On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:56 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,

A couple of quick comments on this and peripherally related matters.

1. Dark Energy - Your presentation below of the HeII-Dark Energy analogy is particularly transparent and clear. I recall that I even used the term "3rd component", or something to that effect, as part of trying to explain Coherent ZPM in my Thesis. But that was for HeII. I never tried to apply the concept of Coherent ZPM to the Universe, or its possible implications for resolution of the EPR problem or signal nonlocality, until my 2003 Mitre Paper and that, unlike what you do below and in your X-archive paper, was sans the math.

In relation to the tetrad representation below, in one of your earlier e-mails from some days ago, you commented - correctly, I believe - to the effect that different mathematical representations of the problem should not fundamentally change the underlying physics (assuming the math is not "completely" wrong). You typically use what you called a Class II representation, namely tetrads, as below. Someone like Vargas, who is both a physicist and mathematician, abjures both Class I (tensors) and Class II, and always uses what you called Class III, the Cartan Exterior Differential Calculus, and more generally, the Cartan Moving Frame. It would be interesting to see what your B formalism would look like in your Class III representation?

I think when I write

v = (h/m)d(theta) = SUPERFLOW 1-form

giving quantized circulation surrounding line vortex singularities with vorticity quanta

and

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Theta) over-simplified here - full formula in my archive paper where I need two effective Goldstone phases Theta & Phi contracted from eight to get

dB = 2(hG/c^3)d(Theta)/\d(Phi) = AREA 2-form

i.e. The curved tetrad B is not a closed 1-form, but dB, is i.e.

d^2B = 0

Giving quantized Bekenstein-Hawking areas surrounding point singularities naturally obeying a hologram rule i.e. independent geometrodynamical degrees of freedom are "surface" not "volume" in accord with Lenny Susskind's idea.

That is already Class III?

d is the Cartan exterior derivative and these equations are locally frame independent.

I am not familiar with the details of Vargas's distinctions.

Note that I cite you on your thesis ideas in my book "Super Cosmos".

2. Supersolid - As I've mentioned before, I proposed something like what you refer to below in a letter to Legett a couple of years ago, without knowing that you had done the same decades ago. Some other news on the Supersolid front: A couple of months ago, I read that the Penn State Un. group that claims experimental detection of Supersolid Helium, and subsequently, of Supersolid Hydrogen, has now retracted their Paper and claim on Supersolid Hydrogen. Apparently, it may be some kind of experimental artifact if I recall correctly. However, they stand by the claim for Supersolid Helium.

My 1969 paper in Physics Letters was specifically only for Supersolid Helium.

3. Anyon - You might be interested in a Paper by Das Sarma et al. in the 7/06 Physics Today. 32 on Topological Quantum Computation. They discuss use of FQHE 5/2 state anyons as elements of qubits which would be topologically protected against perturbations that would normally induce decoherence.

Yes, that is exciting. I have the issue on my shelf - thanks. :-)

Take care,

Robert E. Becker

Jack Sarfatti

On Jul 8, 2006, at 2:35 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

> Jack Sarfatti wrote:

>

>>

>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

>>

>>> Jack Sarfatti wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> On Jul 8, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> OK, so /\ is a source for G_uv and R_uv, and therefore shows up

>>>>> on the RHS of the

>>>>> field equations?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Correct

>>>>

>>>>> Much like Yilmaz's vacuum source field?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> NO! Yilmaz's source is not ~ guv!

>>>

>>>

>>> Well, it's a function of g_uv.

>>

>>

>> That's not good enough. It must be linearly proportional to guv

>> otherwise it violates Lorentz invariance & the equivalence

>> principle - > general covariance as indeed Yilmaz's theory does

>> and as Hal Puthoff's PV gravity model does.

>

> Although everything is kosher as to g_uv itself in Yilmaz's theory.

I doubt that. But I think any discussion of Yilmaz's theory, or Hal's

PV theory, or Bernie Haisch's zero point energy theory is a wasteful

"pathological physics". Whether my own ideas are also that remains to

be seen.

>

>> That's one reason I reject them as "pathological science" as

>> defined by Sharon Weinberger in "Imaginary Weapons" - note I did

>> not say "pseudoscience" or "junk science", which are worse.

>

> OK.

>

>>> In Yilmaz's model the g_uv metric field is related to the underlying

>>> phi field via an exponential expression, by the definition of phi..

>>

>> Wave a red flag in front of Raging Bull why don't you? ;-)

>

> :-)

>

>>>

>>>>> Then why do we need geometric propagation of the Weyl

>>>>> curvature? Why can't we

>>>>> just bundle it all into the /\ vacuum source field?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Because /\ can be exactly zero and we still have curvature where

>>>> it is zero!

>>>

>>>

>>> OK, so /\ is truly independent of matter-induced Weyl curvature

>>> in your theory?

>>

>>

>> NO! You jump to the wrong conclusion. /\ is a source of Ricci

>> curvature the same as any ordinary matter source in Tuv. That is

>> both virtual and real sources gravitate. Puthoff does not think

>> so BTW that is another error in his PV theory.

>

> OK, thanks for clarifying this.

>

> So you have two physically independent *sources* of spacetime

> curvature, regular

> T_uv | matter, and /\.

>

> Right?

Right. But they act in the same way as far as generating Ricci

curvature locally which, in turn, induces Weyl conformal vacuum

curvature in the standard manner.

>

>>>> What /\ is depends on the inflation field intensity.

>>>>

>>>> /\ ~ (Quantum of Area)^-1[Inflation Field Intensity - 1]

>>>>

>>>>>

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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> NO!

>>>

>>>

>>> Yilmaz's underlying phi field couples to the sources, while it

>>> looks like your /\ field doesn't depend at all on the matter

>>> distribution.

True /\ does not depend on the on-mass-shell sources. /\ is the sum

of all the off-mass-shell sources in the sense of quantum field

theory e.g. A. Zee's "Quantum Field Theory for Nutcases" ;-) I mean

"in a nutshell." Anyone who does physics must be nuts! ;-)

>>

>>

>> There is no analogy here that is not completely misleading. Yilmaz

>> theory is not worth anything IMHO.

>

> OK, forget Yilmaz. Does your /\ field depend at all on the matter

> distribution? I think not.

Correct.

>

>>> Can there be any coupling at all between the Weyl vacuum

>>> curvature and /\ in your model? Or are these fundamentally

>>> independent quantities?

>>

>>

>> You completely misunderstand what I am saying. The relationship

>> of dark zero point energy /\ to Weyl curvature is exactly the

>> same as any Tuv is to Weyl curvature via the directly induced

>> Ricci curvature.

>

> OK. So /\ really is simply an additional source term on the RHS of

> the Einstein field equations that adds to the Ricci and indirectly

> to the vacuum curvature induced by gravitating matter (where

> "matter" includes, e.g., electromagnetic energy)?

Yes, exactly if you want to keep the equivalence principle, which

Puthoff does not seem to care about in his PV model hawked by Eric

Davis in the USAF teleportation paper that Sharon Weinberger roasted

in "Imaginary Weapons".

>

>>

>> Zero point energy and ordinary energy both bend space-time in

>> exactly the same way, both directly make the local Ricci curvature

>> that then induces Weyl curvature exactly as Wheeler et-al say it

>> does.

>

> OK.

>

>> Puthoff's error is that he thinks only gradients in zero point

>> energy bends space-time. That is completely wrong and it violates

>> the local equivalence principle.

>

> While your solution is that there are two superfluid components,

> where the gravitational effect of one compensates the gravitational

> effect of the other?

There are THREE components. Also think 4D ODLRO SUPERSOLID not 3D

superfluid.

Remember I predicted the ODLRO He supersolid in 1969 (Physics

Letters) only now recently seen in the lab.

v = (h/m)d(Ground State ODLRO Goldstone Phase) 3D superfluid

B = (hG/c^3)^a/2d(Inflation Vacuum Field Goldstone Phase) 4D supersolid

Note replace G by G* >> G the scale-dependent running coupling

constant for gravity to make contact with extra space dimensional

"brane" models like in "Warped Passages" (L. Randall)

In vacuum at T = Absolute Zero you have

Coherent Condensate + Locally Incoherent Nonlocally Coherent Zero

Point Fluctuations ~ (Quantum of Area)^-1

That together make the Super-Solid Density at Absolute Zero.

Then the "THIRD MAN" here is the "NORMAL FLUID", i.e. fermion

elementary excitations and boson collective modes in 3+1 space-time

that is Tuv(On-Mass-Shell Sources)

The Locally Incoherent Nonlocally Coherent Zero Point Fluctuations ~ /\.

"Nonlocal Coherence" in sense of Robert Becker seen experimentally in

EPR entangled fringes with CCC switched on!

## No comments:

Post a Comment