
from a Eulidean to Lorentzian signature, or visa versa?

That's roughly Hawking's picture of inflation in quantum cosmology (Wick rotation) the Big Bang initial singularity is associated with that topological change in signature ++++ to -+++ of a Wick rotation "imaginary time".
*
Can the metric of 3D subspaces of matter change from Euclidean to Lorentzian?
What is the state of matter in such situations?

That would be a new one. No need for that one I think. Also "matter" takes a back seat, at most it's only 4%, the rest is zero point energy exotic vacua in two forms dark energy that anti-gravitates and dark matter that gravitates. Both are w = -1 but from afar dark matter of w = -1 with positive pressure mimics w = 0 CDM.

Wait that would be maybe t'Hooft-Susskind world hologram, i.e. 2D hologram screen from DeSitter local horizon that is 2+1 space-time rather than 3+1 space-time.

That's 3 translations x,y,t, (x-y) 1 space rotation, (x-t) (y-t) 2 Lorentz boosts, 3-conformal boosts, 1 dilation

3 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 1 = 10

in the de Sitter local Hubble bubble horizon (or is it anti-de Sitter? - depends on sign of /\ = cosmological constant)

**
I call your attention to arXiv:math.DG/0311330 v2  27 Jan 2005,

where the differential topologists investigate the concept of a 3D Minkowski space,
and the possible embeddings of zero mean curvature surfaces in such spaces.
They call such surfaces "Maximal Surfaces" (not "minimal surfaces).

Without such knowledge about 10 years ago I wrote a Maple program to solve for such oddities
and was surprised by the various (physically interesting) features of such objects.
*
The solutions to such problems are NON-AFFINE, and admit fixed points (centers
expansion, or rotational axes.  Singularities that may be "black holes" ) 
Minimal surfaces (of zero mean curvature) in Euclidean do not admit such "fixed points".  
From a physics point of view all of  this appears to be weird stuff, do to the dogma of assuming 3D space must be Euclidean (at least for a space of particles). 
*************
HOWEVER, the Falaco Solitons in Fluids appear to be realizations of these Maximal Surfaces with fixed points.
**
I am investigating the idea that the interior of the Solar system is dominated by a Euclidean metric ( in aggreement with dogma) but at some orbit size, the metric becomes Minkowskian and will add an acceleration component inwardly directed to maintain the rotational features of a "MAximal: rather that a "Minimal" surface..
**
Regards
RMK

I have already explained that Pioneer anomaly with elementary battle-tested ideas. But go ahead by all means. However a ++++ metric in Solar Systems not possible because no light cones there - if that is what you mean? Do you mean in a small sphere at the Center of the Sun?
 

Roger Penrose in "The Road to Reality" says that the AFFINE SPACE has no cente,r i.e. no "origin". In contract, we can transform a linear affine space into a linear vector space by simply positing an ORIGIN i.e. a PREFERRED POINT.

Consider the ABSTRACT SPACE of ALL Lorentz Frames. For now only GLOBAL SPECIAL RELATIVITY of 1905 - forget the complication of 1916 GR for now.

A given Lorentz inertial frame is a "point" in this SPACE OF FRAMES.

Einstein's interpretation of SR is that this space of frames is an AFFINE SPACE.

Lorentz's interpretation is that this space of frames is a VECTOR SPACE with an origin.

This is an additional postulate that does not spoil any of the dynamical predictions that do not depend on a preferred frame. The "More is differenht" enmergent Macro-Quantum Theory of Vacuum provides the mechanism for the preferred "origin" in the space of frames, just like the preferred orientation in a finite region of ferromagnet. This is an empirical question.

Making the space of frames a vector space rather than an affine space is no big deal in terms of the set of battle-tested predictions of SR that are invariant under this narrowing down of the theory from affine space of frames to vector space of frames.

The Neck of God


On Feb 8, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Neck of God

On Feb 8, 2005, at 12:56 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a preferred inertial frame that is empirically
detectable."


J: That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is a preferred frame.

Z: But the *physical reasons* for this invariance of the dynamics are then totally different.

J: So what?

Z: This goes to the heuristic core of Einstein's 1905 theory and its differences with respect to the Lorentzian model.

J: Too vague. Paul give brief explanations of your understandings of the Lorentzian and Einsteinian different interpretations (informal language of Bohm) of the same equations, so we get the nuance of what you are talking about.

J earlier: ONLY A TRIVIAL INTERPRETATIONAL INFORMAL LANGUAGE PROVISO CHANGES. YOU ARE FOCUSED ON THE TRIVIAL!

Z: But I would say that *you* are focussing on the trivial, since you only seem to be concerned with formal O(1,3) symmetry of the field dynamics at the micro-level.

J: What else is important? Physics is an empirical science. We are interested in elegance of formulation of course - the Zen (Dirac) Ideal of More Empirics with Less Excess Verbal and Mathematical Baggage. Not math for math's sake, or long-winded reconstructionist post-modern verbosities that are neither here nor there, and that dull the mind with little contact with observation and experiment. We are not interested in beautiful rigorous mathematical proofs unless they are directly relevant to the proper understanding of some important phenomenon - or better yet unify seemingly different phenomena under one insight. Let a thousand flowers bloom, but there are too many mathematical weeds in The Garden of Theoretical Physics that has grown decadent with the advent of string theory. Quite a tangled wood.

J earlier: The laws of nature either classical or quantum do not change their form, nor do they change their transformations under O(1,3). There are no explicit dynamical terms in any of the laws of nature that violate O(1,3) (not talking GR, if GR then I mean local O(1,3)).

Z: Would you say that this is also true in Lorentz's theory? If not, why not?

J: Of course it is! But I am not sure what YOU mean by "Lorentz's theory"? Spell out exactly what you mean as best you can and as concretely as you can.

J earlier: The detection of the preferred frame is strictly in that isolated class of measurement like Cahill alleges. There is no contamination of other battle-tested effects.

Z: You are ignoring or discarding the classic Machian basis for Einstein's classic 1905 treatment. Which is OK, as long as you acknowledge it.

J: What are you talking about? Spell it out. I do not want to argue over undefined buzz words. Spell out what you mean here? Operationalism? Mach's idea that distant matter there makes inertia here? What?

J earlier: Paul, you still do not understand the difference between dynamics and the vacuum.

Z: Of course I do. Your field dynamics at the micro-level (as determined by a field Lagrangian) is Lorentz-invariant, while your physical vacuum ground state solution at the macro-level has less than full O(1,3) symmetry, and thus admits a preferred
inertial frame.

J: OK, so that is the end of the story! There is nothing more of interest there. You are chasing Phantoms like WMD in Iraq.

J earlier: Your remark is amateurish,

Z: It seems that anything that addresses the deep interpretation of formal dynamical invariance at the micro-level will be considered "amateurish" according to the current professional standards of modern physics.

J: Nice in a court room perhaps. But what are you talking about? You are much too "deep" for me.

Z: I'm trying to approach these issues from a very different neo-classical angle.

J: For Art stopped short in the cultivated Court of The Empress Josephine. (Patience G&S) Pardon me while I straighten my glasses. Neo-classical? Who ordered that? BTW I hope you understand by now that the "classical world" "neo" or not is a fiction. It's a delusion like Our Man of La Rancha charging The Windmill thinking it was WMD and that Iraq was Iran. What a difference the "M" and the "n" make. We do not live in the classical world. Bohr was wrong! We live in the MACRO-QUANTUM WORLD on spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry. The local smooth Einsteinian warped geometrodynamics, the rumpled twisted inelegant fabric of space-time emerges from the MACRO-QUANTUM "multi-layered multi-colored" Coat of Jacob the Cosmic Super Conducting Vacuum Field from the partial cohering of the virtual ZPF "PV" electron-positron plasma.

Z: But I can see that you are simply concerned with developing a workable Andersonian ODLRO formalism that gives sensible results at the macro level, while preserving Lorentz invariance of the field dynamics at the micro-level -- which is fine as far as it goes.

J: That's right. No need to go further than that! No excess verbal baggage allowed. Keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler than is possible. Puthoff makes that mistake. His "PV without PV" is simpler than is possible and your "meta-theoretics" is more complex than is desirable as is most of the disembodied theories today most likely.

J earlier: the equivalent statement would be that the existence of ferromagnetism requires an explicit breaking of O(3) in the Hamiltonian of the ferromagnet. These phenomena are NOT like the Zeeman and Stark effects in atomic physics, nor is it like the Stern-Gerlach. This is a subtle idea that escapes your comprehension.

Z: Of course I'm not saying anything of the kind. Of course I understand that you are talking about a macro-solution of the micro- field equations that has less than the full O(1,3) symmetry of the underlying dynamics. I am not saying that there is a formal mathematical problem with this.

J: Your point has completely evaporated with a whimper like the pop of a tiny black hole at The End of Ordinary History.

On Feb 8, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks Brian. I think Anderson's paper is in "A Career in Theoretical Physics". I will look when I get back to my office. Anderson writes that even Eugene Wigner did not get this same idea at first.

On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:

--On Tuesday, February 8, 2005 12:24 PM -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 8, 2005, at 11:36 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

"You simply cannot have Einstein special relativity and also have a preferred inertial frame that is empirically detectable."

That is wrong Paul. The SR dynamics remain unchanged even when there is a preferred frame. ..

Paul is in good company, as C.N. Yang, co-discoverer of parity violation in the weak interaction, was in 1966 completely unable to understand my explanation of weakly superconductors in terms of states where phase invariance is broken even though the underlying symmetry is not. He maintained if the dynamics is symmetrical the states have to be also, which is of course wrong.

The description of this dates actually back to a paper by Anderson in Phys. Rev. in 1961 or 1962 (try vol. 112, p 1900), where he explained his pseudospin model for superconductivity. Possibly this can be seen on Google scholar, which has some classic papers on it.

Brian

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *



Appendix: The Meaning of Special Relativity: Einstein vs Lorentz

Z: This is conceptually orthogonal to the question of *universality* of the contraction/dilatation phenomena, i.e., the hypothesis that all physical objects are affected in exactly the same way when they are in relative uniform motion.

J: I think Lorentz and Einstein both would say they are universal. No significant difference there and no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why dig up this Red Herring?

J previously: I don't know what this means operationally or mathematically. What are you talking about?

Z: What am I talking about?

J: Yeah Dude, what are you talking about?

Z: I'm talking about 1905 special relativity, as argued by Einstein. That's what.

J: How can you decide this? Give a procedure.

Z: Since the immediate empirical predictions of Lorentz's and Einstein's theories are identical, the choice between them is to that extent empirically undecidable.

J: If that were really true, then the problem would be of no interest to a blue collated metric engineer like me. Crank 'er up and see why she don't fly Hal! But, in fact, you contradict what you say below.

Z: It looks like you don't acknowledge how Einstein's 1905 paper fundamentally differs from Lorentz's theory. After all, both involve the same "Lorentz" transformation formulas, but obviously those formulas have very different physical meanings in the two theories.

J: What is the meaning of "physical meanings"?

Z: Einstein's rationale for building the Lorentz transformations into the kinematics -- thus forcing the formal expression of the dynamical laws to be Lorentz invariant -- was the supposed universality of the contraction and dilatation effects, which was in turn supported by Einstein's version of the relativity principle according to which the physical distinction between the apparent uniform motion of a system resulting from observer motion, and objective uniform motion of the system, was erased.

J: You are too vague here Paul. Give an example what you mean. In Einstein's picture, only the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (both inertial frame observers) matters. From Alice's POV Bob moves at v and from Bob's PV Alice moves at -v.

But suppose Cahill and the Catanians are correct. Suppose the O(1,3) Lorentz group is spontaneously broken in the "empty" space that Earth moves in. Let Eve's inertial frame, be the preferred frame of not so "empty" space in the Earth's neighborhood. "There goes the neighborhood!" says Einstein. v(Alice) and v(Bob) are Alice's and Bob's absolute velocities relative to Eve's preferred inertial frame of rest that is like the preferred direction of the ferromagnetic pseudo-vector H (H3 = F12, H1 = F23, H2 = F13, F is the 4D curl of the A connection field from locally gauging U(1)) in a finite domain (permeability)H = B where the rotation group O(3) is spontaneously broken in the ferromagnetic ground state that is the analog of the vacuum for the spontaneous breaking of the Lorentz group O(1,3) connecting Alice, to Bob, to Eve etc.

Then, the relative velocity between Alice and Bob, from Einstein's kinematics that is identical in mathematical form to Lorentz's, is

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

Note there is no change in rest energy measured locally, i.e. if Alice is a detector and Bob is an electron, then when v(Alice) - v(Bob) = 0, v(Alice - Bob) = 0.

Z: Clearly, the existence of an empirically detectable preferred frame in a vacuum breaks this Einsteinian conceit.

J: It is an inconsequential conceit that you blow out of all proportion. It is a small mound that you make into a mountain. A tiny pimple, not the huge goiter on the Neck of God that you make it out to be!

You're the Top!

Memorandum For The Record

Subject: Fallacy of The Fermi Paradox

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

re: http://www.bizspirit.com/science/Sarfatti,%20Jack%20workshop.html

To track swiftly emerging developments by "super-empowered individuals" and small groups bearing 5-th Generation WMD (Ch 11 of Sir Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour") in Russia and elsewhere monitor http://stardrive.org/ daily.


Peter Jennings gets US & World Public ready for UFO Disclosure on ABC PRIME TIME Feb 24, 2004.

We are already here Tootsy! ;-)

On Feb 7, 2005, at 4:08 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Z: It's very basic and very important.

J: Yes, it's basic and important, but still trivial. You are quibbling. In GR, Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry. In SR it is a global symmetry.

Z: This is conceptually orthogonal to the question of *universality* of the contraction/dilatation phenomena, i.e.,
the hypothesis that all physical objects are affected in exactly the same way when they are in relative uniform
motion.

J: I don't know what this means operationally or mathematically. What are you talking about? How can you decide this? Give a procedure.
The point is that these symmetries are left intact at the dynamical level.

Z: But the only "warrant" for this that I am aware of is the Einsteinian hypothesis of *universal* contraction. Of course you can still insist formally on Lorentz invariance as a regulative principle for the formulation of all physical laws, but without guaranteed universality of the contraction and dilatation phenomena, the original motivation for such regulative imposition of "Lorentz invariance" on the fundamental dynamical equations is absent.

J: Meaningless. The Lagrangian for every tested theory is precise. It's O(1,3) covariant. It works. I don't know what you mean scientifically.

Z: The point is that in a Lorentzian model, you could in principle recover the Lorentz transformations at the
*phenomenological* level, within a limited domain of validity, from underlying dynamics that is not itself Lorentz invariant.

J: Give examples. This is meaningless to me as it stands.

Z: For example, it is known that while the equilibrium v^3 "black body" spectrum is Lorentz invariant, non-equilibrium distributions may not be Lorentz invariant. That suggests that the property of Lorentz invariance is contingent, among other things, on the thermodynamic equilibrium condition, and thus not fundamental to the underlying physics, but instead is only *emergent* at the phenomenological level.

J: It's not the black body spectrum that is invariant, its the zero point spectrum (1/2)hf^3 per unit frequency per unit volume as I recall. Ask Puthoff he does know about that. The temperature T of the BB is NOT Lorentz invariant! Also we are talking about the Lagrangian of different theories. The Euler-Lagrange equations are O(1,3) form invariant for ALL tested theories when GR effects are not important and when vacuum is not broken. So you are not making any sense at all.

Z: If this is true, then the traditional regulative imposition of Lorentz invariance on the physics of the underlying quantum fields begins to look problematic (at least to me). Of course, that is not to say that you cannot do it.

J: Give examples. There is no evidence at all for any O(1,3) violating terms in any Lagrangian of any tested theory. So much for meta-theoretics. The kind of "preferred frame" Cahill reports is merely a vacuum property that does not affect the dynamics.

Z: He is not questioning the phenomenological validity of the Lorentz transformations, I agree -- in fact he is assuming the phenomenological validity of these transformations in his analysis of the MM experiments.

J: Yes.

Z: But the mere existence of a locally detectable preferred frame that is intrinsic to the physical vacuum completely undermines the classic Einstein (special) relativity model, and thus radically changes the *physical meaning* of the phenomenological Lorentz transformation formulas. It removes the entire Einsteinian basis for the hypothesis of universality of the contraction and dilatation phenomena.

J: You still do not understand the meaning of spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry. What you say is exactly what I deny!

Z: That means that the traditional Einsteinian warrant for the assumption of universality evaporates, and we are then effectively back to a *Lorentzian* model of the so-called "Lorentz transformations".

J: Lorentzian relativity in modern terms MEANS spontaneous broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry, but the dynamical Euler-Lagrange equations of all correct theories are still O(1,3) form-invariant - mod GR corrections for curvature, possible torsion, possible conformal-gravity and dilation fields. The principle of relativity and covariance refer to the structure of the dynamical action and its Euler-Lagrange equations not to the vacuum solutions!

Z: You seem to be arguing that a locally detectable preferred frame doesn't disturb the (special) principle of relativity, even while the assumed absence of such a frame was a cornerstone of Einstein's 1905 theory.

J: Yes of course! The principle of special relativity ONLY means that the Euler-Lagrange equations from the extremum dynamical action are O(1,3) form-invariant. It says nothing about a preferred inertial frame. That's an additional independent axiom - that is violated if Cahill is right - just like 5th postulate leading to non-Euclidean geometry.

Z: As I understand the 1905 theory, the "principle of relativity" is built into the kinematics, and not just the dynamics. In fact, that is precisely what distinguishes Einstein's theory from Lorentz's.

J: Vague. All it means is that the Euler-Lagrange equations are form-invariant (covariant) under O(1,3) inertial frame transformations. Also it means that the quantum states transform under unitary representations of O(1,3). That's all it means. What decides Lorentz vs Einstein beyond that is breaking the vacuum symmetry with a macro-quantum order parameter like in a superfluid.

Z: What you seem to be suggesting here is that you can start with a fundamental theory of the vacuum for which the dynamics is Lorentz invariant (based on what?)

J: Based on every experiment in physics designed to test for a violation of Lorentz-covariant DYNAMICS (locally in GR situations).

Z; and you can then recover a preferred frame at the phenomenological level in certain solutions of the fundamental dynamical laws of the vacuum that have less symmetry than the Lorentz-invariant dynamical laws themselves,

J: Yes

Z: yielding a non-Einsteinian kinematics.

J: Wrong inference. Starting from the preferred GIF (ignore GR for now) use O(1,3) to get to any other inertial frame whose velocity is v relative to the preferred frame. The field equations are the same as always! Nothing changes for them!

Z: I suppose this is OK, but then what is the physical motivation for requiring the underlying dynamics to be Lorentz invariant?

J: Read Cliff Will & Wheeler & Ciufolini on experimental tests of relativity. Look at relativistic quantum scattering theory etc. Look at QED calculations of cross-sections, of atomic spectra with the Dirac equation etc. etc. Your point here is completely ludicrous!

Z: Isn't this then an arbitrarily imposed formal condition? Who needs it? Why? Since you could in principle also get phenomenological Lorentz invariance from underlying dynamics that is not itself Lorentz invariant?

J: How would you decide if what you say was wrong? I am talking about much more than that.

Z: Without strict relativity, there is no basis for assuming universality of length contraction; with no basis for
assuming universality of contraction; there is no known reason to *assume* that the fundamental laws are Lorentz covariant.
That is not to say that they cannot be.


J: All the experimental evidence requires Lorentz covariance (subject to GR corrections) in the dynamics.

Z: At the phenomenological level, yes. What direct evidence do you have in mind for Lorentz invariance of the underlying dynamics of the vacuum?

J: That is NOT a well-posed problem. You have field equations and you have solutions to them depending on boundary and initial conditions. Dynamics means the structure of the field equations. "Underlying dynamics of the vacuum" beyond what I just said is meaningless to me. Give a counter example!

Z: That is, if you agree that you could in principle get phenomenological Lorentz invariance from an underlying fundamental theory of the vacuum whose dynamics is not itself Lorentz invariant?

J: Ditto. Meaningless string. I cannot compute what you say. There is no evidence to the contrary. Cahill's allegations show spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry - that's all!

Z: No, I agree. That is not what I'm saying.

