Thursday, June 21, 2007

On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:53 AM, Juris Tambergs wrote:


Thank you Dr. Tambergs
You make excellent points I agree with all of them. :-)


"Dear Prof.Jack Sarfatti,

Many thanks for your first kind reply message of 13.06.2007 on my first letter to you.
After it, I received ~10 other messages, related with your discussions
on conceptual problems of theoretical physics with other people.
Since I am quite busy with my regular studies of specific nuclear physics problems,
I cannot write you so often as I would wish. Besides, I shall better focus attention on themes
where there is certain "overlap" of mutual interests.

So, speaking about G.Shipov's 4-D gyroscope (or Tolchin's inertoid), I agree with you, that
friction mechanics can be quite counter-intuitive and no definite conclusion about Shipov's
machine can be given presently. We shall continue our research on Shipov's 4-D gyroscope and
keep you informed about our progress in this direction."

The crucial test is to get a toy model to fly. Moving along a track is not good enough.

"However, it would be a pity, if Shipov's "Theory of physical vacuum", involving the ideas about
10-parametric "oriented point" Descartesian Mechanics, inertia and torsion fields
relationships, etc., placed in the foundation of his 4-D gyroscope theory, would turn out to be
just a nice theoretical construction without observable physical effects (analogously, as
Dirac's magnetic monopole in Maxwell's electrodynamics)."

Yes, of course. My thoughts exactly. The torsion field must be there at the root of dark energy and dark matter. It has a sound theoretical basis - the local gauge principle applied to the full 10-parameter Poincare group (TWB Kibble, Imperial College 1961 from Utiyama 1956).

Indeed, Shipov's "oriented point" is simply a primitive Calabi-Yau space!

Above Shipov, below superstring theory - both 6D extra dimensions beyond spacetime.

"In this letter I wish to discuss only one question about Shipov's theory.

One of the basic points in it is related with Shipov's assumption about two kinds of
torsions, namely,
1) Ricci torsions;
2) Cartan torsions."

Here is how I understand 1) & 2) physically. I may be mistaken, but here goes:

Ricci torsion couples to spin of matter field Suv = - Svu including spin of dark energy inside vacuum I suspect. Ricci torsion does not propagate as waves in ordinary vacuum without dark energy but may do so in actual exotic vacua with dark energy and dark matter. Dark matter is simply dark (zero point) energy with positive quantum pressure and negative energy density rather than negative quantum pressure with positive energy density for w < - 1/3.

Cartan "conformal" torsion couples to orbital angular momentum Luv = - Lvu as in Shipov's inertoid. It should propagate torsion waves in ordinary vacuum without dark energy.

Juv = Luv + Suv as in Schwinger's "source theory" books.

I use "Ricci" and "Conformal" in the same way it's used in localizing the translational 4-parameter T4 subgroup of P10, except now we are localizing the 6-parameter space-time rotation Lorentz group O(1,3).

Utiyama in 1954-56 localized 6-parameter O(1,3) only and put in the Cartan tetrads by hand. What he got was only the torsion-induced curvature, i.e. spin connection W^a^b(1,3). Torsion alone will make curvature, but not vice versa. Kibble did it more completely localizing both T4 to give also W^a^b(4) and O(1,3) in P10.

"In Shipov's work:
Descartesian Mechanics: The Fourth Generalization of Newton's Mechanics (33 pages)
(see Article No.9 in the Science part of "Uvitor", on pages 11-12,
he writes [after formula (62)]:
"We can see from this matrix that the four dimensional rotation of the oriented material
point is created by the inertial fields T(ijk) and vice versa - the rotation of matter
originates Ricci torsion [formula (63)] of the space in geometry A4 [absolute parallelism]."

I am not sure if we need absolute parallelism. Maybe.

"Absolute parallelism" to me means

R^a^b = DW^a^b = dW^a^b + W^ac/\W^cb = 0


W^a^b = W^a^b(4) + W^a^b(1,3)

W^a^b(4) = curvature only spin connection from localizing T4 only.

W^a^b(1,3) = torsion only spin connection from localizing O(1,3) only, i.e. Utiyama 1954-56.

Note the torsion field 2-form

T^a(4) = de^a + W^ac(4)/\e^c

where e^a is the full Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea

In my theory of emergent gravity and torsion from the Goldstone Phase Vacuum Matrix M^a^b

e^a = I^a + @A^a

A^a = M^a^a diagonal matrix elements

@ = World Hologram dimensionless coupling

@ = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3

the 1/3 power gives World Hologram formula

&R = @R = Lp^2/3R^1/3 ~ 1 fermi

R = dark energy future deSitter horizon radius for our pocket universe on cosmic landscape of parallel worlds.

/\zpf = 1/R^2 Einstein's cosmological constant ~ 10^-29 grams/cc ~ scale of 10^-2 cm microwaves

In my theory the torsion spin conection

W^a^b(1,3) = M^[a,b] off diagonal matrix elements of the antisymmetrized M matrix with 8 Goldstone phases from 9 real post-inflation Higgs fields.

"The fields, defined by the spatial rotation, have been called torsion fields. Thus, the
inertial field T(ijk) represents the torsion field, originated by the torsion of absolute
parallelism geometry. The connection between rotation of matter and torsion (63) of A4
geometry was outlined by Cartan in 1922 [21], although without a direct analytical reasoning.
This fact created a stir in the research world. The reason was, that a few years later
Cartan introduced a torsion, based upon the point manifold. It differs from Ricci torsion (63),
because it does not depend upon the angular variables. I could not find any analytical
proof of the connecion of Cartan torsion (not Ricci torsion (63)) with real physical

In your discussion with Prof.Arkadiusz Jadczyk (6 June 2004) you wrote:
'Shipov seems to be saying that the Cartan torsion components are CONSTANTS
(homogeneous space of constant curvature and torsion) not variable functions like the
Ricci torsion components in an inhomogeneous space of variable curvature and torsion? ...
In contrast the Ricci torsion components are variable fields. So this seems to be his
essential FORMAL distinction. What that means for the physics I don't yet know'"

I had not understood the Cartan form notation well enough back in 2004. I was still struggling with proper application of local gauge principle to general relativity. People still do not understand it very well thinking that it is the spin 2 level connections that are fundamental when instead it's the spin 1 tetrad level connections that are fundamental. Note spin 1 is renormalizable in quantum field theory while spin 2 is not. Einstein's 1916 classical connection is bilinear in the classical tetrads and their gradients. As quantum fields 1 + 1 = 0,1,2 i.e. 3x3 = 1 + 3 + 5 dims of irreps of O(3). Therefore, there are spin 0, spin 1 (Tony Smith's conformal graviton?) and spin 2 quantum gravity zero point fluctuations. Quantum gravity at the spin 1 tetrad level from the local gauge principle i.e. A^a spin 1 field is perfectly renormalizable. T4 is commutative in large scale so that G should decrease with increasing scale i.e. @ = hG/c^3 should behave like e^2/hc in QED renormalization group flows since both are Abelian in the IR regime - no asymptotic freedom as in compact Yang-Mills SU(3) - this may be because T4 is not compact?

"By my opinion, it means the fundamental relationship between above described
four-dimensional rotation of the oriented material point and the inertial (torsion) fields.
So, I think that, in the fragment cited above, you catch the essence of Shipov's main
idea. Do you keep thinking so now (in 2007), 3 years after your discussion with
Prof.Arkadiusz Jadczyk? I do not think that A.Jadczyk has reflected this moment in his
"Notes on torsion" (3 pages, June 6, 2004), where there is no distinction between
Ricci and Cartan torsion."

Good question Professor for which I do not yet have a good answer worthy of your question. :-)

"Other questions, related with G.Shipov's theory, I hope to discuss with you in some future letter.

Best regards, yours sincerely,

Juris Tambergs"

Jack Sarfatti
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

No comments: