With infectious enthusiasm for his subject, Jack Sarfatti explains how physics has replaced philosophy as an over-arching discipline that spans the once discontinuous worlds of science and the humanities.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL

re: Phil Coppins http://www.philipcoppens.com/starcon.pdf

The 2nd edition of Super Cosmos has more of this straight physics.

On Jul 15, 2006, at 8:54 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

I have all three of your books Jack but as you have said, they are more bios than pop physics books. In order to really disperse understanding of your physics broadly, I think what is needed is a primer, not a bio. Of course, as you have said; you don't need to create understanding at this level since you already have funding. I was just saying that I enjoyed the little primer you had written.

"Gauge" is a technical term. Almost all of those first three paragraphs had avoided all use of jargon. it is writing sans use of these very highly information laden terms that makes the difference between writing pop and specialized literature. Except for the use of "gauge" you were writing at a pop level which is unusual for you--takes more work.

Actually I wrote in in a few minutes spontaneously in real time stream of consciousness WYSIWYG. There is math symbols in it - but perhaps symbol-oriented people can see the similarities of shape in the EM and gravity models below? Math symbols properly ordered syntactically are how theoretical physicists actually think most of the time - it's the lingua-franca. Perhaps we should compare it to Chinese and Egyptian hieroglyphics? Of course formalist quibblers in math departments will want to add extraneous details that completely obfuscate with inappropriate "rigor mortis" (Feynman's term). Roger Penrose, in his books, strikes the proper balance in the creative tension between rigorous math and heuristic intuitive "physical thinking" in pictures - gedankenexperiments. The key formal idea below is that the space-time "spin connection" W in Einstein's gravity plays the same role that the "internal extra dimensional fiber" gauge connection A plays for electromagnetic, weak beta radioactivity and strong subnuclear forces respectively.

F = dA in Maxwell's electromagnetism compared to R = DW in Einstein's gravity

F = Electromagnetic Field 2-form compared to R = Curvature Field 2-form

With however the SELF-INTERACTING BOOTSTRAP SELF-ORGANIZING

D = d + W/

e.g. "geons"

The same thing occurs in the weak and strong forces where

F'= D'A'

D' = d + A'/

e.g. "glue-balls" in high energy hadron collisions

d^2 = 0

means integrability or "holonomy" i.e. path independence

e.g. take a function

f(x,y)

d^2 = 0 there means

f,x,y = f,y,x

i.e. mixed second order partial derivatives equal each other - this happens in thermodynamic reversible processes e.g. Cauchy heat engines and in conservative force fields of Newtonian particle mechanics without velocity-dependent potentials.

Look at Penrose "The Road to Reality" on Cauchy-Riemann "analyticity" in "complex number magic".

d^2 = 0 generalizes that idea to spaces of any integer dimension as much as it can be.

D^2 = 0 pushes that to path-dependent anholonomic situations and it permits local conservation laws in warped spaces.

However, the energy problem in Einstein's gravity is that a local gravity energy density for the vacuum does not exist even though a locally conserved stress-energy density for not-gravity sources does exist.

Energy conservation is not fundamental. The expanding accelerating universe does not conserve total energy. For example, in the first approximation the dark energy density ~ /\ is constant. As the universe expands the total dark energy density is increasing much more than the other forms of energy are decreasing.

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_05_jpg.htm

Conservation of "energy" is a much more limited concept having to do with timelike Killing vector fields that are not present in all solutions of Einstein's field equations.

Note that on the large cosmological scale that only total energy of COLD "matter" w = 0 is conserved, but total energy of radiation is not conserved. Radiation red shifts down to zero! Total dark vacuum energy increases at rate a(t)^3. This is because the universe is not time-translation invariant so that Noether's theorem does not apply.

D^2 = 0 outside of "topological defect" Goldstone phase singularities when there is ODLRO spontaneous breakdown of some continuous symmetry in the vacuum or ground state landscape.

"Vacuum" means no real particles on-mass-shell. "Ground state" means stable real particles on-mass-shell as, e.g. in liquid helium or our own bodies.

From: Jack Sarfatti

To: RON STAHL

Subject: Re: Byron Weeks's claims are bogus

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:37:42 -0700

I have already written 3 of them. All of this is in Super Cosmos. "Gauge" is the standard term. Have you seen Super Cosmos?

On Jul 15, 2006, at 6:34 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

Now see, you actually CAN explain physics in English when properly motivated. Except for the use of the term "gauge" you did quite well in the first three paragraphs.

You could write a pop physics book on this if you really wanted to.

From: Jack Sarfatti

To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars

CC: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com"

Subject: Byron Weeks's claims are bogus

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:09:16 -0700

Hello Phillip

<< starcon.pdf >>

I just noticed this section about Byron Weeks. Weeks is an MD and his claims that you accurately describe are bogus. I don't have time right now to explain why. However, Roger Penrose's book "The Road to Reality" explains why - it is not a fast read of course. The Week's claims may be deliberate disinformation for debunking PW or Psy Ops purposes. That's a guess.

Basically Maxwell's field theory is the most elementary local gauge theory, the more complex ones include the weak and strong forces among the elementary spin 1/2 quarks and lepton fermion spinor sources. These forces are virtual spin 1 zero point boson vector exchange particles between the spinor sources. In addition the weak and strong bosons self-interact. Gravity can also be understood this way in terms of tensor spin 2 bosons - though the problem is more complicated, i.e. "unrenormalizable" in the naive approach to "quantum gravity."

The electromagnetic, weak and strong forces come from locally gauging internal symmetry groups of frame transformations in extra dimensions of hyperspace - roughly speaking. Gravity comes from locally gauging the space-time symmetry group of special relativity morphing it into general relativity. You also need a macro-quantum "vacuum ODLRO" cohering or ordering of the random zero point false vacuum fluctuations to do the latter and indeed this is, in a nutshell, the inflation field whose incoherent remnant we see as the anti-gravity repulsive dark energy at large- scales causing our universe's expansion to speed up rather than slow down. That's what my book Super Cosmos is about and it is roughly consistent with Lenny Susskind's Cosmic Landscape. Note qualification "roughly".

The basic free gauge field equations are affine having to do with parallel transport of basic field structures called "connection fields" A that are "Cartan 1-forms".

In the case of Maxwell's EM field the field tensor is

F = dA

d = Cartan's exterior derivative

d^2 = 0

dF = 0 are the first half of Maxwell's field equations

i.e. Faraday's law of induction and the absence of magnetic monopoles.

The second half Ampere's law and Gauss's law come from using a * operator

d*F = *J

*J is the source electric charge-current density

d*J = 0

is local conservation of charge current density

One then uses a gauge-covariant derivative D = d + eA on electron quantum waves to get a consistent renormalizable quantum electrodynamics.

Nothing that Weeks says has any real meaning in physics today.

One can generalize the above model to the weak and strong forces and even to gravity, though the latter is more indirect as it uses a symmetric tensor metric field and the "A" connection field here is at the "subspace" Cartan tetrad level out of which the metric connection of Levi-Civita in Einstein's 1915 theory can be derived.

The Cartan tetrads have the 1-forms

e = 1 + B

and

dB ~ (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Theta)/\(dPhi)

d^2B = 0 is equation of World Hologram, i.e. THE MATRIX

i.e. "anyonic" surface degrees of freedom of the fabric of space- time are fundamental, the boson volume degrees of freedom are holographic projections.

Theta & Phi are Goldstone phases of the coherent zero point vacuum inflation field.

Zero torsion is the vanishing 2-form

De = 0

D = d + W/

W is a "spin connection" "/\" is exterior multiplication

De = dB + W/\B = 0

in this special case only B determines W.

If we have torsion, i.e. De =/= 0 then the dark energy /\ field can be controlled for the metric engineering of warp drive and wormhole - is my "conjecture".

The Einstein-gravity curvature field 2-form is then

R = DW

Where

DR = 0

G = D*W = *J

is Einstein's source field equation

D*J = 0

is local covariant conservation of matter stress-energy density currents.

The equivalence principle is the local space-time invariant

ds^2 = (1 + B)(Minkowski)(1 + B) = guvdx^udx^v

where guv is a symmetric tensor

i.e.

guv(x) = eu^a(x)nabev^b(x)

On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK on further closer reading (after my original scan of entire document) I begin to see what you mean re: Courtney's first book.

On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hello Phillip

I just got a book from Courtney Brown that is positive about Remote Viewing yet your article seems to say that Courtney debunked Remote Viewing?

Also I think Jessica Utts gave a talk at recent AAAS USD positive about psi phenomena as a real statistical effect yet you also seem to think she is a debunker? I can't find Utt's name in Abstracts Programme so perhaps I am misremembering where I recently heard her speak on this? James Spottiswoode was also there but is not in the official book, so perhaps she was added to the programme at the last moment?

On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

It's curious that http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra

was ~ 1953 when Andrija was getting started with Army and mentioned "twenty years" in the future when I met Andrija and The Usual Suspects. It's curious I may have met Colonel Corso before 1953 and then was in Eugene McDermott's group - part of the Arthur Young Cabal 1954 - 56 and then met Arthur himself in ~ 1974. Very curious.

Details in my book "Destiny Matrix".

On Jul 14, 2006, at 2:12 PM, Philip Coppens wrote:

Glad to hear that you like it. Uri enjoyed it greatly too... and it was

quite bizarre waking up on New Year's Day with having 2 messages, both from

him ! ;-)

It was mainly setting record straight re StarCon after Clive & Lynn gave an

interpretation of the evidence which I felt the evidence did not support...

and which I know on some occasion caused some negative comments from people

involved. So glad to hear you liked it.

Philip

## No comments:

Post a Comment