Saturday, July 08, 2006

Feynman's "rigor mortis"

On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I think Waldyr's position is that there is something wrong with GR itself from a physical standpoint. I think his main point is that for purely mathematical reasons GR doesn't generally admit true energy conservation principles, either in correspondence with Newtonian theory or otherwise.

Perhaps, but it has no bearing on my paper.

Jack, your model recovers GR -- with /\, of course.

Yes, it explains WHY GR works and is consistent with all observations.

You mean why GR is empirically accurate?

It unifies the emergence of gravity with inflation in a bootstrap. The coherent phase modulation of the inflation field forms curved space-time.

Because you can get tetrads from the Goldstone phase of your BEC?

He points out that in order to write an energy conservation law for the Einstein field there must exist a timelike hypersurface- orthogonal Killing field, which is only true in certain special cases, such as the SSS spacetimes.

Well known in every text book.

The conclusion is that total energy and local energy density is not fundamental. What is fundamental is the tetrad field.

Same wine, different bottles.

Clearly if you take Einstein's model seriously you are forced to abandon the requirement for sensible energy conservation
laws and correspondence with Newtonian theory.

The odd thing here, however, is that you still have quadrupole radiation from moving sources, which raises serious questions
about non-locality of the field energy in GR. You would expect localized energy transport from point to point, based on an
analogy with Maxwell EM theory. As we know, this is not allowed in Einstein's theory.

What textbook says that this limits the validity of GR as a theory of gravitation?

None. That's not what I said.

I was saying that this is Waldyr's position.

I said the proper conclusion is that the Newtonian idea of local energy density is not fundamental.

I agree that this is where Einstein's model leads.

Wheeler says that. From Nother's theorem we know that energy conservation comes from time translation invariance violated in the expanding universe!


The universe is obviously not time translation invariant on the large scale!

It's much worse than that. In Einstein's theory you cannot give any clear unambiguous definition of the
energy content of the gravitational field, as we've previously discussed, unless you restrict general
covariance *ad hoc*.

The timelike Killing vector field isotropy of some solutions to Einstein's field equation, not all solutions, is closest we can come to the Newtonian notion of energy conservation for the vacuum itself.

In Einstein's theory, yes.

When we write

Tuv^;v = 0

That does not include gravity.

Well, indirectly it does, due to the coupling of the Ricci and Weyl tensors at the source boundaries
and the geometric propagation of the resulting Weyl curvature components through the gravitational

It only includes the local non-gravity sources of gravity.

Right. But indirectly it creates Weyl curvature "over there".

The actual vacuum equation is

Guv + /\guv = 0


(c^4/8piG)/\guv = LOCAL RICCI Dark VACUUM Energy Stress-Energy Density Tensor (ZERO ENTROPY)

So this is a non-material but nevertheless physical vacuum source field, right?

What is NONLOCAL here is the WEYL CONFORMAL CURVATURE "VACUUM ENERGY" and only that has ENTROPY according to Roger Penrose.

Why does Penrose say the Weyl field is "non-local" when the Weyl tensor components are all perfectly
well-defined at each point in spacetime?

Note in standard black hole theory /\ = 0.


Also note /\ is uniform and constant in standard 1915 theory. You need torsion fields, at the very least, to make /\ a local field for weightless zero-g warp drive and star gate time travel metric engineering.

OK. So while the Weyl curvature is "non-local", the /\ field may or may not be?

Locally gauge 4-parameter translation group to get 1915 GR with curvature only i.e. spin connection is redundant.


Locally gauge 10-parameter Poincare group to get curvature + torsion with independent spin connection.


Note that even in the exotic dark energy vacuum




when /\(Dark energy) = 0



OK, so /\ is a source for G_uv and R_uv, and therefore shows up on the RHS of the
field equations? Much like Yilmaz's vacuum source field?

Then why do we need geometric propagation of the Weyl curvature? Why can't we
just bundle it all into the /\ vacuum source field?

In essence, isn't that what Yilmaz was proposing?


See Roger Penrose's 3 books for details.

i.e., Emperor, Shadows & On The Road.

But I shouldn't speak for Waldyr on this. He should speak for himself.

I think he is arguing that this means that the geometric model of GR should not be taken too seriously in terms of *physics* -- although of course he will insist on full rigor with respect to the *math* regardless.

I doubt he means that.

I seem to recall that he wrote something to that effect a while back.

Maybe Waldyr should speak for himself here.

I don't know what he means. Can you follow his 21 pages?

Not easily.


My Ansatz is basically empirical. It's not a "theorem". It's a conjecture. It had implications for "quantum gravity". My theory is emergent bottom-up not top-down as in conventional quantization of gravity that fails!

But I understand that Waldyr doesn't believe in Einstein's geometrical model as a direct
description of physical space and time to begin with.

Not relevant to the several new physics ideas I give in the paper that are relevant to enigmatic observations. In any case I would be surprised if that's what he means.

Of course he also has purely technical issues with your paper that have nothing to do with physics.

They are minor points about notations. He goes into irrelevant details fighting other battles irrelevant to my paper.

I'm talking about his general motivation.

John Baez can't even derive GR with spin foams - so what good is it?

It makes great applied math to be published in journals on applied math, AKA contemporary
spacetime physics. Who cares about "physical reality"? What the hell is that, anyway?

Actually that's Niels Bohr's fault.

Do you think maybe Bohr should have stuck to soccer? :-)

Bohr should have stuck to psychology.




Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Still, I think you do have a good point that you are not the only theorist that Waldyr has
accused of writing "mathematical nonsense".

He admits I think to "twenty". What this means is that Waldyr is applying an inappropriate standard and missing The Forest for The Trees. Also he pounced on an early hastily assembled rough draft and never once really addresses the physical ideas that ARE my paper.

On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

So, Jack, you do know what I'm talking about when I call Penrose and Hawking
"mathematicians", with styles of reasoning, criteria of relevance, and standards of
rigor that are rather different from those of a true physicist such as, for example,
Richard Feynman.

Yes, I understand the general rule. I think you misapply it in the case of Penrose and Hawking. They are mathematicians who are ABLE to think like physicists! They are able to do BOTH modes.

Well, what about this idea that a collapsed gravitational mass results in a curvature singularity
at a point that is removed from physical spacetime, on the grounds that it is not technically part
of a "manifold"?

I would suggest that this is not the thinking of a physicist. Also that on hearing this someone like
Feynman would have a fit.


No comments: