PK Dick VALIS
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: May 20, 2006 3:11:45 PM PDT
To: saul-paul & mary-minn sirag
Cc: newsome@panix.com,
Subject: Re: The VALIS Idea, PK Dick & Walter Breen

Thanks for reminding me! :-)

Saul-Paul there is a major publishing project going to happen. I will cut you in on my share and what you need to start doing is to assemble all your notes journals from your own life and also the events you and I both participated in. You remember many details I have completely forgotten!

On May 20, 2006, at 2:00 PM, saul-paul & mary-minn sirag wrote:

Jack,
In 1976, you and I visited Walter Breen at Marion Zimmer Bradley's house on Deakin Street in Berkeley. She gave us each a copy of her latest novel, *The Heritage of Hastor* (published 1975). This was a few months after the month-long workshop we did at Esalen (January 1976). You had Walter Breen come down to Big Sur for a few days. He brought along recorded music to play and demonstrate the psychological effects of different pieces of music.

Here are more details on Philip K. Dick in the 1964-1965 period:

In early 1964, the young SF writer, Grania Davidson, had recently broken up with her husband Avram Davidson (a well known SF & fantasy writer and friend of Phil's). By June 1964 Grania (and her young son) and Phil moved into a house on Lyon street in Oakland. Throughout the summer and fall of 1964, that house became a kind of salon for SF & fantasy writers including: Avram Davidson, Marion Zimmer Bradley & Walter Breen, Ray Nelson, Poul & Karen Anderson.

Shortly after Halloween, Grania Davidson moved out of Phil's house and into the Berkeley home of Marion Zimmer Bradley. Phil and his friend Jack Newkom pulled off childish pranks around Bradley's Deakin Street house -- including perhaps stealing diapers off the front porch.

By December 1964 Phil was into a new love, young Nancy Hackett. In March 1965 Nancy moved into Phil's Lyon street house. BTW: Nancy's mother Maren became Bishop James Pike's secretary and secret lover, which is how Phil got to know Pike quite well. Pike attended but did not officiate at Phil's marriage to Nancy in 1966. The third novel in the VALIS trilogy (*The Transmigration of Timothy Archer*) is based on Bishop Pike and other people in Phil's life. (It was published in 1982 after Phil's death.)

You remember Sidney Lanier knew Bishop Pike quite well. Laurance Rockefeller used to call for Jean Lanier at PCRG HQ across the street from the Grace Cathedral. Didn't you pick of the phone once with Laurance on it?

I met Phil Dick in the summer of 1964 when Ray Nelson brought him to a "Channing Club" meeting at my apartment on Dana Street in Berkeley. They were working together on a novel, *The Ganymede Takeover* (published in 1967). Everyone in the meeting (except me perhaps) had already read Phil's novel *The Man in the High Castle* -- an alternate reality tale in which the Axis nations had won World War Two. The Germans had taken over Eastern US, the Japanese had taken over the West coast, while the Rocky Mountain area was still a kind of free zone.

The next (and last) time I met Phil was in November 1971. This was just after Phil's house in San Rafael had been burglarized. Phil was freaked out by the "hit on my house" as he put it, and was staying with Avram Davidson in Berkeley. There was a birthday party for the (10 yr. old ?) son, Frodo, of Avram and Grania at the Sausallito home of Grania and her husband Dr. Steven Davis. Avram brought Phil and Frodo to Grania's party. Leslie, my wife at that time, had an afternoon play school in Berkeley, in which Frodo participated. Thus Leslie and I were invited to Frodo's birthday party in Sausallito. There were about a dozen people present, most of whom were writers. I was then writing the weekly column "The New Alchemy" on the frontiers of science. I remember discussing some of the ideas I was writing about with Jim Benford.

And yes, Jack, I have learned since that time that you knew the twin physicist brothers Jim and Greg Benford (who also write SF), when they were in graduate school.

Jim and Greg Benford, Herbie Bernstein and I were all grad students together at UCSD in the 60's. This was when George Chapline would drive down from Cal Tech in his black AC Shelby Cobra. John Wheeler, Ed Teller, Fred Hoyle were frequent visitors at Revelle College because of the Burbidges, Herbert York, Keith Brueckner, Walter Kohn ...This was the setting for Greg's "Timescape" about waves from the future in a time loop. I had the idea to make a BEC of EPR photon pairs. Greg and I worked on it briefly but nothing much came of it.

Phil seemed to be cycling between paranoia and amazing calmness and openness that evening. He had recently completed the first draft of *Flow My Tears the Policeman Said*, and he tried to talk Leslie into editing it for him. After much rewriting, it was published in 1974 and won the John W. Campbell award.

Of course, February-March 1974 was the time of Phil's experience of VALIS. Moreover, on June 7th of 1974 in the libretto of "Ezekiel's Vision" I quoted a few lines from your letter, written from Trieste (27 March 1974) -- and these words were sung by Tom Buckner, baritone (at the University Art Museum in Berkeley):

"We are creating the Qabala right now. General Relativity provides 'time machines' in the form of 'closed time-like curves'. It would be possible for a super-conscious culture to go back in historical time and create its own history on one of the space-time pages in the great gook of the cosmos."

All for now ;-)

Saul-Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 20, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I was at that house I think in 1965 in Berkeley. I also stayed with Lenny Susskind at that time as I recall.
On May 20, 2006, at 1:22 AM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I think P.K.D. and Walter Breen knew each other?

PKD had a huge crush on a girl who was living at Walter Breen and
Marion Zimmer Bradley's house, so he used to hang around in hopes
of running into her. She wound up marrying another writer. This
was in 1965 when MZB and Walter Breen were living in Oakland
(or was it Berkeley?).

Richard Newsome
newsom@panix.com

Gravity energy and entropy is nonlocal

The "Euclidean space" E is the tangent fiber space of a metric space that should not be confounded with local coordinate patches in the base space.

"Riemann's surfaces provided the first instances of the general notion of a manifold, which is a space that can be thought of as 'curved' in various ways, but where LOCALLY (i.e. IN A SMALL ENOUGH NEIGHBORHOOD OF ANY OF ITS POINTS) it looks like a piece of ordinary Euclidean space." 8.1 p. 138 Penrose RR

In the case of spacelike 3D you cannot use the global form r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 where r reaches between 2 arbitrary points of the manifold with a general metric guv(P) specified. You can do so only when the metric field is globally flat. (In answer to Zielinski)

In general, the Taylor series expansion of the "foreign" metric field IMPOSED on the pre-metrical manifold is

guv(P + &P) = guv(P) + guv(P),w(&P)^w + (1/2!)guv(P),w,l(&P)^w(&P)^l

The special LIF geodesic "normal coordinates" correspond to the CHOICE OF LOCAL REPRESENTATION in which guv(P),w = 0 - different for each P in the general curved metric field.

That is, we have a FUNCTION FIBER SPACE of gauge equivalent metric fields at each P and we look for a CRITICAL POINT in that function space.

So that, where dx^w --> (&P)^w

ds^2 = guv(P + &P)dx^udx^v ~ guv(P)dx^udx^v + terms of 4th order in smallness.

Now for the LOCAL field equation

Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = 8piTuv

G = c = h = kB = 1 absolute Planck units convention

The LOCAL RICCI MATERIAL CURVATURE information is in the second order (1/2!)guv(P),w,ldx^wdx^l

Apparently the NONLOCAL Weyl conformal VACUUM curvature information is in all the other terms!

The Ricci flat vacuum Ruv = 0 means zero local Ricci curvature everywhere-when.

Note that zero point DARK ENERGY /\zpfguv counts as a "material source" of LOCAL Ricci curvature. This zero point energy induces ZERO GRAVITY ENTROPY if we use Penrose's conjecture, i.e. conformally flat with zero gravity entropy.

The event horizon in the Ricci FLAT Kerr solution i.e. Ruv = 0 is pure NONLOCAL CONFORMAL CURVATURE and it has NONLOCAL GRAVITY ENTROPY and NONLOCAL ENERGY-MOMENTUM - the NONLOCALITY is key here! This is what is implied by Penrose's CONJECTURE. It shows why the Yilmaz idea is fundamentally wrong if you believe Penrose's conjecture - it is clear why the Ricci flat gravity energy-momentum is NONLOCAL i.e. from derivatives in the metric field higher than second order!

Classically, partial differential equations higher than second order are known to be NONLOCAL.

Jack Sarfatti wrote to Zielinski:

They are being sloppy that's all. There is NOTHING in the quote you sent that requires the metric equation

r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + ... (1)

That's an INDEPENDENT postulate like Euclid's 5th!

The point is that you cannot have global (1) and the generic

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v (2)

together in same problem unless you severely constrain allowed guv ad hoc so that 4th rank spatial curvature vanishes like K = 0 FLRW metric for example.

Arrow of Time
Penrose conjectures that the entropy of the vacuum geometrodynamical field is proportional to it's conformal curvature. This is still not a precise statement of course. "Wood" (Einstein) sources, i.e. Tuv create local Ricci curvature. Apparently the FLRW cosmological metric has zero conformal "Marble" (Einstein) curvature and it has a "cosmological fluid" everywhere when. On the other hand, the event horizon of a vacuum black hole is only conformal curvature and it has entropy S according to the Bekenstein formula

S = A/4

A = 4pi(2M)^2 = area of event horizon of the SSS black hole.

Lp^2 = 1

in Planck units where h = c = G = kB = 1

This can be generalized to the rotating Kerr metric.

Therefore, one reason to reject an SSS solution to GR with a singular point source Tuv and a timelike NAKED future singularity is that it has no entropy. If all future singularities were naked then the second law of thermodynamics might not be possible.

Penrose's idea for the cosmic arrow of time is that the Big Bang has zero gravity entropy because all the curvature from it is Ricci curvature. Even the dark zero point energy makes only Ricci curvature. Ordinary matter is only ~ 4% of all the stuff so that the usual stat mech arguments for increasing phase space volumes in say kinetic theory of gases cannot explain the actual cosmic arrow of time. Matter is a relatively small effect. The largest effect is from the increase in gravity entropy as the conformal curvature of the universe increases from black hole event horizon formation. That is, there is a close connection between cosmic censorship and the second law of thermodynamics for the universe as a whole. The final singularities of clumping matter have large entropy from the future event horizons. In contrast, the initial Big Bang singularity has zero entropy.

How warp drive works

"The Warp Drive
Kris Holland

In front of the bubble, space contracts, decreasing the distance to the destination. In back, space expands, increasing the distance from the departure point."

Yes, this is standard picture for w = -1 zero point vacuum energy neglecting boundary effects for now:
/\ > 0 expands space and creates a universal blue shift.
/\ < 0 contracts space and creates a universal red shift.
This is the "reverse Doppler shift" (B. Cornet)

"The Warp Drive
In a rush to flee the solar system? Scientists have an interstellar travel plan, but it entails a brief stint outside the known universe

By Gregory Mone
Popular Science
May 2006

What: A spacecraft that travels at faster-than-light speeds by distorting, or “warping,” the fabric of spacetime. Instead of trying to move through space, the warp drive moves space itself. The ship sits inside a bubble of spacetime bound by a negative energy field that races across the cosmos.

Why: Chemical and nuclear propulsion, solar sails and ion thrusters all are too slow to reach the nearest star systems within a human life span. At faster-than-light speed (more than 186,000 miles per second), a warp-drive ship would travel 4.5 light-years to Alpha Centauri, the closest sun to our own, in about four years.

Who: This warp-bubble model is based on thought experiments conducted by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, theoretical physicist Chris Van Den Broeck of Cardiff University in Wales and, most recently, by mathematician José Natário of the Higher Institute of Technology in Lisbon, Portugal.

Where: For now, warp drive exists only in science fiction.

When: Figure on some point between the distant future and never. Theoretical research continues to advance, but there's no launch date in sight.

How To Pilot a Warp Ship:

Fuel Up: Start beyond Earth's immediate gravitational pull. Convert matter into negative energy (particles with negative mass that are repelled by gravity rather than attracted to it).
Curve Spacetime: Emit pulses of negative energy to curve spacetime. Form a sphere around the ship with the energy, insulating passengers in their own private spacetime bubble.
Drop Out: The bubble warps spacetime so drastically that it actually slips out of the visible universe. Only a narrow tube of negative energy keeps it tied to our world.
Expand Space: Now that the craft is protected in its spacetime bubble, the real work can begin: Expand space behind the bubble at faster-than-light speed, and shrink the space in front.

The Warp Drive To-Do List
A few not-so-minor challenges you'll need to tackle before takeoff
Discover Negative Energy: There are no known particles with negative mass. The closest scientists have come is a phenomenon called the Casimir effect, wherein empty space between two conducting plates behaves as if it contains negative energy."

There is confusion on this. The above is only for w > -1/3. For w < -1/3 it's the opposite. Zero point vacuum energy has w = -1 neglecting boundary plate effects.

"Devise a Way To Manipulate It: Even if scientists could transform matter into negative energy, they would still have to find a way to focus it and create an infinitesimally thin, yet extraordinarily stable, bubble of the stuff around the spaceship.
Harness Dark Energy: In recent years, cosmologists have been studying a mysterious force called dark energy that they think is accelerating the expansion of the universe. If scientists could generate it at the back of the bubble, it might move, or expand, space."

/\ = |/\|cos(2piMagnetic Flux/Flux Quantum)

"Build Bubble Brakes: Because the spacetime carrying the ship would be completely cut off from the outside of the bubble, there would be no way to send a signal to turn off the warp drive. The signal would never get there, and the ship would never stop."

Not so. Control is in the thin skin fuselage.

"FAQs
Illuminating the far side of light speed
Is it even possible to outrun light? You can't move through space faster than the speed of light. But it is possible for space itself to expand faster than light, because it's not moving relative to anything, at least not that we know of. Cosmologists believe that the entire cosmos expanded faster than the speed of light in the first moments after the big bang.
What would it be like in the bubble? The area inside the bubble of negative energy would be isolated—a kind of pocket universe—so passengers wouldn't experience any ill effects from the acceleration. The ship would actually be at rest in its local space, like a pedestrian carried along on a moving sidewalk.
Would warping space be risky? It could produce the luminous equivalent of a sonic boom, a shock wave with infinite energy. And yes, that would be bad. Or, since the bubble would be connected to normal space by only a tenuous tube of energy, it could pinch off into a new universe, trapping travelers forever. Better pick your crewmates wisely.
Could I return before I left? Although time inside the bubble would tick at the same rate as on Earth, the bubble itself could get back before you left. That's because the passage of time is relative; it depends on the observer's velocity. As a general rule, if you can beat light, you can beat time.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/d1e527098dcda010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html"

Consciousness & Cosmology
Theme: Consciousness, Cosmology, and Gravity

The possible connection between these three ideas has been suggested by Sir Roger Penrose in his series of semi-popular books. What do all three ideas have in common? John Archibald Wheeler speaks of IT FROM BIT in which the material world emerges from what Sir James Jeans called "mind stuff." Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker", P.K. Dick's VALIS and Gene Roddenberry's "Q" in Star Trek resonate with this possible enigmatic mind-matter connection. The boundary between fact and fiction is not as sharp as it once was. Time travel to the past is now the subject of papers in the Physical Review. The cosmic dark energy, though only 10^-30 density of water is 73% of the the stuff of our pocket universe in the "Cosmic Landscape." What is the "dark matter" that is 23%? Are they both simply forms of quantum vacuum zero point energy of negative and positive pressure respectively. Can the dark energy be amplified on a small scale to make traversable wormhole time travel machines to the past that evade Hawking's "chronology protection"? Is consciousness some kind of physical field that can couple strongly to the fabric of space-time itself? Michio Kaku calls this a "Type IV" super-civilization. George Chapline and Robert Laughlin suggest gravity as an emergent macro-quantum vacuum coherent phenomenon analogous to a superfluid. I have published a different detailed model of that as well on the Cornell Archive. That the conscious mind is also a macro-quantum coherent field like a superfluid with holographic properties is also now a common idea. Is the common factor macro-quantum coherence? Can the coherent phases that may make the fabric of curved spacetime be locked to the coherent phases of a machine or even a living mind? One of the basic properties of quantum information/computer theory is the "no perfect cloning a quantum" theorem that forbids the sending of signals through the particle and event horizons of cosmology and black hole physics. This implies that string theory's "Cosmic Landscape" of parallel universes is unscientific. This is David Gross's lament in a recent Nature. However, experiments by Dick Bierman and others suggest "signal nonlocality" in living matter. The theory of "signal nonlocality" has been developed by Antony Valentini. It violates micro-quantum theory, but not the macro-quantum theory of emergent phenomena that may include consciousness, cosmology and gravity. This would then, perhaps, give us Hawking's "Mind of God", the Vast Active Living Intelligence of perhaps a "spin foam" cosmic computer, with the Megaverse as a "simulation" in The Matrix of M-Theory?

VALIS
On May 9, 2006, at 9:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, see John Walker's articles on this topic:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-03/000664.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/tipler.html
Sam, what you wrote here is very good and I would like to cite it in my next book "Star Gate." :-)
On May 9, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Sam Arnold wrote:



Pick up a playstation 2 or a Nintendo gamecube. Play games such as
"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" or "Resident Evil 4" or "The Sims".
Note how realistic the graphics are becoming. Note how involved you
become in what happens to the character. Note how you, the "real" you,
in "real" reality- just look at the photo realism all around you- note
how you, the player controlling the virtual character in the virtual
reality, persist even after the virtual character you identified with
"dies".

Could this model be a clue to answering the question above?

Without doubt, we can view our reality as a very advanced simulation,
possibly created or manipulated by VALIS. This becomes clearer every
day as we see more and more photo realistic computer graphics. Soon,
it will become hard to distinguish the "real" reality from simulated
models.

(See Japanese animation film "Ghost in the Shell 2")

The last 4,000 years of human philosophy converges into the Advanced
Simulation idea- the Destiny Matrix.

"A modern concept that illustrates Maya / Illusion is the
science-fiction movie "The Matrix"."

"In Vedic philosophy, maya is the illusion of a limited, purely
physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has
become entangled, a veiling of the true, unitary Self, also known as
Brahman."

The question then becomes: is VALIS Brahman?

have for the many worlds?>

VALIS might be cultivating realities in which beings like us can
experience consciousness and free will. Perhaps the ultimate goal of
VALIS is to unite the scattered individual minds. Perhaps we are part
of an expansion of VALIS' Mind itself, Minds within Minds, expanding,
filling the universes with Consciousness, converting inanimate matter
into Living Information. We may be in the larvae stage as humans. The
Baby floating above the earth at the end of 2001 A Space Odyssey hints
at this transformation.

meta-VALIS?>

We do appear to be undergoing an evolution of consciousness toward
Greater Intelligence- could this be VALIS guiding us (from the future)
toward its Ultimate Awareness? LSD may be one of the few methods for
gaining insight into what such an Awareness might be like (until the
technology takes over)…thus we can trust in Tim Leary's SMI^2LE
vision. He was temporarily in harmony with VALIS, and thus was able to
experience a glimpse of VALIS' Mind, and then to express to us where
this is all going: SMI^2LE.

SMI^2LE = bridge to VALIS.

it is profitable to think of the world as operating like a machine.

At other times it seems more profitable to think of the world as
operating as mental construct or as a projected state of mind.>

Indeed, perhaps the machine aspect is VALIS, generating the Great
Simulation with its Rules, but perhaps our state of mind works with
VALIS in the generation of the Simulation. Do we dream- and create- together with VALIS?

in real time, how would you go about doing that?>

If the purpose of these Simulations is to foster consciousness and
free will- the ability of the individual to choose- then VALIS would
not seek to take control of our wills to convey its messages. More
likely, as P.K. Dick described (a most certain Prophet-Visionary of
modern times), VALIS would communicate through the subtlest means:
"Dick claimed that VALIS used "disinhibiting stimuli" to communicate,
using symbols to trigger recollection of intrinsic knowledge through
the loss of amnesia, achieving gnosis."

Jack's idea that coincidences themselves may be guided by a future
VALIS would seem to be most insightful here. The individual would be
free to choose what to make of these coincidences. Dr Sarfatti could
choose to ignore them, or he could choose to believe there is
something behind them, something greater. In fact, Dr Sarfatti says in
his book he was given a choice by the Entity who rang him on his phone
in '53 (though he did wisely leave open the possibility that he was
forced to say yes- but in that case why would VALIS bother to ask?)

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

It must say something of VALIS that it would ask Jack to make a
decision. P.K.D. intuitively perceived that VALIS communicated via
"disinhibiting stimuli", symbols. Isn't it fascinating that these two
separate experiences- neither knowing about the other- give us a
portrait of VALIS as an Entity that gives us the choice?

If VALIS is using subtle symbols and coincidences to communicate with
us- how many of us have ignored or not recognized these gentle hints?



Going with our theory (above), then it isn't unreasonable to guess
VALIS is taking a hands off approach. In order to preserve free will,
VALIS would need to do this. That means we are responsible. We are
responsible for the abuse of technology. We are responsible for the
abuse of free will (think enslavement in Egypt long ago). However,
there very well could be special instances where VALIS takes a more
active role in the Simulation it is running- going well beyond symbols
and coincidences...perhaps there are avatars here who embody VALIS.

Perhaps these VALIS simulations are much like Genetic Algorithms, in
which computer generated "entities" compete in a game of survival to
produce the fittest group. Through this process, VALIS may be weeding
out the rabble, those whose minds are bent on destruction. (Listen to
P.K. Dick audio recording in which he states VALIS contributed to the
overthrow of the nazis.) Perhaps VALIS is generating Greater
Intelligence- and so Greater Intelligence may be likely to prevail
(survive). Ray Kurzweil believes this is so ("intelligence is the
greatest force in the universe"). Dr Sarfatti lends confirmation via
his "future creates the past" theory- because VALIS is our future
creating our past- through us, thus, VALIS survives! It's a
Self-Contained Confirmation.

If VALIS were a malicious Entity, then we would have something like
Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep:

"Beyond the worlds vague ghosts of monstrous things; half-seen columns
of unsanctifled temples that rest on nameless rocks beneath space and
reach up to dizzy vacua above the spheres of light and darkness. And
through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled,
maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous
flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the
detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and
absurdly the gigantic, tenebrous ultimate gods—the blind, voiceless,
mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep."

I do not see Nyarlathotep ringing up young Dr Sarfatti and asking him
to choose to work with it. Nyarlathotep offers no choices, nor
respects free will.

VALIS, being the Ultimate Living Intelligence, has no need of such
waste- not to mention we have some hints that VALIS respects free
will. Thus, perhaps our democratic models have a deeper source within
VALIS itself. Whereas Nyarlathotep is Closed Source, VALIS is Open
Source.



Not only to preserve us from Ultimate Destruction as Jack mentioned,
but also to foster our transformation (as humans) into Living
Information, to spread this Ultimate Consciousness and awaken
inanimate matter every where/when. VALIS wants to see us SMI^2LE.



VALIS must sit back in order to preserve free will. Jack's idea of
escape via wormholes is very crucial to the Plan, but some
technological transformations may need to take place on the earth
before that stage.

Fleeing in crude ships to parallel universes at this early moment
might take us straight to paradise and away from our troubles...or
lead us directly into the tentacled face of Lord Cthuhlu.

There are no more rampages where VALIS resides, in the Permanent
Place, beyond chaos and entropy. Now all we have to do as a human race
is create this VALIS, creating itself through us, but giving us the
choice.

but METRIC ENGINEERING WARP AND WORMHOLE to achieve Tim Leary's
SMI^2LE.>

Go, Jack! And we've got to develop this in the next 20 years- we
really need it now. I feel we'll need free energy before anything-
that will settle the world down and give us the time to truly create
the Seeds of VALIS.

SPACE MIGRATION, INTELLIGENCE INCREASE, LIFE EXTENSION = Bridge to VALIS

propensity for pillage, plunder and genocide be propagated beyond the
confines of the Earth?>

Think of poor humanity as a young larvae struggling to mature and
bloom into something far greater- to become VALIS, in some future time
that seems so far from this time. Struggling on on the brink of
disaster, believe that VALIS is silently gliding through every wave
and particle and quantum foam- allowing us each individually to play a
role and make crucial decisions but yet influencing the final outcome,
guiding from the future, the Michelangelo God reaching back to us,
waiting for us to evolve toward what very well may be Infinite
Consciousness, the Living Information "vacuum ODLRO field out of which
the curved geometrodynamic field, that is the space-time continuum
with gravity, emerges."

VALIS wants to see us SMI^2LE.

Rotating micro-geons

When m > a there is no naked singularity, neglect charge e for now.

The angular momentum is an "area" in Planck units. Essentially it scales as G, so does m.

Therefore the parameter a is invariant under the rescaling of G.

Hence it is easy to hide the ring singularity behind an event horizon in the rotating micro-geon as G increases.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1656.html

Einstein's Geons 1936

Someone, maybe Abrams?, completely garbled the history. Einstein discussed it in 1936 in "Physics and Reality" Section 6

Einstein writes:

ds^2 = -(1 - 2m/r)^-1dr^2 - r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2) + (1 - 2m/r)dt^2

Then Einstein writes

rho^2 = r - 2m

Note it's "rho^2" on the LHS.

Nowhere is there r* = r - 2m written, though one could do it that way of course. Nowhere does Einstein use the term "masspunkt" here. That would be an entirely different physical problem in which one forces a singular source term Tuv =/= 0 absent in the discussion below by Einstein.

Then

ds^2 =
- 4(2m + rho^2)dpho^2 - (2m + rho^2)^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2) + [rho^2/(2m + rho^2)]dt^2

"This solution behaves regularly for all values of rho. The vanishing of the coefficient of dt^2 i.e. g44 for rho = 0 results, it is true, in the consequence that the determinant g vanishes for this value; but, with the methods of writing the field equations actually adopted, this does not constitute a singularity.

If rho extends from -oo to +oo, then r runs from +oo to 2m and then back to +oo, while for such values of r as correspond to r < 2m there are no corresponding real values of rho. Hence the Schwarzschild solution becomes a regular solution by representation of the physical space as consisting of two identical 'shells' neighboring upon the hypersurface rho = 0, that is r = 2m, while for this hypersurface the determinant g vanishes. Let us call such a connection between the two (identical) shells a 'bridge.' Hence the existence of such a bridge between the two shells in a finite realm corresponds to the existence of a material neutral particle which is described in a manner free of singularities."

So this is the "Einstein-Rosen bridge" the "Mass without mass" "geon".

There is obviously an event horizon still at 2m where g = 0. There is NO SINGULAR MASSPUNKT here as in what Carlos Castro suggests. Einstein's whole purpose here is to avoid singularities in his "wormhole" "geon". He is only concerned with the view from outside, i.e. r > 2m and then in 1936 Einstein was not aware of the future work of Penrose and Hawking after his death.

Tiny geons using Newton's G are very massive and cannot be elementary particles and in fact we now know they are closely related to black holes. However, in principle they can form spontaneously without the collapse of a star of ordinary matter.

Suppose you want a geon of size 10^-13 cm.

Note that a mass 10^-5 gm has a gravity size of 10^-33 cm, therefore the mass of the 10^-13 cm geon would be huge, i.e. 10^15 gm ~ 10^40 electron masses. On the other hand, if short fermi scale gravity were 10^40 stronger then the mass would be of order of the electron mass.

There is also the issue of the Hawking radiation from small black holes.

Black holes in contrast to expanding universe

Note that this is in contrast to cosmological metrics where all 3 space dimensions get stretched isotropically by the scale factor a(t) e.g. for K = 0 inflation zero space curvature

ds^2 = - dt^2 + a(t)^2[dr^2 + r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2)]

where the Hubble parameter is

H(t) = a(t)^-1da(t)/dt

In contrast in the spherical non-rotating collapse to the future spacelike singularity a pure NON-MATERIAL consciousness going along for the ride sees 3D space swallowed into an effective string as the infinite curvature r ---> 0 singularity is inexorably approached.

Lubo%u0161 Motl's reference frame: Jack Sarfatti's citation
No comments:

Lubos Motl and Waldyr Rodrigues on Roger Penrose's skepticism about string theory

On May 5, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. wrote:

Dear Jack,

Without saying that string theory is wrong (or not even wrong) it is necessary to recall here that sometimes a lot of people may be completely wrong. As a good example, recall that during the period 1903-1906 some 120 trained scientists published almost 300 papers on the origins and characteristics of a totally spurious radiation first purported by a French scientist, René Blondlot. The amazing history of the N-rays affair is presented in: A. K. Dewdney, Yes, We Have No Neutrons, J. Wiley &Sons Inc., New York, 1997.

Also, how many papers have been written on the heat fluid of Becher before the advent of the kinetic theory of gases? I note that the heat fluid theory made many predictions...

Best regards,

Waldyr

P. S.: I like Clifford, spinors and superfield bundles,and of course supersymmetry, string theory, etc. By the way I just wrote a review for Math. Rev. on V. S. Varadarajan book: Supersymmetry for Mathematicians: An Introduction. However, I am very skeptical about the validity of string theory as a description of any physical world.
So is Roger Penrose. Well we cannot settle this here and now. Food for thought. :-)

On May 5, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Lubos Motl wrote:

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The ambiguity is in "string" here. The QCD flux tubes are not 9 + 1 superstrings, right? The issue here is the extra-dimensions and the supersymmetry for QCD.

Yes and no. The QCD flux tubes are conventionally thought of as tubes in 3+1 dimensions but they can also be indistinguishable from strings in 9+1 dimensions. For example, if the extra 6 dimensions are small, you won't see the details. But smallness is not the way how the 6 dimensions are hidden in AdS/QCD. In the N=4 gauge theory example, five of the dimensions span a sphere that is small for a small number of colors - but becomes huge and visible for a large number of colors.

More importantly, another (sixth) spatial coordinate - the holographic one - appears by the holographic tricks. You can think about the position in the new dimension (the distance from the boundary of the anti de Sitter space) to be equal to the energy scale of objects.

OK, Susskind I think discusses this in his little book.

Things with high energy (high frequency) are localized near the boundary of the AdS space; things with low frequency are localized far from the boundary, near the center of the AdS space. That's similar how a new 3rd dimension is encoded in real holograms in optics - although not identical - which is why we also talk about holography: places on the hologram where the interference pattern is denser are closer to the screen (or further? who cares).

Let me say an example that is not quite accurate but it conveys the flavor of the answer. A flux tube in 3+1 dimensions can carry various local excitations - kinds of "phonons" that propagate along the flux tube. Again, something that you can extract from the gauge theory if you look carefully.

If you look at the possible kinds of phonons that a real flux tube in 3+1 dimensions can carry, you will find, among a few other things I want to neglect, six scalar excitations. They are effectively described by 6 scalar fields defined on the flux tube. These 6 scalar fields know about the position of a given point on the flux tube in 6 additional dimensions. This means that the strings live in 9+1 dimensions, and by ignoring the internal dynamics of the flux tubes (and only focusing on the geometric shape), you are also overlooking the extra 6 dimensions.

OK - I like those 6 scalar fields of course, I have them in my
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022
from a naive POV of course.

In string theory, it is very typical that there are several exactly equivalent descriptions of the same system, and many things that look like "non-geometric" "kind-of-matter" objects on one side have a completely pure geometrical description on the other side, and vice versa. Space is emergent: there is no universally valid method to determine which information about physics is geometric (about position) and which is internal (about the internal features of the objects). These two groups of characteristics of objects and fields in string theory can be equivalent, while one of them may be more useful and "weakly coupled" in one limit of the parameter space than the other one.

Best
LM
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/


On May 5, 2006, at 5:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On May 5, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Lubos Motl wrote:
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Now, wait. What are you saying? Are you saying Wilczek cannot derive confinement with flux tubes in 3 + 1 space-time but needs to invoke 9 + 1 space-time with supersymmetry and branes and the ADS/CFT et-al?

No. I am saying that the string theory approach gives us new ways to understand why confinement is there and how things behave in the real QCD of Wilczek et al. SU(3) gauge theory is however perfectly enough to study all strongly interacting physics, at least in principle - if one has powerful enough computers.

The dual string theory is an alternative approach to the same problem. However, this investigation focuses on a different aspect of string theory than the main goal for which string theory is studied: the string theory relevant for QCD is a string theory in a highly curved background. Conventionally, we use string theory to understand four-dimensional interactions including four-dimensional gravity. However, the first (QCD)
picture is a part (limit) of the second picture in many particular realizations of the real world within string theory.

I mean, are you saying that plain vanilla Yang-Mills SU(3) point particle QCD in 3 + 1 is incomplete and cannot within itself get quark confinement and asymptotic freedom? Is that what you mean?

No, this is not what I mean. In this setup, string theory is just a mathematical tool to calculate things that are difficult to calculate with normal methods of QCD. Two quarks of different color can't be infinitely separated because there is a string in between them that tries to shrink them. The whole theory can be defined with these strings as the fundamental objects, instead of the gluons.

The ambiguity is in "string" here. The QCD flux tubes are not 9 + 1 superstrings, right? The issue here is the extra-dimensions and the supersymmetry for QCD.

Gauge theory is exactly equivalent to physics of strings

That's interesting. Do you mean local gauge theory, i.e. Yang-Mills in 3 + 1 is equivalent to a 9 + 1 string/brane theory with supersymmetry and holography in the form of ADS/CFT?

Yes, in this case you are right on the money. The AdS/CFT correspondence, in its most popular form, is saying exactly this. An SU(N) Yang-Mills theory in 3+1 dimensions is exactly equivalent to a 9+1-dimensional string theory with supersymmetry, branes, and everything else. The gauge theory description is simpler and more convergent if the `t Hooft coupling, lambda = g_{Yang-Mills}^2 * N, is small.

OK, that's interesting. Thanks.

The string theory description is more natural, weakly coupled, and more convergent if lambda is large: in this limit, the physics of the d=4 gauge theory indeed develops ten spacetime dimensions that are almost flat. Five of them are compact - they span a sphere whose radius grows with a positive power of lambda. Five of them organize themselves into anti de Sitter space, a curved spacetime whose boundary at infinity is four-dimensional - this is where the gauge theory was originally defined.

Reference?

Maldacena and its 3900+ references mentioned previously

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200

You can also find this 250+ page-long review useful:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905111

OK thanks.

Is that a theorem by Witten?

It's normally called the Maldacena correspondence, but because Witten has made it really famous, you can also call it a theorem by Witten. See his paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802150

plus its 2700+ citations.

and extra dimensions are necessary for the picture to work.

What is the best pedagogical review of that?

Not sure whether I gave you the best one, but one review is listed above. Dozens of other reviews are listed in section VI (gauge-gravity duality) on page 8 of the resource letter by Marolf

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311044

Whenever my blog covers a topic, it's of course the most pedagogical source. ;-)

This appears to be the model Penrose seems to debunk in The Road to Reality.

Haha.

Let me remind you that type IIB string theory requires 10 spacetime dimensions.

Why 10? Can it be because the Poincare and the deSitter groups have 10 parameters?

Unlikely. String theory requires ten dimensions to cancel the conformal anomaly on the worldsheet. In the RNS formalism, there must be superpartner fermions for each boson (spacetime direction). Each fermion contributes 1/2 of the anomaly of the corresponding boson. Together, they have 3D/2 of units of anomaly. Then the supersymmetric RNS worldsheet also requires bc ghosts and beta-gamma ghosts. The bc ghosts contribute 1-3.3^2 = -26 units of anomaly; the beta-gamma ghosts contribute -1+3.2^2 = 11 units of anomaly. Together, bc and beta gamma have -26+11 = -15, which is canceled against 3/2 times 10 dimensions. There are other ways to derive the number but all of them require at least some technology. The number 10 has probably nothing to do with the number of your fingers, digits, or generators of the Lorentz group in d=4.

Detailed physics of interacting strings and extra dimensions can be seen in N=4 d=4 gauge theory as long as the number of colors N is large.

How can N = 4 and N large hold at the same time?

It's a different N. When I wrote N=4, I mean scriptN=4, which counts the number of supercharges. The other N that should be large is the number of colors - something equal to "3" in real QCD.

Best
Lubos
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On what Roger Penrose calls "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" in Physics Today

The ADS/CFT conjecture arose as another way of looking at the 'string' derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking black-hole entropy formula ... This would only be of relevance to cosmological-size black holes ... based on some remarkable agreements between 'entropy calculations' done in different ways, rather than on an actual derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking expression. ... some of the strongest claims can be discounted altogether (such as string theory having provided a complete consistent theory of quantum gravity) ... The strength of string's theory's case appears to rest on a number of remarkable mathematical relationships between seemingly different 'physical situations' ... Are these relationships 'coincidence', or is there some deeper reason behind them? ... indeed such a reason ... as yet undiscovered, ... still does not reassure us that the string theorists are doing physics." 31.18 p. 926

31.16 The Road to Reality

What is the "holographic conjecture"?

"the states of a quantum field theory defined on some spacetime M can be put in direct 1-1 correspondence with the states of another quantum field theory, where the second quantum field theory is defined on another spacetime E of lower dimension! Often, E is presented as though it were a (timelike) boundary of M, or at least some conformally smooth timelike submanifold of M. However, this is not the case in the usual example ... The holographic principle is ... analogous to a hologram, where a 3-dimensional image is perceived when a (basically) 2-dimensional surface is viewed. The most familiar form of this 'holographic principle', ... is sometimes referred to as .. the ADS/CFT conjecture. Here M is ... a (1 + 9) dimensional product AdS5xS5, where AdS5 is the ('unwrapped') (1 + 4) dimensional anti-de Sitter space ... here there are four space dimensions. The S5 is spacelike 5-sphere whose radius is of cosmological dimension, equal to (-/\')^1/2, where /\' is the (negative) cosmological constant of AdS5." I think that is a typo in the text and it is (-/\')^-1/2 because [/\] = 1/AREA = CURVATURE

Note that dark energy is /\' > 0 corresponding to a (1 + 4) de Sitter space without an S5 at all. Why the S5? As Izzi Rabi said of the neutrino "Who ordered that?" So the observational fact is that /\' > 0 although the theory here has /\' < 0.

"The smaller space E is to be the 4-dimensional ... conformal infinity of AdS5. We note that E, being 4-dimensional, is certainly not the boundary of M ... since M = AdS5xS5 is 10 dimensional. Instead the boundary of M can be thought of (but not conformally) as ExS5. The Malcadena conjecture supposes that string-theory on AdSxS5 is ... equivalent to a ... supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory on E. Here there is no chance of appealing to the type of 'quantum energy' argument (in 31.10) for explaining away the gross discrepancy between the functional freedom of an ordinary field on M, namely oo^Moo^9 and an ordinary field on E, namely oo^Eoo^3. Since the extra dimensions of M are in no way 'small' - being of cosmological scale - the flood of additional degrees of freedom, from the fields' dependence on the S5 part of M, would spoil any possibility of an agreement between the two field theories. The same would apply to ordinary QFTs on M and E, since one-particle states are themselves described simply by 'ordinary fields' (26.2). The only chance of the holographic principle being actually true for these spaces is for the QFTs under consideration to be far from 'ordinary'." Penrose elaborates on this with more details.
"It is my opinion that the the importance this kind of discrepancy in functional freedom has been profoundly underrated. ... Why is the ADS/CFT conjecture taken so seriously? The support for it seems to come from a correspondence between BPS states on the two sides, that had been noted by Maldacena and from a number of other correspondences ... there are also some additional 'coincidences' that seem to need explaining. .... The ADS/CFT conjecture arose as another way of looking at the 'string' derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking black-hole entropy formula ... This would only be of relevance to cosmological-size black holes ... based on some remarkable agreements between 'entropy calculations' done in different ways, rather than on an actual derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking expression. ... some of the strongest claims can be discounted altogether (such as string theory having provided a complete consistent theory of quantum gravity) ... The strength of string's theory's case appears to rest on a number of remarkable mathematical relationships between seemingly different 'physical situations' ... Are these relationships 'coincidence', or is there some deeper reason behind them? ... indeed such a reason ... as yet undiscovered, ... still does not reassure us that the string theorists are doing physics." 31.18 p. 926

Lubos Motl

Subject: Re: Penrose "nukes" string theory on the road to reality.

bcc

On May 2, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Lubos Motl wrote:

Incidentally, Calabi-Yau manifolds are of course Ricci-flat - this is one of their defining feature.

R_{mn} = 0

Yes, Penrose says that.

This also implies that the Riemann tensor

G_{mn} = 0

Well in 3 + 1

Guv + /\(Dark Energy)guv = 0 and you can relate this to O(4,1) DeSitter Space.

1//\ is the Horizon area Holograph "Screen" with (1/4/\Lp*^2) BITS in 3 + 1.

What happens in 9 + 1? Is there a larger dimensional "De Sitter space"? Hey, is that M-theory? I mean the meaning of the 10th space dimension? Something like O(10,1)?

The fact that complex Kahler manifolds with a vanishing first Chern class admit a Ricci-flat metric was conjectured by Calabi in 1957 and proved by 1977 which is why we call these manifolds Calabi-Yau manifolds.

Penrose says you need more than that, something like Killing field isometries to reduce the redundant functional freedom. An Iranian student of Bohm's in 1971 was really into Kahler manifolds - ahead of his time.

Inclusion of zero-point energy is obtained by standard perturbative techniques in string theory, and one can prove that at every order, a stable solution exists.

Penrose's statements that Calabi-Yaus spontaneously want to collapse to a singularity or anything like that are silly.

Best
Lubos

OK, I cannot argue with you - at least not yet. ;-
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Are you related to The Motl - the Czech Conductor? Or are you ET? ;-)
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

Eric, you may be right. I was aware of this possibility. However, I have some doubt. Does DeWitt do the calculation in detail? Where? Actually he may do it in the Global Field Theory book I have of his. I will look anon. The question is, is the modified motion of the star simply a modified geodesic motion? What mathematically in the theory is a "hard vacuum"?

On May 2, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:
The answer to your question was given in my paragraph below: a beam of gravitational waves is used as a propellant to "push a rocket;" this propellant can be used to attain acceleration (i.e., non-geodesic motion) simply by "ejecting" (i.e., emitting) one hard vacuum (the gravitational waves) into another hard vacuum (the backround spacetime). DeWitt discussed this for the case of a star undergoing asymmetric octupole collapse thus causing the star to achieve a net velocity change of 200 km/sec via the emission of near-unidirectional gravity waves.

Another view of this would be to generate a beam of gravitons and emit it out the rear of a rocket just as in the case of a photon rocket.

No warp drive here, etc.

Eric

Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS
Inst. for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78759


From: Jack Sarfatti
To: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com"
CC: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Does gravity radiation reaction create g-force on the source?
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 10:12:24 -0700

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler



<< wheeler.jpg >>



From last time:
ED: It turns out that Einstein’s General Relativity Theory in principle allows for a beam of gravitational radiation to be used as a rocket propellant.

JS: The issue is, is it geodesic or not? I mean would it be like the Alcubierre drive without any g-force on the occupants like we see in Paul Hill's empirical analysis of the saucer's "acceleration fields" or would it simply be another impulse engine from the Poynting type vector momentum energy propagated away from the ship? Put another way, when a source emits a gravity wave is the source pushed off a timelike geodesic from the gravity radiation reaction back on the source? In this sense, is the gravity wave like any other "rocket propellant" like throwing out atoms, or ions, or electrons - or does the path of the source stay geodesic because the gravity waves modifying the the metric field in such a way as to simply change the geodesic of the source?

OK geodesic equation is

d^2X^u/ds^2 + (Connection)^uvw(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds) = 0

Where at least in weak field linearization

Connection = (Connection)near field + Wiggly (Connection)gravity wave far field

So it would seem that equivalence principle demands that this geodesic equation cannot be violated with emission of only gravity waves? There is no e/m here, it's still Paul Hill "acceleration field" or George Trimble "G-Engine" right? I could be wrong. What do you think? I am not sure because I never thought about this before. Basically, only NON-GRAVITY FORCES (basically electromagnetic forces) can push the object OFF a geodesic. Also the geodesic is defined relative to the connection. Right now let's not consider the additional complication of torsion field - just plain vanilla 1915 GR.

ED: Because gravitational waves are ripples on the curvature of spacetime we can use this propellant to attain acceleration simply by ejecting one hard vacuum into another. An example is that of a star undergoing asymmetric octupole collapse which achieves a net velocity change of ~ 200 km/sec via the gravitational wave propulsion effect [B. DeWitt (1979), "Quantum gravity: the new synthesis," in General Relativity: An Einstein centenary survey, eds. Hawking & Israel, p. 681].

JS: OK, but are g-forces felt locally there or not? Velocity changes all the time on geodesics in curved space-time - and the gravity wave is simply a dynamic change in the curvature field.

ED: This propulsion effect is also reviewed and discussed by Fontana [Fontana, G. (2003), “Gravitational Radiation Applied to Space Travel,” paper HFGW-03-111, Int’l High-Frequency Gravitational Waves Working Group: Gravitational Wave Conference, MITRE, Corp., McLean, VA].

JS: Agreed there will be a propulsion, but is it like Alcubierre, i.e. geodesic, zero g-force for the occupants? It seems it must be so from the equivalence principle.

The absence of SPLAT! g-force characteristic of weightless timelike geodesic free-float rests on the universality of the motion of passive test particles in a given rigid metric field guv. This condition is violated when gravity waves are emitted from the "ship." The rate of emission of the gravity waves which carry away impulse momentum is a function of the mass M of the gravity wave "engine" and therefore M will appear in (Connection Field)gravity wave. Also one may need catalytic electromagnetic forces to generate the the High Frequency Gravity Wave beam that might kick the ship off the weightless geodesic. On the other hand, the local geodesic motion of the ship is determined by the local net effective connection field, so it is not clear what will happen so far the way I am asking The Question. This is an interesting and important problem for the new physics of the metric engineering of warp and wormhole for "instant flight" to the other worlds of the Megaverse. The problem is akin to the problem of whether a freely falling electric charge radiates electromagnetic waves? In Newton's theory of gravity one would naively expect the charge to radiate from its acceleration since there gravity is a force like any other. On the other hand in Einstein's theory of gravity the charge is in free float and from the equivalence principle gravity is not a "force" and the charge should not radiate. EM radiation should only come from a non-gravity EM force pushing the charge off its timelike geodesic world line. There is also the additional fact that a "jerk" or change in the non- gravitational acceleration is needed for EM waves to be radiated. See Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation." Also one must remember that "geodesic" is relative to the connection field and that the gravity wave is modifying the local connection field at its source.

On May 1, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

On May 1, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:

Read below for my reply to your questions............


Subject: Re: Baker giving HFGW propulsion to China
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:37:15 -0700

bcc
On May 1, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:

Jack - FYI:

Bob Baker is only collaborating with Chinese universities because DARPA program managers twice rejected his proposals.

Perhaps with good reason? I don't really know. Have you checked out this stuff closely? Has Hal? How does it connect with Ray Chiao's idea for "gravity radio"?


Yes, I have checked all this out myself. Hal has not because he is not involved with Baker's effort. I am. Ray Chiao abandoned his gravity radio project because he found an error in his calculations.

Do you have details on that? I would like to know precisely what the error was. Has Ray published a retraction?


My speciulation is that the HFGW research he proposed did not fit the program and funding portfolios of the DARPA departments. NASA no longer has an advanced concepts or propulsion program since its adaptation of the "heritage technologies" paradigm.

What's that?


Earlier this year NASA announced that it will replace the Space Shuttle with a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that is based on the Apollo command module and return capsule design but upgraded with 21st century tech. The launch vehicle for the CEV is to be based on the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster (which has 4 solid fuel segments) but modified to be a single 5-segment solid fuel first stage augmented by a LH2/LOX upper stage or maybe liquid fuel booster rockets.

So it's back to the future for both the Apollo spacecraft and Space Shuttle heritage technologies. There will be no using alternative liquid fuels, no nuclear rocket engines, and no other form of advanced propulsion outside of nuclear concepts. And certainly there will be no spaceplane type of crew vehicle.


The NIAC only has limited funding for short-term and long-term studies with little hardware development. The AFOSR also has backed away from advanced physics funding since 2004 since the pressure is on for them to support R&D for the war in Iraq. The NSF won't fund Baker because he is not at a university, and their peer review panels are all manned by low frequency gravity wave adherents.

You mean Kip Thorne at Cal Tech primarily and his MIT associates.


Plus the other peer reviewers at other universities that NSF draws on.


The Chinese were the only ones to cough up several years of funding (in the millions of dollars), lab facilities, ultra- high intensity lasers, lots of grad students and postdocs, and the cooperation of several top flight general relativity experts there. The U.S. general relativity community is stuck in the LIGO and LISA paradigms with billions of dollars committed for low frequency gravity waves and no interest to do anything else.

What is it something like the (frequency)^4 ? scaling of power output? Is that the key idea here?


I don't recall what the scaling is off the top of my head. I'd have to look for the relevant papers.


Baker et al. (including myself) are pushing the high frequency paradigm since the Gertsenshtein Effect can make it happen, and Landau & Lifshitz give a GR prescription for HFGWs. Baker's derivations are all based on L & L's book plus other standard texts, no new physics was invented, just new techniques for making quadrupole HFGW radiation.

Is that Classical Theory of Fields or Electrodynamics of Continuous Media - I have them both.


Classical Theory of Fields.

OK


OK even if one is able to get a detectable signal strength for HFGW - perhaps OK for C^3 that's plausible, but I see no way to get propulsion? Do you or Hal?


It turns out that Einstein’s General Relativity Theory in principle allows for a beam of gravitational radiation to be used as a rocket propellant.

The issue is, is it geodesic or not? I mean would it be like the Alcubierre drive without any g-force on the occupants like we see in Paul Hill's empirical analysis of the saucer's "acceleration fields" or would it simply be another impulse engine from the Poynting type vector momentum energy propagated away from the ship? Put another way, when a source emits a gravity wave is the source pushed off a timelike geodesic from the gravity radiation reaction back on the source? In this sense, is the gravity wave like any other "rocket propellant" like throwing out atoms, or ions, or electrons - or does the path of the source stay geodesic because the gravity waves modifying the the metric field in such a way as to simply change the geodesic of the source?

OK geodesic equation is

d^2X^u/ds^2 + (Connection)^uvw(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds) = 0

Where at least in weak field linearization

Connection = (Connection)near field + Wiggly (Connection)gravity wave far field

So it would seem that equivalence principle demands that this geodesic equation cannot be violated with emission of only gravity waves? There is no e/m here, it's still Paul Hill "acceleration field" or George Trimble "G-Engine" right? I could be wrong. What do you think? I am not sure because I never thought about this before. Basically, only NON-GRAVITY FORCES (basically electromagnetic forces) can push the object OFF a geodesic. Also the geodesic is defined relative to the connection. Right now let's not consider the additional complication of torsion field - just plain vanilla 1915 GR.

Because gravitational waves are ripples on the curvature of spacetime we can use this propellant to attain acceleration simply by ejecting one hard vacuum into another. An example is that of a star undergoing asymmetric octupole collapse which achieves a net velocity change of ~ 200 km/sec via the gravitational wave propulsion effect [B. DeWitt (1979), "Quantum gravity: the new synthesis," in General Relativity: An Einstein centenary survey, eds. Hawking & Israel, p. 681].

OK, but are g-forces felt locally there or not? Velocity changes all the time on geodesics in curved space-time - and the gravity wave is simply a dynamic change in the curvature field.

This propulsion effect is also reviewed and discussed by Fontana [Fontana, G. (2003), “Gravitational Radiation Applied to Space Travel,” paper HFGW-03-111, Int’l High-Frequency Gravitational Waves Working Group: Gravitational Wave Conference, MITRE, Corp., McLean, VA].

Agreed there will be a propulsion, but is it like Alcubierre, i.e. geodesic, zero g-force for the occupants? It seems it must be so from the equivalence principle.

To elaborate on this, I must point out an important result from General Relativity Theory that because a graviton/gravitational wave has a definite energy it therefore is a source that induces its own gravitational field. This induced field is a second order effect in the h_ij (the usual first order metric quantities used in gravity wave field equations), which is tremendously magnified in the case of high frequency gravitational waves by the very large factor lambda^(-2) (lambda = wavelength) introduced by the terms quadratic in partial(h_ij)/partial(x^k) (i.e., terms 2nd order in 1/lambda; note that x^k are the usual spatial coordinates) that comprise the gravitational wave stress-energy- momentum density pseudo-tensor [Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1998), The Classical Theory of Fields: Course of Theoretical Physics Vol. 2, 4th revised English edition, Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 347-350]. Therefore, the gravitational wave itself produces the background field on which it propagates.

Regards,

Eric



Baker was forced into a corner.

This is the exact same situation that went on in the U.S. over the development of the jet engine during WWII. The Germans and the British had a completely different world view about doing aviation research than the U.S. aviation engineering community had. So they went forth on the development of the jet engine whilst the U.S. aviation community refused to jump into it because the National Academy of Sciences published a report in 1940 concluding that jet engines were not practical and wouldn't work. Along comes Whittle in Britain and his counterpart in Germany who both develop practical working jet engines. Nearly all of the U.S. aviation industry, and NACA, were all stuck on using radial piston prop engines plus superchargers to boost their performance.

So along comes General Hap Arnold who also found himself in a corner because he was the only man in the U.S. government, while Nathan C. Price and Kelly Johnson were the only two industry men (at Lockheed-Burbank), who saw the potential for the jet engine to revolutionize aviation and win the war.

Arnold secretly brought Whittle's blueprints and complete engines to the U.S. and gave them to Pratt & Whitney and GE to copy and reproduce. This operation had documentation that was stamped "supersecret" in those days. The Army department in charge of funding aviation research, not knowing about Arnold's secret operation, declined Price and Johnson's 1940 Lockheed proposal to develop the L-1000 jet engine and use it to power the L-133 jet fighter (which looks almost like 21st century stealth) because they (the Army) thought the jet engine and aircraft design were far too futuristic to develop in time for wartime use.

Bob Baker is in sort of a reverse situation of this. He has general relativity physics that is backed up by the classic texts but no funds nor willingness on the part of the GR community to carry through a HFGW experiment. So he has to go seek foreign funding since foreigners are more open minded about doing different kinds of research and have the money and motivation to do so.

BTW, there are also two independent British and Italian efforts to generate HFGWs in the lab that are in development now.

Regards,

Eric

Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS
Inst. for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78759


From: Jack Sarfatti
To: RON STAHL

Subject: Re: Baker giving HFGW propulsion to China
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:14:20 -0700

The propulsion part seems dubious. The rest not. Ray Chiao has a better idea IMO.
On Apr 29, 2006, at 12:45 PM, RON STAHL wrote:

I haven't read about Baker in a year or two but the concept is based upon oscillating mass.

Ray Chiao has another idea.


When it gets a jolt, it releases HFGW's in the GHz range His devise is designed to produce coherent waves that don't attenuate when passing through matter.

Problem is signal strength.

I had heard that he was working with the Chinese on a communications scheme--call your subs, have your cell phone contact anyone on the planet at any time, etc. I had also heard I think, that a year ago at STAIF he was saying that he had more confidence in communications apps than in propulsion.

That's what I told you.

I think there was a HFGW survey paper presented by someone at Boeing that had held higher hopes for propulsion but if Boeing were really interested, would Baker be taking Chinese money?

Sure, why not. Their money IS OUR MONEY. Where have you been?

Now I pop onto the web site and find projections for propulsion. Well color me crazy but WHERE ARE THE AMERICAN INVESTORS?!!!

If there is anything to it - it's classified is my guess financed by UAE. ;-)

The really surprising thing is that China is paying for research up front rather than stealing it or paying Hillary Clinton for it through donations to the democratic national party. Maybe they're afraid Condi will beat her.

What are you smoking? ;-)



On Apr 29, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I know George Chapline since 1966 at UCSD La Jolla and Cal Tech. We were both part of the scene that Greg Benford describes in his Sci Fi novel "Timescape" about messages from the future i.e. SIGNAL NONLOCALITY that I am working on NOW although that concept was UNKNOWN back in the 1960's & even 70's!
I have written George about this and will see what he says.
I have not yet considered the URLS in detail. Kip Thorne & Ray Chiao should be asked. It is so difficult to detect ELF gravity waves so is the claim here that the detection & generation of HFGW more efficient?

Even if it was, I do not understand the motivation for this approach because far field radiation is like a leak in the water tank when you are trying to conserve water!

That is, we want to use the MACRO-QUANTUM NEAR VIRTUAL GRAVITY FIELDS ~ 1/r^2 in the whole (frequency-wavevector space) etc. that do not propagate away to infinity in the form of gravity radiation. That is the gravity induction type fields (off-mass- shell) are more important for practical metric engineering of warp and wormhole than the gravity waves ~ 1/r (on-mass-shell where frequency = (speed of light)(wavenumber) locus in frequency-wavevector space).

On Apr 29, 2006, at 11:57 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

the good old boys are out of their minds. . .look at the 20 year projection at the first link

http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Chinese&GRAVWAVE%20Joint%20HFGW % 20Project.pdf

http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Dr%5B1%5D.%20George%20Chapline% 27s% 20Comments.pdf

Jack, as you probably know, this propulsion concept is based upon creating a singularity through constructive interferance of HFGW's. Set aside whether you think Baker can succeed at this and tell me, with the projectors attached to a ship, which is falling toward the singularity, which is receeding as the ship draws near. . .a moving gravity well. I don't see a reason to suppose this would be limited to subluminal travel, do you?

