Emergence of Gravity from Vacuum Coherence

There are TWO GCT tensor pieces to AFFINE non-metricity and torsion, both are ZERO in GR, but torsion is not zero in the extended theory e.g. Shipov's.

You get the 4 Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms e^a from locally gauging T4 in all actions. The warped part C^a^a of e^a are the spin 1 compensating gauge potentials where the gauge transformations are simply Einstein's GCTs that define the multi-linear "tensors."

The spin 2 affine connection in general is something like

A^wuv = e^wa(d/dx^u)e^av

Its quadratic in the fundamental spin 1 Yang-Mills fields from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group T4 in all physical actions of special relativistic fields. That, BTW is a deep formulation of the equivalence principle.

In QM 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 0

so, in general, there are spin 2 tensor + spin 1 vector + spin 0 scalar quanta if you quantize this smooth c-number vacuum ODLRO "supersolid" emergent gravity theory.

The torsion connection tensor is

S^wuv = A^w[u,v]

S^wuv =/= 0 when we also locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group SO(1,3) and this corresponds to the 6 1-forms C^[a,b] below in terms of the 8 0-form Goldstone phases of the 9 real component Higgs post-inflation scalar fields.

This is a generalization of the Jahn-Teller effect in a crystal I suppose? My paper with Marshall Stoneham 1967 at Harwell AERE + my 1969 PhD thesis on gauge fields and ODLRO in superfluids + my 1969 paper predicting the supersolid phase of Helium 4 that David Goodstein and Richard Feynman helped me with. I would drive up to Cal Tech from San Diego. Also my 1966 Landau-Ginzburg Mexican Hat potential model of self-trapped laser filaments paper that Ray Chiao said he read when he was doing his famous experiments on them at Berkeley.

The 6 dynamical torsion field spin connection 1-forms (not in 1915 GR) correspond to Gennady Shipov's 10-D oriented point test particle. Einstein's 1915 GR only has a 4D point test particle.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Shipov.jpg

This picture from Shipov shows a primitive 6D Calabi-Yau "fiber" of string theory.

My 9 real Higgs fields fit most naturally into 9D spacelike slices with brane worlds corresponding to stable topological defects from non-trivial homotopy groups with quantized deRham integrals from single-valued Higgs fields as shown in general in the David Thouless book on topological methods in quantum theory.

Therefore, vacuum coherent ODLRO Higgs-Goldstone fields + local gauging of spacetime symmetries (AKA equivalence principle) seems to be the missing organizing idea of string theory. It's been there all the time right under their noses.

On Feb 28, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"It looks like you are still thinking that the tensor part of LC is supposed to be the "non-metricity tensor of the Levi-Civita connection". Of course, the non-metricity of the LC connection is exactly zero.

The tensor part of LC is not this quantity. It is a tensor X = -Q_A that is equal to the negative of the non-metricity tensor of a different (i.e., non-metric) torsion-free affine connection A =/= LC, where

A = LC + Q_A, and Q_A =/= 0."

There is no physics to this. There is no way to measure Q_A independently. It's not GR. You cannot say you have a new way to reinterpret GR with this formal shell game.

"There is no question that the non-metricity tensor Q_LC of the LC connection is zero. However, it does not follow from this that the LC connection doesn't contain the tensor X = -Q_A."

1. Take the Schwarzschild metric

1. Compute X.

2. Show how to measure X independently.

Meantime all the cool stuff I showed you re: C^a^b went over your head.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"OK Jack, fire away. Give me your best shot.

Here is a direct quote from Carroll:

'...any set of connections can be expressed as some fiducial connection plus a tensorial correction.' (Notes on General Relativity, p 59).

Now explain to us why this doesn't apply to the LC connection?"

I told you a jillion times. Read the rest of what he says!

"Clearly, a zero "correction" is no correction at all. For Carroll's statement to be non-trivial, the tensorial correction must be non-vanishing.

Yet you are saying, in effect, that in the case of the LC connection the tensorial correction is always exactly zero. I think you have to prove

this mathematically, in the abstract, without any appeal to any particular physical theory."

Irrelevant.

"So you are saying that this doesn't apply to the LC connection? Why not?"

Sean Carroll like many others points out that most generally

Affine = LC + Torsion + Nonmetricity

Affine = LC + Torsion + Nonmetricity of Affine

Torsion and non-metricity are GCT 3rd rank tensors.

"Right."

LC is not a tensor.

"Right."

GR is precisely that theory in the set of theories with different connections such that

Affine = LC

End of trivial story.

"No. It is a theory such that the metric-compatible affine connection LC, defined on a 4D spacetime manifold, is taken to represent the Einstein field. But this is also true in the alternative model.

None of this has anything to do with the purely mathematical question of whether the LC connection contains a tensor -Q_A for some torsion-free non-metric affine connection A."

Physically LC parallel transports vectors along worldlines. While maintaining the inner products of vectors constant during the parallel transport process. Going around a closed worldline the difference of orientation of the vector with itself is a measure of the average curvature over the area of the loop - shrunk to zero - i.e. crystal disclination defect.

"Right."

Limit of the ratio of angle deficit to area of shrinking loop is the sectional curvature dimensions 1/Area.

"OK."

If there is non-metricity the length of the vector will also change in the parallel transport and in a loop you will get a discrepancy in lengths of the vector unless you impose a kind of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization on the closed loop.

"Exactly. But this has nothing to do with coordinate curvilinearity or with Riemann curvature."

If there is torsion starting with two sides of an infinitesimal parallelogram and parallel transporting one against the other both ways the loop does not close to second order - there is a torsion gap, i.e. crystal dislocation defect.

"Right. If the connection is torsion-free this doesn't happen."

In my theory you have a set of 0-forms the Goldstone phases of the vacuum coherence ODLRO Higgs field.

From the 0-forms comes a set of 1-forms.

There are 10 1-forms.

4 tetrad 1-forms & 6 spin connection 1-forms.

Then you have GR + torsion trivially.

i.e. a theory with

A = LC + Torsion Tensor

beyond 1915 GR of course.

dO-form = 1-form

d^2)-form = 0

However that 1-form need not be exact if the 0-form has a singularity, i.e.

Integral of the 1-form over a non-bounding 1-cycle without boundary = winding number integer

Bohr-Sommerfeld condition from non-trivial 1-homotopy.

Then you can pretend Stoke's theorem works, i.e. flux without flux beyond Wheeler's "charge without charge" - these are 1D string vortex defects.

The integral of the 1-form around the loop is the surface integral of a ghostly 2-form flux through the area of the loop. This is related to the Bohm-Aharonov effect.

Similarly given 2 0-forms A & B, I define the non-closed 1-form as

C = dA/\B - A/\dB 1-form

dC = 2dA/\dB =/= 0 2-form

I can now play the same game one dimension higher! These are 0D point monopole stable defects.

Now we have star gate wormholes!

The mouth of the wormhole is the non-bounding 2-cycle without boundary - the portal like they see on the Skinwalker Ranch!

The deRham integral of 2-form C over the closed 2-surface is now an integer wrapping number ~ Bekenstein BITS for the entropy of black hole event horizons, de Sitter dark energy future observer horizons, Unruh effect, Hawking radiation, you name it. I got it all topologically pre-metrically.

There is again the world hologram ghostly volume 3-form without volume from the actual hologram area 2-form dC.

OK everything I need comes from C as the template.

C^a^b = dA^a/\B^b - A^a/\dB^b

The 4 Einstein curvature tetrad 1-forms are the diagonal matrix elements

C^a^a

The 6 torsion field spin connection 1-forms are the anti-symmetrized off-diagonal matrix elements

C^[a,b] = - C^[b,a]

Einstein's 1915 GR is the limit

C^[a,b] = 0

D = d + W^ac/\

e^a = I^a + C^a^a

The torsion 1-form is

T^a = De^a = 0

This determines the non-dynamical zero torsion spin connections W^ac from

de^a + W^ac/\e^c = 0

The curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = DW^a^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density is

{a,b,c,d}R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

and the rest is history.

See Rovelli Ch II for the details.

Plus it's obvious how to generalize for torsion.

So I have 8 0-form Goldstone phases from 9 real Higgs fields with vacuum manifold S^8.

This fits most naturally in terms of stable defects into a 9+1 D spacetime. Hey that's interesting. Where have we seen that before?

I want to compactify to 3 large space dimensions so I can use

A^2 = A^aAa

B^2 = B^aBa

take square roots.

And I am back to the Bekenstein world holography bits with point defects in the world crystal's spacelike slices. They are the "lattice points"!

"All very interesting, but I still don't see a mathematical proof of your contention that the LC connection defined on an arbitrary Riemannian manifold does not contain a tensor X_A = -Q_A for each torsion-free non-metric connection A."

Even if it did, who cares? Where's the new physics to that? Where's the beef?

The Question is: What should be The Question?

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

## Wednesday, February 28, 2007

There are TWO GCT tensor pieces to AFFINE non-metricity and torsion, both are ZERO in GR, but torsion is not zero in the extended theory e.g. Shipov's.

You get the 4 Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms e^a from locally gauging T4 in all actions. The warped part C^a^a of e^a are the spin 1 compensating gauge potentials where the gauge transformations are simply Einstein's GCTs that define the multi-linear "tensors."

The spin 2 affine connection in general is something like

A^wuv = e^wa(d/dx^u)e^av

Its quadratic in the fundamental spin 1 Yang-Mills fields from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group T4 in all physical actions of special relativistic fields. That, BTW is a deep formulation of the equivalence principle.

In QM 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 + 0

so, in general, there are spin 2 tensor + spin 1 vector + spin 0 scalar quanta if you quantize this smooth c-number vacuum ODLRO "supersolid" emergent gravity theory.

The torsion connection tensor is

S^wuv = A^w[u,v]

S^wuv =/= 0 when we also locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group SO(1,3) and this corresponds to the 6 1-forms C^[a,b] below in terms of the 8 0-form Goldstone phases of the 9 real component Higgs post-inflation scalar fields.

This is a generalization of the Jahn-Teller effect in a crystal I suppose? My paper with Marshall Stoneham 1967 at Harwell AERE + my 1969 PhD thesis on gauge fields and ODLRO in superfluids + my 1969 paper predicting the supersolid phase of Helium 4 that David Goodstein and Richard Feynman helped me with. I would drive up to Cal Tech from San Diego. Also my 1966 Landau-Ginzburg Mexican Hat potential model of self-trapped laser filaments paper that Ray Chiao said he read when he was doing his famous experiments on them at Berkeley.

The 6 dynamical torsion field spin connection 1-forms (not in 1915 GR) correspond to Gennady Shipov's 10-D oriented point test particle. Einstein's 1915 GR only has a 4D point test particle.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Shipov.jpg

This picture from Shipov shows a primitive 6D Calabi-Yau "fiber" of string theory.

My 9 real Higgs fields fit most naturally into 9D spacelike slices with brane worlds corresponding to stable topological defects from non-trivial homotopy groups with quantized deRham integrals from single-valued Higgs fields as shown in general in the David Thouless book on topological methods in quantum theory.

Therefore, vacuum coherent ODLRO Higgs-Goldstone fields + local gauging of spacetime symmetries (AKA equivalence principle) seems to be the missing organizing idea of string theory. It's been there all the time right under their noses.

On Feb 28, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"It looks like you are still thinking that the tensor part of LC is supposed to be the "non-metricity tensor of the Levi-Civita connection". Of course, the non-metricity of the LC connection is exactly zero.

The tensor part of LC is not this quantity. It is a tensor X = -Q_A that is equal to the negative of the non-metricity tensor of a different (i.e., non-metric) torsion-free affine connection A =/= LC, where

A = LC + Q_A, and Q_A =/= 0."

There is no physics to this. There is no way to measure Q_A independently. It's not GR. You cannot say you have a new way to reinterpret GR with this formal shell game.

"There is no question that the non-metricity tensor Q_LC of the LC connection is zero. However, it does not follow from this that the LC connection doesn't contain the tensor X = -Q_A."

1. Take the Schwarzschild metric

1. Compute X.

2. Show how to measure X independently.

Meantime all the cool stuff I showed you re: C^a^b went over your head.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

"OK Jack, fire away. Give me your best shot.

Here is a direct quote from Carroll:

'...any set of connections can be expressed as some fiducial connection plus a tensorial correction.' (Notes on General Relativity, p 59).

Now explain to us why this doesn't apply to the LC connection?"

I told you a jillion times. Read the rest of what he says!

"Clearly, a zero "correction" is no correction at all. For Carroll's statement to be non-trivial, the tensorial correction must be non-vanishing.

Yet you are saying, in effect, that in the case of the LC connection the tensorial correction is always exactly zero. I think you have to prove

this mathematically, in the abstract, without any appeal to any particular physical theory."

Irrelevant.

"So you are saying that this doesn't apply to the LC connection? Why not?"

Sean Carroll like many others points out that most generally

Affine = LC + Torsion + Nonmetricity

Affine = LC + Torsion + Nonmetricity of Affine

Torsion and non-metricity are GCT 3rd rank tensors.

"Right."

LC is not a tensor.

"Right."

GR is precisely that theory in the set of theories with different connections such that

Affine = LC

End of trivial story.

"No. It is a theory such that the metric-compatible affine connection LC, defined on a 4D spacetime manifold, is taken to represent the Einstein field. But this is also true in the alternative model.

None of this has anything to do with the purely mathematical question of whether the LC connection contains a tensor -Q_A for some torsion-free non-metric affine connection A."

Physically LC parallel transports vectors along worldlines. While maintaining the inner products of vectors constant during the parallel transport process. Going around a closed worldline the difference of orientation of the vector with itself is a measure of the average curvature over the area of the loop - shrunk to zero - i.e. crystal disclination defect.

"Right."

Limit of the ratio of angle deficit to area of shrinking loop is the sectional curvature dimensions 1/Area.

"OK."

If there is non-metricity the length of the vector will also change in the parallel transport and in a loop you will get a discrepancy in lengths of the vector unless you impose a kind of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization on the closed loop.

"Exactly. But this has nothing to do with coordinate curvilinearity or with Riemann curvature."

If there is torsion starting with two sides of an infinitesimal parallelogram and parallel transporting one against the other both ways the loop does not close to second order - there is a torsion gap, i.e. crystal dislocation defect.

"Right. If the connection is torsion-free this doesn't happen."

In my theory you have a set of 0-forms the Goldstone phases of the vacuum coherence ODLRO Higgs field.

From the 0-forms comes a set of 1-forms.

There are 10 1-forms.

4 tetrad 1-forms & 6 spin connection 1-forms.

Then you have GR + torsion trivially.

i.e. a theory with

A = LC + Torsion Tensor

beyond 1915 GR of course.

dO-form = 1-form

d^2)-form = 0

However that 1-form need not be exact if the 0-form has a singularity, i.e.

Integral of the 1-form over a non-bounding 1-cycle without boundary = winding number integer

Bohr-Sommerfeld condition from non-trivial 1-homotopy.

Then you can pretend Stoke's theorem works, i.e. flux without flux beyond Wheeler's "charge without charge" - these are 1D string vortex defects.

The integral of the 1-form around the loop is the surface integral of a ghostly 2-form flux through the area of the loop. This is related to the Bohm-Aharonov effect.

Similarly given 2 0-forms A & B, I define the non-closed 1-form as

C = dA/\B - A/\dB 1-form

dC = 2dA/\dB =/= 0 2-form

I can now play the same game one dimension higher! These are 0D point monopole stable defects.

Now we have star gate wormholes!

The mouth of the wormhole is the non-bounding 2-cycle without boundary - the portal like they see on the Skinwalker Ranch!

The deRham integral of 2-form C over the closed 2-surface is now an integer wrapping number ~ Bekenstein BITS for the entropy of black hole event horizons, de Sitter dark energy future observer horizons, Unruh effect, Hawking radiation, you name it. I got it all topologically pre-metrically.

There is again the world hologram ghostly volume 3-form without volume from the actual hologram area 2-form dC.

OK everything I need comes from C as the template.

C^a^b = dA^a/\B^b - A^a/\dB^b

The 4 Einstein curvature tetrad 1-forms are the diagonal matrix elements

C^a^a

The 6 torsion field spin connection 1-forms are the anti-symmetrized off-diagonal matrix elements

C^[a,b] = - C^[b,a]

Einstein's 1915 GR is the limit

C^[a,b] = 0

D = d + W^ac/\

e^a = I^a + C^a^a

The torsion 1-form is

T^a = De^a = 0

This determines the non-dynamical zero torsion spin connections W^ac from

de^a + W^ac/\e^c = 0

The curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = DW^a^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density is

{a,b,c,d}R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

and the rest is history.

See Rovelli Ch II for the details.

Plus it's obvious how to generalize for torsion.

So I have 8 0-form Goldstone phases from 9 real Higgs fields with vacuum manifold S^8.

This fits most naturally in terms of stable defects into a 9+1 D spacetime. Hey that's interesting. Where have we seen that before?

I want to compactify to 3 large space dimensions so I can use

A^2 = A^aAa

B^2 = B^aBa

take square roots.

And I am back to the Bekenstein world holography bits with point defects in the world crystal's spacelike slices. They are the "lattice points"!

"All very interesting, but I still don't see a mathematical proof of your contention that the LC connection defined on an arbitrary Riemannian manifold does not contain a tensor X_A = -Q_A for each torsion-free non-metric connection A."

Even if it did, who cares? Where's the new physics to that? Where's the beef?

The Question is: What should be The Question?

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Connections, Curvature, Torsion, Non-metricity

On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

OK Jack, fire away. Give me your best shot.

Here is a direct quote from Carroll:

"...any set of connections can be expressed as some fiducial connection plus a tensorial correction." (Notes on General Relativity, p 59).

Now explain to us why this doesn't apply to the LC connection?

I told you a jillion times. Read the rest of what he says!

Clearly, a zero "correction" is no correction at all. For Carroll's statement to be non-trivial, the tensorial correction must be non-vanishing.

Yet you are saying, in effect, that in the case of the LC connection the tensorial correction is always exactly zero. I think you have to prove

this mathematically, in the abstract, without any appeal to any particular physical theory.

Irrelevant.

Sean Carroll like many others points out that most generally

Affine = LC + Torsion + Nonmetricity

Torsion and non-metricity are GCT 3rd rank tensors.

LC is not a tensor.

GR is precisely that theory in the set of theories with different connections such that

Affine = LC

End of trivial story.

Physically LC parallel transports vectors along worldlines.

Going around a closed worldline the difference of orientation of the vector with itself is a measure of the average curvature over the area of the loop - shrunk to zero - i.e. crystal disclination defect.

Limit of the ratio of angle deficit to area of shrinking loop is the sectional curvature dimensions 1/Area.

If there is non-metricity the length of the vector will also change in the parallel transport and in a loop you will get a discrepancy in lengths of the vector unless you impose a kind of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization on the closed loop.

If there is torsion starting with two sides of an infinitesimal parallelogram and parallel transporting one against the other both ways the loop does not close to second order - there is a torsion gap, i.e. crystal dislocation defect.

In my theory you have a set of 0-forms the Goldstone phases of the vacuum coherence ODLRO Higgs field.

From the 0-forms comes a set of 1-forms.

There are 10 1-forms.

4 tetrad 1-forms & 6 spin connection 1-forms.

Then you have GR + torsion trivially.

i.e. a theory with

A = LC + Torsion Tensor

beyond 1915 GR of course.

dO-form = 1-form

d^2)-form = 0

However that 1-form need not be exact if the 0-form has a singularity, i.e.

Integral of the 1-form over a non-bounding 1-cycle without boundary = winding number integer

Bohr-Sommerfeld condition from non-trivial 1-homotopy.

Then you can pretend Stoke's theorem works i.e. flux without flux - these are 1D string vortex defects.

The integral of the 1-form around the loop is the surface integral of a ghostly 2-form flux through the area of the loop. This is related to the Bohm-Aharonov effect.

Similarly given 2 0-forms A & B, I define the non-closed 1-form as

C = dA/\B - A/\dB 1-form

dC = 2dA/\dB =/= 0 2-form

I can now play the same game one dimension higher! These are 0D point monopole stable defects.

Now we have star gate wormholes!

The mouth of the wormhole is the non-bounding 2-cycle without boundary - the portal like they see on the Skinwalker Ranch!

The deRham integral of 2-form C over the closed 2-surface is now an integer wrapping number ~ Bekenstein BITS for the entropy of black hole event horizons, de Sitter dark energy future observer horizons, Unruh effect, Hawking radiation, you name it. I got it all topologically pre-metrically.

There is again the world hologram ghostly volume 3-form without volume from the actual hologram area 2-form dC.

OK everything I need comes from C as the template.

C^a^b = dA^a/\B^b - A^a/\dB^b

The 4 Einstein curvature tetrad 1-forms are the diagonal matrix elements

C^a^a

The 6 torsion field spin connection 1-forms are the anti-symmetrized off-diagonal matrix elements

C^[a,b] = - C^[b,a]

Einstein's 1915 GR is the limit

C^[a,b] = 0

D = d + W^ac/\

e^a = I^a + C^a^a

The torsion 1-form is

T^a = De^a = 0

This determines the non-dynamical zero torsion spin connections W^ac from

de^a + W^ac/\e^c = 0

The curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = DW^a^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density is

{a,b,c,d}R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

and the rest is history.

See Rovelli Ch II for the details.

Plus it's obvious how to generalize for torsion.

So I have 8 0-form Goldstone phases from 9 real Higgs fields with vacuum manifold S^8.

This fits most naturally in terms of stable defects into a 9+1 D spacetime. Hey that's interesting. Where have we seen that before?

I want to compactify to 3 large space dimensions so I can use

A^2 = A^aAa

B^2 = B^aBa

take square roots.

And I am back to the Bekenstein world holography bits with point defects in the world crystal's spacelike slices. They are the "lattice points"!

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

On Feb 27, 2007, at 10:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

OK Jack, fire away. Give me your best shot.

Here is a direct quote from Carroll:

"...any set of connections can be expressed as some fiducial connection plus a tensorial correction." (Notes on General Relativity, p 59).

Now explain to us why this doesn't apply to the LC connection?

I told you a jillion times. Read the rest of what he says!

Clearly, a zero "correction" is no correction at all. For Carroll's statement to be non-trivial, the tensorial correction must be non-vanishing.

Yet you are saying, in effect, that in the case of the LC connection the tensorial correction is always exactly zero. I think you have to prove

this mathematically, in the abstract, without any appeal to any particular physical theory.

Irrelevant.

Sean Carroll like many others points out that most generally

Affine = LC + Torsion + Nonmetricity

Torsion and non-metricity are GCT 3rd rank tensors.

LC is not a tensor.

GR is precisely that theory in the set of theories with different connections such that

Affine = LC

End of trivial story.

Physically LC parallel transports vectors along worldlines.

Going around a closed worldline the difference of orientation of the vector with itself is a measure of the average curvature over the area of the loop - shrunk to zero - i.e. crystal disclination defect.

Limit of the ratio of angle deficit to area of shrinking loop is the sectional curvature dimensions 1/Area.

If there is non-metricity the length of the vector will also change in the parallel transport and in a loop you will get a discrepancy in lengths of the vector unless you impose a kind of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization on the closed loop.

If there is torsion starting with two sides of an infinitesimal parallelogram and parallel transporting one against the other both ways the loop does not close to second order - there is a torsion gap, i.e. crystal dislocation defect.

In my theory you have a set of 0-forms the Goldstone phases of the vacuum coherence ODLRO Higgs field.

From the 0-forms comes a set of 1-forms.

There are 10 1-forms.

4 tetrad 1-forms & 6 spin connection 1-forms.

Then you have GR + torsion trivially.

i.e. a theory with

A = LC + Torsion Tensor

beyond 1915 GR of course.

dO-form = 1-form

d^2)-form = 0

However that 1-form need not be exact if the 0-form has a singularity, i.e.

Integral of the 1-form over a non-bounding 1-cycle without boundary = winding number integer

Bohr-Sommerfeld condition from non-trivial 1-homotopy.

Then you can pretend Stoke's theorem works i.e. flux without flux - these are 1D string vortex defects.

The integral of the 1-form around the loop is the surface integral of a ghostly 2-form flux through the area of the loop. This is related to the Bohm-Aharonov effect.

Similarly given 2 0-forms A & B, I define the non-closed 1-form as

C = dA/\B - A/\dB 1-form

dC = 2dA/\dB =/= 0 2-form

I can now play the same game one dimension higher! These are 0D point monopole stable defects.

Now we have star gate wormholes!

The mouth of the wormhole is the non-bounding 2-cycle without boundary - the portal like they see on the Skinwalker Ranch!

The deRham integral of 2-form C over the closed 2-surface is now an integer wrapping number ~ Bekenstein BITS for the entropy of black hole event horizons, de Sitter dark energy future observer horizons, Unruh effect, Hawking radiation, you name it. I got it all topologically pre-metrically.

There is again the world hologram ghostly volume 3-form without volume from the actual hologram area 2-form dC.

OK everything I need comes from C as the template.

C^a^b = dA^a/\B^b - A^a/\dB^b

The 4 Einstein curvature tetrad 1-forms are the diagonal matrix elements

C^a^a

The 6 torsion field spin connection 1-forms are the anti-symmetrized off-diagonal matrix elements

C^[a,b] = - C^[b,a]

Einstein's 1915 GR is the limit

C^[a,b] = 0

D = d + W^ac/\

e^a = I^a + C^a^a

The torsion 1-form is

T^a = De^a = 0

This determines the non-dynamical zero torsion spin connections W^ac from

de^a + W^ac/\e^c = 0

The curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = DW^a^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density is

{a,b,c,d}R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

and the rest is history.

See Rovelli Ch II for the details.

Plus it's obvious how to generalize for torsion.

So I have 8 0-form Goldstone phases from 9 real Higgs fields with vacuum manifold S^8.

This fits most naturally in terms of stable defects into a 9+1 D spacetime. Hey that's interesting. Where have we seen that before?

I want to compactify to 3 large space dimensions so I can use

A^2 = A^aAa

B^2 = B^aBa

take square roots.

And I am back to the Bekenstein world holography bits with point defects in the world crystal's spacelike slices. They are the "lattice points"!

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

## Saturday, February 24, 2007

Colonel Corso's Time Traveling Saucers

A really crude toy model for

http://qedcorp.com/APS/saucer1.gif

Imagine that m is the mass of the flying saucer with the Q-generator switched off.

1 + Q ~ 0 is the "warp bubble"

M = m(1 + Q)^1/2

is the effective mass seen by "us" looking from outside the warp bubble.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/alcubierre.jpg

shows the warp bubble

Clearly this spacecraft can turn around and go back in time relative to us as is mentioned in Colonel Corso's

"The Day After Roswell"

;-)

Professor Milton Rothman speaks:

"My question is: how much energy does it take to generate a stream of tachyons? To provide a reasonable amount of thrust, the tachyon beam must have a certain amount of momentum. The relativistic relation between momentum and energy is surely the same for tachyons as it is for other particles." The late Milton Rothman of Skeptical Inquirer

No it's not Professor Rothman who we invoke in a seance. ;-)

When p =|M|c, E = 0 for a tachyon of imaginary mass M

And the mass-energy of the spaceship approaches infinity as the ship approaches the speed of light. So from where do we get this high energy efficiency? (Besides, nobody has seen a tachyon yet.)

Our Dearly Departed Debunker obviously did not know that the mass shell condition changes

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (Mc^2)^2 ordinary particle c = 1

E^2 = (pc)^2 - (|M|c^2)^2 tachyon

Therefore the energy of the tachyon E limits to zero as the momentum p limits to |M|c, which was my point - tiny energy at finite momentum.

It is well known that the special relativistic Bohm quantum potential for the Klein-Gordon equation bends the timelike world line of (in this case spin 0 massive particle) into a spacelike one outside its local light cone. Indeed you can make a closed timelike curve for time travel to the past . Ch 12 The Quantum Theory of Motion by Peter Holland, Cambridge University Press 1993

That is M = m(1 + Q)^1/2

Q ~ (h/mc)^2|Psi|^-1 D'Alembertian|Psi|

m = classical rest mass.

M is the quantum "dressed" rest mass.

Therefore, when Q < -1, M is imaginary, i.e. tachyon.

Note that relativistic quantum potential

Q ~ (Compton Wave Length)^2(Curvature)|Psi|^-1

The effective local space-time metric surrounding the particle in the stationary approximation is

g00 ~ 1 + Q

That is

M^2 ~ g00m^2

Indeed

1 + Q = 0 is a kind of micro-event horizon where g00 = 0

(Curvature) ~ |Psi|^uu

This can be negative.

Also the particle of quantum mass M runs around the core of the topological defect (here a vortex ring where |Psi| is tiny hence Q is large even if the gradients of the gradients of |Psi| are shallow as long as they give a negative effective local curvature trapping the particle.

Note that for a vortex ring's group speed

v ~ 1/E

Note the bigger the energy the larger the radius of the vortex ring.

Fomally similarly for a low energy tachyon - increasing energy of tachyon lowers its speed to the light cone.

A soft zero energy tachyon moves infinitely fast with a spatial periodicity lambda = h/|M|c, note that we can make |M| small.

(Note that we can even imagine for the height of the cosmic landscape at some point.

/\zpf^-1/2 = h/|M|c

or

1//\zpf = (h/|M|c)^2 = (h/mc)^2(1 + Q)^-1 = (1/g00)(h/mc)^2

if m is the Planck mass etc.

/\zpfLp^2 = 1 + Q

Q is the Bohm macro-quantum potential for the giant vacuum ODLRO order parameter of the pocket universes.)

Back to the relatively mundane

v = dE/dp

c = 1

E^2 = p^2 - |M|^2

2EdE = 2pdp

dE/dp = p/E = (E^2 + |M|^2)^1/2/E ~ |M|/E > vacuum speed of light

when E << |M|

in region p ~ |M|

Note also that since

E^2 = p^2 - |M|^2

In order for E to be real, (I put c back in)

p > |M|c

i.e. deBroglie wavelength h/p < Compton wavelength h/|M|c

Now normally this will excite virtual particle-antiparticle pairs into real pairs.

Not for on-shell tachyons however because the available energy E is too small.

Also remember

h/|M|c = (h/mc)|(1 + Q)|^-1 >> (h/mc) indeed macroscopic

if we tune Q to keep 1 + Q ~ 0 on the "event horizon"

This is a kind of "particle" hidden variable analog to the Higgs field mechanism. In field theory with ODLRO pushing M imaginary triggers a vacuum phase transition e.g. "inflation".

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

A really crude toy model for

http://qedcorp.com/APS/saucer1.gif

Imagine that m is the mass of the flying saucer with the Q-generator switched off.

1 + Q ~ 0 is the "warp bubble"

M = m(1 + Q)^1/2

is the effective mass seen by "us" looking from outside the warp bubble.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/alcubierre.jpg

shows the warp bubble

Clearly this spacecraft can turn around and go back in time relative to us as is mentioned in Colonel Corso's

"The Day After Roswell"

;-)

Professor Milton Rothman speaks:

"My question is: how much energy does it take to generate a stream of tachyons? To provide a reasonable amount of thrust, the tachyon beam must have a certain amount of momentum. The relativistic relation between momentum and energy is surely the same for tachyons as it is for other particles." The late Milton Rothman of Skeptical Inquirer

No it's not Professor Rothman who we invoke in a seance. ;-)

When p =|M|c, E = 0 for a tachyon of imaginary mass M

And the mass-energy of the spaceship approaches infinity as the ship approaches the speed of light. So from where do we get this high energy efficiency? (Besides, nobody has seen a tachyon yet.)

Our Dearly Departed Debunker obviously did not know that the mass shell condition changes

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (Mc^2)^2 ordinary particle c = 1

E^2 = (pc)^2 - (|M|c^2)^2 tachyon

Therefore the energy of the tachyon E limits to zero as the momentum p limits to |M|c, which was my point - tiny energy at finite momentum.

It is well known that the special relativistic Bohm quantum potential for the Klein-Gordon equation bends the timelike world line of (in this case spin 0 massive particle) into a spacelike one outside its local light cone. Indeed you can make a closed timelike curve for time travel to the past . Ch 12 The Quantum Theory of Motion by Peter Holland, Cambridge University Press 1993

That is M = m(1 + Q)^1/2

Q ~ (h/mc)^2|Psi|^-1 D'Alembertian|Psi|

m = classical rest mass.

M is the quantum "dressed" rest mass.

Therefore, when Q < -1, M is imaginary, i.e. tachyon.

Note that relativistic quantum potential

Q ~ (Compton Wave Length)^2(Curvature)|Psi|^-1

The effective local space-time metric surrounding the particle in the stationary approximation is

g00 ~ 1 + Q

That is

M^2 ~ g00m^2

Indeed

1 + Q = 0 is a kind of micro-event horizon where g00 = 0

(Curvature) ~ |Psi|^uu

This can be negative.

Also the particle of quantum mass M runs around the core of the topological defect (here a vortex ring where |Psi| is tiny hence Q is large even if the gradients of the gradients of |Psi| are shallow as long as they give a negative effective local curvature trapping the particle.

Note that for a vortex ring's group speed

v ~ 1/E

Note the bigger the energy the larger the radius of the vortex ring.

Fomally similarly for a low energy tachyon - increasing energy of tachyon lowers its speed to the light cone.

A soft zero energy tachyon moves infinitely fast with a spatial periodicity lambda = h/|M|c, note that we can make |M| small.

(Note that we can even imagine for the height of the cosmic landscape at some point.

/\zpf^-1/2 = h/|M|c

or

1//\zpf = (h/|M|c)^2 = (h/mc)^2(1 + Q)^-1 = (1/g00)(h/mc)^2

if m is the Planck mass etc.

/\zpfLp^2 = 1 + Q

Q is the Bohm macro-quantum potential for the giant vacuum ODLRO order parameter of the pocket universes.)

Back to the relatively mundane

v = dE/dp

c = 1

E^2 = p^2 - |M|^2

2EdE = 2pdp

dE/dp = p/E = (E^2 + |M|^2)^1/2/E ~ |M|/E > vacuum speed of light

when E << |M|

in region p ~ |M|

Note also that since

E^2 = p^2 - |M|^2

In order for E to be real, (I put c back in)

p > |M|c

i.e. deBroglie wavelength h/p < Compton wavelength h/|M|c

Now normally this will excite virtual particle-antiparticle pairs into real pairs.

Not for on-shell tachyons however because the available energy E is too small.

Also remember

h/|M|c = (h/mc)|(1 + Q)|^-1 >> (h/mc) indeed macroscopic

if we tune Q to keep 1 + Q ~ 0 on the "event horizon"

This is a kind of "particle" hidden variable analog to the Higgs field mechanism. In field theory with ODLRO pushing M imaginary triggers a vacuum phase transition e.g. "inflation".

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Milton Rothman, Obituary

http://tinyurl.com/2ot746

"On another web page we find the breathless news of a new breakthrough in space propulsion. Listen carefully: ' . . . the quantum potential Q found in Bohm's hidden variable version of quantum mechanics is able to transform ordinary protons into virtual `faster-than-light' tachyons. This would permit the construction of a new type of rocket engine that would enable low-cost highly fuel-efficient practical interstellar flight for large manned spacecraft.' Using tachyons as the propellant, a large spaceship could be pushed to velocities approaching the speed of light, using a relatively small amount of energy."

I did not write the last sentence - that's Rothman. In any case I am no longer thinking along these lines. My only point is that finite momentum for thrust costs small energy if you had a tachyon beam. However, this would still be an impulse drive with g-forces not a weightless warp drive!

"My question is: how much energy does it take to generate a stream of tachyons? To provide a reasonable amount of thrust, the tachyon beam must have a certain amount of momentum. The relativistic relation between momentum and energy is surely the same for tachyons as it is for other particles."

No it's not Professor Rothman! We call him back from the dead in a seance! ;-)

When p = |M|c, E = 0 for a tachyon of imaginary mass M

And the mass-energy of the spaceship approaches infinity as the ship approaches the speed of light. So from where do we get this high energy efficiency? (Besides, nobody has seen a tachyon yet.)

The Late Rothman's article on me is inaccurate, attributes Roger Penrose's ideas on gravity and consciousness to me among other things. For now I only make one particular detailed comment.

Our Clueless Dearly Departed Debunker did not know that the mass shell condition changes

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (Mc^2)^2 ordinary particle c = 1

E^2 = (pc)^2 - (|M|c^2)^2 tachyon

Therefore the energy of the tachyon E limits to zero as the momentum p limits to |M|c, which was my point - tiny energy at finite momentum.

There is a special place in Dante's Inferno (where I have VIP status! ;-)) for all CSICOPERS. Rothman was humorless and probably died of boredom or shock looking in the mirror. He was a good example of those uptight tunnel-visioned mediocre "physics professors" that cause any imaginative artistic student to flee their class rooms. Rothman wrote this crap about me in 1996 - so of course it's quite out-dated, but he did not get the physics correct!

It is well known, though not to Rothman, that the special relativistic Bohm quantum potential for the Klein-Gordon equation bends the timelike world line of (in this case spin 0 massive particle) into a spacelike one outside its local light cone. Indeed you can make a closed timelike curve for time travel to the past . This is not same as Feynman zig-zag BTW. Ch 12 The Quantum Theory of Motion by Peter Holland, Cambridge University Press 1993

That is M = m(1 + Q)^1/2

Q ~ (h/mc)^2|Psi|^-1 D'Alembertian|Psi|

m = classical bare rest mass.

Therefore, when Q < -1, M is imaginary, i.e. tachyon.

Here Holland loses faith in Bohm's theory and goes through a song and dance that I think is wrong, but no time for that now - it's a book. My point is that Rothman was a fake! Like almost all those members of Csicops they are not as smart as they think they are.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

http://tinyurl.com/2ot746

"On another web page we find the breathless news of a new breakthrough in space propulsion. Listen carefully: ' . . . the quantum potential Q found in Bohm's hidden variable version of quantum mechanics is able to transform ordinary protons into virtual `faster-than-light' tachyons. This would permit the construction of a new type of rocket engine that would enable low-cost highly fuel-efficient practical interstellar flight for large manned spacecraft.' Using tachyons as the propellant, a large spaceship could be pushed to velocities approaching the speed of light, using a relatively small amount of energy."

I did not write the last sentence - that's Rothman. In any case I am no longer thinking along these lines. My only point is that finite momentum for thrust costs small energy if you had a tachyon beam. However, this would still be an impulse drive with g-forces not a weightless warp drive!

"My question is: how much energy does it take to generate a stream of tachyons? To provide a reasonable amount of thrust, the tachyon beam must have a certain amount of momentum. The relativistic relation between momentum and energy is surely the same for tachyons as it is for other particles."

No it's not Professor Rothman! We call him back from the dead in a seance! ;-)

When p = |M|c, E = 0 for a tachyon of imaginary mass M

And the mass-energy of the spaceship approaches infinity as the ship approaches the speed of light. So from where do we get this high energy efficiency? (Besides, nobody has seen a tachyon yet.)

The Late Rothman's article on me is inaccurate, attributes Roger Penrose's ideas on gravity and consciousness to me among other things. For now I only make one particular detailed comment.

Our Clueless Dearly Departed Debunker did not know that the mass shell condition changes

E^2 = (pc)^2 + (Mc^2)^2 ordinary particle c = 1

E^2 = (pc)^2 - (|M|c^2)^2 tachyon

Therefore the energy of the tachyon E limits to zero as the momentum p limits to |M|c, which was my point - tiny energy at finite momentum.

There is a special place in Dante's Inferno (where I have VIP status! ;-)) for all CSICOPERS. Rothman was humorless and probably died of boredom or shock looking in the mirror. He was a good example of those uptight tunnel-visioned mediocre "physics professors" that cause any imaginative artistic student to flee their class rooms. Rothman wrote this crap about me in 1996 - so of course it's quite out-dated, but he did not get the physics correct!

It is well known, though not to Rothman, that the special relativistic Bohm quantum potential for the Klein-Gordon equation bends the timelike world line of (in this case spin 0 massive particle) into a spacelike one outside its local light cone. Indeed you can make a closed timelike curve for time travel to the past . This is not same as Feynman zig-zag BTW. Ch 12 The Quantum Theory of Motion by Peter Holland, Cambridge University Press 1993

That is M = m(1 + Q)^1/2

Q ~ (h/mc)^2|Psi|^-1 D'Alembertian|Psi|

m = classical bare rest mass.

Therefore, when Q < -1, M is imaginary, i.e. tachyon.

Here Holland loses faith in Bohm's theory and goes through a song and dance that I think is wrong, but no time for that now - it's a book. My point is that Rothman was a fake! Like almost all those members of Csicops they are not as smart as they think they are.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Labels:
Milton Rothman Departed Debunker

## Friday, February 23, 2007

Interesting blog

http://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-are-quantum-fields.html

Independent of the above, whilst reading Penrose & Rindler on spinors I thought:

That there are no finite dimensional irreducible unitary representations of the 6-parameter Lorentz group has physical meanings that seem to have been overlooked.

2-component spinors are the basic qubits for the fabric of spacetime, although not all 2-level systems are spinors.

These qubit spinors are deep hidden implicate structures of the invariant light cone (null geodesics).

The problem is the boost. That is Alice and Bob are coincident in relative uniform motion. The mapping from Alice's spinor to Bob's spinor is not unitary. It is Hermitian but not unitary. Unitary maps conserve inner products. So the spinor inner product is not conserved in a Lorentz boost. Locally gauging the Lorentz group gives the dynamical torsion field. Hmmm....

On Feb 23, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Creon Levit

Date: February 23, 2007 3:40:37 PM PST

To: jack

Subject: video of Einstein, deBroglie, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, etc from 1927

Really!

http://216.120.242.82/%7Egreensp/video.html

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

http://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-are-quantum-fields.html

Independent of the above, whilst reading Penrose & Rindler on spinors I thought:

That there are no finite dimensional irreducible unitary representations of the 6-parameter Lorentz group has physical meanings that seem to have been overlooked.

2-component spinors are the basic qubits for the fabric of spacetime, although not all 2-level systems are spinors.

These qubit spinors are deep hidden implicate structures of the invariant light cone (null geodesics).

The problem is the boost. That is Alice and Bob are coincident in relative uniform motion. The mapping from Alice's spinor to Bob's spinor is not unitary. It is Hermitian but not unitary. Unitary maps conserve inner products. So the spinor inner product is not conserved in a Lorentz boost. Locally gauging the Lorentz group gives the dynamical torsion field. Hmmm....

On Feb 23, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Creon Levit

Date: February 23, 2007 3:40:37 PM PST

To: jack

Subject: video of Einstein, deBroglie, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, etc from 1927

Really!

http://216.120.242.82/%7Egreensp/video.html

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

As Peter Woit has shown in his book "Not Even Wrong" judging an important idea at the foundations of physics is subtle. His book also points out deep differences in the values between creative theoretical physicists and nit-picking mathematicians who prematurely give bad PR to important ideas. Feynman would have met enormous resistance to the development of his "diagrams" in today's repressive environment in which theoretical physics has been taken over by formalists in theoretical physicist's clothing. Most of the theory papers on the electronic preprints in theoretical physics have no relation to experiment and observation and are basically unhelpful to the experimental physicist. Peter Woit goes into great detail on this. My work is in close contact with real data: Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances, dark energy repelling space from itself seen in Type Ia supernovae, dark matter galactic halos, dark matter globs displaced from visible matter, lab reports by Ken Shoulders of "charge clusters," Pioneer anomaly, gamma ray bursts, John Cramer's retrocausal signal experiment (in progress), consciousness, UFO (weightless warp drive) and remote viewing (retrocausal signal nonlocality showing breakdown of quantum theory). Of course my including of the latter three items as part of real experimental physics explains most of the wrath leveled against me. So be it. I ask no quarter, nor do I give it.

Odd to say, my most vehement critic is not the mathematician Waldyr Rodrigues (see below) but the string theorist and well-known blogger Lubos Motl. By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string theorist Lenny Susskind. Therefore, I wear Lubos's snide condescending purely polemical attacks on me (no physics in them at all) as a badge of honor.

2-28-2006

Waldyr Rodrigues slams first draft of Sarfatti paper on emergent gravity for mathematical errors

"Specifically we show that "Mathematics" used in Emergent Gravity is a potpourri of nonsense. This fact, unfortunately invalidates almost all claims of that paper."

On 2-28-2006 at 4:49 PM CST we received Jack Sarfatti's comment on the paper by Rodrigues:

"I appreciate Waldyr's corrections of minor formal details of my cursory presentation of background material in the first version of my paper no longer found in the current version. Waldyr's objections do not affect the key original new ideas found in the paper."

Updated on March 19, 2006

Dr. Jack Sarfatti revises paper (16th version!) on emergent gravity:

"The beautiful idea is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity emerges from the coherent ground state. The pop book to read about this way of thinking is Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe."

Comments from Sarfatti:

"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries" in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse on the cosmic landscape. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis's and David Gross's objections to Leonard Susskind's theory of accessing information beyond the different types of horizons are addressed in a way that probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range phase coherence."

Odd to say, my most vehement critic is not the mathematician Waldyr Rodrigues (see below) but the string theorist and well-known blogger Lubos Motl. By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string theorist Lenny Susskind. Therefore, I wear Lubos's snide condescending purely polemical attacks on me (no physics in them at all) as a badge of honor.

2-28-2006

Waldyr Rodrigues slams first draft of Sarfatti paper on emergent gravity for mathematical errors

"Specifically we show that "Mathematics" used in Emergent Gravity is a potpourri of nonsense. This fact, unfortunately invalidates almost all claims of that paper."

On 2-28-2006 at 4:49 PM CST we received Jack Sarfatti's comment on the paper by Rodrigues:

"I appreciate Waldyr's corrections of minor formal details of my cursory presentation of background material in the first version of my paper no longer found in the current version. Waldyr's objections do not affect the key original new ideas found in the paper."

Updated on March 19, 2006

Dr. Jack Sarfatti revises paper (16th version!) on emergent gravity:

"The beautiful idea is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity emerges from the coherent ground state. The pop book to read about this way of thinking is Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe."

Comments from Sarfatti:

"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries" in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse on the cosmic landscape. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis's and David Gross's objections to Leonard Susskind's theory of accessing information beyond the different types of horizons are addressed in a way that probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range phase coherence."

## Tuesday, February 20, 2007

On Feb 20, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Srikanth R wrote:

Dear Prof. Jack,

My guess is that we don't require anything exotic (say stuff like breakdown in local-realism etc) to explain the delayed choice experiment. I think the apparent paradoxicality in this case has come from the usual expectation that if particle nature is manifested, then a which-path decision should have occured at slits. Now this is indeed normally the case, as when one directly monitors the slits for path information, so this attitude is understandable.

But in analyzing the delayed choice experiment, I found that the slight novelty here seems to be that the commitment-to-a-path happens at the back-end optics.

￼http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Yes, assuming you mean by "back-end" the "later" light green beam splitter plate at the crossing point before the two gray detectors. In the Bohm interpretation, at least for the interferometer setup for slow neutrons the pilot wave quantum potential Q is reshaped at the (upper right light green plate) "back-end" crossing-point in front of the two detectors.

In contrast, in the Bohr picture definite classical paths of small particles are not allowed and the mirage of retrocausal delayed choice is made at the "earlier" "front-end" light blue (lower-left) beam splitter plate. Therefore, we are forced to the miracle, the immaculate deception of "collapse" of the spread out quantum wave to Newton's hard massy "particle." Thus,there are only tiny-spot irreversible detections at low flux one quantum at a time and we see the statistical pattern slowly build one tiny speck, one momentary "click" at a time. This is mysterious in Bohr's theory but it is completely trivial in the deBroglie-Bohm-Einstein theory (i.e. "interpretation). So Feynman was wrong when he said, when he dissembled, no one understood quantum theory. Bohm did. No one who followed Bohr understands it - at least for slow neutrons. Photons are more difficult for the reason that the classical EM field configuration is infinite dimensional as distinct from the single neutron that has only three center of mass degrees of freedom.

That is, for a single neutron the quantum Q pilot wave is a function of the actual position of the hidden variable tiny neutron. In contrast for the classical electromagnetic (or geometrodynamic, or Yang-Mills electroweak & strong chromodynamic classical fields) the quantum Q pilot wave is a FUNCTIONAL of the classical field function i.e. configuration on a 3D spacelike slice of 4D space-time (Cauchy initial-value problem et-al). The math is much more difficult than for massive fermion leptons and quarks and their bound composites in the non-relativistic limit at least. Even the fermions get harder to deal with in Bohm's picture relativistically with particle creation/annihilation. Note that the Feynman path integrals are the preferred formalism because Feynman was a secret closet Bohmian - one of his paths is the actual one. When you sum over paths that makes the super-Quantum potential! Feynman, Bohm and Vigier spent months together in Rio on the beach ~ 1952.

In the Bohm picture the actual neutron hidden variable has a definite path, but the pilot wave Psi splits to Psi(1) & Psi(2). The effective Q at the "back-end" crossing point is locally reshaped if the light green plate is inserted with relative phases such that the neutron cannot take the path to the vertical detector and must take the path to the horizontal detector. The vertical path is blocked by a Q-barrier. If the light green plate is not there its 50-50 which path the neutron takes. Therefore, for slow neutrons in this particular experiment there is no need for faster than light action and no need for retro-causality in the Bohm picture. Now what happens for photons is actually more complicated and what may happen in a different kind of experiment I don't know. Each case has to be looked at separately since Q can act across a spacelike interval in the case of entanglement (absent in the above case) but so long as the hidden variable is a "test particle" that does not directly react back on its own Q there is no statistical violation of retarded causality i.e. no-cloning et-al is obeyed in Bohm's theory in the "orthodox limit" of what Antony Valentini calls "sub-quantal equilibrium."

It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049

Thus, at all times quantum information comes through _both_ slits, no matter whether the observer downstream is using a telescope or an interferometer. However, in the former case, the complex amplitude for one of the paths will get filtered out by the optics at a given telescope, so that he perceives an incoherernt mixture, whereas, in the latter, both are allowed to combine interferometrically.

Thus his decision to choose one or the other viewing instrument does not instruct the photon (retrocausally) "to have altered its behaviour", but simply decides whether the rays from the two slits shall interfere or go their separate ways.

A very simple treatment of this attempt at resolution was published in Current Science

"A quantum field theoretic description of the delayed choice

experiment"

R. Srikanth, Current Science 81, 1295 (2001); quant-ph/0106154

The bottomline then seems to be that complementarity is enforced not at the slits plane (in which case it would indeed become mysterious!!), but at the back-end optics, right where the delayed choice happens.

Yes, that is what I am saying - locally right where the delayed choice happens.

Thanking you,

With best regards,

Srikanth

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No need for retrocausality in Bohm's theory at least for slow moving neutrons. Delayed choice experiment. How does Bohm explain it with the quantum potential Q? In this case the super Q for the EM field. Cramer explains it with advanced waves back from the future. One can do this with Q as well

Q = (R(advanced)R(retarded))^-1/2Grad^2(R(advanced)R(retarded))^1/2

for slowly moving neutrons in a crystal interferometer (Dan Greenberg).

It's the shape of Q that determines how the detectors "click". Therefore, last moment decision to insert or not the second beam splitter locally reshapes Q at the "crossing point" and there is no need for any faster than light/retrocausal effect in Bohm's theory for this particular experiment with slow neutrons (photons more complicated).

Ã¯¿¼

http://images.iop.org/objects/physicsweb/news/thumb/11/2/16/ Interferometer.jpg

Above is upper right piece of full apparatus below. Placing the green slab beam splitter clearly locally reshapes Q such that, upper vertical detector will not click at all. There is a factor of i phase shift on each reflection. Look at two beams that go to upper detector. Lower beam reflects only once, upper beam reflects 3 x hence i^2 = - 1 180 deg destructive interference (assuming equal path lengths). For horizontal detector both beams reflect twice and therefore they stay in phase. Note that with real physics one can explain things logically and clearly - that is the goal. If green slab (beam splitter) is not inserted both detectors click at equal rates.

Ã¯¿¼http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Choose the right path

<< Back to article

Choose the right path

In Roch's experiment, single photon pulses are emitted one at a time into an interferometer. As they leave a first beam splitter (BS1), they have the option of two 48-metre paths with equal probability, which eventually lead to two separate detectors. Just before the detectors, a second beam splitter (BS2) is randomly inserted or removed by a system that is synchronized with the emitter. With the beam splitter in place, a photon can reach either detector from the same path, preventing its path from being observed. When the beam splitter is removed, however, the detectors can observe a photon's path unambiguously.

Roch's team performed the experiment many times until they could confirm with certainty that unobserved photons behave like waves (i.e. interfere), while observed photons behave like particles (i.e. do not interfere). Crucially, however, they removed the possibility that the photons could somehow be informed of the system's decision, as the decision was only made after the photons had entered the interferometer.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Russell Targ

Date: February 19, 2007 7:55:03 AM PST

To: Jack Sarfatti, Jack Sarfatti

Subject: Photons denied a glimpse of their observer (February 2007) - News - PhysicsWeb

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/16

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Dear Prof. Jack,

My guess is that we don't require anything exotic (say stuff like breakdown in local-realism etc) to explain the delayed choice experiment. I think the apparent paradoxicality in this case has come from the usual expectation that if particle nature is manifested, then a which-path decision should have occured at slits. Now this is indeed normally the case, as when one directly monitors the slits for path information, so this attitude is understandable.

But in analyzing the delayed choice experiment, I found that the slight novelty here seems to be that the commitment-to-a-path happens at the back-end optics.

￼http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Yes, assuming you mean by "back-end" the "later" light green beam splitter plate at the crossing point before the two gray detectors. In the Bohm interpretation, at least for the interferometer setup for slow neutrons the pilot wave quantum potential Q is reshaped at the (upper right light green plate) "back-end" crossing-point in front of the two detectors.

In contrast, in the Bohr picture definite classical paths of small particles are not allowed and the mirage of retrocausal delayed choice is made at the "earlier" "front-end" light blue (lower-left) beam splitter plate. Therefore, we are forced to the miracle, the immaculate deception of "collapse" of the spread out quantum wave to Newton's hard massy "particle." Thus,there are only tiny-spot irreversible detections at low flux one quantum at a time and we see the statistical pattern slowly build one tiny speck, one momentary "click" at a time. This is mysterious in Bohr's theory but it is completely trivial in the deBroglie-Bohm-Einstein theory (i.e. "interpretation). So Feynman was wrong when he said, when he dissembled, no one understood quantum theory. Bohm did. No one who followed Bohr understands it - at least for slow neutrons. Photons are more difficult for the reason that the classical EM field configuration is infinite dimensional as distinct from the single neutron that has only three center of mass degrees of freedom.

That is, for a single neutron the quantum Q pilot wave is a function of the actual position of the hidden variable tiny neutron. In contrast for the classical electromagnetic (or geometrodynamic, or Yang-Mills electroweak & strong chromodynamic classical fields) the quantum Q pilot wave is a FUNCTIONAL of the classical field function i.e. configuration on a 3D spacelike slice of 4D space-time (Cauchy initial-value problem et-al). The math is much more difficult than for massive fermion leptons and quarks and their bound composites in the non-relativistic limit at least. Even the fermions get harder to deal with in Bohm's picture relativistically with particle creation/annihilation. Note that the Feynman path integrals are the preferred formalism because Feynman was a secret closet Bohmian - one of his paths is the actual one. When you sum over paths that makes the super-Quantum potential! Feynman, Bohm and Vigier spent months together in Rio on the beach ~ 1952.

In the Bohm picture the actual neutron hidden variable has a definite path, but the pilot wave Psi splits to Psi(1) & Psi(2). The effective Q at the "back-end" crossing point is locally reshaped if the light green plate is inserted with relative phases such that the neutron cannot take the path to the vertical detector and must take the path to the horizontal detector. The vertical path is blocked by a Q-barrier. If the light green plate is not there its 50-50 which path the neutron takes. Therefore, for slow neutrons in this particular experiment there is no need for faster than light action and no need for retro-causality in the Bohm picture. Now what happens for photons is actually more complicated and what may happen in a different kind of experiment I don't know. Each case has to be looked at separately since Q can act across a spacelike interval in the case of entanglement (absent in the above case) but so long as the hidden variable is a "test particle" that does not directly react back on its own Q there is no statistical violation of retarded causality i.e. no-cloning et-al is obeyed in Bohm's theory in the "orthodox limit" of what Antony Valentini calls "sub-quantal equilibrium."

It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049

Thus, at all times quantum information comes through _both_ slits, no matter whether the observer downstream is using a telescope or an interferometer. However, in the former case, the complex amplitude for one of the paths will get filtered out by the optics at a given telescope, so that he perceives an incoherernt mixture, whereas, in the latter, both are allowed to combine interferometrically.

Thus his decision to choose one or the other viewing instrument does not instruct the photon (retrocausally) "to have altered its behaviour", but simply decides whether the rays from the two slits shall interfere or go their separate ways.

A very simple treatment of this attempt at resolution was published in Current Science

"A quantum field theoretic description of the delayed choice

experiment"

R. Srikanth, Current Science 81, 1295 (2001); quant-ph/0106154

The bottomline then seems to be that complementarity is enforced not at the slits plane (in which case it would indeed become mysterious!!), but at the back-end optics, right where the delayed choice happens.

Yes, that is what I am saying - locally right where the delayed choice happens.

Thanking you,

With best regards,

Srikanth

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No need for retrocausality in Bohm's theory at least for slow moving neutrons. Delayed choice experiment. How does Bohm explain it with the quantum potential Q? In this case the super Q for the EM field. Cramer explains it with advanced waves back from the future. One can do this with Q as well

Q = (R(advanced)R(retarded))^-1/2Grad^2(R(advanced)R(retarded))^1/2

for slowly moving neutrons in a crystal interferometer (Dan Greenberg).

It's the shape of Q that determines how the detectors "click". Therefore, last moment decision to insert or not the second beam splitter locally reshapes Q at the "crossing point" and there is no need for any faster than light/retrocausal effect in Bohm's theory for this particular experiment with slow neutrons (photons more complicated).

Ã¯¿¼

http://images.iop.org/objects/physicsweb/news/thumb/11/2/16/ Interferometer.jpg

Above is upper right piece of full apparatus below. Placing the green slab beam splitter clearly locally reshapes Q such that, upper vertical detector will not click at all. There is a factor of i phase shift on each reflection. Look at two beams that go to upper detector. Lower beam reflects only once, upper beam reflects 3 x hence i^2 = - 1 180 deg destructive interference (assuming equal path lengths). For horizontal detector both beams reflect twice and therefore they stay in phase. Note that with real physics one can explain things logically and clearly - that is the goal. If green slab (beam splitter) is not inserted both detectors click at equal rates.

Ã¯¿¼http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Choose the right path

<< Back to article

Choose the right path

In Roch's experiment, single photon pulses are emitted one at a time into an interferometer. As they leave a first beam splitter (BS1), they have the option of two 48-metre paths with equal probability, which eventually lead to two separate detectors. Just before the detectors, a second beam splitter (BS2) is randomly inserted or removed by a system that is synchronized with the emitter. With the beam splitter in place, a photon can reach either detector from the same path, preventing its path from being observed. When the beam splitter is removed, however, the detectors can observe a photon's path unambiguously.

Roch's team performed the experiment many times until they could confirm with certainty that unobserved photons behave like waves (i.e. interfere), while observed photons behave like particles (i.e. do not interfere). Crucially, however, they removed the possibility that the photons could somehow be informed of the system's decision, as the decision was only made after the photons had entered the interferometer.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Russell Targ

Date: February 19, 2007 7:55:03 AM PST

To: Jack Sarfatti

Subject: Photons denied a glimpse of their observer (February 2007) - News - PhysicsWeb

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/16

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Labels:
Mirage of Retrocausality?

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/jpg/kolb1new_Page_05.jpg

a^-1(d^2/dt^2)a = - (4piG/3)rho(1 + 3w) - dQ/dt

Q ~ |Psi|^-1d^2Psi/dt^2

dQ/dt ~ "radiation reaction" "jerk" of Psi

Also like a superfluid

a(t) ~ (d/dt)argPsi

argPsi = Goldstone phase

|Psi| = Higgs field.

On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"The evolution of the electromagnetic field with time proceeds most simply when the (3D spacelike) metric does not change with the geodesically normal co-time ... No such simplicity reigns when the metric changes with time in a complicated way. Then the (EM field) normal modes themselves alter. Consequently the (warped Maxwell) dynamical equations acquire new terms ... 1) the emission of energy into the transverse (EM) field, or absorption of energy from the transverse field, by the Coulomb fields due to the motion of the charges or other changes in the metric 2) the pumping or scattering of energy into one transverse mode out of another or out of the metric itself, as a result of changes in the metric. It is true that one can define the local density of electromagnetic field energy in an unambiguous way. However, the same is not true of the integrated field energy. There is no common set of space and time coordinates with respect to which one could even hope to refer the components of a total energy-momentum four-vector." p. 294 Geometrodynamics

Noether's theorem says conservation of energy and momentum only when the universe's total action is invariant under global translation in time and space. OK inflation says universe is 3D flat on large scale, but it is not time-translation invariant. Indeed, the dark energy density is constant in this limiting scale, therefore the large total w = -1 dark energy is increasing with cosmic time in the standard metric. You cannot use special relativity globally only locally. Note that the total energy of w = + 1/3 radiation. It's not conserved because of the stretching of space. The total energy of pressureless w = 0 matter is conserved. Note that the parameter "a" can be thought of as the coordinate of a Bohm hidden variable. Let Psi be the vacuum ODLRO field, then the classical equations below have additional macro-quantum terms corresponding to Bohm's "quantum potential" Q.

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

3rd draft

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Wheeler and Misner (mid 1950's) give a manifestly global invariant way to deal with the problem using antisymmetric Cartan's forms and deRahm period integrals for generalized Stoke's theorem with metric/signature dependent * Hodge duals. More on this anon. The multiple-connectivity of 3D spacelike slices (star gates) is key, i.e. homology, Betti numbers. Also you have to know where to start, i.e. spinors and tetrads not the usual symmetric Levi-Civita connection and symmetric metric tensor. Torsion is key as is local gauge invariance of the initial non-gravity fields. Wheeler uses powerful results from the French school in the 1950's. The split between non-metric and metric-dependent sectors is transparent.

Localize T4 to get the compensating tetrad A^a 1-forms

e^a = I^a + A^a

Think of A^a like the U(1) potential up to a point.

F^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\e^c

The spin connection 1-form is S^a^b = - S^b^a

This torsion 2-form is the analog of the internal Yang-Mills field.

It is zero in the limit of Einstein's 1915 theory.

Therefore, in the 1915 limit

de^a + So^ac/\e^c = 0

d(I^a + A^a) + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

I^a are the globally flat Einstein-Cartan tetrads. Subscript o is for the zero torsion limit of 1915 GR.

For geodesic observers dI^a = 0, therefore this equation is true for all observers.

i.e.

dA^a + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

d^2A^a + d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = 0

d^2A^a = 0

d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = (dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) - So^ac/\dA^c = 0

(dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) = So^ac/\dA^c = 0

You need to locally gauge entire T4xO(1,3) to get

F^a =/= 0

as a covariant closed form

DF^a = 0

and the period integral of its Hodge dual *F is like "electric charge" for the torsion field in multiply connected 3D space with non-trivial p = 2 homology, i.e. non-bounding 2-cycles (wormhole mouths).

Note that G(mass density) ~ c^2/\zpf

G(mass density)r^3/c^2 ~ /\zpfr^3 ~ meters (Skinwalker Ranch data point)

Therefore /\zpf can, in principle, induce strong "Sakharov" (anti) gravity, /\zpf is a local "torsion" field.

Note that the uniform large scale dark energy is just enough to induce Newton's G.

i.e. where /\zpf limits to the cosmological constant.

/\zpf(13.7 billion years)^3 ~ (13.7 billion years) as an observed fact.

1//\zpf ~ 10^122 BITS area of observer causal dark energy future de Sitter horizon.

The symmetric invariant is

ds^2 = e^aea

The usual geometrodynamic connections are from

|~ ^wvu = ev^a(d/dx^u)ea^w

Curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = D^S^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

Beside the topological metric independent d there is a metric dependent & with warped d'Alembertian d& + &d

Einstein's "vacuum" field equation is basically

(d& + &d)e^aea = 0

There is also a Dirac spinor equation here.

e^a = Z^CC'psi^a^CC'

C & C' are qubit spinor indices

psi^a^CC' = quantum computer Bell basis pair-entangled 2-spinor state.

Generalized global Stoke's theorem frame for "conservation laws" is for globally invariant de Rahm integrals

(n-1)dim Boundary integral of A/\*B = n dim{Interior integral of B/\*dA - Interior integral of (&B)/\*A}

A = p - 1 form

B = p form

*B is an n - p form

this is signature dependent

More anon.

n = 4 in ordinary spacetime with signature s = 1

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

a^-1(d^2/dt^2)a = - (4piG/3)rho(1 + 3w) - dQ/dt

Q ~ |Psi|^-1d^2Psi/dt^2

dQ/dt ~ "radiation reaction" "jerk" of Psi

Also like a superfluid

a(t) ~ (d/dt)argPsi

argPsi = Goldstone phase

|Psi| = Higgs field.

On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"The evolution of the electromagnetic field with time proceeds most simply when the (3D spacelike) metric does not change with the geodesically normal co-time ... No such simplicity reigns when the metric changes with time in a complicated way. Then the (EM field) normal modes themselves alter. Consequently the (warped Maxwell) dynamical equations acquire new terms ... 1) the emission of energy into the transverse (EM) field, or absorption of energy from the transverse field, by the Coulomb fields due to the motion of the charges or other changes in the metric 2) the pumping or scattering of energy into one transverse mode out of another or out of the metric itself, as a result of changes in the metric. It is true that one can define the local density of electromagnetic field energy in an unambiguous way. However, the same is not true of the integrated field energy. There is no common set of space and time coordinates with respect to which one could even hope to refer the components of a total energy-momentum four-vector." p. 294 Geometrodynamics

Noether's theorem says conservation of energy and momentum only when the universe's total action is invariant under global translation in time and space. OK inflation says universe is 3D flat on large scale, but it is not time-translation invariant. Indeed, the dark energy density is constant in this limiting scale, therefore the large total w = -1 dark energy is increasing with cosmic time in the standard metric. You cannot use special relativity globally only locally. Note that the total energy of w = + 1/3 radiation. It's not conserved because of the stretching of space. The total energy of pressureless w = 0 matter is conserved. Note that the parameter "a" can be thought of as the coordinate of a Bohm hidden variable. Let Psi be the vacuum ODLRO field, then the classical equations below have additional macro-quantum terms corresponding to Bohm's "quantum potential" Q.

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

3rd draft

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Wheeler and Misner (mid 1950's) give a manifestly global invariant way to deal with the problem using antisymmetric Cartan's forms and deRahm period integrals for generalized Stoke's theorem with metric/signature dependent * Hodge duals. More on this anon. The multiple-connectivity of 3D spacelike slices (star gates) is key, i.e. homology, Betti numbers. Also you have to know where to start, i.e. spinors and tetrads not the usual symmetric Levi-Civita connection and symmetric metric tensor. Torsion is key as is local gauge invariance of the initial non-gravity fields. Wheeler uses powerful results from the French school in the 1950's. The split between non-metric and metric-dependent sectors is transparent.

Localize T4 to get the compensating tetrad A^a 1-forms

e^a = I^a + A^a

Think of A^a like the U(1) potential up to a point.

F^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\e^c

The spin connection 1-form is S^a^b = - S^b^a

This torsion 2-form is the analog of the internal Yang-Mills field.

It is zero in the limit of Einstein's 1915 theory.

Therefore, in the 1915 limit

de^a + So^ac/\e^c = 0

d(I^a + A^a) + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

I^a are the globally flat Einstein-Cartan tetrads. Subscript o is for the zero torsion limit of 1915 GR.

For geodesic observers dI^a = 0, therefore this equation is true for all observers.

i.e.

dA^a + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

d^2A^a + d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = 0

d^2A^a = 0

d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = (dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) - So^ac/\dA^c = 0

(dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) = So^ac/\dA^c = 0

You need to locally gauge entire T4xO(1,3) to get

F^a =/= 0

as a covariant closed form

DF^a = 0

and the period integral of its Hodge dual *F is like "electric charge" for the torsion field in multiply connected 3D space with non-trivial p = 2 homology, i.e. non-bounding 2-cycles (wormhole mouths).

Note that G(mass density) ~ c^2/\zpf

G(mass density)r^3/c^2 ~ /\zpfr^3 ~ meters (Skinwalker Ranch data point)

Therefore /\zpf can, in principle, induce strong "Sakharov" (anti) gravity, /\zpf is a local "torsion" field.

Note that the uniform large scale dark energy is just enough to induce Newton's G.

i.e. where /\zpf limits to the cosmological constant.

/\zpf(13.7 billion years)^3 ~ (13.7 billion years) as an observed fact.

1//\zpf ~ 10^122 BITS area of observer causal dark energy future de Sitter horizon.

The symmetric invariant is

ds^2 = e^aea

The usual geometrodynamic connections are from

|~ ^wvu = ev^a(d/dx^u)ea^w

Curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = D^S^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

Beside the topological metric independent d there is a metric dependent & with warped d'Alembertian d& + &d

Einstein's "vacuum" field equation is basically

(d& + &d)e^aea = 0

There is also a Dirac spinor equation here.

e^a = Z^CC'psi^a^CC'

C & C' are qubit spinor indices

psi^a^CC' = quantum computer Bell basis pair-entangled 2-spinor state.

Generalized global Stoke's theorem frame for "conservation laws" is for globally invariant de Rahm integrals

(n-1)dim Boundary integral of A/\*B = n dim{Interior integral of B/\*dA - Interior integral of (&B)/\*A}

A = p - 1 form

B = p form

*B is an n - p form

this is signature dependent

More anon.

n = 4 in ordinary spacetime with signature s = 1

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

## Monday, February 19, 2007

"The evolution of the electromagnetic field with time proceeds most simply when the (3D spacelike) metric does not change with the geodesically normal co-time ... No such simplicity reigns when the metric changes with time in a complicated way. Then the (EM field) normal modes themselves alter. Consequently the (warped Maxwell) dynamical equations acquire new terms ... 1) the emission of energy into the transverse (EM) field, or absorption of energy from the transverse field, by the Coulomb fields due to the motion of the charges or other changes in the metric 2) the pumping or scattering of energy into one transverse mode out of another or out of the metric itself, as a result of changes in the metric. It is true that one can define the local density of electromagnetic field energy in an unambiguous way. However, the same is not true of the integrated field energy. There is no common set of space and time coordinates with respect to which one could even hope to refer the components of a total energy-momentum four-vector." p. 294 Geometrodynamics

Noether's theorem says conservation of energy and momentum only when the universe's total action is invariant under global translation in time and space. OK inflation says universe is 3D flat on large scale, but it is not time-translation invariant. Indeed, the dark energy density is constant in this limiting scale, therefore the large total w = -1 dark energy is increasing with cosmic time in the standard metric. You cannot use special relativity globally only locally. Note that the total energy of w = + 1/3 radiation. It's not conserved because of the stretching of space. The total energy of pressureless w = 0 matter is conserved. Note that the parameter "a" can be thought of as the coordinate of a Bohm hidden variable. Let Psi be the vacuum ODLRO field, then the classical equations below have additional macro-quantum terms corresponding to Bohm's "quantum potential" Q.

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

3rd draft

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Wheeler and Misner (mid 1950's) give a manifestly global invariant way to deal with the problem using antisymmetric Cartan's forms and deRahm period integrals for generalized Stoke's theorem with metric/signature dependent * Hodge duals. More on this anon. The multiple-connectivity of 3D spacelike slices (star gates) is key, i.e. homology, Betti numbers. Also you have to know where to start, i.e. spinors and tetrads not the usual symmetric Levi-Civita connection and symmetric metric tensor. Torsion is key as is local gauge invariance of the initial non-gravity fields. Wheeler uses powerful results from the French school in the 1950's. The split between non-metric and metric-dependent sectors is transparent.

Localize T4 to get the compensating tetrad A^a 1-forms

e^a = I^a + A^a

Think of A^a like the U(1) potential up to a point.

F^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\e^c

The spin connection 1-form is S^a^b = - S^b^a

This torsion 2-form is the analog of the internal Yang-Mills field.

It is zero in the limit of Einstein's 1915 theory.

Therefore, in the 1915 limit

de^a + So^ac/\e^c = 0

d(I^a + A^a) + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

I^a are the globally flat Einstein-Cartan tetrads. Subscript o is for the zero torsion limit of 1915 GR.

For geodesic observers dI^a = 0, therefore this equation is true for all observers.

i.e.

dA^a + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

d^2A^a + d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = 0

d^2A^a = 0

d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = (dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) - So^ac/\dA^c = 0

(dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) = So^ac/\dA^c = 0

You need to locally gauge entire T4xO(1,3) to get

F^a =/= 0

as a covariant closed form

DF^a = 0

and the period integral of its Hodge dual *F is like "electric charge" for the torsion field in multiply connected 3D space with non-trivial p = 2 homology, i.e. non-bounding 2-cycles (wormhole mouths).

Note that G(mass density) ~ c^2/\zpf

G(mass density)r^3/c^2 ~ /\zpfr^3 ~ meters (Skinwalker Ranch data point)

Therefore /\zpf can, in principle, induce strong "Sakharov" (anti) gravity, /\zpf is a local "torsion" field.

Note that the uniform large scale dark energy is just enough to induce Newton's G.

i.e. where /\zpf limits to the cosmological constant.

/\zpf(13.7 billion years)^3 ~ (13.7 billion years) as an observed fact.

1//\zpf ~ 10^122 BITS area of observer causal dark energy future de Sitter horizon.

The symmetric invariant is

ds^2 = e^aea

The usual geometrodynamic connections are from

|~ ^wvu = ev^a(d/dx^u)ea^w

Curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = D^S^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

Beside the topological metric independent d there is a metric dependent & with warped d'Alembertian d& + &d

Einstein's "vacuum" field equation is basically

(d& + &d)e^aea = 0

There is also a Dirac spinor equation here.

e^a = Z^CC'psi^a^CC'

C & C' are qubit spinor indices

psi^a^CC' = quantum computer Bell basis pair-entangled 2-spinor state.

Generalized global Stoke's theorem frame for "conservation laws" is for globally invariant de Rahm integrals

(n-1)dim Boundary integral of A/\*B = n dim{Interior integral of B/\*dA - Interior integral of (&B)/\*A}

A = p - 1 form

B = p form

*B is an n - p form

this is signature dependent

More anon.

n = 4 in ordinary spacetime with signature s = 1

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Noether's theorem says conservation of energy and momentum only when the universe's total action is invariant under global translation in time and space. OK inflation says universe is 3D flat on large scale, but it is not time-translation invariant. Indeed, the dark energy density is constant in this limiting scale, therefore the large total w = -1 dark energy is increasing with cosmic time in the standard metric. You cannot use special relativity globally only locally. Note that the total energy of w = + 1/3 radiation. It's not conserved because of the stretching of space. The total energy of pressureless w = 0 matter is conserved. Note that the parameter "a" can be thought of as the coordinate of a Bohm hidden variable. Let Psi be the vacuum ODLRO field, then the classical equations below have additional macro-quantum terms corresponding to Bohm's "quantum potential" Q.

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

3rd draft

On Feb 19, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Wheeler and Misner (mid 1950's) give a manifestly global invariant way to deal with the problem using antisymmetric Cartan's forms and deRahm period integrals for generalized Stoke's theorem with metric/signature dependent * Hodge duals. More on this anon. The multiple-connectivity of 3D spacelike slices (star gates) is key, i.e. homology, Betti numbers. Also you have to know where to start, i.e. spinors and tetrads not the usual symmetric Levi-Civita connection and symmetric metric tensor. Torsion is key as is local gauge invariance of the initial non-gravity fields. Wheeler uses powerful results from the French school in the 1950's. The split between non-metric and metric-dependent sectors is transparent.

Localize T4 to get the compensating tetrad A^a 1-forms

e^a = I^a + A^a

Think of A^a like the U(1) potential up to a point.

F^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\e^c

The spin connection 1-form is S^a^b = - S^b^a

This torsion 2-form is the analog of the internal Yang-Mills field.

It is zero in the limit of Einstein's 1915 theory.

Therefore, in the 1915 limit

de^a + So^ac/\e^c = 0

d(I^a + A^a) + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

I^a are the globally flat Einstein-Cartan tetrads. Subscript o is for the zero torsion limit of 1915 GR.

For geodesic observers dI^a = 0, therefore this equation is true for all observers.

i.e.

dA^a + So^ac/\(I^c + A^c) = 0

d^2A^a + d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = 0

d^2A^a = 0

d(So^ac/\(I^c + A^c)) = (dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) - So^ac/\dA^c = 0

(dSo^ac)/\(I^c + A^c) = So^ac/\dA^c = 0

You need to locally gauge entire T4xO(1,3) to get

F^a =/= 0

as a covariant closed form

DF^a = 0

and the period integral of its Hodge dual *F is like "electric charge" for the torsion field in multiply connected 3D space with non-trivial p = 2 homology, i.e. non-bounding 2-cycles (wormhole mouths).

Note that G(mass density) ~ c^2/\zpf

G(mass density)r^3/c^2 ~ /\zpfr^3 ~ meters (Skinwalker Ranch data point)

Therefore /\zpf can, in principle, induce strong "Sakharov" (anti) gravity, /\zpf is a local "torsion" field.

Note that the uniform large scale dark energy is just enough to induce Newton's G.

i.e. where /\zpf limits to the cosmological constant.

/\zpf(13.7 billion years)^3 ~ (13.7 billion years) as an observed fact.

1//\zpf ~ 10^122 BITS area of observer causal dark energy future de Sitter horizon.

The symmetric invariant is

ds^2 = e^aea

The usual geometrodynamic connections are from

|~ ^wvu = ev^a(d/dx^u)ea^w

Curvature 2-form is

R^a^b = D^S^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

Beside the topological metric independent d there is a metric dependent & with warped d'Alembertian d& + &d

Einstein's "vacuum" field equation is basically

(d& + &d)e^aea = 0

There is also a Dirac spinor equation here.

e^a = Z^CC'psi^a^CC'

C & C' are qubit spinor indices

psi^a^CC' = quantum computer Bell basis pair-entangled 2-spinor state.

Generalized global Stoke's theorem frame for "conservation laws" is for globally invariant de Rahm integrals

(n-1)dim Boundary integral of A/\*B = n dim{Interior integral of B/\*dA - Interior integral of (&B)/\*A}

A = p - 1 form

B = p form

*B is an n - p form

this is signature dependent

More anon.

n = 4 in ordinary spacetime with signature s = 1

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

The literature of quantum gravity is bogged down in Bohr's incomplete picture of the meaning of the quantum that posits no "there" there - no objective reality. Bohm's picture, in collaboration with Einstein at Princeton in 1951 restores objective reality. Lenny Susskind has introduced the notion of the "landscape" into string-brane cosmology. I already in 1996 introduced it at Tucson II as a way of picturing Bohm's pilot wave theory of 1951.

http://stardrive.org/logo.gif

Example 1 single quantum particle is the ball on the "Q" Bohm-Quantum Potential Landscape.

That is the effective conservative potential in

F = md^2r/dt^2 = -gradU

U = V + Q

V is the classical potential energy

Q = Bohm non-classical potential energy

Q = - [(hbar)^2/2m]|psi|^-1Grad|psi|

psi = |psi|e^iS

is the pilot wave

Pilot wave = Wheeler's BIT

Path of particle on U-landscape is Wheeler's IT

In

IT FROM BIT

Ignore for now entanglement of multi-particle systems where Q is non-factorizable in configuration space.

Ordinary quantum theory, including delayed choice experiments with slow neutrons is simple and visualizable classically. The quantum potential Q has all the nonlocal quantum weirdness in it.

Ordinary quantum theory with "no cloning" signal locality (nonlocal entanglement is not a stand-alone C^3) is the test particle approximation. That is, the ball gets its marching orders from the landscape on which it rolls, but it does not change the shape of the landscape in a self-organizing globally self-consistent "intelligent" adaptive fashion. "Test particle" means rigid fixed algorithm - not like an adaptive neural net - not like an intelligent conscious universe.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

Everything Linde did on Sunday at AAAS 2007 for eternal chaotic inflation FORMALLY fits the above simple model where

psi = GIANT vacuum ODLRO condensate Pilot Wave of the Pocket Universe "Higgs field" and V = 0.

(relation of cosmic inflation to SU(2) chiral weak force is there)

psi has 6D hyperspace Calabi-Yau "hair," i.e. moduli, fluxes, branes, orbifolds defining the domain of the cosmic landscape.

Assumed homogeneous FRW metric "ball" a(t) = scale factor in first approximation, with the ball as the proto-universe rather than the particle in Bohm's simple case.

The "ball" is a 3-Geometry scale factor at the next level of abstraction. Particle r is replaced by FRW scale factor a(t) in the usual cosmological simplification.

On Feb 19, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix

According to Peter Woit in "Not Even Wrong" Ed Witten is the Tim Leary of physics destroying a whole generation of particle theorists on an insane quest that boggles the rational mind. On the other hand, hearing the Susskind-Linde Stanford Duet is very seductive music to the ears and it is understandable how so many poor little lambs have been led astray.

It's still too early to say for sure. Susskind's imagery of 6D Calabi-Yau spaces as "DNA molecules" whose moduli, fluxes, branes and orbifolds pinpoint where we are on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse is seductive as was Linde's impassioned soliloquy repeating Brandon Carter's argument that the many Anthropic coincidences only make sense if there is an actually populated landscape of causally disconnected pocket universes outside each other's de Sitter dark energy past and future horizons. Of course, a slight change in the rules of quantum theory to allow entanglement "signal nonlocality" violating the no-cloning theorem makes the pocket universes directly observable in principle though severely impacting Lenny Susskind's notions of information loss through horizons. So Lenny is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Lenny called his talk "Rats leaving the sinking ship." "ship" = reductionism. However Lenny called "emergence" = "reductionism" in reverse POV. I am not sure if I agree with that. I am not sure if ODLRO "More is different" can be viewed that way. I say that with emergent ODLRO bottom -> up emergence (related to effective low energy field theories in flows of renormalization group?) is not simply the flip side of reductionism since it is non-perturbative).

Lenny wrote my basic equation that I use over and over again in Super Cosmos to make some model calculations e.g. charge clusters

F = ma = GMm/r^2 + mc^2/\zpfr

For a simple Lorentz-Poincare electron

ma = @e^2/r^2 + (hbar/2)^2/2mr^3 + mc^2/\zpfr = 0 equilibrium

Solves the finite classical electron problem with /\zpf < 0 dark matter core.

i.e. @e^2r* + (hbar/2)^2/2m + mc^2/\zpfr*^4 = 0 stable equilibrium

with

@e^2 + 4mc^2/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ + 4(mc^2/e^2)/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ is shell shape factor.

Extending to charge cluster is trivial.

Linde - "multiverse is a feast with all dishes served"

Gravity energy + matter energy = 0

i.e.

Guv + /\zpfguv + kTuv = 0

Quantum fluctuations inflate when /\zpf stays constant from viscosity like in damped oscillator - slow roll.

Jiggle of the Higgs scalar ODLRO field at bottom of landscape well heats up the big bang creating on-mass-shell matter.

Coincidence problem means Weak Anthropic or else intelligent design.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Just got back from Hilton. Surprisingly Sean Carroll was there asked a question but I forget what it was. Lenny looks great - very Regal Shakespearean, but with the voice of Sid Caesar in The Show of Shows. He even had a slide of Woody Allen. Linde is also a good Russian comedian. Linde gave an impassioned impromptu answer at end to a question showing is real motivation for the landscape multiverse before in early 80's really identical to my own - more on that in another message. I have almost finished Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong." Peter writes well and is very convincing so it was propitious that I went to hear Lenny and Linde speak on how inflation and string theory reinforce each other in a way not totally disconnected from up-coming experiments like PLANCK NASA Probe. Lenny says that even a positive space curvature of 10^-3 would be trouble for multiverse-inflation. Lenny admits to the basic issues raised by Woit, but the situation is more complex. More on this to come. The situation is not as bad as Woit paints it, but not as good as Lenny wishes. When I spoke to Lenny personally he agreed that signal nonlocality using entanglement (a violation of orthodox QM - see papers by A. Valentini) would make the landscape directly observable, but it would spoil other parts of his theory connected with no-cloning. Lenny said he is not ready to move into that area of speculation - so I guess it's up to me (also Cramer's retrocausality experiment will be crucial). Someone mentioned Lee Smolin and Lenny said "who"? He pretended not to know of Smolin's work - a joke. ;-)

PS Krauss showed how dark energy proves Worst Possible World, i.e. life not sustainable. Some talk about string theory as religion.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

http://stardrive.org/logo.gif

Example 1 single quantum particle is the ball on the "Q" Bohm-Quantum Potential Landscape.

That is the effective conservative potential in

F = md^2r/dt^2 = -gradU

U = V + Q

V is the classical potential energy

Q = Bohm non-classical potential energy

Q = - [(hbar)^2/2m]|psi|^-1Grad|psi|

psi = |psi|e^iS

is the pilot wave

Pilot wave = Wheeler's BIT

Path of particle on U-landscape is Wheeler's IT

In

IT FROM BIT

Ignore for now entanglement of multi-particle systems where Q is non-factorizable in configuration space.

Ordinary quantum theory, including delayed choice experiments with slow neutrons is simple and visualizable classically. The quantum potential Q has all the nonlocal quantum weirdness in it.

Ordinary quantum theory with "no cloning" signal locality (nonlocal entanglement is not a stand-alone C^3) is the test particle approximation. That is, the ball gets its marching orders from the landscape on which it rolls, but it does not change the shape of the landscape in a self-organizing globally self-consistent "intelligent" adaptive fashion. "Test particle" means rigid fixed algorithm - not like an adaptive neural net - not like an intelligent conscious universe.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

Everything Linde did on Sunday at AAAS 2007 for eternal chaotic inflation FORMALLY fits the above simple model where

psi = GIANT vacuum ODLRO condensate Pilot Wave of the Pocket Universe "Higgs field" and V = 0.

(relation of cosmic inflation to SU(2) chiral weak force is there)

psi has 6D hyperspace Calabi-Yau "hair," i.e. moduli, fluxes, branes, orbifolds defining the domain of the cosmic landscape.

Assumed homogeneous FRW metric "ball" a(t) = scale factor in first approximation, with the ball as the proto-universe rather than the particle in Bohm's simple case.

The "ball" is a 3-Geometry scale factor at the next level of abstraction. Particle r is replaced by FRW scale factor a(t) in the usual cosmological simplification.

On Feb 19, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix

According to Peter Woit in "Not Even Wrong" Ed Witten is the Tim Leary of physics destroying a whole generation of particle theorists on an insane quest that boggles the rational mind. On the other hand, hearing the Susskind-Linde Stanford Duet is very seductive music to the ears and it is understandable how so many poor little lambs have been led astray.

It's still too early to say for sure. Susskind's imagery of 6D Calabi-Yau spaces as "DNA molecules" whose moduli, fluxes, branes and orbifolds pinpoint where we are on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse is seductive as was Linde's impassioned soliloquy repeating Brandon Carter's argument that the many Anthropic coincidences only make sense if there is an actually populated landscape of causally disconnected pocket universes outside each other's de Sitter dark energy past and future horizons. Of course, a slight change in the rules of quantum theory to allow entanglement "signal nonlocality" violating the no-cloning theorem makes the pocket universes directly observable in principle though severely impacting Lenny Susskind's notions of information loss through horizons. So Lenny is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Lenny called his talk "Rats leaving the sinking ship." "ship" = reductionism. However Lenny called "emergence" = "reductionism" in reverse POV. I am not sure if I agree with that. I am not sure if ODLRO "More is different" can be viewed that way. I say that with emergent ODLRO bottom -> up emergence (related to effective low energy field theories in flows of renormalization group?) is not simply the flip side of reductionism since it is non-perturbative).

Lenny wrote my basic equation that I use over and over again in Super Cosmos to make some model calculations e.g. charge clusters

F = ma = GMm/r^2 + mc^2/\zpfr

For a simple Lorentz-Poincare electron

ma = @e^2/r^2 + (hbar/2)^2/2mr^3 + mc^2/\zpfr = 0 equilibrium

Solves the finite classical electron problem with /\zpf < 0 dark matter core.

i.e. @e^2r* + (hbar/2)^2/2m + mc^2/\zpfr*^4 = 0 stable equilibrium

with

@e^2 + 4mc^2/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ + 4(mc^2/e^2)/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ is shell shape factor.

Extending to charge cluster is trivial.

Linde - "multiverse is a feast with all dishes served"

Gravity energy + matter energy = 0

i.e.

Guv + /\zpfguv + kTuv = 0

Quantum fluctuations inflate when /\zpf stays constant from viscosity like in damped oscillator - slow roll.

Jiggle of the Higgs scalar ODLRO field at bottom of landscape well heats up the big bang creating on-mass-shell matter.

Coincidence problem means Weak Anthropic or else intelligent design.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Just got back from Hilton. Surprisingly Sean Carroll was there asked a question but I forget what it was. Lenny looks great - very Regal Shakespearean, but with the voice of Sid Caesar in The Show of Shows. He even had a slide of Woody Allen. Linde is also a good Russian comedian. Linde gave an impassioned impromptu answer at end to a question showing is real motivation for the landscape multiverse before in early 80's really identical to my own - more on that in another message. I have almost finished Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong." Peter writes well and is very convincing so it was propitious that I went to hear Lenny and Linde speak on how inflation and string theory reinforce each other in a way not totally disconnected from up-coming experiments like PLANCK NASA Probe. Lenny says that even a positive space curvature of 10^-3 would be trouble for multiverse-inflation. Lenny admits to the basic issues raised by Woit, but the situation is more complex. More on this to come. The situation is not as bad as Woit paints it, but not as good as Lenny wishes. When I spoke to Lenny personally he agreed that signal nonlocality using entanglement (a violation of orthodox QM - see papers by A. Valentini) would make the landscape directly observable, but it would spoil other parts of his theory connected with no-cloning. Lenny said he is not ready to move into that area of speculation - so I guess it's up to me (also Cramer's retrocausality experiment will be crucial). Someone mentioned Lee Smolin and Lenny said "who"? He pretended not to know of Smolin's work - a joke. ;-)

PS Krauss showed how dark energy proves Worst Possible World, i.e. life not sustainable. Some talk about string theory as religion.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Labels:
Topics in Quantum Gravity

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix

According to Peter Woit in "Not Even Wrong" Ed Witten is the Tim Leary of physics destroying a whole generation of particle theorists on an insane quest that boggles the rational mind. On the other hand, hearing the Susskind-Linde Stanford Duet is very seductive music to the ears and it is understandable how so many poor little lambs have been led astray.

It's still too early to say for sure. Susskind's imagery of 6D Calabi-Yau spaces as "DNA molecules" whose moduli, fluxes. branes and orbifolds pinpoint where we are on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse is seductive as was Linde's impassioned soliloquy repeating Brandon Carter's argument that the many Anthropic coincidences only make sense if there is an actually populated landscape of causally disconnected pocket universes outside each other's de Sitter dark energy past and future horizons. Of course, a slight change in the rules of quantum theory to allow entanglement "signal nonlocality" violating the no-cloning theorem makes the pocket universes directly observable in principle though severely impacting Lenny Susskind's notions of information loss through horizons. So Lenny is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Lenny called his talk "Rats leaving the sinking ship." "ship" = reductionism. However Lenny called "emergence" = "reductionism" in reverse POV. I am not sure if I agree with that. I am not sure if ODLRO "More is different" can be viewed that way. I say that with emergent ODLRO bottom -> up emergence (related to effective low energy field theories in flows of renormalization group?) is not simply the flip side of reductionism since it is non-perturbative).

Lenny wrote my basic equation that I use over and over again in Super Cosmos to make some model calculations e.g. charge clusters

F = ma = GMm/r^2 + mc^2/\zpfr

For a simple Lorentz-Poincare electron

ma = @e^2/r^2 + (hbar/2)^2/2mr^3 + mc^2/\zpfr = 0 equilibrium

Solves the finite classical electron problem with /\zpf < 0 dark matter core.

i.e. @e^2r* + (hbar/2)^2/2m + mc^2/\zpfr*^4 = 0 stable equilibrium

with

@e^2 + 4mc^2/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ + 4(mc^2/e^2)/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ is shell shape factor.

Extending to charge cluster is trivial.

Linde - "multiverse is a feast with all dishes served"

Gravity energy + matter energy = 0

i.e.

Guv + /\zpfguv + kTuv = 0

Quantum fluctuations inflate when /\zpf stays constant from viscosity like in damped oscillator - slow roll.

Jiggle of the Higgs scalar ODLRO field at bottom of landscape well heats up the big bang creating on-mass-shell matter.

Coincidence problem means Weak Anthropic or else intelligent design.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Just got back from Hilton. Surprisingly Sean Carroll was there asked a question but I forget what it was. Lenny looks great - very Regal Shakespearean, but with the voice of Sid Caesar in The Show of Shows. He even had a slide of Woody Allen. Linde is also a good Russian comedian. Linde gave an impassioned impromptu answer at end to a question showing is real motivation for the landscape multiverse before in early 80's really identical to my own - more on that in another message. I have almost finished Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong." Peter writes well and is very convincing so it was propitious that I went to hear Lenny and Linde speak on how inflation and string theory reinforce each other in a way not totally disconnected from up-coming experiments like PLANCK NASA Probe. Lenny says that even a positive space curvature of 10^-3 would be trouble for multiverse-inflation. Lenny admits to the basic issues raised by Woit, but the situation is more complex. More on this to come. The situation is not as bad as Woit paints it, but not as good as Lenny wishes. When I spoke to Lenny personally he agreed that signal nonlocality using entanglement (a violation of orthodox QM - see papers by A. Valentini) would make the landscape directly observable, but it would spoil other parts of his theory connected with no-cloning. Lenny said he is not ready to move into that area of speculation - so I guess it's up to me (also Cramer's retrocausality experiment will be crucial). Someone mentioned Lee Smolin and Lenny said "who"? He pretended not to know of Smolin's work - a joke. ;-)

PS Krauss showed how dark energy proves Worst Possible World, i.e. life not sustainable. Some talk about string theory as religion.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix

According to Peter Woit in "Not Even Wrong" Ed Witten is the Tim Leary of physics destroying a whole generation of particle theorists on an insane quest that boggles the rational mind. On the other hand, hearing the Susskind-Linde Stanford Duet is very seductive music to the ears and it is understandable how so many poor little lambs have been led astray.

It's still too early to say for sure. Susskind's imagery of 6D Calabi-Yau spaces as "DNA molecules" whose moduli, fluxes. branes and orbifolds pinpoint where we are on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse is seductive as was Linde's impassioned soliloquy repeating Brandon Carter's argument that the many Anthropic coincidences only make sense if there is an actually populated landscape of causally disconnected pocket universes outside each other's de Sitter dark energy past and future horizons. Of course, a slight change in the rules of quantum theory to allow entanglement "signal nonlocality" violating the no-cloning theorem makes the pocket universes directly observable in principle though severely impacting Lenny Susskind's notions of information loss through horizons. So Lenny is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Lenny called his talk "Rats leaving the sinking ship." "ship" = reductionism. However Lenny called "emergence" = "reductionism" in reverse POV. I am not sure if I agree with that. I am not sure if ODLRO "More is different" can be viewed that way. I say that with emergent ODLRO bottom -> up emergence (related to effective low energy field theories in flows of renormalization group?) is not simply the flip side of reductionism since it is non-perturbative).

Lenny wrote my basic equation that I use over and over again in Super Cosmos to make some model calculations e.g. charge clusters

F = ma = GMm/r^2 + mc^2/\zpfr

For a simple Lorentz-Poincare electron

ma = @e^2/r^2 + (hbar/2)^2/2mr^3 + mc^2/\zpfr = 0 equilibrium

Solves the finite classical electron problem with /\zpf < 0 dark matter core.

i.e. @e^2r* + (hbar/2)^2/2m + mc^2/\zpfr*^4 = 0 stable equilibrium

with

@e^2 + 4mc^2/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ + 4(mc^2/e^2)/\zpfr*^3 > 0

@ is shell shape factor.

Extending to charge cluster is trivial.

Linde - "multiverse is a feast with all dishes served"

Gravity energy + matter energy = 0

i.e.

Guv + /\zpfguv + kTuv = 0

Quantum fluctuations inflate when /\zpf stays constant from viscosity like in damped oscillator - slow roll.

Jiggle of the Higgs scalar ODLRO field at bottom of landscape well heats up the big bang creating on-mass-shell matter.

Coincidence problem means Weak Anthropic or else intelligent design.

On Feb 18, 2007, at 6:25 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Just got back from Hilton. Surprisingly Sean Carroll was there asked a question but I forget what it was. Lenny looks great - very Regal Shakespearean, but with the voice of Sid Caesar in The Show of Shows. He even had a slide of Woody Allen. Linde is also a good Russian comedian. Linde gave an impassioned impromptu answer at end to a question showing is real motivation for the landscape multiverse before in early 80's really identical to my own - more on that in another message. I have almost finished Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong." Peter writes well and is very convincing so it was propitious that I went to hear Lenny and Linde speak on how inflation and string theory reinforce each other in a way not totally disconnected from up-coming experiments like PLANCK NASA Probe. Lenny says that even a positive space curvature of 10^-3 would be trouble for multiverse-inflation. Lenny admits to the basic issues raised by Woit, but the situation is more complex. More on this to come. The situation is not as bad as Woit paints it, but not as good as Lenny wishes. When I spoke to Lenny personally he agreed that signal nonlocality using entanglement (a violation of orthodox QM - see papers by A. Valentini) would make the landscape directly observable, but it would spoil other parts of his theory connected with no-cloning. Lenny said he is not ready to move into that area of speculation - so I guess it's up to me (also Cramer's retrocausality experiment will be crucial). Someone mentioned Lee Smolin and Lenny said "who"? He pretended not to know of Smolin's work - a joke. ;-)

PS Krauss showed how dark energy proves Worst Possible World, i.e. life not sustainable. Some talk about string theory as religion.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

No need for retrocausality in Bohm's theory at least for slow moving neutrons.

Delayed choice experiment.

How does Bohm explain it with the quantum potential Q? In this case the super Q for the EM field.

Cramer explains it with advanced waves back from the future. One can do this with Q as well

Q = (R(advanced)R(retarded))^-1/2Grad^2(R(advanced)R(retarded))^1/2

for slowly moving neutrons in a crystal interferometer (Dan Greenberg).

It's the shape of Q that determines how the detectors "click". Therefore, last moment decision to insert or not the second beam splitter locally reshapes Q at the "crossing point" and there is no need for any faster than light/retrocausal effect in Bohm's theory for this particular experiment with slow neutrons (photons more complicated).

http://images.iop.org/objects/physicsweb/news/thumb/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Above is upper right piece of full apparatus below. Placing the green slab beam splitter clearly locally reshapes Q such that, upper vertical detector will not click at all. There is a factor of i phase shift on each reflection. Look at two beams that go to upper detector. Lower beam reflects only once, upper beam reflects 3 x hence i^2 = - 1 180 deg destructive interference (assuming equal path lengths). For horizontal detector both beams reflect twice and therefore they stay in phase. Note that with real physics one can explain things logically and clearly - that is the goal. If green slab (beam splitter) is not inserted both detectors click at equal rates.

http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Choose the right path

"In Roch's experiment, single photon pulses are emitted one at a time into an interferometer. As they leave a first beam splitter (BS1), they have the option of two 48-metre paths with equal probability, which eventually lead to two separate detectors. Just before the detectors, a second beam splitter (BS2) is randomly inserted or removed by a system that is synchronized with the emitter. With the beam splitter in place, a photon can reach either detector from the same path, preventing its path from being observed. When the beam splitter is removed, however, the detectors can observe a photon's path unambiguously.

Roch's team performed the experiment many times until they could confirm with certainty that unobserved photons behave like waves (i.e. interfere), while observed photons behave like particles (i.e. do not interfere). Crucially, however, they removed the possibility that the photons could somehow be informed of the system's decision, as the decision was only made after the photons had entered the interferometer."

Begin forwarded message:

From: Russell Targ

Date: February 19, 2007 7:55:03 AM PST

To: Jack Sarfatti, Jack Sarfatti

Subject: Photons denied a glimpse of their observer (February 2007) - News - PhysicsWeb

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/16

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Delayed choice experiment.

How does Bohm explain it with the quantum potential Q? In this case the super Q for the EM field.

Cramer explains it with advanced waves back from the future. One can do this with Q as well

Q = (R(advanced)R(retarded))^-1/2Grad^2(R(advanced)R(retarded))^1/2

for slowly moving neutrons in a crystal interferometer (Dan Greenberg).

It's the shape of Q that determines how the detectors "click". Therefore, last moment decision to insert or not the second beam splitter locally reshapes Q at the "crossing point" and there is no need for any faster than light/retrocausal effect in Bohm's theory for this particular experiment with slow neutrons (photons more complicated).

http://images.iop.org/objects/physicsweb/news/thumb/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Above is upper right piece of full apparatus below. Placing the green slab beam splitter clearly locally reshapes Q such that, upper vertical detector will not click at all. There is a factor of i phase shift on each reflection. Look at two beams that go to upper detector. Lower beam reflects only once, upper beam reflects 3 x hence i^2 = - 1 180 deg destructive interference (assuming equal path lengths). For horizontal detector both beams reflect twice and therefore they stay in phase. Note that with real physics one can explain things logically and clearly - that is the goal. If green slab (beam splitter) is not inserted both detectors click at equal rates.

http://physicsweb.org/objects/news/11/2/16/Interferometer.jpg

Choose the right path

"In Roch's experiment, single photon pulses are emitted one at a time into an interferometer. As they leave a first beam splitter (BS1), they have the option of two 48-metre paths with equal probability, which eventually lead to two separate detectors. Just before the detectors, a second beam splitter (BS2) is randomly inserted or removed by a system that is synchronized with the emitter. With the beam splitter in place, a photon can reach either detector from the same path, preventing its path from being observed. When the beam splitter is removed, however, the detectors can observe a photon's path unambiguously.

Roch's team performed the experiment many times until they could confirm with certainty that unobserved photons behave like waves (i.e. interfere), while observed photons behave like particles (i.e. do not interfere). Crucially, however, they removed the possibility that the photons could somehow be informed of the system's decision, as the decision was only made after the photons had entered the interferometer."

Begin forwarded message:

From: Russell Targ

Date: February 19, 2007 7:55:03 AM PST

To: Jack Sarfatti

Subject: Photons denied a glimpse of their observer (February 2007) - News - PhysicsWeb

http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/2/16

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Labels:
New Delayed Choice Experiment

## Sunday, February 18, 2007

Just got back from Hilton. Surprisingly Sean Carroll was there asked a question but I forget what it was. Lenny looks great - very Regal Shakespearean, but with the voice of Sid Caesar in The Show of Shows. He even had a slide of Woody Allen. Linde is also a good Russian comedian. Linde gave an impassioned impromptu answer at end to a question showing is real motivation for the landscape multiverse before in early 80's really identical to my own - more on that in another message. I have almost finished Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong." Peter writes well and is very convincing so it was propitious that I went to hear Lenny and Linde speak on how inflation and string theory reinforce each other in a way not totally disconnected from up-coming experiments like PLANCK NASA Probe. Lenny says that even a positive space curvature of 10^-3 would be trouble for multiverse-inflation. Lenny admits to the basic issues raised by Woit, but the situation is more complex. More on this to come. The situation is not as bad as Woit paints it, but not as good as Lenny wishes. When I spoke to Lenny personally he agreed that signal nonlocality using entanglement (a violation of orthodox QM - see papers by A. Valentini) would make the landscape directly observable, but it would spoil other parts of his theory connected with no-cloning. Lenny said he is not ready to move into that area of speculation - so I guess it's up to me (also Cramer's retrocausality experiment will be crucial). Someone mentioned Lee Smolin and Lenny said "who"? He pretended not to know of Smolin's work - a joke. ;-)

PS Krauss showed how dark energy proves Worst Possible World, i.e. life not sustainable. Some talk about string theory as religion.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

PS Krauss showed how dark energy proves Worst Possible World, i.e. life not sustainable. Some talk about string theory as religion.

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

At this point Antigray's comments below are idle speculation. All of the facts from NIDS Bigelow Ranch so far suggest star gate to me not cloak, but I could be wrong. Star gate is not a piece of equipment like a ship, it's a configuration in the geometrodynamic field (fabric of space-time). Exactly how they make and control it with dark energy I do not know. All we know is that they do do it.

BTW Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong" is a must read about the wrong turn in physics today. Unconfirmed scuttlebutt is that Congress will essentially cut all federal funding of "string theory" as a result of the books by Woit and Smolin. George Chapline Jr (Ed Teller's long-time assistant with clout inside USG) told me he arranged for Woit's book to get published, but for some reason he is not happy with it. Lubos Motl (a Czech national) pressured to resign from Harvard's physics department because of his vicious shotgun public polemical attacks on Woit, Smolin, Penrose and even Susskind! With friends like Lubos Motl, Ed Witten does not need enemies. ;-)

Note that Feynman, t'Hooft, Glashow all on record that string theory is not physics. All are Nobel laureates in physics. Several prominent string theorists have jumped ship. String theorist students unemployable even in industry. See Ch 12 of Woit's book.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:11 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

In a message dated 2/17/2007 11:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

No there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER! Lazar is a plant. George Knapp is a great guy but he is a reporter not a PhD physicist. I have already basically solved the problem of UFO warp drive. No need for this mindless nonsense without any coherent idea to it at all. It's a complete waste of time. What you have below is irrelevant to the Lazar issue - Red Herrings.

The star gate at the Skinwalker Ranch is MAINSTREAM PHYSICS do not muddy clear water with Lazar's not even wrong word salad!

Hi Jack,

I am not trying to muddy Skinwalker Ranch information with Bob Lazar pseudoscience. Optoelectronic camouflage has nothing to do Lazar. That is something known to exist. I was saying George Knapp reports what HE sees, be it Lazar doing a supposed experiment with Element 115, or seeing an alien jumping down out of a hole that appears near the ground. I was stating as an aside that I personally think the hole in the air was not a Stargate, but was a cloaked ship opening its hatch.

Showing alien sky at other end of tunnel? Not likely.

http://tinyurl.com/26z77x

From an operational and tactical point of view I don't think the aliens would risk using a valuable piece of equipment like a Stargate in an area that was under such close surveillance with video cams all over the ranch, because if there was a malfunction, the Stargate could fall into our hands. To show the alternative possible method of entry off a cloaked ship, I was showing real world information and photos of that electronic camo system because the aliens use it on their ships and personnel too. I am not a water muddier.

Art

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date: 2/18/2007 1:32:17 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: ANTIGRAY

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Jack,

Hopefully George Knapp will respond and tell us the exact details of what he saw Bob Lazar doing in the experiment with the Element 115. With any luck George got a sample of the metal.

Art

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date: 2/17/2007 11:57:38 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: sarfatti@pacbell.net

To: ANTIGRAY@cs.com

Bending of light - that's what lenses do. Any inhomogeneous medium with variable index of refraction will bend a laser beam.

How was it bent exactly?

Under what conditions.

It's easy to fool people!

On Feb 17, 2007, at 8:36 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date: 2/17/2007 11:36:22 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: ANTIGRAY

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Jack,

I am not one of the cargo cultists. I am with you 100%. I only report the stuff that is out there if there is a chance there may be a kernel of usable information contained therein which the laymen writing about it have heard and/or misinterpreted from what they saw. That's why I sent you the info on George Knapp saying he saw Lazar experimenting with element 115 in a cloud chamber and it was bending light. George Knapp is a "credible" news reporter. He said HE saw it. He also reported about the alien being at Skinwalker ranch jumping down onto the ground from a lit up hole that opened up in the air. As I remember, I think you said it was a worm hole opening up. I personally think it was a hatch opening on the side of a cloaked ship hovering near the ground. We copied the concept of optoelectronic camouflage from the aliens ourselves and it is already deployed on some military aircraft, tanks, and military uniforms. There was a show on the Discovery Channel about this type camo 2 years ago. The Japanese are even making cheap knockoffs of the camo as you can see:

Art

Here are some more pics in these 3 articles:

Is Cloaking Technology for U.S. Infantry Warfighters Finally Possible?

Posted on Sunday, March 12 @ 09:22:08 PST by davidc

by David Crane

defrev@gmail.com

In the movie Predator (1987), an alien hunter visits earth to bag armed human warriors (military Special Operations personnel) as trophies, and engages in this recreational endeavor very methodically and efficiently. By the time the movie ends, the alien predator has killed off two complete (elite) and highly-experienced U.S. Special Operations teams, save for one survivor (Major Alan "Dutch" Schaeffer, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), with extreme prejudice. Now, while the alien is bigger, stronger, faster, and much more mobile in the dense jungle environment than its human prey, it's also got another major advantage--superior technology. The alien has many high-tech weapons in its arsenal, all formidable. However, one weapon in particular stands out--the power of invisibility.

The fictional (Yautja ) alien Predator uses adaptive camouflage technology (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage, a.k.a. optical camouflage, a.k.a. active camouflage, a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage, a.k.a. cloaking technology) to great effect in order to pick off Schaeffer's team one by one at will, without them being able to mount an effective defense. Even when they finally spot the alien and henceforth know what to look for, all they can... really see is a slight visual anomaly against the stationary jungle background when the creature is standing (or perching) still, and a moving visual anomaly (or shimmer) when the alien is moving against that stationary background. Interestingly, towards the end of the film, Schaeffer covers his body with wet mud to make himself invisible to the Predator's thermal vision, after he discovers the mud's utility inadvertently. He then uses his own new-found invisibility to turn the tables on the Predator and kill it. So, in the film, invisibility ends up being the primary component to both combatants' respective tactical success. But the Predator's cloaking capability is fictional. I mean, it's just a movie, right?

Actually, visual stealth tech (a.k.a. daylight stealth, a.k.a. daytime stealth, a.k.a. optical stealth), or invisibility, has been one of the holy grails of U.S. military technology R&D programs for quite some time, now. Why? It's simple. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) understands that if you can see the enemy, but the enemy can't see you, it's much easier to kill him, and much harder for him to kill you--and aircraft and ships are expensive. But ya' know what? So are infantry warfighters (infantry soldiers and Marines), although not in the same way. Aside from the obvious and largely-imeasurable value of human life, infantry warfighters are expensive with regard to public opinion and public relations. When they get killed or injured by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenades), mortars, small arms fire, etc., it impedes U.S. war efforts, because the American people are now much softer and thus more sensitive to U.S. casualties than they used to be (like during WWI and WWII, for instance). Every additional death that's reported causes PR damage. And, right now, our infantry is suffering approx. 95% of all military casualties, because they're the most vulnerable to enemy attacks. One military expert that we spoke with awhile back described human beings as "just pink squooshy things" when they're on a battlefield. They're just very easy to damage and take out. However, if you can hide those "pink squooshy things" with adaptive camouflage/cloaking technology as they move through the battlespace, they're no longer as easy to target and kill, and both their lethality and survivability are simultaneously greatly enhanced.

But, why stop there? If we can make main battle tanks (M1 Abrams MBT), armored personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles (APC/IFV--like the Stryker and M113), and aircraft invisible, too, that's even better. Replacing human warfighters with robotic warfighters (armed/weaponized robots) is another part of the equation. Weaponized UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) and weaponized UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), a.k.a. UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) can help the U.S. military cut down on infantry casualties even further. And, why not cloak those, too?

Well, maybe now we can. It's possible that a company out of Fullerton, California called Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) has achieved the holy grail--tactical invisibility. That's what they're claiming, anyway. It's called the Stealth Technology System (STS) , and AAE claims that the technology really works and is ready for prime time. According to the company, STS is more effective, less expensive, and lighter-weight than any known active camouflage/cloaking tech that's previously been under development in the past. AAE states that STS can be applied to ground vehicles, boats, infantry warfighters, and UGVs/ground robots. Any object to which STS is applied will, according to AAE, become virtually invisible, even from as little as 20-25 feet away. Wow. The STS adaptive camouflage technology is apparently still undergoing T&E for application to manned and unmanned aircraft.

The actual inventor of the Stealth Technology System is Dr. Rashid Zeineh, who already reportedly has a number of previous inventions under his belt, including the first laser scanner ever (1968) and its software that "also reads DNA identity," and anti-hijacking tech, a.k.a. a "Counter-Terrorism Device for Airplanes." BTW, Zeineh's laser scanner also reportedly reads bar codes.

It's our understanding at present that, very soon, the Stealth Technology System (STS) is going to be tested on a small weaponized unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). This information is unconfirmed/unverified. If/when these tests are conducted, DefenseReview would very much like to see them (in person, or at least on video) and their results (witness reports, data, etc.).

We'd really like to see the technology tested on the NRI AutoCopter Gunship (weaponized unmanned mini-helicopter). If the STS tech works as advertised during these tests and it can really hold up to battlefield conditions (reliability, durability, etc.), look out, 'cause it's gonna' be game over. Imagine swarms of highly-lethal (and possibly even networked) weaponized UGVs and UCAVS zipping around the battlespace looking for you. Now imagine that you can't see them, even when they're very close or approaching you at high-speed in broad daylight. Very difficult to defend yourself against. You'd probably be killed without ever seeing what killed you. Of course, ideally, anti-thermal/IR (infrared) camouflage paint (for vehicles) or cream/makeup (for warfighters) and anti-thermal/IR apparel (for warfighters) should also be considered. This combo should give vehicle or warfighter combined visual stealth and thermal/infrared stealth. Oh, and silencers/sound suppressors should also be considered, in order to mask sound (sonic camouflage, if you will). If sound suppressors are employed, it will be harder for the enemy to hear the weapons being fired at them and/or figure out where the rounds are coming from.

Getting back to visual stealth tech, if it turns out that STS can successfully cloak mobile infantry warfighters within acceptable comfort/wearability, weight, durability, and powering requirements, then U.S. soldiers and Marines will be one step closer to Predator capability. So, does STS actually work as advertised? And, if it does work, can it be effectively applied to our infantry warfighters so they can effectively operate with it in the field? Defense Review hopes it does, because our troops could really use it. However, we (DefRev) don't really know, yet. We haven't seen STS tested, nor have we seen any video footage of it in operation. But, if it does, well...Cloak On, Game Over.

Author's note: If STS really works and is viable for U.S. infantry use, we'd better all hope the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands (getting captured/obtained from disabled or destroyed/killed U.S. robots, vehicles or warfighters). We definitely wouldn't want to have to contend with cloaked IEDs or insurgents/terrorists, now would we. That would be very bad.

If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS) you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

Click here to read AAE's FAQ on the Stealth Technology System.

Photo Captions (for photos above, from top to bottom):

1) Photo still from Predator (1987)

2) AAE company photo of small square STS panel activated in front of individual.

3) AAE company photo of large rectangular STS panel covering majority of individual

4) Individual completely cloaked by STS panel.

Company claims optical camouflage could have protected Israeli warfighters.

Posted on Friday, November 17 @ 18:27:44 PST by davidc

by David Crane

david at defensereview.com

Optical Cloaking Technology for Urban Warfare and Counterinsurgency Operations

According to Dr. R. A. Zeineh (a.k.a. "Dr. Z"), his company's (Advanced American Enterprise) IR-Stealth 4.B combination thermal/IR (infrared)/night vision (NV) stealth system could have protected Israeli infantry warfighters from Hezbollah guerrilla fighters in Lebanon. One of the recent new documents we've received from AAE discusses how the Hizbollah guerrillas used night vision (NV) equipment to kill two Israeli commandos (out of a 4-man team) near Baalback, Lebanon. In other words, the Israelis didn't "own the night," and it got some of them killed. Dr. Z claims that AAE's technology could have changed the outcome of that unfortunate scenario. AAE claims to be able to provide a "head-to-toe pocket-size IR-Stealth enforced cloth coverall less than .3 Kg protects the night fighter and his armor from detection and from IR targeting." Put another way, AAE IR-Stealth 4.B tech weighing approx. 250 grams can be integrated with a military coverall or BDU to "cloak" an infantry warfighter so that he effectively becomes invisible to enemy thermal/IR (infrared) and NV (night vision) viewers and targeting devices. AAE claims that the IR-Stealth 4.B-equipped BDU/coverall will not hinder/interfere with the warfighter's ability to fight. The warfighter will still be able to breathe, see, hear, run, drive, shoot, speak/shout, climb, or carry an injured teammate--or perform any other battle-relevant behavior, for that matter. According to AAE, current military BDUs/uniforms can be...

easily upgraded to become thermal/IR/NV stealthy . Any all main battle tanks (MBTs), APCs and IFVs (Infantry Personnel Carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles), HMMWVs (Humvees), and helicopters can also be upgraded with the AAE IR-Stealth tech to protect them from heat-seaking missiles. AAE has a separate optical camouflage (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage, a.ka. adaptive camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage a.k.a. visible-light-spectrum cloaking technology) called Visibility Stealth 1.B that can be applied to both ground vehicles, including MBTs, APCs/IFVs, HMMWVs, UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) a.k.a. ground robots, and infantry warfighter uniforms that can reduce their visibility by 85-100%, again without impeding functionality (ability to fight) in any way. It's Defense Review's understanding at present that IR-Stealth 4.B and Visibility Stealth 1.B can be combined/integrated to work together to cloak vehicles and warfighters in all three light spectrums (visible, thermal/infrared, and night vision a.k.a. near-infrared), but we haven't confirmed this yet. In any case either type of cloaking/adaptive camouflage technology, by itself, could prove valuable in preventing casualties from future Hezbollah-type ambush attacks that utilize the tactic of firing Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) at vehicles and dismounted infantry. In the confrontation in Lebanon, Hezbollah guerrillas reportedly fired ATGMs not only at vehicles, but also at dismounted infantry . They also reportedly fired multiple ATGMs simultaneously at a single target in certain instances. If the AAE Stealth tech can protect U.S. and ally warfighters from small arms and light weapons (including ATGM) ambushes and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) attacks, it's definitely worth employing it. Time and testing will tell. It looks like DefenseReview will be attending a live demonstration of the AAE IR-Stealth 4.B tech soon. If/when we do, we will of course report back to our readers.

AAE IR-Stealth 4.B and Visibility Stealth 1.B Fact Sheets: Right-Click on the two links immediately below and then click on "Save Target As" (Microsoft Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Mozilla Firefox) to download and view AAE documents on both optical/adaptive camo technologies: IR-Stealth 4.B Thermal/IR/NV Cloaking Tech Visibility Stealth 1.B Optical Camouflage/"Visual Cloaking" Tech Company Contact Info: If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS), or Stealth III specifically, you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

Previous articles that discuss the AAE Stealth Technology System (STS) cloaking/adaptive camouflage tech (in order from most recent to least recent): AAE Introduces IR-Stealth 5: Thermal/IR Stealth for Jet Aircraft Are Anti-Tank Guided Missiles the New Primary Threat in Urban Warfare/MOUT? Is 'Invisibility Cloak' for Combat Uniforms/BDUs Here Right Now? Tech Update: AAE Stealth III Cloaking Tech for Vehicles, Warfighters, and Helos

Stealth II Thermal/IR Cloaking Tech: Anti-Anti-Aircraft Tech for Helicopters

Cloaking Tech Continued: STS Optical AND Thermal/IR Camouflage for Warfighters

Is Cloaking Technology for U.S. Infantry Warfighters Finally Possible?

Additional articles on thermal/infrared (IR) camouflage technology: Intermat Anti-Thermal/IR Camo Tech for Infantry and Special Operations Forces Zensah Tactical Apparel for Special Operations Forces: Anti-Thermal/IR Camo?

They are covering infrared too.

Update: AAE IR/NV-Stealth and Visibility-Stealth Cloaking Technology

Posted on Friday, December 08 @ 15:33:09 PST by davidc

by David Crane

david at defensereview.com On November 27, 2006, DefenseReview published a piece about Advanced American Enterprise's (AAE) claims that their IR-Stealth 4.B thermal/IR/NV adaptive camouflage could have saved Israeli warfighters' lives during their fight with Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon several months ago. That article also discussed AAE's Visibility Stealth 1.B optical camouflage , which the company claims would make the wearer virtually invisible in the visible light spectrum (a.k.a. daylight or normal light invisibility). Well, Defense Review just received AAE's latest fact sheet on their IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C product (titled "IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbollah"), along with photos. The document highlights the fact that the Israeli army was not able to "own the night" in it's battle against Hezbollah guerrillas because it did not have a technology like AAE IR-Stealth to prevent their vehicles (Merkava MBTs, for example) and warfighters from being targeted by Hezbollah guerrillas using "British-made" night vision equipment. AAE claims that...

an IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C-equiped "head-to-toe" coverall (or military BDU) would reduce thermal/infrared (IR) and night vision detection by more than 85%, thereby shielding the wearer from being seen/targeted by enemy combatants using night vision equipment (a.k.a. night vision sensors a.k.a. night vision viewers) or thermal/IR (infrared) viewers/sensors. The IR-Stealth device for the coverall would weigh approx. 250 grams. The document points out that the coverall would have no negative effect on the warfighters functionality or capability to fight or operate. The IR-Stealth Night vision equipment reportedly enabled Hezbollah guerrillas to target and kill 2 Israeli commandos (out of 4) near Baalback, Lebanon. "IR Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbullah: Both Israel &Hezbullah have night vision equipment, but neither one "owns the night" against the other. The is because. unless having AAE head-to-toe pocket-size about 250 Gram IR stealth cloth-coverall to shield the fighters or commandoes from night viewers detection &from IR designators. AAE claims it has also successfully developed Daytime Visibility-Stealth for Personnel and Vehicles optical camouflage (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage a.k.a. adaptive camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage a.k.a. cloaking technology a.k.a. "invisibility cloak") that would make whatever object it covers virtually invisible in the visible light spectrum (daylight/normal light). Specifically, visibility reduction would be more than 85% for the cloaked object (moving or stationary). The personnel version (for coverall/BDU) of this device would weigh 250 grams, and would incorporate both an On/Off switch and self-destruct switch. The vehicle-version device (for Main Battle Tanks, Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle, M113, HMMWV/Humvee, etc.) would weigh approx. 150 KG.

AAE will perform live field demonstrations of both technologies (IR/NV Stealth and Visibility-Stealth) for interested vetted parties. A proposed Visibility Stealth live demo would consist of person in a bunker rising and shooting blanks at observers from 20+ feet away without being seen/detected by the observers or video equipment (camcorder, for instance). DefenseReview looks forward to attending a demonstration of the technology soon. We're also going to try to obtain some high-resolution video of this type of demo, and publish it. Until we see AAE's cloaking tech for ourselves, we of course must remain skeptical. AAE IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Fact Sheet: Right-Click on the two links immediately below and then click on "Save Target As" (Microsoft Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Mozilla Firefox) to download and view AAE documents on both optical/adaptive camo technologies: IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbollah

Company Contact Info: If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS), or Stealth III specifically, you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

=====================================================

In a message dated 2/17/2007 9:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date:2/17/2007 9:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:sarfatti@pacbell.net

Look if you want a sense of what real physics is without the math read Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong."

Nuclear physics is well understood in the sense that there would be no peculiar gravity properties of element 115 even if you could get a stable isotope of it, which you can't.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:15 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,

Bob Lazar never said the element 115 the USG had was made by us. He claimed that the USG had 500 pounds of the element they removed from captured or crashed alien craft.

Total hogwash. Completely silly. Irrational cargo cult mumbo jumbo brainwashing for True Believer cultists. This is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific trash around. It's exactly what Ray Hudson was warning about.

Some disinformationalists added to his story by saying aliens gave it to us to queer the whole story:

Bob Lazar stated that the “Sport Model” Flying Disc amplified the “Strong Nuclear Force” of Element 115 (UnUnPentium or UUP) to generate the gravity field for “Space-Time Compression.” Bob also stated that the U.S. Government had 500 pounds of Element 115 in their possession.

This is ridiculous idiocy. Not even wrong. It's word salad. This is NOT physics. It's this sort of nonsense that give the Skeptics ammunition to debunk the whole field!

More supposed information including how the metal was machined for use at: http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm

It may all be "BS"

It is.

but there is a lot of "S" already

It's N = NOISE!

floating around now that 70 years ago would have been considered "BS" like time travel.

DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO IN SAME SENTENCE.

I am not advocating as true

It's not even wrong. It's professor Irwin Corey snake oil. It's worthless.

anything that Lazar said, I'm just noting that he didn't say we made the 115. That would be very obvious BS. We are lucky we can refine uranium.

Even if we had it - so what? So you have it for sake of argument. What' hocus pocus do you use then? It's completely mindless anti-science nonsense. No element has any direct relevance to warp drive - total irrational garbage. No physics there. It's pure unadulterated crap for scientific illiterates! Ask any real physicist.

There is no physical evidence for any stable isotope of 115. Even if

In a message dated 2/17/2007 3:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense Lazar fools Knapp?

Date:2/17/2007 3:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:sarfatti@pacbell.net

To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com

Received from Internet:

It's balderdash. No physicist believes it. No one made of pound of this mythical stuff.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:44 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,

It was an isotope of element 115 which apparently has a much longer half-life and supposedly exhibits the properties claimed.

Art

In a message dated 2/17/2007 12:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Subj: Element 115 Lazar nonsense Lazar fools Knapp?

Date:2/17/2007 12:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:sarfatti@pacbell.net

To:Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com

Received from Internet:

I heard an unconfirmed rumor that George Knapp thinks he saw Bob

Lazar bend a light wave with a "pound" of element 115. What George

allegedly saw was a cheap magician's trick. Element 115 decays

quickly and to say one has a "pound" that does not decay of it is

ridiculous. Also it's completely silly to think that any nucleus has

unusual gravity properties on the macro scale. It's irrational cargo

cult junk science. Bob Lazar and Robert M Collins are two disinformation agents from the same pod. Ask any PhD physicist from a real university, not Bearden with his fake degree, who has examined the claims and see

what they say. No need to take my word for it.

>Element 115 is unstable

>"The disc's reactor uses a fuel which does not occur naturally on

>Earth. This fuel is a super-heavy, stable, element with an atomic

>number of 115 and does not appear on our periodic chart." (1)

>Recently a team of American and Russian scientists discovered

>elements 113 and 115. Element 115 has a decay time of tens of

>milliseconds. (3) There is no way to stop an element from decaying.

>In the experiment, element 115 was recorded four times. The

>reactions and decay time were (5):

>287-115Uup --> 283-113Uut + 4-2He (46.6 milliseconds)

>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (80.3 milliseconds)

>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (18.6 milliseconds)

>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (280 milliseconds)

>

>It is true that there is a hypothetical island of stability, in

>which the very massive elements are stable. This is because of a

>hypothetical stable proton/neutron configuration in the core.

>However, this has not been observed in element 115.

>

>The hypothetical island of stability is thought to occur in

>isotopes with around 114 protons and 184 neutrons. Element 115 has

>around 114 protons, it has 115 protons. However, it only has 172

>and 173 neutrons in the recorded decays. Only very few elements

>have 12 or more isotopes and these elements are of a different

>group than element 115. It is therefore not likely element 115 can

>reach the island of stability.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/33267.html

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

BTW Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong" is a must read about the wrong turn in physics today. Unconfirmed scuttlebutt is that Congress will essentially cut all federal funding of "string theory" as a result of the books by Woit and Smolin. George Chapline Jr (Ed Teller's long-time assistant with clout inside USG) told me he arranged for Woit's book to get published, but for some reason he is not happy with it. Lubos Motl (a Czech national) pressured to resign from Harvard's physics department because of his vicious shotgun public polemical attacks on Woit, Smolin, Penrose and even Susskind! With friends like Lubos Motl, Ed Witten does not need enemies. ;-)

Note that Feynman, t'Hooft, Glashow all on record that string theory is not physics. All are Nobel laureates in physics. Several prominent string theorists have jumped ship. String theorist students unemployable even in industry. See Ch 12 of Woit's book.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:11 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

In a message dated 2/17/2007 11:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

No there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER! Lazar is a plant. George Knapp is a great guy but he is a reporter not a PhD physicist. I have already basically solved the problem of UFO warp drive. No need for this mindless nonsense without any coherent idea to it at all. It's a complete waste of time. What you have below is irrelevant to the Lazar issue - Red Herrings.

The star gate at the Skinwalker Ranch is MAINSTREAM PHYSICS do not muddy clear water with Lazar's not even wrong word salad!

Hi Jack,

I am not trying to muddy Skinwalker Ranch information with Bob Lazar pseudoscience. Optoelectronic camouflage has nothing to do Lazar. That is something known to exist. I was saying George Knapp reports what HE sees, be it Lazar doing a supposed experiment with Element 115, or seeing an alien jumping down out of a hole that appears near the ground. I was stating as an aside that I personally think the hole in the air was not a Stargate, but was a cloaked ship opening its hatch.

Showing alien sky at other end of tunnel? Not likely.

http://tinyurl.com/26z77x

From an operational and tactical point of view I don't think the aliens would risk using a valuable piece of equipment like a Stargate in an area that was under such close surveillance with video cams all over the ranch, because if there was a malfunction, the Stargate could fall into our hands. To show the alternative possible method of entry off a cloaked ship, I was showing real world information and photos of that electronic camo system because the aliens use it on their ships and personnel too. I am not a water muddier.

Art

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date: 2/18/2007 1:32:17 AM Eastern Standard Time

From: ANTIGRAY

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Jack,

Hopefully George Knapp will respond and tell us the exact details of what he saw Bob Lazar doing in the experiment with the Element 115. With any luck George got a sample of the metal.

Art

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date: 2/17/2007 11:57:38 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: sarfatti@pacbell.net

To: ANTIGRAY@cs.com

Bending of light - that's what lenses do. Any inhomogeneous medium with variable index of refraction will bend a laser beam.

How was it bent exactly?

Under what conditions.

It's easy to fool people!

On Feb 17, 2007, at 8:36 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date: 2/17/2007 11:36:22 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: ANTIGRAY

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Hi Jack,

I am not one of the cargo cultists. I am with you 100%. I only report the stuff that is out there if there is a chance there may be a kernel of usable information contained therein which the laymen writing about it have heard and/or misinterpreted from what they saw. That's why I sent you the info on George Knapp saying he saw Lazar experimenting with element 115 in a cloud chamber and it was bending light. George Knapp is a "credible" news reporter. He said HE saw it. He also reported about the alien being at Skinwalker ranch jumping down onto the ground from a lit up hole that opened up in the air. As I remember, I think you said it was a worm hole opening up. I personally think it was a hatch opening on the side of a cloaked ship hovering near the ground. We copied the concept of optoelectronic camouflage from the aliens ourselves and it is already deployed on some military aircraft, tanks, and military uniforms. There was a show on the Discovery Channel about this type camo 2 years ago. The Japanese are even making cheap knockoffs of the camo as you can see:

Art

Here are some more pics in these 3 articles:

Is Cloaking Technology for U.S. Infantry Warfighters Finally Possible?

Posted on Sunday, March 12 @ 09:22:08 PST by davidc

by David Crane

defrev@gmail.com

In the movie Predator (1987), an alien hunter visits earth to bag armed human warriors (military Special Operations personnel) as trophies, and engages in this recreational endeavor very methodically and efficiently. By the time the movie ends, the alien predator has killed off two complete (elite) and highly-experienced U.S. Special Operations teams, save for one survivor (Major Alan "Dutch" Schaeffer, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger), with extreme prejudice. Now, while the alien is bigger, stronger, faster, and much more mobile in the dense jungle environment than its human prey, it's also got another major advantage--superior technology. The alien has many high-tech weapons in its arsenal, all formidable. However, one weapon in particular stands out--the power of invisibility.

The fictional (Yautja ) alien Predator uses adaptive camouflage technology (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage, a.k.a. optical camouflage, a.k.a. active camouflage, a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage, a.k.a. cloaking technology) to great effect in order to pick off Schaeffer's team one by one at will, without them being able to mount an effective defense. Even when they finally spot the alien and henceforth know what to look for, all they can... really see is a slight visual anomaly against the stationary jungle background when the creature is standing (or perching) still, and a moving visual anomaly (or shimmer) when the alien is moving against that stationary background. Interestingly, towards the end of the film, Schaeffer covers his body with wet mud to make himself invisible to the Predator's thermal vision, after he discovers the mud's utility inadvertently. He then uses his own new-found invisibility to turn the tables on the Predator and kill it. So, in the film, invisibility ends up being the primary component to both combatants' respective tactical success. But the Predator's cloaking capability is fictional. I mean, it's just a movie, right?

Actually, visual stealth tech (a.k.a. daylight stealth, a.k.a. daytime stealth, a.k.a. optical stealth), or invisibility, has been one of the holy grails of U.S. military technology R&D programs for quite some time, now. Why? It's simple. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) understands that if you can see the enemy, but the enemy can't see you, it's much easier to kill him, and much harder for him to kill you--and aircraft and ships are expensive. But ya' know what? So are infantry warfighters (infantry soldiers and Marines), although not in the same way. Aside from the obvious and largely-imeasurable value of human life, infantry warfighters are expensive with regard to public opinion and public relations. When they get killed or injured by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), RPGs (Rocket-Propelled Grenades), mortars, small arms fire, etc., it impedes U.S. war efforts, because the American people are now much softer and thus more sensitive to U.S. casualties than they used to be (like during WWI and WWII, for instance). Every additional death that's reported causes PR damage. And, right now, our infantry is suffering approx. 95% of all military casualties, because they're the most vulnerable to enemy attacks. One military expert that we spoke with awhile back described human beings as "just pink squooshy things" when they're on a battlefield. They're just very easy to damage and take out. However, if you can hide those "pink squooshy things" with adaptive camouflage/cloaking technology as they move through the battlespace, they're no longer as easy to target and kill, and both their lethality and survivability are simultaneously greatly enhanced.

But, why stop there? If we can make main battle tanks (M1 Abrams MBT), armored personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles (APC/IFV--like the Stryker and M113), and aircraft invisible, too, that's even better. Replacing human warfighters with robotic warfighters (armed/weaponized robots) is another part of the equation. Weaponized UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) and weaponized UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), a.k.a. UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) can help the U.S. military cut down on infantry casualties even further. And, why not cloak those, too?

Well, maybe now we can. It's possible that a company out of Fullerton, California called Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) has achieved the holy grail--tactical invisibility. That's what they're claiming, anyway. It's called the Stealth Technology System (STS) , and AAE claims that the technology really works and is ready for prime time. According to the company, STS is more effective, less expensive, and lighter-weight than any known active camouflage/cloaking tech that's previously been under development in the past. AAE states that STS can be applied to ground vehicles, boats, infantry warfighters, and UGVs/ground robots. Any object to which STS is applied will, according to AAE, become virtually invisible, even from as little as 20-25 feet away. Wow. The STS adaptive camouflage technology is apparently still undergoing T&E for application to manned and unmanned aircraft.

The actual inventor of the Stealth Technology System is Dr. Rashid Zeineh, who already reportedly has a number of previous inventions under his belt, including the first laser scanner ever (1968) and its software that "also reads DNA identity," and anti-hijacking tech, a.k.a. a "Counter-Terrorism Device for Airplanes." BTW, Zeineh's laser scanner also reportedly reads bar codes.

It's our understanding at present that, very soon, the Stealth Technology System (STS) is going to be tested on a small weaponized unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) and unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV). This information is unconfirmed/unverified. If/when these tests are conducted, DefenseReview would very much like to see them (in person, or at least on video) and their results (witness reports, data, etc.).

We'd really like to see the technology tested on the NRI AutoCopter Gunship (weaponized unmanned mini-helicopter). If the STS tech works as advertised during these tests and it can really hold up to battlefield conditions (reliability, durability, etc.), look out, 'cause it's gonna' be game over. Imagine swarms of highly-lethal (and possibly even networked) weaponized UGVs and UCAVS zipping around the battlespace looking for you. Now imagine that you can't see them, even when they're very close or approaching you at high-speed in broad daylight. Very difficult to defend yourself against. You'd probably be killed without ever seeing what killed you. Of course, ideally, anti-thermal/IR (infrared) camouflage paint (for vehicles) or cream/makeup (for warfighters) and anti-thermal/IR apparel (for warfighters) should also be considered. This combo should give vehicle or warfighter combined visual stealth and thermal/infrared stealth. Oh, and silencers/sound suppressors should also be considered, in order to mask sound (sonic camouflage, if you will). If sound suppressors are employed, it will be harder for the enemy to hear the weapons being fired at them and/or figure out where the rounds are coming from.

Getting back to visual stealth tech, if it turns out that STS can successfully cloak mobile infantry warfighters within acceptable comfort/wearability, weight, durability, and powering requirements, then U.S. soldiers and Marines will be one step closer to Predator capability. So, does STS actually work as advertised? And, if it does work, can it be effectively applied to our infantry warfighters so they can effectively operate with it in the field? Defense Review hopes it does, because our troops could really use it. However, we (DefRev) don't really know, yet. We haven't seen STS tested, nor have we seen any video footage of it in operation. But, if it does, well...Cloak On, Game Over.

Author's note: If STS really works and is viable for U.S. infantry use, we'd better all hope the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands (getting captured/obtained from disabled or destroyed/killed U.S. robots, vehicles or warfighters). We definitely wouldn't want to have to contend with cloaked IEDs or insurgents/terrorists, now would we. That would be very bad.

If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS) you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

Click here to read AAE's FAQ on the Stealth Technology System.

Photo Captions (for photos above, from top to bottom):

1) Photo still from Predator (1987)

2) AAE company photo of small square STS panel activated in front of individual.

3) AAE company photo of large rectangular STS panel covering majority of individual

4) Individual completely cloaked by STS panel.

Company claims optical camouflage could have protected Israeli warfighters.

Posted on Friday, November 17 @ 18:27:44 PST by davidc

by David Crane

david at defensereview.com

Optical Cloaking Technology for Urban Warfare and Counterinsurgency Operations

According to Dr. R. A. Zeineh (a.k.a. "Dr. Z"), his company's (Advanced American Enterprise) IR-Stealth 4.B combination thermal/IR (infrared)/night vision (NV) stealth system could have protected Israeli infantry warfighters from Hezbollah guerrilla fighters in Lebanon. One of the recent new documents we've received from AAE discusses how the Hizbollah guerrillas used night vision (NV) equipment to kill two Israeli commandos (out of a 4-man team) near Baalback, Lebanon. In other words, the Israelis didn't "own the night," and it got some of them killed. Dr. Z claims that AAE's technology could have changed the outcome of that unfortunate scenario. AAE claims to be able to provide a "head-to-toe pocket-size IR-Stealth enforced cloth coverall less than .3 Kg protects the night fighter and his armor from detection and from IR targeting." Put another way, AAE IR-Stealth 4.B tech weighing approx. 250 grams can be integrated with a military coverall or BDU to "cloak" an infantry warfighter so that he effectively becomes invisible to enemy thermal/IR (infrared) and NV (night vision) viewers and targeting devices. AAE claims that the IR-Stealth 4.B-equipped BDU/coverall will not hinder/interfere with the warfighter's ability to fight. The warfighter will still be able to breathe, see, hear, run, drive, shoot, speak/shout, climb, or carry an injured teammate--or perform any other battle-relevant behavior, for that matter. According to AAE, current military BDUs/uniforms can be...

easily upgraded to become thermal/IR/NV stealthy . Any all main battle tanks (MBTs), APCs and IFVs (Infantry Personnel Carriers and Infantry Fighting Vehicles), HMMWVs (Humvees), and helicopters can also be upgraded with the AAE IR-Stealth tech to protect them from heat-seaking missiles. AAE has a separate optical camouflage (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage, a.ka. adaptive camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage a.k.a. visible-light-spectrum cloaking technology) called Visibility Stealth 1.B that can be applied to both ground vehicles, including MBTs, APCs/IFVs, HMMWVs, UGVs (Unmanned Ground Vehicles) a.k.a. ground robots, and infantry warfighter uniforms that can reduce their visibility by 85-100%, again without impeding functionality (ability to fight) in any way. It's Defense Review's understanding at present that IR-Stealth 4.B and Visibility Stealth 1.B can be combined/integrated to work together to cloak vehicles and warfighters in all three light spectrums (visible, thermal/infrared, and night vision a.k.a. near-infrared), but we haven't confirmed this yet. In any case either type of cloaking/adaptive camouflage technology, by itself, could prove valuable in preventing casualties from future Hezbollah-type ambush attacks that utilize the tactic of firing Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) at vehicles and dismounted infantry. In the confrontation in Lebanon, Hezbollah guerrillas reportedly fired ATGMs not only at vehicles, but also at dismounted infantry . They also reportedly fired multiple ATGMs simultaneously at a single target in certain instances. If the AAE Stealth tech can protect U.S. and ally warfighters from small arms and light weapons (including ATGM) ambushes and IED (Improvised Explosive Device) attacks, it's definitely worth employing it. Time and testing will tell. It looks like DefenseReview will be attending a live demonstration of the AAE IR-Stealth 4.B tech soon. If/when we do, we will of course report back to our readers.

AAE IR-Stealth 4.B and Visibility Stealth 1.B Fact Sheets: Right-Click on the two links immediately below and then click on "Save Target As" (Microsoft Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Mozilla Firefox) to download and view AAE documents on both optical/adaptive camo technologies: IR-Stealth 4.B Thermal/IR/NV Cloaking Tech Visibility Stealth 1.B Optical Camouflage/"Visual Cloaking" Tech Company Contact Info: If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS), or Stealth III specifically, you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

Previous articles that discuss the AAE Stealth Technology System (STS) cloaking/adaptive camouflage tech (in order from most recent to least recent): AAE Introduces IR-Stealth 5: Thermal/IR Stealth for Jet Aircraft Are Anti-Tank Guided Missiles the New Primary Threat in Urban Warfare/MOUT? Is 'Invisibility Cloak' for Combat Uniforms/BDUs Here Right Now? Tech Update: AAE Stealth III Cloaking Tech for Vehicles, Warfighters, and Helos

Stealth II Thermal/IR Cloaking Tech: Anti-Anti-Aircraft Tech for Helicopters

Cloaking Tech Continued: STS Optical AND Thermal/IR Camouflage for Warfighters

Is Cloaking Technology for U.S. Infantry Warfighters Finally Possible?

Additional articles on thermal/infrared (IR) camouflage technology: Intermat Anti-Thermal/IR Camo Tech for Infantry and Special Operations Forces Zensah Tactical Apparel for Special Operations Forces: Anti-Thermal/IR Camo?

They are covering infrared too.

Update: AAE IR/NV-Stealth and Visibility-Stealth Cloaking Technology

Posted on Friday, December 08 @ 15:33:09 PST by davidc

by David Crane

david at defensereview.com On November 27, 2006, DefenseReview published a piece about Advanced American Enterprise's (AAE) claims that their IR-Stealth 4.B thermal/IR/NV adaptive camouflage could have saved Israeli warfighters' lives during their fight with Hezbollah guerillas in Lebanon several months ago. That article also discussed AAE's Visibility Stealth 1.B optical camouflage , which the company claims would make the wearer virtually invisible in the visible light spectrum (a.k.a. daylight or normal light invisibility). Well, Defense Review just received AAE's latest fact sheet on their IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C product (titled "IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbollah"), along with photos. The document highlights the fact that the Israeli army was not able to "own the night" in it's battle against Hezbollah guerrillas because it did not have a technology like AAE IR-Stealth to prevent their vehicles (Merkava MBTs, for example) and warfighters from being targeted by Hezbollah guerrillas using "British-made" night vision equipment. AAE claims that...

an IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C-equiped "head-to-toe" coverall (or military BDU) would reduce thermal/infrared (IR) and night vision detection by more than 85%, thereby shielding the wearer from being seen/targeted by enemy combatants using night vision equipment (a.k.a. night vision sensors a.k.a. night vision viewers) or thermal/IR (infrared) viewers/sensors. The IR-Stealth device for the coverall would weigh approx. 250 grams. The document points out that the coverall would have no negative effect on the warfighters functionality or capability to fight or operate. The IR-Stealth Night vision equipment reportedly enabled Hezbollah guerrillas to target and kill 2 Israeli commandos (out of 4) near Baalback, Lebanon. "IR Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbullah: Both Israel &Hezbullah have night vision equipment, but neither one "owns the night" against the other. The is because. unless having AAE head-to-toe pocket-size about 250 Gram IR stealth cloth-coverall to shield the fighters or commandoes from night viewers detection &from IR designators. AAE claims it has also successfully developed Daytime Visibility-Stealth for Personnel and Vehicles optical camouflage (a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage a.k.a. adaptive camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage a.k.a. cloaking technology a.k.a. "invisibility cloak") that would make whatever object it covers virtually invisible in the visible light spectrum (daylight/normal light). Specifically, visibility reduction would be more than 85% for the cloaked object (moving or stationary). The personnel version (for coverall/BDU) of this device would weigh 250 grams, and would incorporate both an On/Off switch and self-destruct switch. The vehicle-version device (for Main Battle Tanks, Stryker Infantry Fighting Vehicle, M113, HMMWV/Humvee, etc.) would weigh approx. 150 KG.

AAE will perform live field demonstrations of both technologies (IR/NV Stealth and Visibility-Stealth) for interested vetted parties. A proposed Visibility Stealth live demo would consist of person in a bunker rising and shooting blanks at observers from 20+ feet away without being seen/detected by the observers or video equipment (camcorder, for instance). DefenseReview looks forward to attending a demonstration of the technology soon. We're also going to try to obtain some high-resolution video of this type of demo, and publish it. Until we see AAE's cloaking tech for ourselves, we of course must remain skeptical. AAE IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Fact Sheet: Right-Click on the two links immediately below and then click on "Save Target As" (Microsoft Internet Explorer) or "Save Link As" (Mozilla Firefox) to download and view AAE documents on both optical/adaptive camo technologies: IR-Stealth for Personnel 4.C Israel-Hezbollah

Company Contact Info: If you'd like to learn more about the Stealth Technology System (STS), or Stealth III specifically, you can contact Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.

=====================================================

In a message dated 2/17/2007 9:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense fools Knapp?

Date:2/17/2007 9:43:08 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:sarfatti@pacbell.net

Look if you want a sense of what real physics is without the math read Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong."

Nuclear physics is well understood in the sense that there would be no peculiar gravity properties of element 115 even if you could get a stable isotope of it, which you can't.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 17, 2007, at 5:15 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,

Bob Lazar never said the element 115 the USG had was made by us. He claimed that the USG had 500 pounds of the element they removed from captured or crashed alien craft.

Total hogwash. Completely silly. Irrational cargo cult mumbo jumbo brainwashing for True Believer cultists. This is the worst sort of pseudo-scientific trash around. It's exactly what Ray Hudson was warning about.

Some disinformationalists added to his story by saying aliens gave it to us to queer the whole story:

Bob Lazar stated that the “Sport Model” Flying Disc amplified the “Strong Nuclear Force” of Element 115 (UnUnPentium or UUP) to generate the gravity field for “Space-Time Compression.” Bob also stated that the U.S. Government had 500 pounds of Element 115 in their possession.

This is ridiculous idiocy. Not even wrong. It's word salad. This is NOT physics. It's this sort of nonsense that give the Skeptics ammunition to debunk the whole field!

More supposed information including how the metal was machined for use at: http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Element_115.htm

It may all be "BS"

It is.

but there is a lot of "S" already

It's N = NOISE!

floating around now that 70 years ago would have been considered "BS" like time travel.

DO NOT COMPARE THE TWO IN SAME SENTENCE.

I am not advocating as true

It's not even wrong. It's professor Irwin Corey snake oil. It's worthless.

anything that Lazar said, I'm just noting that he didn't say we made the 115. That would be very obvious BS. We are lucky we can refine uranium.

Even if we had it - so what? So you have it for sake of argument. What' hocus pocus do you use then? It's completely mindless anti-science nonsense. No element has any direct relevance to warp drive - total irrational garbage. No physics there. It's pure unadulterated crap for scientific illiterates! Ask any real physicist.

There is no physical evidence for any stable isotope of 115. Even if

In a message dated 2/17/2007 3:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Subj: Re: Element 115 Lazar nonsense Lazar fools Knapp?

Date:2/17/2007 3:17:59 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:sarfatti@pacbell.net

To:ANTIGRAY@cs.com

Received from Internet:

It's balderdash. No physicist believes it. No one made of pound of this mythical stuff.

On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:44 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,

It was an isotope of element 115 which apparently has a much longer half-life and supposedly exhibits the properties claimed.

Art

In a message dated 2/17/2007 12:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Subj: Element 115 Lazar nonsense Lazar fools Knapp?

Date:2/17/2007 12:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:sarfatti@pacbell.net

To:Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com

Received from Internet:

I heard an unconfirmed rumor that George Knapp thinks he saw Bob

Lazar bend a light wave with a "pound" of element 115. What George

allegedly saw was a cheap magician's trick. Element 115 decays

quickly and to say one has a "pound" that does not decay of it is

ridiculous. Also it's completely silly to think that any nucleus has

unusual gravity properties on the macro scale. It's irrational cargo

cult junk science. Bob Lazar and Robert M Collins are two disinformation agents from the same pod. Ask any PhD physicist from a real university, not Bearden with his fake degree, who has examined the claims and see

what they say. No need to take my word for it.

>Element 115 is unstable

>"The disc's reactor uses a fuel which does not occur naturally on

>Earth. This fuel is a super-heavy, stable, element with an atomic

>number of 115 and does not appear on our periodic chart." (1)

>Recently a team of American and Russian scientists discovered

>elements 113 and 115. Element 115 has a decay time of tens of

>milliseconds. (3) There is no way to stop an element from decaying.

>In the experiment, element 115 was recorded four times. The

>reactions and decay time were (5):

>287-115Uup --> 283-113Uut + 4-2He (46.6 milliseconds)

>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (80.3 milliseconds)

>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (18.6 milliseconds)

>288-115Uup --> 284-113Uut + 4-2He (280 milliseconds)

>

>It is true that there is a hypothetical island of stability, in

>which the very massive elements are stable. This is because of a

>hypothetical stable proton/neutron configuration in the core.

>However, this has not been observed in element 115.

>

>The hypothetical island of stability is thought to occur in

>isotopes with around 114 protons and 184 neutrons. Element 115 has

>around 114 protons, it has 115 protons. However, it only has 172

>and 173 neutrons in the recorded decays. Only very few elements

>have 12 or more isotopes and these elements are of a different

>group than element 115. It is therefore not likely element 115 can

>reach the island of stability.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/33267.html

Jack Sarfatti

sarfatti@pacbell.net

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"

- Albert Einstein

http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999

http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)