Lubos Motl wrote:

"George Chapline just gave the most provoking and most bizarre colloquium we have seen at Harvard for years. (I guess that the talk would not be bizarre enough for Quantoken and perhaps not even for Arun, and I apologize if they will be disappointed by the amount of strangeness.) Chapline used to be a T.A. for Feynman's lectures, he was awarded by various awards, but his goal right now is to revolutionize our understanding of the strong gravitational fields.

...

In other words, Chapline did not like the idea about the horizon being a regular place in space. He did not explain how he wants to modify the laws of physics in such a way that his new critical behavior replacing the horizon suddenly turns on. He also sketched his condensed matter system where the speed of sound goes to zero and asked what happens. Bert Halperin answered but my guess is that during his next lecture, Chapline will repeat his remark that no one at all the famous universities he will have visited knew the answer ...

...

The causal structure is guaranteed by the rules of special relativity that have been tested in detail - and for which there are no good reasons to violate them in a drastical way. And the temperature and the entropy were first calculated by Hawking who followed Bekenstein, but then they were also reproduced by completely independent methods from the microscopic counting of string theory - a calculation that was definitely not guaranteed to give the same results but it did. That is a pretty strong double argument.

Someone asked whether Chapline's new picture of the black hole also requires one to alter the membrane paradigm by Kip Thorne, in which the horizon is viewed as a superconducting membrane, and the answer was that the speaker did not know what the paradigm was.

A particular example of the application of "emergent phenomena" beyond the realm of their validity was the attempt to explain gravity as an emergent phenomenon based on some spin-2 bound states of quasiparticles near the Fermi liquid - the type of work that was done by Zhang and others. In reality, the existence of such bound states was never really justified, and if there were any evidence that such bound states could have existed, such arguments would have allowed not only for the spin-2 "gravitons" but also for higher-spin particles that simply should not exist.

There are many theorems that show that gravity can't be constructed in one way or another, that the interactions are incompatible with higher-spin gauge symmetries, and all things like that. Such no-go theorems are sometimes circumvented by string/M-theory, but it always involves a non-trivial feature of string/M-theory that was not anticipated before and that violates some of the more or less hidden assumptions.

All these vague arguments about gravity being constructed as a solid state system only existed at the level of free particles and there were never hints that the interactions of these particles shall reproduce general relativity. Given the fact that the very reason for introducing gravity is that it is an interaction, the failure to reproduce the interactions is pretty serious.

But even a priori, is there any reason to believe such pictures and pursue them? I think that the primary motivation for such attempts is to satisfy our old instincts that everything, including the most mysterious objects such as those in high-energy physics and quantum gravity, must eventually be "made" of the things we know from the everyday life such as water, wine, bread, and butter.

These objects are macroscopic, slow, low-energy, and with the exception of wine, they are also predictable and deterministic.

In my humble opinion, this approach may be good to entertain ourselves and our non-physics friends, but it is a misguided approach to theoretical physics - and I don't mean just fundamental physics right now but any physics that transcends our everyday lives - simply because theoretical physics has become less intuitive and more mathematically abstract, and it had to be so. And it will be so in the future. And it is one of the symptoms of a true conceptual progress. The humans have been trained to comprehend phenomena associated with classical, non-relativistic, low-energy physics - and it should not be unexpected that the intuition fails if we try to understand quantum, relativistic, high-energy, unusual phenomena that go beyond the realm of validity of our naive approximations."

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont-exist.html

Lubos Motl also allegedly wrote in http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists.html:

The Reference Frame:

Steven Weinberg vs weird physicists: torsion

The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a

conservative physicist's viewpoint

Saturday, March 03, 2007 ... /////

"Steven Weinberg vs weird physicists: torsion

A reader has pointed out the following exchange between Steven Weinberg and

Friedrich Hehl in the new issue of Physics Today. If you've never heard about

the latter, you're not the only one. For our purposes, it suffices to know that

this Gentleman has written down many meaningless theories of gravity with an

extra torsion tensor. They have no relevance for experiments and they have

nothing to do with the most important advances in physics of the last 100 years

or so.

Hehl offers some religious, scientifically meaningless statements or loud

screams why the torsion tensor is needed or why it is special, citing some

physically irrelevant sources from the early 1920s. Weinberg of course gives the

only answer that a sane physicist can give: the torsion tensor is just another

tensor field - one that isn't needed for any symmetry, consistency, or beauty -

so if there is no experimental reason why it should be added, and surely there

is no such reason today, it won't be added. Period."

I, Jack Sarfatti rebut Motl: Everything Lubos says here is simply false. Three good references showing Lubos statements to be false are

1. L. O' Raifeartaigh "The Dawning of Gauge Theory", Princeton 1997 Ch. 2, & Ch 10 on Utiyama 1956 locally gauging rigid SO(1,3) to get part of general relativity. Actually what Utiyama got was the torsion-induced curvature beyond Einstein's 1916 theory, but no one realized it at the time.

2. J. C. Taylor "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century" 3.1 "Gravity as a gauge theory" T.W.B. Kibble "Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field" J. Math Phys 2 (1061) 212-21 shows that Motl simply does not understand the facts. Kibble showed that when you locally gauge the full RIGID 10 parameter Poincare group of 1905 special relativity you get Einstein's theory generalized by Cartan to include torsion fields as well as curvature fields. Einstein's 1916 torsion-free theory is what you get when you locally gauge only the 4-parameter translation group. This gives the non-trivial part of the 4 tetrad 1-forms as the compensating "Yang-Mills" type compensating gauge potentials (Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport is bilinear in the tetrads and their gradients). When you, in addition, locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group you also get 6 dynamically independent spin-connection 1-forms as compensating potentials giving ultimately the contortion tensor used in theories like Hehl's, Hammond's, Kleinert's et-al. Note 1916 GR T4 only gives curvature-only spin-connections that do not have torsion gaps.

3. Hagen Kleinert's work http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/kleinert/

"part from the above, the book presents the general differential geometry of defects in spaces with curvature and torsion and establishes contact with the modern theory of gravity with torsion." - Kleinert

Lubos Motl continues

"Weinberg as a relativistic heretic

The origin of this controversy goes back to the 1970s. Weinberg's textbook on

general relativity was very modern - and oriented towards the interpretation of

general relativity as a part of the effective quantum field theory - as it

presented the metric tensor as another field in spacetime whose local symmetry

happens to coincide with the diffeomorphism symmetry but it is just a technical

detail: interacting spin-two fields simply must have gauge symmetries that

reproduce diffeomorphisms. Because of that, we can interpret the whole theory as

a theory of curved space but we don't have to: the metric tensor may also be

viewed as another field living in the Minkowski spacetime or, equivalently - by

symmetries - any other spacetime that you might imagine to be your starting

point. You don't need to know the words "curved space" to calculate the

predictions of general relativity."

(Jack Sarfatti) This is simplistic as can be seen from Feynman's Lectures on Gravitation and Roger Penrose's work on the "nonlinear graviton".

The point is that you do not get the full power of GR for strong fields until you sum an infinity of Feynman diagrams based on the globally flat Minkowski background. This is non-analytic (Ken Wilson) "More is different" (PW Anderson) emergence like in the BCS theory of superconductors. Sure you can do post-Newtonian first order perturbation theory using flat spacetime background, but you will never get horizons.

For example, in SSS solution, the flat background is

g00 ~ 1 - 2GM/c^2r

only in the limit 2GM/c^2r << 1

BTW Puthoff makes a similar error in his PV theory. Dicke never meant his 1961 model to be used beyond the above approximation.

Lubos: "A certain group of people in cosmology has reacted just like religious bigots

and they wanted Weinberg to "retract" these statements whose validity is

completely obvious to anyone who has any idea how field theory - especially

quantum field theory - works."

Jack: Lubos completely misses the point here.

Lubos: "However, the deeper you penetrate into the

community of the loop-quantum-gravity-like pseudoscientists and their fans, the

less clear these things are to them. Weinberg has never retracted but I think

that it is fair to say that these loud irrelevant fourth-class scientists have

intimidated Weinberg into silence which is kind of scary."

Jack: So, Lubos thinks Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, Charles Misner are "fourth class"?

Lubos has shifted here from physics to polemics.

Lubos: "Unification vs segregation

Those people think exactly in the opposite way than a theoretical physicist

should. Theoretical physicists want to unify the laws of Nature. They want to

understand an ever greater set of phenomena using theories with an ever smaller

number of independent assumptions and parameters. Gravity is a manifestation of

something that we can call spacetime geometry - but all of physics may be viewed

as a manifestation of some "generalized geometry". There is no fundamental gap

between gravity and other fields. There is only one world whose parts constantly

interact. Any attempt to separate the world into two parts - geometry and matter

- is bound to be an approximation or worse. All of these objects in field theory

are just some tensors that are coupled according to some rules."

Jack: Too vague to be useful. However, the fact that gravity is simply Yang-Mills theory applied to the Poincare group rather than internal groups does do what Lubos yearns for here, but the price is the torsion field that Lubos says is crackpot physics! Lubos is hoisted by his own petard! My own polemics. ;-)

Lubos "In fact, string theory shows that the metric tensor field and the matter fields

arise in the very same way from more fundamental ingredients."

Jack:

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

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

Lubos "What's important for these interactions is whether they respect some crucial

symmetries and whether they lead to self-consistent predictions that are finite

and whether these predictions can be successfully compared to experiments. We

also want the number of independent parameters - the total number of all

coefficients of terms that can be added without modifying the symmetries - to be

as small as possible so that the theory's predictivity is as large as it can be."

Jack: Cliche. Sure. So what else is new?

Lubos: "Regardless of words, the most general interactions between your tensors must be

considered"

Jack: Cliche. Sure. So what else is new?

Lubos: "Everything else is just religious nonsense. You may try to guess other

principles or ideas how the theory should look like that can lead you to the

right theory if you're lucky. But they don't have to. You can't consider your

own idiosyncratic beliefs to be an argument for your approach before any other

material evidence - either theoretical or experimental - for your theory

appears."

Jack: Polemical ranting.

Lubos: "What about the torsion? Torsion is a hypothetical part of the Christoffel

connection that is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. In conventional

general relativity, the symmetric connection is derived from the metric tensor

and its torsion is simply zero. This is the grand theory that has been

successfully tested. The three-form H-field in many vacua of string theory may

be viewed as some kind of torsion. It's because the conditions for an unbroken

supersymmetry include the term proportional to the H-field in a way that is

analogous to the old papers that discussed torsion together with spinors."

Jack: Obviously Lubos has no knowledge of Kibble's 1961 paper. He is making something simple overly complicated. So like a string theorist! :-)

Lubos: "Other fields in string theory

But if you don't know this "torsion" jargon, you don't lose anything. The

two-form B-field and its exterior derivative, the H-field, are just other

examples of fields in the effective field theory. They have some couplings and

some gauge symmetries and string theory predicts all of them, up to field

redefinitions that can, of course, always be made. It is somewhat misleading to

use the word "torsion" because we can't really say that all objects are affected

universally by the background fields. It is more usual that we interpret the

H-field as a generalization of the electromagnetic field than a kind of a

torsion tensor. And we have good reasons to do so.

For example, charged objects are also influenced by non-gravitational gauge

fields. In the presence of matter, it is no longer true that the geometry knows

everything about the natural motion of objects in a general situation. We need

other fields, too. Once we accept that there are other fields, we must consider

the most general set of rules controlling these degrees of freedom that are

consistent with the given symmetry and consistency principles. In particular,

the torsion is just another tensor and it is not true that its couplings are

completely determined. All contractions of indices etc. are legitimate a priori.

The statements that the dogmatic torsion is necessary because of [some

incoherent principle] are completely dumb."

Jack: An ignorant remark for reasons stated above.

Lubos: "Torsion is not necessary simply

because the theories we have don't include any torsion, they are

self-consistent, and they moreover agree with experiments."

Jack: That 96% of the stuff of the universe is not atoms and photons etc MAY PERHAPS be the smoking gun for torsion fields. Also maybe the Pioneer anomaly. Indeed dark energy and dark matter are the elephant and the 800 gorilla in the room.

Lubos; "It is plausible that

a more complete theory would predict new fields but these fields must be

massive, otherwise they would contradict observations. For example, the

three-form H-field in four-dimensional string-theoretical vacua may be

Hodge-dualized to a one-form which is a gradient of a scalar field called the

universal axion. This particle may or may not exist but it must be massive,

otherwise it would induce new forces that are not observed.

Irrational pressures

At any rate, the idea that there are some additional aesthetic conditions in

field theory that tell you that you should include fields that are otherwise

clearly unnecessary or conditions that tell you that you shouldn't allow some

interactions of some fields just because you want to use some name for these

fields is analogous to astrology. Nothing like that can be used in science. Such

new ideas could only become valid if you showed that they are necessary for some

kind of new symmetry, or that they must arise from an underlying high-energy

theory. At the sociological level, I am flabbergasted how the people who

understand physics and contributed to physics at a rate below 0.1% of Steven

Weinberg are self-confident when they try to intimidate him."

Jack: Again Lubos is obviously not aware that locally gauging the Poincare group in same way as internal groups gives curvature + torsion Einstein-Cartan theory. All we need is the battle-tested local gauge principle applied to the rigid spacetime symmetries of global special relativity and you cannot avoid torsion in addition to curvature.

Lubos: "Einstein's flawed attempts

In the last decades of his life, Einstein used to think about many unified

theories. He thought that only gravity and electromagnetism were real:

everything else was supposed to miraculously emerge from the approach. So he has

tried all the silliest theories you can imagine - for example, an asymmetric

metric tensor whose antisymmetric part describes F_{mu nu}. Torsion was another

example. The greatest mistake of Einstein was his inability to accept the

probabilistic nature and predictions of quantum mechanics. But the unjustified

attempts to "extend" the metric tensor in order to cheaply include

electromagnetism may be viewed as the second greatest blunder of his life.

For example, if we imagine that the metric tensor is not symmetric, we are still

allowed to split it into the symmetric and antisymmetric part. These two parts

can be treated separately: they can have different interactions. If you treat

them separately, you are still able to satisfy all principles of your field

theory. The Lagrangian is locally Lorentz-symmetric and the full action is

diffeomorphism invariant if you do it right. An action written in terms of an

asymmetric tensor could "look" shorter than a general action describing the

action for the symmetric part and the antisymmetric part but Nature never cares

whether something "looks" shorter. For example, the action of eleven-dimensional

supergravity is not really "short" but it is the most symmetric gravitational

low-energy field theory that exists. It is symmetry and rigidity, not the

length, that matters in physics. The crackpots won't ever get this point."

Jack: Note Lubos use of "crackpot" - overkill, too broad a brush - a bad habit he picked up from John Baez who Lubos thinks is a crackpot for pushing L. Smolin's loop theory approach to quantum gravity. Rovelli is also a crackpot in Motl's black book. Lubos accepts 11D supergravity theory as some kind of Holy Revelation. Sir Roger Penrose then becomes a "crackpot" in Lubos's lexicon for his critique of extra dimensions in "The Road to Reality" for example.

Luubos: "The same comment applies to torsion. If you consider an asymmetric Christoffel

connection, you are still allowed to break it into pieces, i.e. irreducible

representations of the Lorentz group or "GL(4)", and to add different

interactions for these pieces. For diffeomorphism invariance, the symmetric part

will be equivalent to what you get from a metric tensor, and the antisymmetric

part is just another tensor field. There can't be any natural unification here."

Jack: Blatantly false as shown by Kibble cited above.

Lubos: "If your action looked simple in terms of an asymmetric metric tensor or an

asymmetric connection, it would be a pure coincidence. You would still have to

consider all possible deformations of this theory - in which the interactions of

the parts differ - to be equally valid candidates to describe reality.

Horizons and the geometric intuition

Is there something in GR that you can't derive by assuming that the metric

tensor is just another tensor field on some background - e.g. the Minkowski

background? Well, GR predicts the existence of spacetime topologies and causal

diagrams that differ from the Minkowski spacetime. Are they possible? Well,

almost certainly. But still, their existence is compatible with the

interpretation of the metric tensor as another field. The geometric intuition

just gives you a good tool to deal with some singularities: for example, you may

find that the black hole horizon is a coordinate singularity and you can

continue your physical laws to the interior of the black hole. You can see that

there is nothing special happening near the black hole event horizon."

Jack: Again false as shown by Feynman for example.

Lubos: "But this conclusion also follows from a careful analysis of field redefinitions

that are helpful to understand physics near the black hole horizon. These field

redefinitions are nothing else than diffeomorphisms,"

Jack: which are simply the local gauge transformations in going from rigid T4 to local T4(x).

Lubos: "and by making the geometry

look smooth near the event horizon, you obtain a natural hypothesis what should

happen when you cross the horizon: namely nothing."

Jack: True in GR, but not true in Chapline's replacement of GR,

Lubos: "Experimentally speaking,

we're not quite sure. We will never be sure unless the whole planet falls into a

black hole which is not the best collective career move.

It can still be true that you die when you hit the black hole horizon. But the

required laws would violate locality and causality - principles whose precise

form is influenced by non-zero values of the spin-two tensor that we happen to

call the metric. These principles are valuable. The dogma about the existence of

torsion is not an independently valuable physical principle and Weinberg has

always been 100% right when he rejected irrational arguments to include such

"principles" into science.

And that's the memo.

Update: Dean of crackpots

I was also told that the dean of crackpots has written about this exchange."

Jack: Who is that pray tell?

Lubos: "The dean himself offers several characteristically absurd comments attempting to

paint Steven Weinberg as the owner of extreme opinions. Steven Weinberg is one

of the people who have defined the mainstream of particle physics for more than

30 years.

In the discussion, some people including Sean Carroll and Moshe Rozali correctly

say that one must include all terms in the Lagrangian that are consistent with

given symmetries. The dean himself argues that "he understands the effective

field theory philosophy", but in order to instantly show that he doesn't, he

says that he is unconvinced because quantum field theories should be valid at

all energies. QCD is and N=8 SUGRA may also be, so why not. Well, he's just too

limited.

Whether or not these theories are well-behaved in the UV can't change the fact

that new physics must surely enter at the conventional 4D Planck scale or

earlier, for example because our world includes gravity. Our world can't be a

pure QCD as the famous apple demonstrates. With gravity, all these theories are

only effective field theories. Even in the case of N=8 SUGRA, the supergravity

description itself is clearly incomplete non-perturbatively because it can't

reproduce poles from the black hole intermediate states.

In the debate with Sean Carroll at the beginning of the debate, the dean shows

that he clearly doesn't understand that the torsion is just another tensor and

its couplings are not determined. It's just amazing how incredibly ignorant this

person is - a person that has been chosen by dozens of journalists to talk big

about physics."

Who is Lubos talking about?

Here Lubos's Polemic/Physics ratio is singular. ;-)

Lubos: "Crackpot Tony Smith tries to spin some - already bizarre - statements by Paul

Ginsparg who has conjectured that Steven Weinberg has "renounced his views". The

similarity of their language with the medieval catholic bigots is clearly

causing them no pain whatsoever. As an argument supporting the opinion that

Weinberg has "renounced" his views, they say that Weinberg likes extra

dimensions in string theory which are geometrical in nature. Well, that's nice

that they are geometrical but the low-energy field theory in 10D is just another

field theory with some tensors, and so is its decomposition in the form of the

four-dimensional effective field theories. In all cases, it is Weinberg's rules

of physics that are important, not pre-conceived opinions about "geometry".

All of string theory may be viewed as a certain generalization of geometry. The

real question is how exactly the right generalization works. ;-) There's no

doubt that string theory has already refined our notions about geometry - by

topology-changing transitions, mirror symmetry, T-duality and so on. If we want

to answer the question what is the right form of geometry in Nature, we must

isolate the right physics arguments and calculations instead of attaching silly

stickers "geometric - good" and "non-geometric - bad" to different ideas. If you

choose any set of axioms or ideas that are called "geometry" at a given moment,

you are never guaranteed that Nature is going to satisfy them. The previous

sentence has been proved many times in the history of physics. It is She who

decides, not you.

Another "wise man" called Eugene Stefanovich argues that Weinberg also has

non-orthodox views on quantum field theory because he starts his derivation of

the theory from particles which makes fields less fundamental. Last semester I

have largely followed Sidney Coleman's QFT I notes that start from particles,

too. What's exactly non-orthodox about it? All these concepts - including fields

and particles - are ultimately parts of the overall picture. There is no

God-given algorithm telling you what you should start with when you learn or

teach these things. Any attempt to pretend that such a God-given algorithm

exists is religious bigotry, not science. Every particle physicist who thinks

that particles are not important in particle physics is deeply confused.

Moreover, even if Coleman and Weinberg were the only two physicists who followed

this approach, which they're not, it would no longer be a fringe pedagogical

direction.

Why do we neglect higher-derivative terms

Peter Woit also completely misunderstands why we neglect higher-derivative terms

in various theories such as the Dirac theory or general relativity. He argues

that we must start with minimal couplings and boldly make predictions to avoid

being not even wrong. But this approach is the obsolete perspective of the

1920s. Today, a physicist who understand her field would certainly not argue in

this way. The reason why the higher-derivative terms (e.g. higher powers of

curvature in general relativity) are not that important is that they are

higher-dimension operators whose effects decrease faster as you go to longer

distances: every derivative adds a 1/L factor to the typical size. The operators

with many additional derivatives are called irrelevant perturbations and it is

the most relevant ones that dominate the long distance physics. You can always

choose sufficiently long distance scale so that the irrelevant operators will

become as unimportant as you wish. There is no other rational justification to

eliminate the higher-derivative terms - in fact, one can't completely eliminate

them at all without contradicting the rules of the renormalization group flow.

Even if the higher-derivative operators were absent at one scale, you generate

them if you flow into another scale. They can't be absent universally.

Because Peter Woit argues that one should study "simple" theories of this kind

because they are "beautiful" proves that his sense of "beauty" is based on ideas

that have been known to be inconsistent with the laws of quantum mechanics for

more than 30 years and he clearly can't understand anything important from the

last 30+ years of particle physics. Beauty can no longer be measured in this

obsolete Woitian way. It is no longer possible to truncate theories in this way.

There is nothing special about the "minimal" theories he likes to think about.

At the quantum level, one can't really define such minimal theories at all.

There's just far too much organized influence terrorizing people in science.

Whenever your results or conclusions of your work disagree with a sufficiently

large group of ignorants, they will attack you personally in the worst possible

ways and hire unwise journalists who do the same in the media. They will present

the fact that your results reject their preconceptions as your moral flaw."

Jack: Let He who is without Sin cast the first stone. Seems like Lubos has a large mote in his own eye? :-)

Lubos: "I think that it has become extremely unpleasant to be a part of

institutionalized science, and I am looking forward to be away from the focus of

these intellectual bottom-feeders who exist not only on Not Even Wrong and who

enjoy a silent approval by many of the leftist officials in the Academia."

Jack: "leftist"?

## Sunday, July 29, 2007

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)/\e^c + w^a^bcde^c

R^a^b = d(w^a^bc)/\e^c + w^a^bcde^c + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

T^a(P10) = w^abc(SO(1,3))e^b/\e^c = w^abc(SO(1,3))(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b)/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that the torsion field 2-form does not depend upon F^a = DA^a.

G. Shipov's "teleparallel" theory I think means

R^a^b(P10) = 0

Where

R^a^b(P10) = R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + curvature-torsion couplings

R^a^b(T4) is Einstein's 1916 torsion-free disclination curvature

R^a^b(SO(1,3) is Utiyama's 1956 torsion-gap dislocation defect induction of disclination curvature defects in the geometrodynamic monopole nodes of the Kleinert "world crystal lattice".

w^aa'c(T4)e^a'/\w^c^b'(SO(1,3)]ce^b'+ w^aa'c(SO(1,3)]e^a'/\w^c^bb'(T4)e^b'

Are the curvature-torsion coupling cross terms.

However, I see no compelling physical reason to make the restrictive choice

R^a^b(P10) = 0

R^a^b(P10) = D[w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)]e^c

= d([w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)]e^c)

+ [w^aa'c(T4) + w^aa'c(SO(1,3)]e^a'/\[w^c^bb'(T4) + w^c^b'(SO(1,3)]ce^b'

= R^a^b(T4) + R^ab(SO(1,3) + w^aa'c(T4)e^a'/\w^c^b'(SO(1,3)]ce^b'+ w^aa'c(SO(1,3)]e^a'/\w^c^bb'(T4)e^b'

Math typo corrected draft 2

On Jul 29, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

John A Wheeler coined

"Mass without mass"

"Charge without charge"

"Spin without spin."

"Law without law."

in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below.

World Hologram is "Space without space" (my term for the record)

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

The Ricci rotation coefficients (like Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetries) are local functions so that dw^a^bc =/= 0 - use product rule.

We see that the spin 1 effective Yang-Mills potential does not have terms higher than quartic in the intrinsic spin 1 warp fields A^a. Therefore, the quantum field theory is renormalizable using the Veltman-t'Hooft analysis. See Sidney Coleman's Erice Lectures.

The effective warp field potential in the Lagrangian density has the form

*{C3/\A^a + C2/\A^a/\A^b + C1/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c + C0/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c/\A^d}

Where Cp are p-forms from the Minkowski global tetrads I^a whose components I^au(x) are curvilinear functions encoding the inertial accelerations, Coriolis, centrifugal forces on local detectors in non-geodesic motion in the fully warped spacetime. These inertial forces are the g-forces that are locally equivalent to the Newtonian "gravity forces" on the centers of mass of extended test objects. Warp drive eliminates all non-tensor g-forces on the center of mass coordinates. Curvature and torsion forces on the relative coordinates of extended objects are still there because they are T4(x) GCT tensors. They must be kept small.

The Ricci rotation coefficients w^abc(x) are also there in the Cp from the R^a^b term. There are also kinetic energy density terms from the d operator, i.e. gradient terms in A^a, I^a & w^abc(x).

d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)/\e^c + w^a^bcde^c

d(w^a^bc) = w^a^bc,udx^u

T^a(P10) = D(P10)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(P10)/\e^c = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c

because

T^a(T4) = D(T4)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(T4)/\e^c = 0

w^a^bc(P10) = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)

So we want to substitute

T^a(P10) = w^abc(SO(1,3))e^b/\e^c

into

*(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

to see how the torsion field 2-form T^a(P10) couples to Einstein's curvature 2-form R^a^b(T4)

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

= R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + Curvature-Torsion Field Cross-Terms

Note that torsion dislocation fields by themselves also induce curvature disclination fields, but NOT vice versa!

This has caused confusion in the literature over the physical meaning of Utiyama's 1956 paper where he only locally gauges the Lorentz group and sticks in Einstein's GCTs by hand ad-hoc - corrected by Kibble in 1961.

On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Grand Illusion, The New Paradigm

Quantum Gravity for Dummies

The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

G(x) --> T4(x) is 1916 GR

G(x) --> P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR

G(x) --> Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory?

G(x) --> GL(4,R)

G(x) --> GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors?

G(x) --> GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions

My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong?

World Holography eq.

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form

A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across.

Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters).

s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval.

Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent

All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa

F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c

DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws

D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws

D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities

Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa

Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is

T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c

= d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that

w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3)

and

T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

to be continued

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)/\e^c + w^a^bcde^c

R^a^b = d(w^a^bc)/\e^c + w^a^bcde^c + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

T^a(P10) = w^abc(SO(1,3))e^b/\e^c = w^abc(SO(1,3))(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b)/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that the torsion field 2-form does not depend upon F^a = DA^a.

G. Shipov's "teleparallel" theory I think means

R^a^b(P10) = 0

Where

R^a^b(P10) = R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + curvature-torsion couplings

R^a^b(T4) is Einstein's 1916 torsion-free disclination curvature

R^a^b(SO(1,3) is Utiyama's 1956 torsion-gap dislocation defect induction of disclination curvature defects in the geometrodynamic monopole nodes of the Kleinert "world crystal lattice".

w^aa'c(T4)e^a'/\w^c^b'(SO(1,3)]ce^b'+ w^aa'c(SO(1,3)]e^a'/\w^c^bb'(T4)e^b'

Are the curvature-torsion coupling cross terms.

However, I see no compelling physical reason to make the restrictive choice

R^a^b(P10) = 0

R^a^b(P10) = D[w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)]e^c

= d([w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)]e^c)

+ [w^aa'c(T4) + w^aa'c(SO(1,3)]e^a'/\[w^c^bb'(T4) + w^c^b'(SO(1,3)]ce^b'

= R^a^b(T4) + R^ab(SO(1,3) + w^aa'c(T4)e^a'/\w^c^b'(SO(1,3)]ce^b'+ w^aa'c(SO(1,3)]e^a'/\w^c^bb'(T4)e^b'

Math typo corrected draft 2

On Jul 29, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

John A Wheeler coined

"Mass without mass"

"Charge without charge"

"Spin without spin."

"Law without law."

in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below.

World Hologram is "Space without space" (my term for the record)

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

The Ricci rotation coefficients (like Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetries) are local functions so that dw^a^bc =/= 0 - use product rule.

We see that the spin 1 effective Yang-Mills potential does not have terms higher than quartic in the intrinsic spin 1 warp fields A^a. Therefore, the quantum field theory is renormalizable using the Veltman-t'Hooft analysis. See Sidney Coleman's Erice Lectures.

The effective warp field potential in the Lagrangian density has the form

*{C3/\A^a + C2/\A^a/\A^b + C1/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c + C0/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c/\A^d}

Where Cp are p-forms from the Minkowski global tetrads I^a whose components I^au(x) are curvilinear functions encoding the inertial accelerations, Coriolis, centrifugal forces on local detectors in non-geodesic motion in the fully warped spacetime. These inertial forces are the g-forces that are locally equivalent to the Newtonian "gravity forces" on the centers of mass of extended test objects. Warp drive eliminates all non-tensor g-forces on the center of mass coordinates. Curvature and torsion forces on the relative coordinates of extended objects are still there because they are T4(x) GCT tensors. They must be kept small.

The Ricci rotation coefficients w^abc(x) are also there in the Cp from the R^a^b term. There are also kinetic energy density terms from the d operator, i.e. gradient terms in A^a, I^a & w^abc(x).

d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)/\e^c + w^a^bcde^c

d(w^a^bc) = w^a^bc,udx^u

T^a(P10) = D(P10)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(P10)/\e^c = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c

because

T^a(T4) = D(T4)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(T4)/\e^c = 0

w^a^bc(P10) = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)

So we want to substitute

T^a(P10) = w^abc(SO(1,3))e^b/\e^c

into

*(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

to see how the torsion field 2-form T^a(P10) couples to Einstein's curvature 2-form R^a^b(T4)

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

= R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + Curvature-Torsion Field Cross-Terms

Note that torsion dislocation fields by themselves also induce curvature disclination fields, but NOT vice versa!

This has caused confusion in the literature over the physical meaning of Utiyama's 1956 paper where he only locally gauges the Lorentz group and sticks in Einstein's GCTs by hand ad-hoc - corrected by Kibble in 1961.

On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Grand Illusion, The New Paradigm

Quantum Gravity for Dummies

The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

G(x) --> T4(x) is 1916 GR

G(x) --> P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR

G(x) --> Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory?

G(x) --> GL(4,R)

G(x) --> GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors?

G(x) --> GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions

My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong?

World Holography eq.

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form

A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across.

Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters).

s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval.

Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent

All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa

F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c

DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws

D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws

D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities

Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa

Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is

T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c

= d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that

w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3)

and

T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

to be continued

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

World Hologram: Space without space

John A Wheeler coined

"Mass without mass"

"Charge without charge"

"Spin without spin."

"Law without law."

in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below.

World Hologram is "Space without space" (my term for the record)

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

The Ricci rotation coefficients (like Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetries) are local functions so that dw^a^bc =/= 0 - use product rule.

We see that the spin 1 effective Yang-Mills potential does not have terms higher than quartic in the intrinsic spin 1 warp fields A^a. Therefore, the quantum field theory is renormalizable using the Veltman-t'Hooft analysis. See Sidney Coleman's Erice Lectures.

The effective warp field potential in the Lagrangian density has the form

*{C3/\A^a + C2/\A^a/\A^b + C1/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c + C0/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c/\A^d}

Where Cp are p-forms from the Minkowski global tetrads I^a whose components I^au(x) are curvilinear functions encoding the inertial accelerations, Coriolis, centrifugal forces on local detectors in non-geodesic motion in the fully warped spacetime. These inertial forces are the g-forces that are locally equivalent to the Newtonian "gravity forces" on the centers of mass of extended test objects. Warp drive eliminates all non-tensor g-forces on the center of mass coordinates. Curvature and torsion forces on the relative coordinates of extended objects are still there because they are T4(x) GCT tensors. They must be kept small.

The Ricci rotation coefficients w^abc(x) are also there in the Cp from the R^a^b term. There are also kinetic energy density terms from the d operator, i.e. gradient terms in A^a, I^a & w^abc(x).

d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)e^c + w^a^bcde^c

d(w^a^bc) = w^a^bc,udx^u

T^a(P10) = D(P10)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(P10)/\e^c = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c

because

T^a(T4) = D(T4)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(T4)/\e^c = 0

w^a^bc(P10) = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)

So we want to substitute

T^a(P10) = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c

into

*(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

to see how the torsion field 2-form T^a(P10) couples to Einstein's curvature 2-form R^a^b(T4)

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

= R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + Curvature-Torsion Field Cross-Terms

Note that torsion dislocation fields by themselves also induce curvature disclination fields, but NOT vice versa!

This has caused confusion in the literature over the physical meaning of Utiyama's 1956 paper where he only locally gauges the Lorentz group and sticks in Einstein's GCTs by hand ad-hoc - corrected by Kibble in 1961.

On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Grand Illusion, The New Paradigm

Quantum Gravity for Dummies

The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

G(x) --> T4(x) is 1916 GR

G(x) --> P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR

G(x) --> Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory?

G(x) --> GL(4,R)

G(x) --> GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors?

G(x) --> GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions

My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong?

World Holography eq.

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form

A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across.

Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters).

s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval.

Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent

All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa

F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c

DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws

D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws

D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities

Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa

Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is

T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c

= d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that

w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3)

and

T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

to be continued

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

John A Wheeler coined

"Mass without mass"

"Charge without charge"

"Spin without spin."

"Law without law."

in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below.

World Hologram is "Space without space" (my term for the record)

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

The Ricci rotation coefficients (like Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetries) are local functions so that dw^a^bc =/= 0 - use product rule.

We see that the spin 1 effective Yang-Mills potential does not have terms higher than quartic in the intrinsic spin 1 warp fields A^a. Therefore, the quantum field theory is renormalizable using the Veltman-t'Hooft analysis. See Sidney Coleman's Erice Lectures.

The effective warp field potential in the Lagrangian density has the form

*{C3/\A^a + C2/\A^a/\A^b + C1/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c + C0/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c/\A^d}

Where Cp are p-forms from the Minkowski global tetrads I^a whose components I^au(x) are curvilinear functions encoding the inertial accelerations, Coriolis, centrifugal forces on local detectors in non-geodesic motion in the fully warped spacetime. These inertial forces are the g-forces that are locally equivalent to the Newtonian "gravity forces" on the centers of mass of extended test objects. Warp drive eliminates all non-tensor g-forces on the center of mass coordinates. Curvature and torsion forces on the relative coordinates of extended objects are still there because they are T4(x) GCT tensors. They must be kept small.

The Ricci rotation coefficients w^abc(x) are also there in the Cp from the R^a^b term. There are also kinetic energy density terms from the d operator, i.e. gradient terms in A^a, I^a & w^abc(x).

d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)e^c + w^a^bcde^c

d(w^a^bc) = w^a^bc,udx^u

T^a(P10) = D(P10)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(P10)/\e^c = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c

because

T^a(T4) = D(T4)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(T4)/\e^c = 0

w^a^bc(P10) = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3)

So we want to substitute

T^a(P10) = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c

into

*(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

to see how the torsion field 2-form T^a(P10) couples to Einstein's curvature 2-form R^a^b(T4)

R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b'

= R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + Curvature-Torsion Field Cross-Terms

Note that torsion dislocation fields by themselves also induce curvature disclination fields, but NOT vice versa!

This has caused confusion in the literature over the physical meaning of Utiyama's 1956 paper where he only locally gauges the Lorentz group and sticks in Einstein's GCTs by hand ad-hoc - corrected by Kibble in 1961.

On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The Grand Illusion, The New Paradigm

Quantum Gravity for Dummies

The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

G(x) --> T4(x) is 1916 GR

G(x) --> P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR

G(x) --> Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory?

G(x) --> GL(4,R)

G(x) --> GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors?

G(x) --> GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions

My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong?

World Holography eq.

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form

A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across.

Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters).

s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval.

Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent

All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa

F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c

DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws

D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws

D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities

Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa

Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is

T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c

= d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that

w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3)

and

T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

to be continued

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

## Saturday, July 28, 2007

The Grand Illusion, The New Paradigm Quantum Gravity for Dummies

http://www.kmelmidimusic.com/sinatra/u_gotomy.mid

"You go to my head and you linger like a haunting refrain And I find you spinning 'round in my brain Like the bubbles in a glass of champagne You go to my head like a sip of sparkling Burgundy brew And I find the very mention of you Like the kicker in a julep or two

The thrill of the thought that you might give a thought to my plea Cast a spell over me Still I say to myself get a hold of yourself Can't you see that it never can be

You go to my head with a smile that makes my temperature rise Like a summer with a thousand Julys You intoxicate my soul with your eyes Though I'm certain that this heart of mine Hasn't a ghost of a chance in this crazy romance You go to my head

The thrill of the thought that you might give a thought to my plea Cast a spell over me Still I say to myself get a hold of yourself Can't you see that it never can be

You go to my head with a smile that makes my temperature rise Like a summer with a thousand Julys You intoxicate my soul with your eyes Though I'm certain that this heart of mine Hasn't a ghost of a chance in this crazy romance You go to my head You go to my head You go to my head."

J. Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie. Written in 1938, recorded by Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra in "Nice and Easy"

The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

G(x) --> T4(x) is 1916 GR

G(x) --> P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR

G(x) --> Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory?

G(x) --> GL(4,R)

G(x) --> GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors?

G(x) --> GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions

My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong?

World Holography eq.

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form

A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across.

Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters).

s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval.

Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent

All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa

F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c

DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws

D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws

D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities

Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa

Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is

T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c

= d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that

w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3)

and

T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

to be continued

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

http://www.kmelmidimusic.com/sinatra/u_gotomy.mid

"You go to my head and you linger like a haunting refrain And I find you spinning 'round in my brain Like the bubbles in a glass of champagne You go to my head like a sip of sparkling Burgundy brew And I find the very mention of you Like the kicker in a julep or two

The thrill of the thought that you might give a thought to my plea Cast a spell over me Still I say to myself get a hold of yourself Can't you see that it never can be

You go to my head with a smile that makes my temperature rise Like a summer with a thousand Julys You intoxicate my soul with your eyes Though I'm certain that this heart of mine Hasn't a ghost of a chance in this crazy romance You go to my head

The thrill of the thought that you might give a thought to my plea Cast a spell over me Still I say to myself get a hold of yourself Can't you see that it never can be

You go to my head with a smile that makes my temperature rise Like a summer with a thousand Julys You intoxicate my soul with your eyes Though I'm certain that this heart of mine Hasn't a ghost of a chance in this crazy romance You go to my head You go to my head You go to my head."

J. Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie. Written in 1938, recorded by Billie Holiday, Frank Sinatra in "Nice and Easy"

The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

G(x) --> T4(x) is 1916 GR

G(x) --> P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR

G(x) --> Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory?

G(x) --> GL(4,R)

G(x) --> GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors?

G(x) --> GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions

My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong?

World Holography eq.

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form

A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across.

Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters).

s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval.

Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent

All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa

F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c

DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws

D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws

D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities

Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa

Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is

T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c

= d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c)

Note that

w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3)

and

T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR

R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb

S^a^b = w^a^bce^c

to be continued

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

Warp Drive and Torsion Fields

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I think I see the story now...

First:----------------------

I asked:

2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something

like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions,

but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.)

You answered:

>Don't know.

Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed

to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable)

would be possible, in alternatives to GR.

Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive.

P10 here is localized Poincare group

In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation

Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e.

R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form

D(T4)R^a^b = 0

implies

Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant

But in Einstein-Cartan theory

R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10)

D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0

D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3)

S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b

R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b)

So we now have all these extra terms!

D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence

Lambda^,v need no longer vanish.

Second ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that

SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination.

But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with,

we don't yet have empirical evidence.

First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so.

Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for

warp drive, we do not know which alternative model

we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind

of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system"

at Las Vegas.

You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations.

Third ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is warp drive possible at all?

In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for

the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly

do not KNOW, one way or another.

First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says

"From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory)

You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible.

You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5351/671?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Bainbridge&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work.

HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible,

Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee.

and we DO know

something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)...

You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy".

it is rational

to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical

knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders

of old things that do not address the real issues here.

Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it.

I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few

people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics.

S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl.

If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance

of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here.

Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of

the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now

reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in

the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example --

is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until

an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it,

to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists

of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress;

yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms.

Eric Davis would disagree with the above.

What do you mean?

He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works

(though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people),

Such as?

AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory.

But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work.

What connections? References?

At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate.

I don't think so.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

## Friday, July 27, 2007

On Jul 27, 2007, at 4:30 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 10:37 PM 7/26/2007, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Jack: My theory is formally same as GR, but with a larger connection field including the antisymmetric 3rd rank GCT torsion tensor field in addition to the symmetric non-tensor curvature (disclination) only Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor fields along paths - at the spin 2 geometrodynamic field level bilinear in the spin 1 Yang-Mills tetrad/spin connection fields that emerge from modulations in the macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO coherence. The dimensionless world hologram coupling (Lp^2/\)^1/3 = (1/N)^1/3 (N = Bekenstein BITs) of the spin 1 Yang-Mills A^a tetrad field to flat spacetime makes the pure gravity torsion field renormalizable in its quantum fluctuations. The dimensional coupling hc/Lp^2 of the pure gravity-torsion field to matter fields is still there of course.

Paul: It sounds as if it should be possible to phrase this in a way which permits the kind of self-contained discussion that might help.....

Jack: Well I gave the equations in the last message, but the modes of thinking are not familiar to a majority of physicists who do not know "soft condensed matter" techniques as developed mainly by P.W. Anderson at Princeton and the topology/homotopy methods of David Thouless, the French School for defects in ordered media and also the use of Cartan exterior forms - a very powerful compact notation that is frame independent and gets to the core of general relativity and field theory easily.

Paul: For those who are open-minded, a new paper that basically starts from GR and equations 1.11 as a variant, spells out all the definitions and spaces of the objects, and then briefly reviews what many do not know... to make it self-contained except for the citations...

and then concludes with listing in linear fashion how one tests the differences with GR... might be helpful. (In my own special case, I really do like to see a simple comparison of the two Lagrangians, before and after.)

Jack: The basic Lagrangians of curvature and torsion have been known for a long time - lots of papers starting with Kibble 1961 - different choices are possible some allow propagating torsion others not. Look at Hehl, Hammond. No one however has my equations

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a split of Einstein-Cartan 1-form

N = (Lp^2/\zpf)^-1

A^a = M^a^a intrinsic warp field is diagonal part of the M-Matrix of the world hologram from the cohering of the false vacuum in the moment of inflation triggered from the future dark energy deSitter horizon of the observer-dependent "causal diamond", the Omega Point in a globally consistent Novikov loop in time with advanced Wheeler-Feynman signals lowering the entropy of the early universe.

Torsion field spin connection

S^a^b = - S^b^a = M^[a,b] antisymmetric off-diagonal elements of the M-Matrix

M^a^b =dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b

{Theta^a} = Minkowski 4-vector of magnitude Theta of coherent Goldstone phase 0-forms

{Phi^b} = Minkowski 4-vector of magnitude Phi of coherent Goldstone phase 0-forms

Theta & Phi are the world hologram coherent phases, their singularities are the geometrodynamic monopole nodes of the world crystal lattice whose disclination defects are curvature fields and whose dislocation defects are torsion fields (e.g. H. Kleinert).

However, the above deep structure of the tensor substratum do not make any difference at the classical level where one simply works with e^a. It will make a difference for issues of quantum gravity fluctuations.

My equations are conceptually important in same way as Einstein compared to Newton. Einstein corrections to Newton are for the most part very small - but a huge conceptual difference.

Paul: It might also be helpful if any discussions of superstring theory and of UFOs could be segregated into a very separate section, to avoid confusion, particularly for those who would find those discussions distracting. (In my own papers I try such segregration as well... it works for open-minded and honest people, if only there were more of them...)

Jack: I think the math I gave is quite clear and self-contained. No mention of "UFO" anywhere in

http://qedcorp.com/APS/STAIF2008Sarfattiv8.pdf

The extra 6 dimensions are obviously there sticking out like a sore thumb - Elephant in the Room - no I will not ignore them. You do not see really the whole picture.

A^a = M^a^a

requires extra 6D no escaping it.

Also it's intuitively obvious that curvature is like a closed string and torsion GAP is like a broken open string. Hence the leptons and quarks come from the extra 6D of the torsion fields ultimately. Compactifying them makes them into internal symmetry groups. So that part is good.

i.e. locally gauge 10 parameter Poincare group,

10 = 4 + 6

One dimension for each element of Lie algebra is needed.

Supersymmetry is going to quaternian manifold instead of real manifold.