What you wrote makes no sense to me. The basic idea is simple. You use dark zero point energy with negative pressure & w < - 1/3 BEHIND the ship. This dark energy's induced gravity repulsion expands space behind the ship and makes a counter- intuitive reverse Dopper gravity BLUE SHIFT of all signals coming from the expanding space at the stern. You do opposite in front i.e. positive pressure zero point energy causing contraction of space that gives a counter intuitive gravity red shift from the bow.

You do this by inhomogeneous phase-locking of the vacuum's Goldstone phases to a a control Goldstone phase in thin-film high Tc anyon condensate modulated by tiny perpendicular magnetic field flux quanta - all at micro->nanoscale. That's my rough current intuition on how it basically works.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022

Lubos Motl challenges Roger Penrose's critique of string theory

On May 2, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Lubos Motl wrote:

On Tue, 2 May 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Can anyone defend string theory against Roger Penrose's pulverizing attack in Chapter 31 of "The Road to Reality"?

Sure, every grad student can do it after the first semester of string theory.

Prof. Penrose is completely confused about basic things. Calabi-Yau compactifications are supersymmetric which trivially implies that they are stable. Moreover, all singularities on the moduli space of Calabi-Yau manifolds - corresponding to singular versions of the manifold (a conifold) - have smooth string theory physics around these points because of the existence of additional light states such as wrapped 3-branes. All of this has been understood in detail for more than 10 years. Prof. Penrose was clearly sleeping during that time. Best wishes, Lubos
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anyon Warp Drive of Alien ET Flying Saucers?

Bosons give positive zero point vacuum "dark energy" density hence repulsive anti-gravity expanding space with a universal reverse Doppler blue shift. Fermions do the opposite with negative zero point vacuum energy density contracting space with a universal "ordinary" attractive gravity "dark matter" red shift. Jacques Vallee in "fictional" "Fastwalker" describes retrieved alien saucers that show "Doppler shifts" from the thin skin fuselage when standing still clamped to ground when the "engine" is idling in different modes. See my chapter on this in "Super Cosmos" (wait for 2nd edition not out yet).

Anyon "condensates" in 2 + 1 thin film space-time smoothly interpolate between bosons and fermions controlled by applied perpendicular magnetic fluxes. Therefore, one can make an arbitrary phased array over the skin of the saucer to create the kinds of Alcubierre geodesic "dome," i.e. warp bubble whose shape can shift rapidly. Saucers show strange "shape shifts' from the reverse Doppler shifts of the changing warp bubble.



On May 2, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Can anyone defend string theory against Roger Penrose's pulverizing attack in Chapter 31 of "The Road to Reality"? One possible loop hole is that the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems assume time travel to the past is not allowed and that one cannot have negative energy density with w > -1/3 or positive energy density with w < - 1/3. Both of these cases (isotropic ZPE source) give anti-gravity repulsion that may also prevent instant collapse of Calabi-Yau 6D space to a singularity.

Key equation is in Planck absolute units G = h = c = k = 1

G00 ~ 4pi(energy density)(1 + 3w)

When the RHS of this equation is positive the source gives attraction, when it is negative it gives repulsion that can prevent the singularity from forming.

Note, that when w > - 1/3 then (1 + 3w) > 0

For example -1/3 = -0.333 ... < - 1/4 = - 0.250 ...

1 - 3/4 = +1/4

When w < - 1/3 then (1 + 3w) < 0

So that w = - 1/3 is the critical turning point.

Special relativity + equivalence principle + Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle demand

w = - 1 for an isotropic source of zero point vacuum fluctuation virtual "dark" energy for all quantum fields at least in 3 + 1 space-time.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler
From last time:
ED: It turns out that Einstein’s General Relativity Theory in principle allows for a beam of gravitational radiation to be used as a rocket propellant.

JS: The issue is, is it geodesic or not? I mean would it be like the Alcubierre drive without any g-force on the occupants like we see in Paul Hill's empirical analysis of the saucer's "acceleration fields" or would it simply be another impulse engine from the Poynting type vector momentum energy propagated away from the ship? Put another way, when a source emits a gravity wave is the source pushed off a timelike geodesic from the gravity radiation reaction back on the source? In this sense, is the gravity wave like any other "rocket propellant" like throwing out atoms, or ions, or electrons - or does the path of the source stay geodesic because the gravity waves modifying the the metric field in such a way as to simply change the geodesic of the source?

OK geodesic equation is

d^2X^u/ds^2 + (Connection)^uvw(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds) = 0

Where at least in weak field linearization

Connection = (Connection)near field + Wiggly (Connection)gravity wave far field

So it would seem that equivalence principle demands that this geodesic equation cannot be violated with emission of only gravity waves? There is no e/m here, it's still Paul Hill "acceleration field" or George Trimble "G-Engine" right? I could be wrong. What do you think? I am not sure because I never thought about this before. Basically, only NON-GRAVITY FORCES (basically electromagnetic forces) can push the object OFF a geodesic. Also the geodesic is defined relative to the connection. Right now let's not consider the additional complication of torsion field - just plain vanilla 1915 GR.

ED: Because gravitational waves are ripples on the curvature of spacetime we can use this propellant to attain acceleration simply by ejecting one hard vacuum into another. An example is that of a star undergoing asymmetric octupole collapse which achieves a net velocity change of ~ 200 km/sec via the gravitational wave propulsion effect [B. DeWitt (1979), "Quantum gravity: the new synthesis," in General Relativity: An Einstein centenary survey, eds. Hawking & Israel, p. 681].

JS: OK, but are g-forces felt locally there or not? Velocity changes all the time on geodesics in curved space-time - and the gravity wave is simply a dynamic change in the curvature field.

ED: This propulsion effect is also reviewed and discussed by Fontana [Fontana, G. (2003), “Gravitational Radiation Applied to Space Travel,” paper HFGW-03-111, Int’l High-Frequency Gravitational Waves Working Group: Gravitational Wave Conference, MITRE, Corp., McLean, VA].

JS: Agreed there will be a propulsion, but is it like Alcubierre, i.e. geodesic, zero g-force for the occupants? It seems it must be so from the equivalence principle.

The absence of SPLAT! g-force characteristic of weightless timelike geodesic free-float rests on the universality of the motion of passive test particles in a given rigid metric field guv. This condition is violated when gravity waves are emitted from the "ship." The rate of emission of the gravity waves which carry away impulse momentum is a function of the mass M of the gravity wave "engine" and therefore M will appear in (Connection Field)gravity wave. Also one may need catalytic electromagnetic forces to generate the the High Frequency Gravity Wave beam that might kick the ship off the weightless geodesic. On the other hand, the local geodesic motion of the ship is determined by the local net effective connection field, so it is not clear what will happen so far the way I am asking The Question. This is an interesting and important problem for the new physics of the metric engineering of warp and wormhole for "instant flight" to the other worlds of the Megaverse. The problem is akin to the problem of whether a freely falling electric charge radiates electromagnetic waves? In Newton's theory of gravity one would naively expect the charge to radiate from its acceleration since there gravity is a force like any other. On the other hand in Einstein's theory of gravity the charge is in free float and from the equivalence principle gravity is not a "force" and the charge should not radiate. EM radiation should only come from a non-gravity EM force pushing the charge off its timelike geodesic world line. There is also the additional fact that a "jerk" or change in the non-gravitational acceleration is needed for EM waves to be radiated. See Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation." Also one must remember that "geodesic" is relative to the connection field and that the gravity wave is modifying the local connection field at its source.

On May 1, 2006, at 5:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

On May 1, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:

Read below for my reply to your questions............


Subject: Re: Baker giving HFGW propulsion to China
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:37:15 -0700

bcc
On May 1, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:

Jack - FYI:

Bob Baker is only collaborating with Chinese universities because DARPA program managers twice rejected his proposals.

Perhaps with good reason? I don't really know. Have you checked out this stuff closely? Has Hal? How does it connect with Ray Chiao's idea for "gravity radio"?


Yes, I have checked all this out myself. Hal has not because he is not involved with Baker's effort. I am. Ray Chiao abandoned his gravity radio project because he found an error in his calculations.

Do you have details on that? I would like to know precisely what the error was. Has Ray published a retraction?


My speciulation is that the HFGW research he proposed did not fit the program and funding portfolios of the DARPA departments. NASA no longer has an advanced concepts or propulsion program since its adaptation of the "heritage technologies" paradigm.

What's that?


Earlier this year NASA announced that it will replace the Space Shuttle with a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that is based on the Apollo command module and return capsule design but upgraded with 21st century tech. The launch vehicle for the CEV is to be based on the Space Shuttle solid rocket booster (which has 4 solid fuel segments) but modified to be a single 5-segment solid fuel first stage augmented by a LH2/LOX upper stage or maybe liquid fuel booster rockets.

So it's back to the future for both the Apollo spacecraft and Space Shuttle heritage technologies. There will be no using alternative liquid fuels, no nuclear rocket engines, and no other form of advanced propulsion outside of nuclear concepts. And certainly there will be no spaceplane type of crew vehicle.


The NIAC only has limited funding for short-term and long-term studies with little hardware development. The AFOSR also has backed away from advanced physics funding since 2004 since the pressure is on for them to support R&D for the war in Iraq. The NSF won't fund Baker because he is not at a university, and their peer review panels are all manned by low frequency gravity wave adherents.

You mean Kip Thorne at Cal Tech primarily and his MIT associates.


Plus the other peer reviewers at other universities that NSF draws on.


The Chinese were the only ones to cough up several years of funding (in the millions of dollars), lab facilities, ultra-high intensity lasers, lots of grad students and postdocs, and the cooperation of several top flight general relativity experts there. The U.S. general relativity community is stuck in the LIGO and LISA paradigms with billions of dollars committed for low frequency gravity waves and no interest to do anything else.

What is it something like the (frequency)^4 ? scaling of power output? Is that the key idea here?


I don't recall what the scaling is off the top of my head. I'd have to look for the relevant papers.


Baker et al. (including myself) are pushing the high frequency paradigm since the Gertsenshtein Effect can make it happen, and Landau & Lifshitz give a GR prescription for HFGWs. Baker's derivations are all based on L & L's book plus other standard texts, no new physics was invented, just new techniques for making quadrupole HFGW radiation.

Is that Classical Theory of Fields or Electrodynamics of Continuous Media - I have them both.


Classical Theory of Fields.

OK


OK even if one is able to get a detectable signal strength for HFGW - perhaps OK for C^3 that's plausible, but I see no way to get propulsion? Do you or Hal?


It turns out that Einstein’s General Relativity Theory in principle allows for a beam of gravitational radiation to be used as a rocket propellant.

The issue is, is it geodesic or not? I mean would it be like the Alcubierre drive without any g-force on the occupants like we see in Paul Hill's empirical analysis of the saucer's "acceleration fields" or would it simply be another impulse engine from the Poynting type vector momentum energy propagated away from the ship? Put another way, when a source emits a gravity wave is the source pushed off a timelike geodesic from the gravity radiation reaction back on the source? In this sense, is the gravity wave like any other "rocket propellant" like throwing out atoms, or ions, or electrons - or does the path of the source stay geodesic because the gravity waves modifying the the metric field in such a way as to simply change the geodesic of the source?

OK geodesic equation is

d^2X^u/ds^2 + (Connection)^uvw(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds) = 0

Where at least in weak field linearization

Connection = (Connection)near field + Wiggly (Connection)gravity wave far field

So it would seem that equivalence principle demands that this geodesic equation cannot be violated with emission of only gravity waves? There is no e/m here, it's still Paul Hill "acceleration field" or George Trimble "G-Engine" right? I could be wrong. What do you think? I am not sure because I never thought about this before. Basically, only NON-GRAVITY FORCES (basically electromagnetic forces) can push the object OFF a geodesic. Also the geodesic is defined relative to the connection. Right now let's not consider the additional complication of torsion field - just plain vanilla 1915 GR.

Because gravitational waves are ripples on the curvature of spacetime we can use this propellant to attain acceleration simply by ejecting one hard vacuum into another. An example is that of a star undergoing asymmetric octupole collapse which achieves a net velocity change of ~ 200 km/sec via the gravitational wave propulsion effect [B. DeWitt (1979), "Quantum gravity: the new synthesis," in General Relativity: An Einstein centenary survey, eds. Hawking & Israel, p. 681].

OK, but are g-forces felt locally there or not? Velocity changes all the time on geodesics in curved space-time - and the gravity wave is simply a dynamic change in the curvature field.

This propulsion effect is also reviewed and discussed by Fontana [Fontana, G. (2003), “Gravitational Radiation Applied to Space Travel,” paper HFGW-03-111, Int’l High-Frequency Gravitational Waves Working Group: Gravitational Wave Conference, MITRE, Corp., McLean, VA].

Agreed there will be a propulsion, but is it like Alcubierre, i.e. geodesic, zero g-force for the occupants? It seems it must be so from the equivalence principle.

To elaborate on this, I must point out an important result from General Relativity Theory that because a graviton/gravitational wave has a definite energy it therefore is a source that induces its own gravitational field. This induced field is a second order effect in the h_ij (the usual first order metric quantities used in gravity wave field equations), which is tremendously magnified in the case of high frequency gravitational waves by the very large factor lambda^(-2) (lambda = wavelength) introduced by the terms quadratic in partial(h_ij)/partial(x^k) (i.e., terms 2nd order in 1/lambda; note that x^k are the usual spatial coordinates) that comprise the gravitational wave stress-energy-momentum density pseudo-tensor [Landau, L. D. and Lifshitz, E. M. (1998), The Classical Theory of Fields: Course of Theoretical Physics Vol. 2, 4th revised English edition, Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 347-350]. Therefore, the gravitational wave itself produces the background field on which it propagates.

Regards,

Eric



Baker was forced into a corner.

This is the exact same situation that went on in the U.S. over the development of the jet engine during WWII. The Germans and the British had a completely different world view about doing aviation research than the U.S. aviation engineering community had. So they went forth on the development of the jet engine whilst the U.S. aviation community refused to jump into it because the National Academy of Sciences published a report in 1940 concluding that jet engines were not practical and wouldn't work. Along comes Whittle in Britain and his counterpart in Germany who both develop practical working jet engines. Nearly all of the U.S. aviation industry, and NACA, were all stuck on using radial piston prop engines plus superchargers to boost their performance.

So along comes General Hap Arnold who also found himself in a corner because he was the only man in the U.S. government, while Nathan C. Price and Kelly Johnson were the only two industry men (at Lockheed-Burbank), who saw the potential for the jet engine to revolutionize aviation and win the war.

Arnold secretly brought Whittle's blueprints and complete engines to the U.S. and gave them to Pratt & Whitney and GE to copy and reproduce. This operation had documentation that was stamped "supersecret" in those days. The Army department in charge of funding aviation research, not knowing about Arnold's secret operation, declined Price and Johnson's 1940 Lockheed proposal to develop the L-1000 jet engine and use it to power the L-133 jet fighter (which looks almost like 21st century stealth) because they (the Army) thought the jet engine and aircraft design were far too futuristic to develop in time for wartime use.

Bob Baker is in sort of a reverse situation of this. He has general relativity physics that is backed up by the classic texts but no funds nor willingness on the part of the GR community to carry through a HFGW experiment. So he has to go seek foreign funding since foreigners are more open minded about doing different kinds of research and have the money and motivation to do so.

BTW, there are also two independent British and Italian efforts to generate HFGWs in the lab that are in development now.

Regards,

Eric

Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS
Inst. for Advanced Studies at Austin
4030 W. Braker Lane, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78759


From: Jack Sarfatti
To: RON STAHL

Subject: Re: Baker giving HFGW propulsion to China
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:14:20 -0700

The propulsion part seems dubious. The rest not. Ray Chiao has a better idea IMO.
On Apr 29, 2006, at 12:45 PM, RON STAHL wrote:

I haven't read about Baker in a year or two but the concept is based upon oscillating mass.

Ray Chiao has another idea.


When it gets a jolt, it releases HFGW's in the GHz range His devise is designed to produce coherent waves that don't attenuate when passing through matter.

Problem is signal strength.

I had heard that he was working with the Chinese on a communications scheme--call your subs, have your cell phone contact anyone on the planet at any time, etc. I had also heard I think, that a year ago at STAIF he was saying that he had more confidence in communications apps than in propulsion.

That's what I told you.

I think there was a HFGW survey paper presented by someone at Boeing that had held higher hopes for propulsion but if Boeing were really interested, would Baker be taking Chinese money?

Sure, why not. Their money IS OUR MONEY. Where have you been?

Now I pop onto the web site and find projections for propulsion. Well color me crazy but WHERE ARE THE AMERICAN INVESTORS?!!!

If there is anything to it - it's classified is my guess financed by UAE. ;-)

The really surprising thing is that China is paying for research up front rather than stealing it or paying Hillary Clinton for it through donations to the democratic national party. Maybe they're afraid Condi will beat her.

What are you smoking? ;-)



On Apr 29, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I know George Chapline since 1966 at UCSD La Jolla and Cal Tech. We were both part of the scene that Greg Benford describes in his Sci Fi novel "Timescape" about messages from the future i.e. SIGNAL NONLOCALITY that I am working on NOW although that concept was UNKNOWN back in the 1960's & even 70's!
I have written George about this and will see what he says.
I have not yet considered the URLS in detail. Kip Thorne & Ray Chiao should be asked. It is so difficult to detect ELF gravity waves so is the claim here that the detection & generation of HFGW more efficient?

Even if it was, I do not understand the motivation for this approach because far field radiation is like a leak in the water tank when you are trying to conserve water!

That is, we want to use the MACRO-QUANTUM NEAR VIRTUAL GRAVITY FIELDS ~ 1/r^2 in the whole (frequency-wavevector space) etc. that do not propagate away to infinity in the form of gravity radiation. That is the gravity induction type fields (off-mass- shell) are more important for practical metric engineering of warp and wormhole than the gravity waves ~ 1/r (on-mass-shell where frequency = (speed of light)(wavenumber) locus in frequency-wavevector space).

On Apr 29, 2006, at 11:57 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

the good old boys are out of their minds. . .look at the 20 year projection at the first link

http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Chinese&GRAVWAVE%20Joint%20HFGW% 20Project.pdf

http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Dr%5B1%5D.%20George%20Chapline%27s% 20Comments.pdf

Jack, as you probably know, this propulsion concept is based upon creating a singularity through constructive interferance of HFGW's. Set aside whether you think Baker can succeed at this and tell me, with the projectors attached to a ship, which is falling toward the singularity, which is receeding as the ship draws near. . .a moving gravity well. I don't see a reason to suppose this would be limited to subluminal travel, do you?

What you wrote makes no sense to me. The basic idea is simple. You use dark zero point energy with negative pressure & w < - 1/3 BEHIND the ship. This dark energy's induced gravity repulsion expands space behind the ship and makes a counter- intuitive reverse Dopper gravity BLUE SHIFT of all signals coming from the expanding space at the stern. You do opposite in front i.e. positive pressure zero point energy causing contraction of space that gives a counter intuitive gravity red shift from the bow.

You do this by inhomogeneous phase-locking of the vacuum's Goldstone phases to a a control Goldstone phase in thin-film high Tc anyon condensate modulated by tiny perpendicular magnetic field flux quanta - all at micro->nanoscale. That's my rough current intuition on how it basically works.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022