J: I don't know what you are saying and I am not sure if you do either. ;-)

Z; I am asking, What is the motivation for imposing Lorentz invariance on the underlying dynamics of the vacuum?

J: WRONG QUESTION!

"The Question is: What is The Question?" (Wheeler)

Z: What empirical evidence can you cite that supports imposing this condition on the underlying dynamics?

J: It's all around you. Also, do you not yet understand that Cahill's results, if corroborated, DO NOT VIOLATE LORENTZ INVARIANCE at all where it matters, i.e. in the DYNAMICS? You don't seem to get that? Also I am talking about ALL groups in ALL physical situations not only the Lorentz group O(1,3).

Z: Cahill's argument does not violate Lorentz covariance. It only violates the *relativity hypothesis* and thus undermines the *Einstein model for the Lorentz transformations*, which is different. Clearly, without Einstein relativity there is no need to build the Lorentz transformations into the kinematics. They can be treated as a dynamical effect, as in the classic Lorentzian model.

J: This is too vague. Show the alleged distinction as a mathematical difference.

Z; Jack, this is all well known. As you mentioned, you should have another look at Bell's essay in "Unspeakable".

J: I did. So what? Cite relevant parts. The kinematics is there when you perform a O(1,3) transformation on a physical quantity like the local Lagrangian density, or the local Euler-Lagrange equations of motion.

Z: Yes, and on the phenomenological level, I agree that this is not in question here from an empirical standpoint.

J: Then follow Wittgenstein's advice. Don't speak The Unspeakable!

Z: My question is about why, in the absence of Einsteinian strict relativity of uniform motion, we continue to insist on imposing universal Lorentz invariance on the underlying dynamics of the vacuum.

J: Don't speak.

Z: Again, there is the v^3 spectrum argument against universality and against the *a priori* imposition of such invariance on *all* laws of physics.

J: No relevance. Or, if GR is not important, when you perform a GLOBAL O(1,3) transformation on the entire global classical action. Similarly working with states in qubit Hilbert space using unitary representations of O(1,3).

Z: Yes, fine, but I am talking about the *physical meaning* of formal invariance under the transformations included in O(1,3).

J: Your *physical meaning* has no physical meaning.

Z: That is the entire basis for the distinction between Einstein's and Lorentz's models for the Lorentz transformations.

J: I draw a blank. Your message is not coming through.

Z: Of course, either way, Lorentz or Einstein, you are dealing with transformation properties under the group O(1,3).

J: I have told you operationally what the difference means. When the vacuum breaks O(1,3) symmetry then Lorentz wins over Einstein, but in BOTH cases the field dynamics, the laws of nature are THE SAME! Beyond that there is nothing. Your head is in the clouds and your feet are not on the ground.

Z: There is even an ambiguity in the mathematical meaning of O(1,3) in this context, since the transformations can be interpreted as coordinate transformations, or as active transformations of the physical system.

J: What's the operational difference? The Lorentz boosts connect two different classes of inertial observers Alice and Bob relative to preferred frame of Eve in the case of broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry. v(Alice) and v(Bob) are both relative to Eve. Keep things in 1 space dimension now to make the math simpler.

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

Note when v(Alice) = v(Bob) relative to Eve, we still get ZERO!

The boost directly from Alice to Bob depends on v(Alice - Bob) = v(Bob - Alice).

Note on Earth from the Catanian's He-Ne laser beat frequency data on 90 deg rotation of the 2-laser apparatus,

v(Alice) ~ v(Bob) ~ 200 km/sec

c = 3 x 10 ^5 km/sec

So when v(Alice) =/= v(Bob), but roughly the same

v/c ~ 10^-4

(v/c)^2 ~ 10^-8

But since the effect, in Cahill's case also goes as n(n^2 - 1) and only in a gas with index of refraction n, one has to look carefully to a precision better than 1 part in 10^8. This should not be so hard.

Z: Such a purely mathematical distinction has no physical correlate in the Einsteinian model, based on the special relativity principle; but in a Lorentzian model, it does.

J: So, frankly, Paul your words above are meaningless until you show examples.

Z: The physical meaning of O(1,3) invariance depends on the model that is adopted. If you ignore the deep differences between the Einsteinian and Lorentzian models, then of course I can see how my words would appear to be "meaningless" to you.

J: You lost me. You are too vague for me. You are content with a vegetable love that certainly does not suit me. (Patience, Gilbert & Sullivan) In your meta-theoretics the scientific meaning doesn't matter for it's only idle chatter of a transcendental kind.

Z: Once we go to a Lorentzian model, then this guarantee no longer holds, and we are deprived of a theoretical basis for imposing Lorentz covariance *a priori* on the fundamental physical laws; and so we then need only recover length contraction as an *emergent dynamical effect*, which could be based on underlying *Galilean* laws.

J: No you have this all wrong. The dynamical laws (the structure of the action) remain Lorentz covariant even when there is a preferred Lorentz frame

Z: Sure. I'm not disputing that.

J: Then you have no point. Where's the beef? Anything beyond that is of no interest. It's meta-theoretic.

Z: See above. I am saying that the original Einsteinian motivation for the *a priori* imposition of Lorentz invariance evaporates once you admit the existence of locally detectable preferred frames.

J: Huh? You lost me.

Z: Of course I am not saying that Lorentz invariance of the underlying dynamics is incompatible with Lorentz invariance at the phenomenological level.

J: Ditto. Show me where what you say makes a significant difference.
- it's exactly like broken gauge symmetry in a superconductor when the U(1) phases all line up, e.g. see pictures in Frank Wilzcek's Jan 20, 2005 Nature paper. Instead of U(1) ~ O(2) think of O(1,1) in the simplest case.

Z: That's a model for the vacuum in which there are preferred frames, which is OK.

J: It's a model that really works! It's battle-tested. What Cahill is allegedly seeing is what P.W. Anderson calls "generalized phase rigidity" a long-range coherence selecting out a preferred Lorentz inertial frame in a limited space-time region where we can ignore GR effects - another story.

Z: OK, I have no problem with this as a tentative model for a physical vacuum with a locally detectable preferred frame.

J: Well that is what the problem is. I mean that's the only part of the problem that is important. What are you worrying about beyond that?

Z: See above.

J: You lost me again. My eyes glaze over. BTW I suspect that Cahill does not know about the above way of looking at what he is allegedly seeing.

Z: He is selling his own "inward flow" model.

J: I think that's wrong, but at least it's definite falsifiable like Hal's "PV without PV". In fact, my theory is the REAL PV! Hal's PV is the illusory Pot of Fool's Gold at the End of Finian's Rainbow. ;-)
People are still looking for dynamical violations i.e. putting terms into the action that violate O(1,3) covariance like in the magnetic Zeeman effect for O(3) violation. This is a very wrong way to go.

Z: OK, that is certainly a POV. But what direct empirical evidence can you cite for Lorentz invariance of the underlying dynamics of the physical vacuum?

J: Ill-posed, That's not a legitimate question.

Z: I suppose an example might be Maxwell's theory, which is definitely Lorentz invariant -- but I understand that from the standpoint of QED, Maxwell's theory is only statistical in character.

J: The Maxwell field theory as a second quantized field theory is still Lorentz form-invariant just like in classical theory. The 4-potential Au is now an operator in Fock space. U is a unitary operator representation of O(1,3)

U = e^iA^a^bSab

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

A^a^b are "phases" i.e. Euler angles of space rotation and rapidities of Lorentz boosts

Sab is anti-symmetric so there are only 6 independent elements to the Lie algebra

(Note in General Relativity we have the Ricci rotation coefficients A^a^bc where the "torsion field" potential is

Tu = eu^cA^a^bcSab )

Back to micro-quantum Maxwell EM free field theory, without the j.A interaction from minimal U(1) local gauge covariant coupling to electrically charged Dirac 4-spinors,

U* = U^-1

Under a O(1,3) inertial frame shift in real classical space-time

Au -> Au' = UAuU^-1

Micro-quantum states obey

| >' = U| >

'< | = < |U^-1

Therefore, the micro-quantum transition amplitudes are LORENTZ FRAME INVARIANT, i.e. scalars like ds^2 in classical space-time

'< |Au'| >' = < |Au| >

The active/passive distinction makes no physical difference here as far as I recall off top of my head.

Z: Which brings us back to the question of the Lorentz invariance of non-equilibrium vacuum EM spectra.

J: Don't know what you mean. Hidden variables? A. Valentini's stuff? Then write the math. Pin it down. As soon as you have non-equilibrium in the micro-quantum substratum you have SIGNAL NON-LOCALITY. You also get it going the other way in emergent "More is different" MACRO-quantum spontaneous breaking of vacuum & ground state (for the living brain)) symmetry. This is why Cahill's speed is not the same as the motion of Earth relative to GR Hubble flow as seen in CMB anisotropy. Two different groups.

Z: OK.

J: Cahill's effect is O(1,3) broken vacuum symmetry,

Z: Well, obviously a preferred inertial frame will violate this symmetry, since it establishes a preferred direction in Minkowski spacetime.

J: Yes, that's what I am saying. However, I am not aware of anyone else saying this?

Z: But isn't this obvious?

Not to anyone but me so far. Do you have written evidence to the contrary? Published papers online prior to my Aha? If so, let me know.
- and the Hubble flow is broken T4 vacuum symmetry!

Z: OK. Of course there can be more than one physically preferred frame of reference, which can show up in different kinds of measurements.

J: Yes, I have said that.

Z: OK.

J: Now if I can also relate the Pioneer anomaly to O(1,3)/O(3) ~ S2? as a hedgehog defect in the "multi-layered multi-colored" (Wilzcek) vacuum order parameter cosmic superconducting field - that would clinch it. I have not shown that yet mathematically, but I smell it's true. I could be wrong - or not even wrong. I think it's actually an easy elementary problem.

Z: So you seem to be confusing Cahill's acceptance of the Lorentz transformation formulas as empirically valid with an Einsteinian insistence on imposing Lorentz covariance *a priori* on *all* physical laws, as a kinematical condition -- which I think is a serious misreading of Cahill's position.

J: No Paul. You obviously do not understand the actual math. I don't care about Cahill's theory position.

Z: OK.

J: I don't think he understands what he is seeing BTW. I am only interested in his empirics, not his interpretation of them.

Z: OK. So you have your own theory to account for the appearance of these residual shifts and their evident connection with the earth's motion through space.

J: Right - all based on only two battle-tested ideas

1. Local gauging of symmetry groups (both internal and space-time)

Z: OK.

J: OK? OK? It's more than OK! It's elegant. It's beautiful. It's parsimonious. It's The Tops! It's the Louvre Museum better than The Colosseum ... http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/porter_c.html It's MORE WITH LESS and it's BATTLE-TESTED! We do not need to look for anything new. It's already right under our noses!

2. Spontaneous breaking of selected symmetry groups in the vacuum (ground state) is essentially the DEFINITION of what the term "preferred frame" means as "generalized phase rigidity" (PW Anderson).

Z: OK.

J: Example 1: ferromagnetism is a preferred spatial orientation over a finite domain in the ground state even though the dynamics is still rotationally invariant the ground state is not.

Example 2: alleged Cahill effect is a preferred space-time orientation, i.e. a definite hyperbolic "rapidity" (rather than Euclidean "angle of orientation") is selected out in a finite space-time domain over which the vacuum coherence condensate has a coherent phase rigidity in the appropriate internal order parameter space. I will explain that in more detail later. This is a global topology effect.

He is backed up by the Catanians though they get a different number using He-Ne lasers rather than interferometers. I think they claim Cahill made a minor error?

Z: The dust hasn't had time to settle yet.

J: The point is that the dynamical equations remain, for example, Lorentz form-invariant (at least locally when GR is important).

Z: Certainly the phenomenological equations do. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.


J: You weren't? I thought you were. OK. I don't know then what you were suggesting.

Z: See above.

J: Duh! Still don't know. Folks are dumb where I come from ...

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about79732.html

http://www.bitfurnace.com/TheCuddlyMenace/target0.html

The observed fringe shifts are vacuum effects - a kind of Higgs field effect!

Z: Yes, they are vacuum effects, even while you need a propagation medium in the MM light path to detect them.

J: Maxwell waves propagate in classically empty space. So what's your point?

Z: Only that a locally preferred frame that is an intrinsic feature of the physical vacuum completely blows the 1905 Einstein model, which fundamentally changes the physical meaning of the Lorentz transformations, and at the same time raises serious questions about the theoretic and empirical basis for the traditionally supposed universality of Lorentz invariance.

J: *NO IT DOES NOTHING OF THE SORT! You still don't get it. It's only a minor change in some of the interpretation. It does not change E = mc^2 or any of the effects of fields of moving charges and the many battle-tested successes of relativity!

Quantum mechanically the vacuum is primarily (at low energy) a "normal fluid" micro-quantum random plasma of ionized unbound virtual electron-positron pairs and virtual photons. I have added in the NEW macro-quantum "superfluid" vacuum condensate of bound virtual electron-positron pairs out of which Einstein's 1916 GR local field equation emerge via

Z: OK.

J: Bu = (Goldstone Phase of Virtual Electron-Positron Vacuum Condensate),u from spontaneous breaking of EM U(1) in the physical vacuum out of which the geometrodynamic fabric of warped space-time emerges "More is different" (PW Anderson)

Z: OK.

J: Bu = Bu^aPa/h = compensating gauge potential connection field from locally gauging T4

Z: OK.

J: Bu^a = non-trivial part of Cartan tetrad eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a

{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4 subgroup of the Conformal Group.

Note I use both local gauging of T4 and spontaneous symmetry breaking of U(1) in the vacuum i.e. low energy part of Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic field of superconductivity. I use BOTH 1 & 2 for different groups.

guv(LNIF) = eu^aev^b(Minkowski)ab is EEP

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

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

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

Z: OK, this is beginning to look really good.

J: You can say that again Bhubba! In fact you should go to the black board and write it 100 times! You do not understand the different between what's happening in the laws of nature and what's happening in the vacuum!

Z; I am simply pointing out that the fundamental theory of the vacuum doesn't *have* to be kinematically Lorentz covariant in order to recover Lorentz contractions at the phenomenological level -- although it could be.

J: That seems to be a very vague way of saying what I have been saying without any of the all-important details. God is in the details. I never heard you once use "spontaneous symmetry breaking" in this context - a battle-tested idea with a large literature since at least 1967.

Z: Because I don't see a problem with it. I only complain about things that look problematic.

J: Folks are dumb where I come from. Maybe Nick Herbert understands you? He is from The Universe Next Door.

You do not at all AS YET understand what I mean in:

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.

This is just flying right by you under your radar.

Z: Of course I understand that you can recover a certain symmetry by locally gauging the relevant symmetry group and then adding back the resulting gauge field.

J: That's 1. What about 2.?

Z: I also understand in a quantum theory how you could lower the symmetry of the physical vacuum by spontaneous symmetry breaking.
I am simply pointing out the the physical meaning of Lorentz covariance shifts dramatically when you have locally detectable preferred frames.

J: Too vague to be useful. I am being very specific here.

Z: Well, re-read Bell, who talks about this at some length.

And he's "clear as a Bell". :-)

J: What pages? Until you read P.W. Anderson you will not grok it. It's sort of subtle. Even Eugene Wigner had trouble with this and P.W. Anderson recounts. They were both at Princeton of course.

Z: Yes. I'll have to look at all that.

J: It's important not to confuse the dynamical Lagrange-Euler equations for stationary action with their lowest energy solutions in a given well-posed problem.

Z: OK. Of course I understand that the solutions of a set of dynamical equations can and typically do have lower symmetry than the equations themselves.

J: What is important is that it is the lowest energy state that has a lower symmetry.

Z: OK, but isn't that a little odd?

J: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! IT'S COUNTER-INTUITIVE BUT IT'S TRUE. ALL OF SOFT-CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS IS PROOF. Super fluids is proof. No one really understood it properly until P. W. Anderson in 1967 although Lars Onsager and Oliver Penrose first got the essential idea in "ODLRO". Feynman did not understand it when I met him in 1963 and he was working on superfluid helium. He did know about ODLRO I think, but did not have the idea that the ground state of superfluid helium broke a U(1) gauge symmetry. My PhD thesis came out of my private discussions with Feynman in 1963 and later in 1968 both at Cal Tech. PW Anderson only announced the modern POV at UCSD in 1967. I was there.

That the excited states have lower symmetry is not the point. Apparently up until 1967 no one understood that! It was Eugene Wigner's greatest blunder! (As I read PW Anderson). I think everyone assumed that the lowest energy state had to have ALL the symmetries of the dynamics! This led to false super-selection rules like the one on total electric charge that is violated in a superconductor. There was a lot of confusion on this in the 1960's.

Z: OK, as soon as I have time I'll have a look at Anderson's work, which looks very interesting.

Cahill is not using Galilean Relativity in his Ether Drift Claims

In order to calibrate what Cahill and the Catanians are claiming, let's review the "mainstream position" circa 1955 in the text book "Classical Electricity and Magnetism" by Panofsky & Phillips Ch 15 "The Experimental Basis of the Theory of Special Relativity".

15-1 presents the equations of the linear Galilean boosts along the x-axis between inertial frames

x' = x - vt
y' = y
z' = z
t' = t i.e. absolute Newtonian time

The Newtonian point particle mechanical laws are form-invariant ("covariant") under this transformation boost connecting two global inertial frames. This is a group unto itself if we do not change direction of the boost. So are the Lorentz boost transformations in a fixed direction in space, but if we change the direction of the boost, if I recall correctly, we need the spatial rotations to keep the group property - that is we need the full O(1,3) in that case? The Lorentz boosts alone in all directions are not a group. The space rotations of the Lorentz group O(1,3) are a subgroup O(3), but not the boosts unto themselves? I need to check that. I mean is O(3) a normal subgroup of O(1,3) so that the quotient of cosets of O(3) in O(1,3) is a quotient group O(1,3)/O(3)?

Back to P&P:

"unless all sources of force are known, an inertial frame is not strictly definable" in Galilean relativity p. 273

The Maxwell free wave equation is not form-invariant under linear the Galilean relativity boosts.

Therefore, if Galilean relativity were true we would need a preferred frame of absolute rest in which Maxwell's wave equation has its canonical form e.g. in 1 space-dimension for simplicity

A,ct,ct - A,x,x = 0

A is the Maxwell vector potential (piece of U(1) internal local gauge compensation connection field in modern parlance)

Note that

x' = x - vt

1 = x,x' - vt,x'

A,x' = (A,x)(x,x') + (A,t)(t,x')

(t,x') = v^-1(x,x' - 1)

as v -> 0, x,x' -> 1 i.e. 0/0 indeterminate that we consistently define as 0 since v -> 0 is the identity map.

A,x' = (A,x)(x,x') + (A,t)v^-1(x,x' - 1)

Note that since the transformation is linear x,x',x' = 0 etc.

A,x',x' = (A,x,x)(x,x')^2 + (A,t,t)v^-2(x,x' - 1)^2

At't' = At,t

If we say the primed frame is the absolute rest "ether frame" with the canonical form for the wave equation, then

c^-2A,t',t' - A,x',x' --> c^-2A,t,t - (A,x,x)(x,x')^2 + (A,t,t)v^-2(x,x' - 1)^2

which is not form-invariant under these Galilean transformations.

That is, Maxwell's free radiation EM theory is not covariant (form-invariant) under the Galilean boost group in one fixed space direction.

Note, that this kind of Galilean ether frame of absolute rest is not at all what Cahill and the Catanians are talking about! They use the Lorentz group O(1,3) from the beginning. Their claim has nothing at all to do with 15.1 & 15.2 in P&P! It's important not to get confused about that!

The O(1,3) rest frame is a spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry in which the field equations remain O(1,3) covariant! The broken symmetry is in the solution not in the dynamics!

When P&P write, on the basis of the Galilean transformations in eqs. (15-6) to (15-10), not the Lorentz transformations that Cahill uses, for an individual run, rotating the Michelson interferometer by 90 degrees then and there, not averaging over an ensemble of such runs when Earth is in widely different parts of its elliptical orbit round the Sun: "On rotating the apparatus through 90 degrees, we should expect the interference pattern to shift by N fringes where

N ~ [(L1 + L2)/(wavelength)](v/c)^2 (15-10) p. 276

where v is the absolute speed of the interferometer here with respect to the above hypothetical Galilean ether.

P&P's (15-10) is not same as Cahill's (2) on p.4 derived using the Lorentz group and assuming gas index of refraction of light along the paths n =/= 1 i.e. Cahill's n(n^2 - 1) factor not at all in P&P's analysis. Therefore, P&P's Table 15-1 "Trials of the Michelson-Morley Experiment" and P&P's rejection of Miller's claims have no direct bearing on what Cahill is claiming! It's Apples and Oranges.

Finsler Geometry? Who ordered that?



Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: February 6, 2005 12:16:08 PM PST
To: Doc Savage
Subject: Re: Non-holonomy and anisotropy of metrics: NASA Pioneer, preferred frames

bcc: Invisible College

Mathematicians and Theoretical Physicists have opposing tendencies. We theoretical physicists (at least in the tradition of Hans Bethe where I was at Cornell in late 50's and early 60's) aim to interpret the most phenomena with the simplest possible mathematics even if the latter is ugly - Morse and Feshbach not Witten and Greene. :-)
We are not into "Math for math's sake." The beautiful math is slain by the ugly fact - and all that. Physics today has many observational anomalies to be explained. I have drawn the line in the sand. I say only two battle tested ideas are needed to explain everything:

1. Local gauging of symmetries (both internal and spacetime) connecting reference frames introducing compensating gauge connection dynamical fields.

2. Spontaneous breakdown of selected vacuum (virtual quanta) and ground (real quanta) states of selected symmetries yielding preferred frames of reference. (AKA "More is different" in soft-condensed matter physics and "Higgs mechanism" in high-energy physics where the vacuum coherence is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting vacuum field.)

How to apply the above is completely pragmatic, i.e. data-driven.

For example, selection of a preferred direction (angular orientation) in space under the space-space rotation group O(3) in the ferromagnet is the same idea as in the selection of a preferred inertial frame (absolute rest) for the set of Lorentz boosts (space-time rotations rather than space-space rotations i.e. "rapidity" rather than "angle" - hyperbolic sinh(rapidity)/cosh(rapidity) in O(1,1) rather than trigonometric sin(orientation)/cos(orientation) in O(2). The hyperbolic case is what R. Cahill and the Sicilians are claiming empirically. It is the space-time rotation vacuum spontaneous breakdown of Lorentz boost symmetry analog to the space-space rotation ferromagnetic spontaneous breakdown of ground state orientational symmetry. The systems are different, the groups are different, but the idea is the same! Preferred space orientation in the ferromagnetic ground state. Preferred space-time orientation (selected rapidity) in the local space-time region allegedly detected with Michelson interferometers and He-Ne lasers. The physical dynamics is unchanged. There is no dynamical breaking of Lorentz boost symmetry in the Cahill effect anymore than there is dynamical breaking of rotational symmetry in the ferromagnet. Dynamical breaking of symmetry i.e. a new term in the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian) is NOT what I am talking about with "More is different"/"Higgs Mechanism" spontaneous breakdown of vacuum/ground state symmetry. The distinction is "dynamical" vs "spontaneous". Local gauging is still another form of symmetry breaking. The global symmetry is broken down to a local symmetry, but is restored in a way by the compensating gauge potential connection field relative to a now larger dynamical system. General relativity is an example of local gauging just as the electro-weak/strong force theory is. Only the groups are different. The idea is the same! Spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry is independent of local gauging of global to local symmetries.

In 1916 GR the translation group T4xO(1,3) global symmetry is broken down to local O(1,3) Lorentz group symmetry in the tangent bundle. The compensating gauge-potential connection field is most easily seen in the Cartan tetrad formulation of 1916 GR (e.g. Brazilian paper) that clearly distinguishes appearance (GCT effect) from intrinsic (gauge force without force) effects. The gauge transformations on the non-trivial part of the tetrad correspond to the GCT (Diff(4)) transformation in the geometrodynamic picture. The gauge force without force and geometrodynamic picture/formalisms are physically equivalent - merely a Young Woman/Old Hag Gestalt Shift - a simple two-way mathematical map from one picture to another. That is,

eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a dimensionless Cartan tetrad, Bu^a is the non-trivial intrinsic part

u in base, a in tangent fiber - this is the EEP missing in Hal Puthoff's PV without PV.

Bu = Bu^aPa/h dimension (Length)^-1 = gauge force-without-force compensating potential breaking GLOBAL T4 to LOCAL GCT.

{Pa} = Lie algebra ("mom-energy" of Wheeler) of T4

Bu = (Higgs-Goldstone Macro-Quantum Phase from spontaneous broken U(1) in PV virtual electron-positron pairs),u

,u = ordinary partial derivative

The map from gauge force-without-force picture to Einstein geometrodynamical picture is

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

the above is the elastic Bohm giant pilot-wave hidden variable guidance constraint

expect non-holonomic "Dirac string" phase singularities where

Bu,v - Bv,u =/= 0

(mixed second order ordinary partial derivatives of the Goldstone Vacuum Coherence Phase do not commute)

Note Lp^2 = hG/c^3 quantum of area

Gravity is zero when Lp^2 shrinks to zero for whatever reason i.e. h -> 0, or G -> 0, or c -> infinity.

That is, we cannot then perform the local gauging of T4's global linear transformations down to GCT's local nonlinear transformations in a physically correct way if Lp^2 = 0.

The Ricci rotation coefficients Aa^b^c are global phases in 1916 GR since O(1,3) is not locally gauged.

That is,

Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSbc

Where {Sbc} is the Lie algebra (boosts & rotations) of O(1,3)

is not a dynamically independent torsion field at this stage but is totally dependent in its variation from the T4 derived tetrad eu^a.

Locally gauge O(1,3) to get Shipov's torsion field theory!

There is NO conformal group here yet. However, we can easily extend the Brazilian gauge formalism of GR to include it, i.e. to locally gauge full conformal group and to spontaneously break it in the vacuum only if data so demands!

*However I see no experimental necessity, so far, to go to the conformal group or to Finsler geometries.

i. R. Cahill & the Sicilians report data that requires spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) vacuum symmetry in space of Earth's neighborhood. No local gauging to get torsion fields is needed.

ii. NASA Pioneer anomaly does not require any new mathematics to explain.

iii. Shipov & Akimov report data that would require local gauging of O(1,3) to get torsion fields with propagation. Richard Hammond also reported data to that effect.

We now have a battle-tested computational paradigm to deal with ALL observational anomalies - is my conjecture. including UFOs as a military threat e.g. ABC's Peter Jennings in
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=468496&page=1

Finsler geometries et-al? Who ordered that? However, in case I am wrong in my sweeping conjecture, it's good to keep one eye on these exotic mathematical flora and fauna. :-)

I have tried to edit the typos here so that I could better understand the message. Please correct any of my edits if they change the meaning. I also make some comments. Thanks.

On Feb 6, 2005, at 7:37 AM, Sergiu Vacaru wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

Thanks for your kind e-mails and information on your duscussions. I hope I could participate in the future.

Here I have some remarks on Finsler geometry:

It is considered to be a generalization of Riemnannian geometry, on tangent bundles, with anisotropies of metric (depending on direction), which is more sophisticated and with less experimental evidence for such extensions.

Anisotropies of metric? Meaning what? Off-diagonal guv? Solutions need not be spherically symmetric nor isotropic.

The most surprising thing is that Finsler-like structures can be modelled on (pseudo) Riemannian spaces (in a more general context of string theory with nontrivial torsion, on Rieman--Cartan manifolds) by generic off--diagonal metrics which can not be diagonalized by coordinate transforms but effectively diagonalized with respect to certain nonholonomic frames (vielbeinds) with associated nonlinear connection structure. The off--diagonal terms define just the coefficients of nonlinear connection (N-connection) and inversely. On a such manifold, a part of the degrees of freedom (coordinates) are holonomic and another ones are nonholonomic (subjected to certain constraints) which is distinguished by the nonlinear connection structure and creates a specific anisotropy of gravitational interactions even in the framework of general relativity. We found a number of exact solutions of the Einstein equations modeling such configurations (deformed black holes, spinor and solitonic configurations, cosmological type solutions). In a particular case, we can take state that the off-diagonal terms are related to the Cartan N-connection from Finsler geometry and the diagonal terms are some Finsler metric coefficients. This allows us to model Finsler structures just on a (pseudo) Riemannian space.

I will need to see the actual math. Sounds interesting.

The conclusion is that we can not avoid Finsler geometry even in the usual (Einstein) gravity if the generic off-diagonal metrics and nonholonomic frames are considered. By the way, Riemann in his 1854 hability thesis considered already Finsler metrics. He had not investigated them considering the constructions to be of higher order sophistications. It was necessary in the elaboration of E. Cartan's moving frame method in order to understand that by nonholonomic frames it is possible to model Finsler structures even by quadratic (metric) forms but with additional nonholonomic structures.

Interesting.

The main problem is that the bulk of monographs on Finsler geometry were written to emphasize more general constructions than the the Riemannian ones, just on tangent bundles. It is realy difficult to see the point on modeling of Finsler structures on the usual Riemannian manifolds. The bulk of discussions and pessimistic conclusions for physics (even of Berstein and C. Will) had been taken with respect to physical models on tangent bundles and without a deep analysis of the N-connection structure. I hope soon to elaborate an e-preprint with details.

My credo is: we can not understand deeply the Einstein's gravity without Finsler geometry.

Finally, I note that Clifford-Finsler spaces result trivially from the Clifford spaces if nonholonomic frames and off-diagonal metrics are considered.

I'm grateful for your time.

SV.

This has piqued my interest in looking at the math. :-)

Carlos Castro escribió:

Dear Sergiu ( Jack and Tony ) : I included Sergiu Vacaru in this e-mail because he is the expert on non-holonomic and anisotropic deformations of ordinary Riemann-Cartan geometry. He is an expert on Finsler geometries that are far more fundamental than Riemannian geometries. You may understand the recent work by Cahill on anisotropic propagation of light signals within the context of Sergius' more findamental work. This is very common in Finsler geometries. Sergiu gave me the website

http://www.icca7.ups-tlse.fr

where you can register for the Int. Congr. of Clifford Algebras to be hold in Toulouse, France.

In case you wish to attend.
I have to see.
All the best
Carlos

Why spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum creates a preferred Lorentz frame


Paul, first think of the ferromagnet in ordinary 3D Galilean relativity Euclidean space. The physical dynamics is rotationally invariant under the 3D orthogonal rotation group O(3) that leaves the quadratic form invariant, i.e.

x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2

Where there is a matrix representation M of the elements of the group that perform a linear transformation

(x',y'z') = M(x,y,z)

Alternatively, think of two orthonormal frames of reference (ex,ey,ez) (ex',ey',ez')

The fixed 3-vector r is then, in the two base state (frames of reference)

r = xex + yey + zez = x'ex'+ y'ey' + z'ez'

Where

(ex',ey',ez') = M^-1(ex,ey,ez)

The adjoint M* = M^-1 over the field of real numbers is the definition of the orthogonal groups.

Therefore, in this linear world of 3D space flat Euclidean geometry, we think of O(3) as transformation connecting different triads (or more generally frames of reference relative to the group) oriented differently to each other. The dynamical laws of nature must be "tensors" relative to the group O(3). That means, that the laws of nature must be O(3) covariant if we apriori assume that physical space is isotropic. Right now we think of an affine space without any physical origin and the triads (base sets) are global reference frames, i.e. the unit vectors point in definite directions and trivially parallel sets of triads are in an equivalence relation that we factor out for now. An O(3) tensor transforms multi-linearly.

So what happens in a ferromagnet? A particular class of triad frames (ex,ey,ez) is physically selected or preferred in a finite region "domain" of space. This means that there is a local order parameter, here the magnetization in the ground state of the material that points in a definite direction at every location in the domain. Let ez be the direction of this actual magnetization. Of course ex & ey can rotate around ez described by O(2) rotations forming an equivalence relation in the plane perpendicular to ez, so we have selected out a class of preferred frames described by the quotient group O(3)/O(2).

It's essentially the same story for Cahill's reports of the data for Michelson-Morley type experiments whether with the traditional interferometers looking for a fringe shift when the interferometer is rotated, or, equivalently, looking for beats between two Helium-Neon lasers when their configuration is rotated (see the Catania paper), except now the group is more complicated. It is the 6-parameter Lorentz group O(1,3) that will spontaneously break in the boost sector I think to O(1,3)/O(3)! What does the boost piece of O(1,3) do? It connects inertial frames, in globally flat space-time. Let's forget general relativity at first. Obviously the local radii of curvature from general relativity will limit the size of the space-time domain - and Cahill takes pains to point out that he is talking about a local effect not to be confused with the dipole anomaly in the cosmic microwave background from motion of the Earth relative to large scale Hubble flow where H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt in the FLRW metric - that's a different effect from Cahill's alleged one.

Just as in the ferromagnet, a particular ez is selected, so too here the empirical evidence is that some particular inertial frame normally equivalent under boosts in the vacuum is selected or preferred in a finite region of space-time. The local vacuum order parameter will be the class of equivalent tetrads (et,ex,ey,ez) that lives in the quotient order parameter space O(1,3)/O(3) analogous to the class of ferromagnetic triads that lives in the quotient order parameter space O(3)/O(2). Now if O(1,3)/O(3) has the same non-trivial topology as does O(3)/O(2) then we may get the Pioneer anomaly (hedgehog defect) as a bonus from the same theory? I am not sure of that as yet. It's a wild half-baked precognition at this point, which may be wrong or not even wrong.

Brush up your group theory, start doing it now.

Previously:

Jack wrote:
The preferred orientation of the ferromagnetism in the ground state violation of O(3) is formally isomorphic to the preferred "rapidity" (i.e. the Wick-rotated orientation from Euclidean metric to hyperbolic metric) in the breakdown of O(1,3) in the physical vacuum. In ALL cases there is no violation of the dynamical symmetries. The action and the equations of motion are still tensor/spinor covariant under ALL the symmetries both spacetime and internal. This distinction between dynamical symmetry breakdown and spontaneous ground state breakdown was a struggle as P.W. Anderson chronicles in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" - even the great Eugene Wigner made his greatest blunder there back in the 60's I think on "electric charge superselection rules" violated in the BCS superconductor that is a macro-quantum coherent superposition of different numbers of bound electron pairs. This breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry is a "preferred frame" in the internal space, just as Cahill's et-al's absolute velocities give a "preferred frame" in ordinary space. The covariance of the fundamental laws of nature under all symmetry groups are NOT affected by this!


Z wrote:
It is not clear to me how this relates to the effects discussed by Cahill, which depend on the optical properties of the moving medium though which the MM light beam travels.


Jack wrote:
You are not understanding the key idea that you must see mathematically. You still do not get the analogy to the ferromagnet. What Cahill reports is exactly like a ferromagnet only the group G has changed from O(3) for the ferromagnet to O(1,3) for Cahill's reporting of the Michelson-Morley data, and also the Catania, Sicily group, they get a smaller number than Cahill.

You do not yet understand P.W. Anderson's "More is different", which is 2 in:

There are only two important ideas in theoretical physics

1. Local gauge invariance with compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the symmetry of the vacuum leaving the dynamics intact.

That's Sarfatti's Theory of Everything.

Iron Posts of Observation & Paper Mache of Interpretation

On Feb 5, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

"Jack, you say:"

... The hedgehog is specifically a uniform radial gradient field
between two concentric spherical boundaries.
The gradient field is zero outside the two boundaries. ...

"What I have is one spherical boundary."

OK then it's not a hedgehog. Not the same idea. What I am talking about is very specific in

"Topological Quantum Numbers in Nonrelativistic Physics"

by David Thouless (World Scientific,1998)

See Fig 1 in the Thouless book

Note from Thouless Fig 1 that all the arrows have SAME LENGTH, i.e. uniform radial gradient field a_g that is zero inside the spherical core r = 20 AU our case, and is zero outside the outer sphere. See Section 1.4

The "multi-layered multi-colored" (Frank Wilczek's words) vacuum coherence (local spontaneous broken symmetry order parameter), in this example and at this scale, lives in the space SO(3)/SO(2) equivalent to the sphere S2.

" contained in the space between an inner and outer spherical surface the magnetization might always point outwards [or inwards] from the inner surface, taking up the direction (but keeping constant magnitude) ... no continuous deformation of the magnetization, keeping the magnitude constant, can turn this into a state of uniform magnetization. This is a topological configuration of the magnetization known as a hedgehog." p. 7

Now it is obvious that the NASA Pioneer data is showing the SAME GLOBAL TOPOLOGY with "magnetization" replaced by the gravitational tug a_g ~ -cH(t), H(t) is the Hubble parameter of FLRW cosmological metric showing up on a rather short scale of tens of AUs.

What we obviously seem to have here is an EXPLODING SHELL of EXOTIC VACUUM DARK ZERO POINT ENERGY DENSITY emanating from the center of the Sun whose field distribution is

/\zpf ~ H/cr

between the two spherical boundaries in accord with Einstein's field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

where /\zpf is a local scalar field related to the vacuum coherence local order parameter by

/\zpf = Lp^-2[1 - Lp^2|Vacuum Coherence|^2]

where I assume the t'Hooft-Susskind "World Hologram" to normalize the Vacuum Coherence "Higgs Field".

"Outside the boundary, gravity is due (a la Segal and generalized MacDowell-Mansouri) to the conformal gauge group Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2)."

I don't know yet what this means. I do not understand the fancy Segal et-al ideas at all. I am pulling a complete blank. I am pulling a Puthoff, i.e. I am just a Yankee metric engineer in the bowels of the Star Ship cranking her up to see why the saucer won't fly! :-)

All I need is Einstein's 1916 GR and spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry of the right kind. I am basically "curve fitting" the data points i.e. plastering the "iron posts of observation" with the "paper mache" of interpretation to paraphrase John Archibald Wheeler.

My "tall ship" is Einstein's "Guv + /\zpfguv = 0" and "the star to steer her by" is P.W. Anderson's "More is different". :-)

"Inside the boundary, the conformal gauge group symmetry is broken, and gravity inside is due (a la MacDowell-Mansouri) to the anti-deSitter (compact version of Poincare) gauge group Spin(2,3) = Sp(2)."

I don't know what you mean by "the conformal gauge group symmetry is broken" - where is your local vacuum order parameter? You must, and so must I of course, show explicitly how to get the SO(3)/SO(2) factor space for the order parameter that the data demands. It's the locality of the vacuum coherence order parameter that explains why spacetime physics is local even though the micro-quantum substratum is nonlocal.

"If you look closely at how the MacDowell-Mansouri mechanism, and its generalization, works then you may see that

my model is to your model

as

gauge groups are to Einstein-type lagrangians for GR
(conformal (with one setting of your order parameter
and and
anti-deSitter) with the other setting of your order parameter)"

Could be. I simply do not know any of that stuff. It seems to be a lot of excess mathematical baggage not needed. Thing of the algorithmic complexity. My program is a lot shorter than yours!

"It is clear to me that simplicity is in the eye of the beholder,"

No it's not. Think of theory as a computer program. There are objective measures of complexity.

"so that when you say "... my model is a lot simpler than yours ..." I can reply by saying the exact same thing:
"... my model is a lot simpler than yours ..."

Could be, but I do not at all understand the heuristic ideas of your model as yet. I am not saying you are wrong, only that I am completely unfamiliar with the literature you cite and it would take me much too long to try to learn it when I do not seem to need it. I am not doing math for math's sake here. If I could jump up and down and recite a spell to make her fly, I would! :-)

"It only depends on with which formalism (gauge groups or GR lagrangians) you are more familiar and comfortable. Ideally, everybody would be equally familiar with all formalisms."

Theoretical physics today is long on formalism and short on contact with data.

"Since I don't have the time now to write this stuff up in some detailed way that is suited by your taste, and since my web material (written in a way suited to my taste) is available to you if you want to make the effort to understand it (remember, there is no royal road to understanding math and physics), I will end this line of discussion for now."

Maybe so Tony. I am not saying your model is wrong. I do not however, at this time understand any of it! Maybe others will and will be able to explain it like Dyson explained Schwinger - I prefer to be like Feynman in this little drama. But your ideas should be included as we are now going where no string theorist has dared to go! :-)

Einstein-Lorentz Horse Race, Who is in the lead?


On Feb 5, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 5, 2005, at 11:22 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

Paul

The data do, at this moment in the stream of the collective WEB consciousness, SEEM to point to a preferred frame.

Yes, it does seem so.

But you have to lift the "Einsteinian" taboos.

I will read JS Bell on How to Teach Special Relativity more closely.

To really know would be very difficult.

If it were easy, the matter would have been settled already.

However, I think Cahill has a point that the MM experiment, and related experiments, need to be revisited
in the light of more detailed theoretic analysis, and repeated with the benefit of modern technology.

Yes, of course. Remember I have an explanation of ALL "preferred frame" effects in terms of battle-tested "More is different" which leaves the dynamics intact.

Also, I have now solved your original problem of clearly separating frame (appearances) from intrinsic effects (Platonic realities). It becomes trivial in the Cartan tetrad formulation of GR and in the equivalent gauge force picture of GR made crystal clear in the Brazilian paper.

Cahill seems to have a good argument that the small residual fringe shifts in the classic MM experiments are not
noise or simple error, but can be interpreted as reflecting the motion of the earth through space.

What I found most convincing is

=> the residual fringe shifts track the Earth's orbital motion in time (which is known independently); and

=> independent experiments working on similar principles (e.g., the Belgian coax cable tests) yield closely
comparable results for the earth's motion.

Yeah.

Basically, we have to trust the competence & honesty of these experimental authors.

It's not just a matter of competence & honesty. Commitment to a paradigm exercises powerful control over the
interpretation of empirical data, where members of the community of experimental physicist are not necessarily
aware of the influences and subtle institutional pressures that are acting on them and guiding them in their work.

A paradigm sets up powerful taboos in the scientific community, and as we have been hearing, there are even
hidden mechanisms for suppressing publication of contrarian results in preprint archives.

Lorentzian absolute speed v(Earth) ~ 204 +- 36 km/sec, rather than Einsteinian relative speed is definitely in the running in terms of the actual evidence.

But as I said. you are up against powerful relativistic taboos.

To me this is all like a metastable supersaturated solution that is about to crystallize.

As soon as people realize that all "preferred frames" are simply another way to look at spontaneous broken symmetry leaving the dynamics pristine, all opposition will fall away. I am using exactly the same principles used by Frank Wilczek but applying them to space-time symmetries. Frank applies them to internal symmetries. The key idea is the same in both cases! This is all pretty standard "soft-condensed matter physics" and "Higgs field". BTW, latest Nature confirms Josephson AC effect in superfluid He from chemical potential difference as predicted by PW Anderson years ago using the same ideas I am using here!

There are only two important ideas in theoretical physics

1. Local gauge invariance with compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the symmetry of the vacuum leaving the dynamics intact.

That's Sarfatti's Theory of Everything.

Every known anomaly in precision cosmology and high energy physics can be explained by proper application of only those two battle-tested ideas.

Notice however, that even accepting that will not make much of a quantitative difference in terms of classic tests of both special and general relativity.

But it would radically change the interpretation of relativity physics, and suggest very different avenues of future development.

No, you are wrong there. Again it's simply:

There are only two important ideas in theoretical physics today

1. Local gauge invariance with compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the symmetry of the vacuum leaving the dynamics intact.

That's Sarfatti's Theory of Everything combining quantum field theory with general relativity.

Capishe?

More with less.

The Question is: What is The Question? (J.A. Wheeler)


Also, as I have shown, the way to understand the preferred frame is as spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) symmetry in the physical vacuum in finite "domains" analogous to those in a ferromagnet.

Yes, this looks like an interesting model for the vacuum. However, I see no reason why the vacuum, even in its quiescent state, cannot define a preferred frame of reference, even with respect to uniform motion, once you go to a Lorentzian model. It is only in the 1905 Einstein paradigm (based on a now thoroughly outdated Machian epistemology) that such an idea is *verboten*.

I guess you are agreeing with me here. The point is that all this is experiment-driven. If Cahill is correct on the empirics I have a mainstream way to interpret it. There is no threat to mainstream physics here. My position is ultra-conservative - shall I say neo-conservative? :-)

From my POV, it really all comes down to empirics. Shorn of its inflated Machian pretensions, the relativity "principle" is really just a physical *hypothesis* much like any other.

Yes.

...

The preferred orientation of the ferromagnetism in the ground state violation of O(3) is formally isomorphic to the preferred "rapidity" (i.e. the Wick-rotated orientation from Euclidean metric to hyperbolic metric) in the breakdown of O(1,3) in the physical vacuum. In ALL cases there is no violation of the dynamical symmetries. The action and the equations of motion are still tensor/spinor covariant under ALL the symmetries both spacetime and internal. This distinction between dynamical symmetry breakdown and spontaneous ground state breakdown was a struggle as P.W. Anderson chronicles in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" - even the great Eugene Wigner made his greatest blunder there back in the 60's I think on "electric charge superselection rules" violated in the BCS superconductor that is a macro-quantum coherent superposition of different numbers of bound electron pairs. This breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry is a "preferred frame" in the internal space, just as Cahill's et-al's absolute velocities give a "preferred frame" in ordinary space. The covariance of the fundamental laws of nature under all symmetry groups are NOT affected by this!

It is not clear to me how this relates to the effects discussed by Cahill, which depend on the optical properties of the moving medium though which the MM light beam travels.

You are not understanding the key idea that you must see mathematically. You still do not get the analogy to the ferromagnet. What Cahill reports is exactly like a ferromagnet only the group G has changed from O(3) for the ferromagnet to O(1,3) for Cahill's reporting of the Michelson-Morley data, and also the Catania, Sicily group, they get a smaller number than Cahill.

You do not yet understand P.W. Anderson's "More is different", which is 2 in:

There are only two important ideas in theoretical physics

1. Local gauge invariance with compensating connection fields.

2. Spontaneous breaking of the symmetry of the vacuum leaving the dynamics intact.

That's Sarfatti's Theory of Everything.

Cliff Will must discuss these ether drift allegations?

I doubt it.

"If we cannot refute him, then we must ... agree to ignore him." (quoted by Tony Smith).

Z.


On Feb 4, 2005, at 5:53 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Already have.

Interesting paper.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

look

Theoretical Physics in a Nutshell

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

Lorentz vs Einstein: Who is winning?


On Feb 4, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


bcc

Paul

The data do, at this moment in the stream of the collective WEB
consciousness, SEEM to point to a preferred frame. To really know would
be very difficult. Basically, we have to trust the competence & honesty
of these experimental authors. Lorentzian absolute speed v(Earth) ~ 204
+- 36 km/sec, rather than Einsteinian relative speed is definitely in
the running in terms of the actual evidence. Notice however, that even
accepting that will not make much of a quantitative difference in terms
of classic tests of both special and general relativity. Also, as I
have shown, the way to understand the preferred frame is as spontaneous
breakdown of O(1,3) symmetry in the physical vacuum in finite "domains"
analogous to those in a ferromagnet. The preferred orientation of the
ferromagnetism in the ground state violation of O(3) is formally
isomorphic to the preferred "rapidity" (i.e. the Wick-rotated
orientation from Euclidean metric to hyperbolic metric) in the
breakdown of O(1,3) in the physical vacuum. In ALL cases there is no
violation of the dynamical symmetries. The action and the equations of
motion are still tensor/spinor covariant under ALL the symmetries both
spacetime and internal. This distinction between dynamical symmetry
breakdown and spontaneous ground state breakdown was a struggle as P.W.
Anderson chronicles in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" - even the
great Eugene Wigner made his greatest blunder there back in the 60's I
think on "electric charge superselection rules" violated in the BCS
superconductor that is a macro-quantum coherent superposition of
different numbers of bound electron pairs. This breaking of U(1) gauge
symmetry is a "preferred frame" in the internal space, just as Cahill's
et-al's absolute velocities give a "preferred frame" in ordinary space.
The covariance of the fundamental laws of nature under all symmetry
groups are NOT affected by this!

Cliff Will must discuss these ether drift allegations?

On Feb 4, 2005, at 5:53 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Already have.

Interesting paper.

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:

bcc

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.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/ice9.wav

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"
CC: garysbekkum@hotmail.com, fsphys@rogers.com, puthoff@aol.com
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 (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0009/0009023.pdf) probability factor (p) for dimensions corresponding to d=8 is connected to "something else" (perhaps...um, Anthropic?) which would constrain the Clifford space C=8 situation (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0501/0501222.pdf) ? 'Just t.s.a.w. here to see if anything sticks .......

NO MORE COULD IT BE. I NOW UNDERSTAND IT ALL!

Memorandum For The Record

The Devil's Sonata
http://inkpot.com/classical/tartidevilson.html

(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!

SAME IDEA FOR CAHIL'S MEASUREMENTS

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: (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0410/0410245.pdf) and (http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501060.pdf) - 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: (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0410/0410245.pdf) and (http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501060.pdf) - 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
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/SegalConf3.html#univunisgbd

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)

i.e.

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, iksnileiz@earthlink.net 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,
and
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
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
says:
"... DeWitte was never permitted to report to physicists the data
from his beautiful 1991 coaxial cable experiment. ..."
and
the relevant footnotes are only to other papers by Cahill himself,
not to anything showing DeWitte as author,
and
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".

OK.

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

However,
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
criticism.

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",
and
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.

OK.

You are certainly entitled to your belief in a physics model
in which the contraction varies with respect to state of matter.
but
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.

However,
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.

OK.

Perhaps unfortunately, I think that given current funding priorites
the likelihood of such new Cahill-DeWitte experiments being performed
is
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. :-)

Z.

Tony

Test Cahill's Michelson-Morley Inteferometer Formula with Atomic BEC?

Update

So far I cannot find any error in Cahill's basic kinematical formulae for the Michelson interferometer, i.e. eqs 1 & 2 p.4. He is not rejecting the Lorentz transformations and he is not rejecting the prediction that there is no fringe shift in a non-exotic vacuum where the index of refraction n = 1. Cahill's fringe shifts have a factor (n^2 - 1).

e.g. his eq (1) for time difference in the two paths (each of rest length L) 1 & 2 of the interferometer, using the Lorentz contraction

t1 - t2 ~ (n^2 - 1)(L/c)(v/c)^2

The more accurate equation is his (2)

t1 - t2 ~ n(n^2 - 1)(L/c)(vp/c)^2cos(2(theta-phi))

see paper for details.

1. Experiments varying n of the gas in the 2 paths need to be done especially around a resonance where n >> 1. Cahill says absolute motion not detectable in solids, only in gases. For example use atomic Bose-Einstein condensates in the arms of the Michelson-Morley interferometer and slow the light down to practically nothing 17 meters/sec! What happens when n ~ 10^7? http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.415.html

2. In principle local measurements in relatively short times will suffice - no need to cover a whole period of Earth's orbit. Miller did that in 1925/26 only to measure the gas parameter k^2 = n(n-1) says Cahill. In that case my suggested L/r* ~ 1, i.e. breakdown of global SR in GR where r* ~ 1AU (radius of space warp at Earth's surface) seems to be falsified. I am not sure of anything here at this point of course.

Note the global Lorentz boost transformations along z, i.e. rotations in z-t plane

t' = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2[t - vz/c^2]

z' = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2[z - vt]

z'^2 - (ct')^2 = z^2 - (ct)^2 INVARIANT

are allegedly not violated in Cahill's analysis.

Cahill says there is an ABSOLUTE v = 0, a preferred frame of absolute rest.

Any two speeds v & v' relative to it add by Einstein's rule (in z-t plane for now) use the nonlinear transformation

V = (v + v')/(1 + vv'/c^2)

Note if v' = c

V = (v + c)/(1 + (v/c)) = c(v + c)/(v + c) = c

Indeed c added to c = c

c is a fixed point of the nonlinear transformation.

So all of these SR rules seem to be consistent with a preferred frame of absolute rest.

The exotic vacua of dark energy from Frank Wilczek's multi-layered multi-colored cosmic superconducting Higgs-Goldstone field that I call the partial vacuum coherence as the aether?

On Feb 1, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:13 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack, I'm pleased to observe that you now acknowledge that not everyone who challenges
Einsteinian models for "relativity" (and there is as a matter of fact more than one
Einsteinian flavor) is a "crackpot"...(although I agree that most amateur
heretics still are crackpots -- e.g., ....

No of course not. There is, as you say, "heresy" and "heresy". If Cahill is right, I don't think he is, but if he is, everything comes crashing down like a House of Cards on shaky ground. The more I read Cahill the more I sense he is at least eccentric, but he cannot be simply written off like most of the morons we encounter.


The professional "heretical" school is gathering strength and sharpening its arguments, and in view of the current proliferation of anomalies needs to be taken very seriously IMHO.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:



Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: February 1, 2005 12:34:55 PM PST
To: Gary S Bekkum / SSR
Subject: Cahill papers contra relativity need to be studied closely

bcc
On Jan 31, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:

FYI

The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501051


I am beginning to study this. It will take time. It's a serious challenge though I think I know what is going on, I could be wrong. Also I see some flaws already in how Cahill is stating the problem. He is arguing Vigier's position it appears. However, everyone interested in relativity and quantum field theory etc. should pay attention to this challenge since Cahill is obviously not your-easy-to-recognize crackpot.


Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
Comments: 22 pages, 10 figures. better graphics
Subj-class: General Physics

That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any
observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts
of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first
revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.

However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for
the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that
used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the
effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light.

That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in
excess of 300km/s.

So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result.

This implies that the foundations of physics require significant
revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is
shown to explain various so-called gravitational `anomalies',
including the `dark matter' effect. Most importantly absolute motion
is now understood to be the cause of the various relativistic effects,
in accord with the earlier proposal by Lorentz.

--
Gary S Bekkum

Starstream Research
PO Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311

Lubos Motl ET String Theorist at Harvard? :-) & Saving Einstein


Thanks Tony.:-) I need to think about it more as well. It's all in the details. It will take time. Curious Cahill gets a number close to the dipole anisotropy of the CM though not exactly the same and in a different direction and he is well aware of the latter. I think it is good that Cahill's papers are posted by the archiv since it is a serious paper even if it is wrong. It is wrong in an interesting way! It's a great project for a college course in relativity for example. Hans Bethe gave such a course to 6 of us back at Cornell in 1960. The 6 included Peter Goldreich who went on to become an important astronomy professor at Cal Tech. I include Hal Puthoff's PV papers in same category as Cahill's - wrong in an interesting way that should be studied and should be on the archive. Ibison's PV cosmology paper I think was not allowed and it was a good paper. The relativity principle is the corner stone of The Temple that Cahill, a wannabe Samson, is trying to pull down. :-)

re; your final remarks below: There are major attacks on M theory as what Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science" http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html by people like Shelly Glashow. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003573&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2005/01/25/Science/The-Thin.Line.Of.Theory-840583.shtml
The math is pretty to be sure. But physics is more than math - unless Max Tegmark is correct in his Super Platonism http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse1.html.

On Feb 2, 2005, at 3:42 AM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, now I see that you are correct that Cahill's paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051 is flawed.

He analyzes the air Michelson-Morley experiments
with air refractive index n =/= 1
by considering that n is constant for the entire experiment
and that
"... The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect causes the arm ...
parallel to the absolute velocity to be physically contracted ..."
and that for all parts of the experiment
"... with n the refractive index of the gas present ...".

In short,
Cahill is using a constant air refractive index n =/= 1
while
ignoring the change in n due to the changed density of air
due to the "physical ... Fitzgerald-Lorentz ... contract[ion]"
of the system with respect to
the "arm ... parallel to the absolute velocity".

I am sorry that it took me so long to see that clear error,
and
I apologize for burdening you with my previous messages
about Cahill's paper.

It is interesting that arXiv allows him to post such a paper,
even to the physics archive,
while you and some others and I are blacklisted from doing so.

I do not advocate blacklisting Cahill, at least in part because
I did learn some things by studying his paper and seeing the
nature of a flaw in its analysis,
and because studying such flaws helps me keep my mind open
to new ways of thinking and to do a better job of distinguish
realistic thoughts from unrealistic thoughts.

I do think that it shows that the arXiv establishment may be
willing to allow flawed unconventional papers to be posted,
perhaps so that they can point to such papers as proving
that unconventional physics ideas are always wrong and
the conventional physics ideas are always correct,
but
the arXiv establishment remains so extremely fearful of unconventional
papers that may (at least in substantial part) be correct
that your Dark Energy ideas, Brian's cold fusion and consciousness ideas,
Carlos's Clifford algebra ideas, Paul's use of electromagnetism in
astrophysics/cosmology, my physics model, etc., must be banned
lest they lead to change in the world of physics,
which change could lead to the current set of "experts" being superseded
in jobs, grants, etc, by a new set of people.

Tony

PS - It will be hard for me to take advantage of Planck's thought
that new ideas may be accepted after the current set of "experts" die,
in part because
the conventional string theory community has done such an effective
job of indoctrinating so many young physicists, one example
being Lubos Motl.

Who in reality is a extra-terrestrial according to his own website! :-)

Lubos, assuming that only he has a sense of humor, wrote that he was only joking in


"Am I an ET alien?

The most ridiculous item of the day

Today I've received several e-mails from Doc Savage and from Jack Sarfatti. They have figured out that I am an extraterrestrial alien. Their evidence is composed of many pieces:
• Doc Savage claims that he has already met me, and he has a video of our encounter:
• http://stardrive.org/cartoon/coffee.html
• Also, Doc Savage has found my web page that proves that I am an ET alien:
• http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
• Moreover, Jack Sarfatti proves his point by another claim that I am a "sex-shifting alien"

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/ .

"I hope that you are not distracted by the animated picture of myself. All of us had to prepare special masks to look just as the people living on the Earth. So whenever you meet me at the Department of Physics and Astronomy in New Jersey or at NASA or our spaceship, you will see a person looking precisely as the terresterial human beings. My mask is able to change its gender so I can look both as a girl and as a boy. You can see my mask here
http://www.kolej.mff.cuni.cz/~lmotm275/morf/lhm.gif "

"• Doc Savage has another piece of evidence, namely my agreement with Cumrun Vafa that the question "Should string theory be studied at all?" is not the right question for the year 2005.

A copy of these mails has arrived to the mailboxes of many other people with similar beliefs as Doc Savage and Jack Sarfatti, for example Carlos Castro, Brian Josephson, the Nobel prize winner, and others.

Well, I am sure that they won't believe me anyway. But let me try to say that I am not an ET alien. The Rutgers alien web page has been created as a joke 7 years ago. Well, it's true that since 1998, I've received about 100 e-mails from the people who really believed that I was an extraterrestrial alien and they were extremely grateful that they found my web page (although most of them have already met ET's before). It makes my point harder to prove, but I am really not an ET alien! ;-) The last animation is called "morphing", and I have nothing to do with the shockwave animation.

Thanks for your understanding. :-)"

http://motls.blogspot.com/

For the record, I can't speak for Doc Savage of course, all of my references to Lubos' own writings claiming he was an ET had SMILEY's :-) and was also done in jest exactly like his. There goes that double standard again. Hey what shockwave animation is that? As they say, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. :-)

Perhaps the conventional string theory community has learned
from such groups as the Jesuits that if they get to indoctrinate
people during their initial learning process then the doctrine
will in most cases be believed for all the life of the indoctrinee.

Unfortunately,
the level of maturity and objectivity of the people of the
physics/astronomy establishment is indicated by the following quote
from a 2 February 2005 review in The New York Times by William Grimes
of Simon Singh's new book, "Big Bang":
"... When Martin Ryle, a British radio astronomer,
was presented with a photograph disproving his theory
that celestial radio waves emanated from stars, not galaxies,
he threw himself face down on a couch,
in full view of his colleagues at a conference,
and burst into tears.
Then he got up, dusted himself off and began plotting revenge. ...".

On Jan 31, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:

FYI

The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501051

Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
Comments: 22 pages, 10 figures. better graphics
Subj-class: General Physics

That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any
observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts
of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first
revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.

However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for
the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that
used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the
effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light.

That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in
excess of 300km/s.

So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result.

This implies that the foundations of physics require significant
revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is
shown to explain various so-called gravitational `anomalies',
including the `dark matter' effect. Most importantly absolute motion
is now understood to be the cause of the various relativistic effects,
in accord with the earlier proposal by Lorentz.

--
Gary S Bekkum

Starstream Research
PO Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311