The two magnitudes of the 2 Minkowski 4-vectors of Goldstone phase 0-forms of the post-inflation vacuum ODLRO field define the hologram of 3D space volume without volume in lattice of geometrodynamical monopole defects of the 3 real Higgs fields in the 3D sector of 9D slices of 9D + 1 space-time. The remaining 6 independent Goldstone phases are the coordinates of Calabi-Yau space.

These are new conceptual connections that no one still inside Plato's Cave as it were has seen before me - not even Witten.

Two great ideas behind it all are battle-tested

1) Local gauging of rigid symmetries of field actions

2) Hidden symmetry (Higgs mechanism) (ODLRO in vacuum)

applied to rigid Poincare group of 1905 special relativity

using technique of Cartan forms

That's All Folks.

## Thursday, July 26, 2007

Retro-Causality, World Hologram, Quantum Gravity

On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 02:34 PM 7/26/2007, Srikanth R wrote:

Hi,

Shih has performed many beautiful experiments exploring various aspects of entangled photons: two-particle interference/diffraction, quantum lithography, quantum teleportation, an entangled version of the delayed choice experiment using the quantum eraser principle, violation of Bell-type inequalities, etc.

Among Shih's work, the work i find to be closest the question of nonlocal signaling being actually addressed is his experiment to test Popper's experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper's_experiment

published in Foundations of Physics.

Hi, Srik!

That is interesting, more interesting than what I have heard (second hand) about the Cramer stuff.

In fact -- when Yanhua and I realized that the quantum delay eraser work WOULDN'T

lead to backwards time transfer of real information, and would not be a decisive test of the backwards time

theory of quantum mechanics, my next step was to lay out a plan to use a modified version

of the Popper experiment to do that. Our correspondence on that is posted at

www.werbos.com/reality.com... along with a unified model of physics that would

translate the backwards-time theory into a whole new testable axiomatic formulation.

Stapp even Bohm argue that no nonlocal signals within the assumptions of micro-quantum theory is possible in principle. One consequence is the no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state - though imperfect cloning is possible. No signal is used as a bound on what happens with imperfect cloning - this is a bit dubious. See papers by Hep mentioned in Retrocausality AAAS USD June 2006 - Cramer attended.

Micro-quantum theory means

1) linearity of the quantum operators

2) unitarity of the time evolution sans measurement (e.g. unitary scattering matrix) for closed not open systems.

3) NO ODLRO - latter is completely neglected in all treatments I know of i.e. Stapp, Bohm & Hiley (Undivided Universe)

So my claim is MACRO-quantum theory is a new set of rules

Schrodinger equation of micro-quantum theory shares stage with ODLRO (ground state/vacuum) Landau-Ginzburg order parameter condensate eqs - the two are coupled!

micro-Schrodinger eq is linear, unitary, nonlocal entanglements

MACRO-Landau-Ginzburg eq is nonlinear, non-unitary and local suppressing EPR entanglements and collapsing micro-quantum phase space (lowering entropy).

So it's a whole new ball game and experiments (Libet, Radin, Bierman) on living matter, i.e. ODLRO non-equilibrium suggest retrocausality as does the low entropy of the early universe.

See also papers by A Valentini showing how nonlocal signals happen in sub-quantal non-equilibrium beyond orthodox micro-quantum theory's set of axioms.

(The Lagrangian I propose now just uses GR for the gravity part, but it is CONCEIVABLE that

equations 1.11 of Jack's latest paper might yield an alternative testable model

within the same general framework.)

My theory is formally same as GR, but with a larger connection field including the antisymmetric 3rd rank GCT torsion tensor field in addition to the symmetric non-tensor curvature (disclination) only Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor fields along paths - at the spin 2 geometrodynamic field level bilinear in the spin 1 Yang-Mills tetrad/spin connection fields that emerge from modulations in the macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO coherence. The dimensionless world hologram coupling (Lp^2/\)^1/3 = (1/N)^1/3 (N = Bekenstein BITs) of the spin 1 Yang-Mills A^a tetrad field to flat spacetime makes the pure gravity torsion field renormalizable in its quantum fluctuations. The dimensional coupling hc/Lp^2 of the pure gravity-torsion field to matter fields is still there of course.

The basic equations are

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a are the tetrads for globally flat Minkowski space-time without any gravity field (curvature disclination closed strings) and any torsion field ("gap" in infinitesimal loops i.e. open strings - dislocation defects).

curvature-torsion coupling breaks closed strings into open strings & vice versa.

A^a are the warped Yang-Mills spin 1 tetrad field 1-forms

A^a = M^a^a

M^a^b is the M-Matrix

M^a^b = dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b

Theta^a, Phi^b are the 8 Goldstone phase 0-forms of the vacuum ODLRO post-inflation field.

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

N = surrounding surface area/number of hedgehog point gravity monopole defects in the 3 real Higgs fields of 3D + 1 spacetime projection of 9D + 1 spacetime.

Area of surrounding surface is ~ NLp^2

L ~ N^1/2Lp

quantum gravity length fluctuation is ~ (Lp^2L)^1/3 = LpN^1/6

Resolution scale-dependent Geometrodynamix Volume Quantum of a single quantum foam bubble inside the finite surrounding surface is &V ~ Lp^3N^1/2

Volume without volume V interior to surrounding surface is

V ~ (NLp^2)3/2

V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N

The center of each &V quantum gravity foam bubble is a node in the 3 real Higgs fields where the 2 Goldstone phases are undefined. This is the gravity monopole - like a simple pole in complex function residue theorem.

Basic covariant exterior derivative is

D = d + S/\

S is the spin-connection 1-form

S^a^b = M^[a,b]

e.g. the torsion field 2-form is

T^a = De^a = de^a + S^ab/\e^b

where S^ab = w^abce^c

w^abc = Ricci-rotation coefficients

Therefore, the localized space-time Poincare symmetry group geometrodynamic spin connection covariant derivative has same form as the internal Yang-Mills spin covariant exterior derivative

De^a = de^a + w^abce^c/\e^b

where w^abc are analogous to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills Lie algebra structure constants

Einstein's basic formula is

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

The covariant "Maxwell" torsion gap dislocation defect field equations are

T^a = De^a

DT^a = 0

D*T^a = *J^a

* = Hodge dual

*J^a = torsion matter field current density 3-form

D*J^a = 0 local torsion matter field current density conservation law

The curvature disclination 2-form is

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

where remember

S^ab = w^abce^c

The pure gravity torsion field action density 0-form is

L ~ *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + /\zpfe^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

In the end, however, I feel more confidence that we can get decisive results

using a new chip, which can make the effects much larger.

But... hey, if you really have decisive Popper-based results, that's (1) plausible;

and (2) incredibly important if it does the real thing.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

(Regarding Pedersen's proposal, i am trying to figure out a painless way of opening his .doc line on a linux system!)

Best regards,

Srik.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yeah, I am swamped also but will look, the two authors write very well however. They are no dummies.

On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 07:12 PM 7/25/2007, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Comments? He means, I would suppose, sending a signal backwards in time from present to past like in Greg's "Timescape" though not so far back of course. I am not endorsing the message have not yet looked at the details.

Begin forwarded message:

Don't have time to study his paper -- but it (and Cramer's thing) sound a LOT like an experiment Yanhua Shih already did several years ago,

as a follow-up to the quantum delay eraser work he had published in Phys Rev Letters in the first

issue (Jan 4?) of the year 2000.

Shih also did a very long delay experiment. The award, which I funded, was called "backwards time

quantum teleportation."

But Shih and I had a major handicap here, vis-a-vis the unusual culture. We understood

what we were doing. We could see quite clearly, through mathematical analysis,

that this really wasn't the kind of system that can carry information backwards through time, any more

than Bell's experiments can do it FTL in space. It is quite understandable

that one might EXPECT it to be able to do so... Like Bell's Theorem

experiments it sounds that way... and I can remember my own disappointment years

ago when I realized the same about the Bell experiments. (Fortunately not in

a way that was publicly embarrassing...).

I do believe there is a way to get around the limitations here, by taking a completely

different approach -- but I doubt that the establishment would tolerate the experiment

being done. The high priests are simply too rigid.

I did inform Cramer of Yanhua's experiment, in an email, before he started talking about

doing... whatever. I don't see any sign of him exploring an alternate approach.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

P.S. Jack -- wouldn't it be more useful for everyone to hear answers to my simple-minded questions about

your equations 1.11? (And some may be intelligible in ASCII, some not.)

What question? Also make sure it's same equation as the numbering may have changed.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/STAIF2008Sarfattiv8.pdf

After discussion with Murad & Robertson the actual paper will be much shorter focusing only on the zero g-force propulsion part of the paper since it's for engineers who do not know theoretical physics at the required level and I am covering too much ground in too short a space for such a short talk.

From: "Keith Pedersen"

Date: July 25, 2007 11:54:42 AM PDT

To: lensman@stardrive.org, sarfatti@well.com

Subject: Retrocausality proven?

Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

My name is Keith Pedersen. I have recently finished a computer

simulation of a long delay quantum eraser experiment testing

retrocausality without coincidence counters. The results show that for

a two bit message and an idler storage time of four bit periods, there

is only a 6% error rate at 549 entangled photons per bit (bit size @

549). My experiment is similar to Cramer's except that I am using a

Mach-Zehnder interferometer instead of the modified Dopfer. I would

appreciate it if you could look over my paper (skip to sections 9 and

10). You can also run the simulation yourself; please note that

sometimes it takes a while for the program to simulate in between

prompts, especially @ 1024 scans.

I hope that, based on the results of the simulation, it should

encourage somebody to perform the experiment in real life. I am

actually an undergraduate seeking a graduate school. I hope to hear

from you.

Yours truly,

Keith Pedersen

On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 02:34 PM 7/26/2007, Srikanth R wrote:

Hi,

Shih has performed many beautiful experiments exploring various aspects of entangled photons: two-particle interference/diffraction, quantum lithography, quantum teleportation, an entangled version of the delayed choice experiment using the quantum eraser principle, violation of Bell-type inequalities, etc.

Among Shih's work, the work i find to be closest the question of nonlocal signaling being actually addressed is his experiment to test Popper's experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper's_experiment

published in Foundations of Physics.

Hi, Srik!

That is interesting, more interesting than what I have heard (second hand) about the Cramer stuff.

In fact -- when Yanhua and I realized that the quantum delay eraser work WOULDN'T

lead to backwards time transfer of real information, and would not be a decisive test of the backwards time

theory of quantum mechanics, my next step was to lay out a plan to use a modified version

of the Popper experiment to do that. Our correspondence on that is posted at

www.werbos.com/reality.com... along with a unified model of physics that would

translate the backwards-time theory into a whole new testable axiomatic formulation.

Stapp even Bohm argue that no nonlocal signals within the assumptions of micro-quantum theory is possible in principle. One consequence is the no perfect cloning of an unknown quantum state - though imperfect cloning is possible. No signal is used as a bound on what happens with imperfect cloning - this is a bit dubious. See papers by Hep mentioned in Retrocausality AAAS USD June 2006 - Cramer attended.

Micro-quantum theory means

1) linearity of the quantum operators

2) unitarity of the time evolution sans measurement (e.g. unitary scattering matrix) for closed not open systems.

3) NO ODLRO - latter is completely neglected in all treatments I know of i.e. Stapp, Bohm & Hiley (Undivided Universe)

So my claim is MACRO-quantum theory is a new set of rules

Schrodinger equation of micro-quantum theory shares stage with ODLRO (ground state/vacuum) Landau-Ginzburg order parameter condensate eqs - the two are coupled!

micro-Schrodinger eq is linear, unitary, nonlocal entanglements

MACRO-Landau-Ginzburg eq is nonlinear, non-unitary and local suppressing EPR entanglements and collapsing micro-quantum phase space (lowering entropy).

So it's a whole new ball game and experiments (Libet, Radin, Bierman) on living matter, i.e. ODLRO non-equilibrium suggest retrocausality as does the low entropy of the early universe.

See also papers by A Valentini showing how nonlocal signals happen in sub-quantal non-equilibrium beyond orthodox micro-quantum theory's set of axioms.

(The Lagrangian I propose now just uses GR for the gravity part, but it is CONCEIVABLE that

equations 1.11 of Jack's latest paper might yield an alternative testable model

within the same general framework.)

My theory is formally same as GR, but with a larger connection field including the antisymmetric 3rd rank GCT torsion tensor field in addition to the symmetric non-tensor curvature (disclination) only Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor fields along paths - at the spin 2 geometrodynamic field level bilinear in the spin 1 Yang-Mills tetrad/spin connection fields that emerge from modulations in the macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO coherence. The dimensionless world hologram coupling (Lp^2/\)^1/3 = (1/N)^1/3 (N = Bekenstein BITs) of the spin 1 Yang-Mills A^a tetrad field to flat spacetime makes the pure gravity torsion field renormalizable in its quantum fluctuations. The dimensional coupling hc/Lp^2 of the pure gravity-torsion field to matter fields is still there of course.

The basic equations are

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a are the tetrads for globally flat Minkowski space-time without any gravity field (curvature disclination closed strings) and any torsion field ("gap" in infinitesimal loops i.e. open strings - dislocation defects).

curvature-torsion coupling breaks closed strings into open strings & vice versa.

A^a are the warped Yang-Mills spin 1 tetrad field 1-forms

A^a = M^a^a

M^a^b is the M-Matrix

M^a^b = dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b

Theta^a, Phi^b are the 8 Goldstone phase 0-forms of the vacuum ODLRO post-inflation field.

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

N = surrounding surface area/number of hedgehog point gravity monopole defects in the 3 real Higgs fields of 3D + 1 spacetime projection of 9D + 1 spacetime.

Area of surrounding surface is ~ NLp^2

L ~ N^1/2Lp

quantum gravity length fluctuation is ~ (Lp^2L)^1/3 = LpN^1/6

Resolution scale-dependent Geometrodynamix Volume Quantum of a single quantum foam bubble inside the finite surrounding surface is &V ~ Lp^3N^1/2

Volume without volume V interior to surrounding surface is

V ~ (NLp^2)3/2

V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N

The center of each &V quantum gravity foam bubble is a node in the 3 real Higgs fields where the 2 Goldstone phases are undefined. This is the gravity monopole - like a simple pole in complex function residue theorem.

Basic covariant exterior derivative is

D = d + S/\

S is the spin-connection 1-form

S^a^b = M^[a,b]

e.g. the torsion field 2-form is

T^a = De^a = de^a + S^ab/\e^b

where S^ab = w^abce^c

w^abc = Ricci-rotation coefficients

Therefore, the localized space-time Poincare symmetry group geometrodynamic spin connection covariant derivative has same form as the internal Yang-Mills spin covariant exterior derivative

De^a = de^a + w^abce^c/\e^b

where w^abc are analogous to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills Lie algebra structure constants

Einstein's basic formula is

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

The covariant "Maxwell" torsion gap dislocation defect field equations are

T^a = De^a

DT^a = 0

D*T^a = *J^a

* = Hodge dual

*J^a = torsion matter field current density 3-form

D*J^a = 0 local torsion matter field current density conservation law

The curvature disclination 2-form is

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

where remember

S^ab = w^abce^c

The pure gravity torsion field action density 0-form is

L ~ *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + /\zpfe^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d)

In the end, however, I feel more confidence that we can get decisive results

using a new chip, which can make the effects much larger.

But... hey, if you really have decisive Popper-based results, that's (1) plausible;

and (2) incredibly important if it does the real thing.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

(Regarding Pedersen's proposal, i am trying to figure out a painless way of opening his .doc line on a linux system!)

Best regards,

Srik.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yeah, I am swamped also but will look, the two authors write very well however. They are no dummies.

On Jul 26, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 07:12 PM 7/25/2007, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Comments? He means, I would suppose, sending a signal backwards in time from present to past like in Greg's "Timescape" though not so far back of course. I am not endorsing the message have not yet looked at the details.

Begin forwarded message:

Don't have time to study his paper -- but it (and Cramer's thing) sound a LOT like an experiment Yanhua Shih already did several years ago,

as a follow-up to the quantum delay eraser work he had published in Phys Rev Letters in the first

issue (Jan 4?) of the year 2000.

Shih also did a very long delay experiment. The award, which I funded, was called "backwards time

quantum teleportation."

But Shih and I had a major handicap here, vis-a-vis the unusual culture. We understood

what we were doing. We could see quite clearly, through mathematical analysis,

that this really wasn't the kind of system that can carry information backwards through time, any more

than Bell's experiments can do it FTL in space. It is quite understandable

that one might EXPECT it to be able to do so... Like Bell's Theorem

experiments it sounds that way... and I can remember my own disappointment years

ago when I realized the same about the Bell experiments. (Fortunately not in

a way that was publicly embarrassing...).

I do believe there is a way to get around the limitations here, by taking a completely

different approach -- but I doubt that the establishment would tolerate the experiment

being done. The high priests are simply too rigid.

I did inform Cramer of Yanhua's experiment, in an email, before he started talking about

doing... whatever. I don't see any sign of him exploring an alternate approach.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

P.S. Jack -- wouldn't it be more useful for everyone to hear answers to my simple-minded questions about

your equations 1.11? (And some may be intelligible in ASCII, some not.)

What question? Also make sure it's same equation as the numbering may have changed.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/STAIF2008Sarfattiv8.pdf

After discussion with Murad & Robertson the actual paper will be much shorter focusing only on the zero g-force propulsion part of the paper since it's for engineers who do not know theoretical physics at the required level and I am covering too much ground in too short a space for such a short talk.

From: "Keith Pedersen"

Date: July 25, 2007 11:54:42 AM PDT

To: lensman@stardrive.org, sarfatti@well.com

Subject: Retrocausality proven?

Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

My name is Keith Pedersen. I have recently finished a computer

simulation of a long delay quantum eraser experiment testing

retrocausality without coincidence counters. The results show that for

a two bit message and an idler storage time of four bit periods, there

is only a 6% error rate at 549 entangled photons per bit (bit size @

549). My experiment is similar to Cramer's except that I am using a

Mach-Zehnder interferometer instead of the modified Dopfer. I would

appreciate it if you could look over my paper (skip to sections 9 and

10). You can also run the simulation yourself; please note that

sometimes it takes a while for the program to simulate in between

prompts, especially @ 1024 scans.

I hope that, based on the results of the simulation, it should

encourage somebody to perform the experiment in real life. I am

actually an undergraduate seeking a graduate school. I hope to hear

from you.

Yours truly,

Keith Pedersen

Labels:
Quantum Gravity,
Retro-Causality,
World Holography

## Monday, July 16, 2007

Hal missed his chance to cite The Son of God to me: "Let He who is without Sin cast the first stone." ;-)

A possible problem with my theory dawned on me at the gym just now, undoubtedly from increased blood circulation to my brain?

Note below 2nd draft in which I correct the 10^-22 error that should be 10^+22 and also some spacing errors in the excerpt from Ng's paper done in the Acrobat transformation from pdf to editable text. It's easier to read now.

I have to watch out that I also do not get numbers for the ZPE density that are much too large in ordinary space just like Hal does.

The induced gravity effect of this ZPE from Einstein's GR is approximately from

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

limits to radial Poisson equation

d^2U/dr^2 ~ c^2/\zpf

U = ZPE induced gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

Note if /\zpf ~ constant

U ~ (1/2)c^2/\zpfr^2

3D harmonic oscillator.

for 1 cm scale

U ~ 10^21 r^2 ergs/gram

"g-acceleration" ~ - dU/dr ~ 10^21 r cm/sec^2

Much too big.

Yet on cosmic scale the formula does work.

(hc/Lp^2)(Hubble Radius)^-2 ~ 10^-122(hc/Lp^4)

i.e. 10^28/10^-33 ~ 10^61 whose square is 10^122

Note that hc/Lp4 ~ 10^-17 10^132 ~ 10^115 ergs/cc

10^-122 10^115 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc

Note for comparison that the energy density of water in these units is 10^21 ergs/cc.

Note that on the scale of 1 cm if we use the general hologram formula

zero point energy density ~ hc/Lp^2(Area of surrounding surface of Volume-without-volume)^-1

we still get big numbers. For example if Area ~ 1 cm^2

ZPE density (1 cm scale) ~ 10^-17 10^66 ~ 10^49 ergs/cc ~ 10^28 density of water

Ng's hologram argument seems perfectly general for any scale. Yet Bekenstein's thermodynamics only applied to the event horizons of black holes where the light cones tipped over so much to form a trapped surface. The future causal horizon of dark energy de Sitter space may also qualify.

Hence, we seem to arrive at the rule

You can only use the hologram formula to compute ZPE density when there is a natural horizon in the problem.

The electron is like a tiny Kerr black hole but the effective gravity is much stronger.

You can still use the hologram generally for purposes of packing information into the fabric of spacetime, but you need the extra physics of a horizon to compute the zero point energy?

So it's not as simple as I thought. Never is.

On Jul 16, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

What's wrong is that Hal has not identified all of the relevant parameters of the problem of the structure of the electron. There is no gravity in his model. In fact gravity gets stronger as the scale decreases. This last statement comes from a Wignerian analysis of quantum gravity measurement as shown by Ng & Van Dam below.

Let me make it as simple as possible, but not, like Hal's model, simpler than is possible.

You have a shell of electric charge. How do you prevent it from exploding under its self-repulsion?

You have two options:

1. Press in radially on the thin shell of charge from outside the shell.

2. Suck in from the inside of the shell.

Hal chooses 1. The correct answer is 2.

The problem with 1 is that it requires too much zero point energy ZPE density on the outside of the shell. So much that the universe could not exist. Hal needs ~(hc/Lp^2)(mc/h)^2 ZPE energy density outside the shell of charge to contain the charge. The virtual photon density outside the charge has w = -1 and is positive. Therefore, the pressure is negative. Hal cannot use w = +1/3 DeWitt outside the charged shell. DeWitt's solution is inside the charged shell.

Pressure acts in two different ways, mechanically and gravitationally. Usually the gravitation of pressure is much weaker than its mechanical action. Note that this mechanical action is basically electrical in origin. The Casimir effect is mechanical.

Hal models his electric shell as empty inside with mechanical pressure from virtual photons on the outside pushing radially inward on the charge. This is his picture. It's wrong for several reasons.

1) the virtual photon pressure on the outside is negative not positive because w = -1 on the outside.

2) there are virtual photons on the inside and from Dw Witt w = +1/3 on the inside.

Therefore, mechanically the positive pressure on the inside pushes the charge outward, and the negative pressure on the outside also sucks the charge radially outward. Therefore, there is no mechanical (electrical) containment of the shell of charge at all!

Remember pressure is the component of force along the normal unit vector of a surface per unit area of that surface.

That's the mechanical action. The gravity action of pressure is opposite to the mechanical action, although usually it is too small to notice compared to the mechanical action in every case except for this one of zero point energy!

Positive pressure gravitates attractively. Therefore, a positive pressure inside the shell of charge will suck the charge radially inward. The issue is how strong is it? Also negative pressure outside the shell of charge anti-gravitates pushing the charge radially inward.

Now it turns out that the zero point energy density inside the shell of charge is

(hc/Lp^2)(mc/h)^2 ~ 10^-27 10^10 10^66 10^+22 ergs/cc ~ 10^71 ergs/cc

The induced gravity effect of this ZPE from Einstein's GR is approximately from

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

limits to radial Poisson equation

d^2U/dr^2 ~ c^2/\zpf ~ c^2(mc/h)^2

U = ZPE induced gravity potential energy per unit test mass.

Note if /\zpf ~ constant

U ~ (1/2)c^2(mc/h)^2r^2

3D harmonic oscillator.

In fact, the ZPE density outside the charge, if there are no further boundaries is very small

~ (hc/Lp^2)(1/Hubble Radius)^2

PS the above formula and also

(hc/Lp^2)(mc/h)^2

are both consistent with the world hologram hypothesis - see below.

On Jul 15, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS There is no mention of ZPE induced gravity in Hal's paper. Therefore the paper is wrong. Hal has not asked the correct question to solve the problem - neither did Casimir of course.

On Jul 15, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

Hi Paul, attached is my latest use of the ZPE formalism, just came out in Int. Jour. Theor. Phys. Shows how the formalism leads naturally to a point electron without infinite mass generated by the coulomb fields.

Cheers,

Hal

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403057 v1 13 Mar 2004

“In essence, the holographic principle says that although the world around us appears to have three spatial dimensions, its contents can actually be encoded on a two-dimensional surface, like a hologram … According to the holographic principle, the number of degrees of freedom that this cubic region can contain is bounded by the surface area of the region in Planck units, i.e., l^2/LP^2instead of by the volume l^3/LP^3 of the region as one may naively expect. This principle is counter-intuitive, but is supported by black hole physics in conjunction with the laws of thermodynamics, and it is embraced by both string theory and loop quantum gravity … the “strange” holographic principle has its origin in quantum ﬂuctuations of spacetime.”

I. And also by my theory where the emergent coherent macro-quantum vacuum condensate tetrad 1-forms are

e^a = I^a + (LP^2/l^2)^1/3A^a

A^a= M^a^a

is the renormalizable spin 1 Yang-Mills tetrad field "square root" of Einstein's non-renormalizable spin 2 tensor theory. The Mystery Matrix of Goldstone phase 0-forms of the coherent post-inflationary vacuum is

M^a^a= Theta^a/\dPhi^a- dTheta^a/\Phi^a

Where Einstein's 1916 GR is recovered in the bilinear forms of the spin 1 tetrad fields

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

That in a nutshell is my new and completely original theory in my

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022

Emergent Gravity and Torsion: String Theory Without String Theory, Why the Cosmic Dark Energy Is So Small

Jack Sarfatti

(Submitted on 7 Feb 2006 (v1), last revised 11 Jul 2007 (this version, v21))

A surprisingly simple holographic explanation for the low dark energy density is suggested. I derive the Einstein-Cartan disclination curvature tetrads and the physically independent dislocation torsion gap spin connections from an "M-Matrix" of non-closed Cartan 1-forms made from 8 Goldstone phase 0-forms of the vacuum ODLRO condensate inflation field in which the non-compact 10-parameter Poincare symmetry group is locally gauged for all invariant matter field actions. Quantum gravity zero point vacuum fluctuations should be renormalizable at the spin 1 tetrad level where there is a natural scale-dependent holographic dimensionless coupling (hG/\zpf/c^3)^1/3 ~ (Bekenstein BITS)^-1/3. The spacetime tetrad rotation coefficients play the same role as do the Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetry spin 1 Yang-Mills local gauge theories. This suggests an intuitively pleasing natural "organizing idea" now missing in superstring theory. It is then clear why supersymmetry must break in order for our pocket universe to come into being with a small w = -1 negative pressure zero point exotic vacuum dark energy density. Just as the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a null result, this model predicts that the Large Hadron Collider will never find any viable on-mass-shell dark matter exotic particles able to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23 as a matter of fundamental principle, neither will any other conceivable dark matter detector because dark matter forming galactic halos et-al is entirely virtual exotic vacuum w = - 1 with positive irreducibly random quantum zero point pressure that mimics w = 0 CDM in its gravity lensing and all effects that we can observe from afar.

Comments: This version is the second major revision addressing several unresolved fundamental empirical problems

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

Cite as: arXiv:gr-qc/0602022v21

II. Next to Ng & Van Dam

"SPACETIME FOAM, HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE, AND BLACKHOLE QUANTUM COMPUTERS

Y. JACK NG AND H. VAN DAM

Institute of Field Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC27599-3255,USA E-mail: yjng@physics.unc.edu

Spacetime foam, also known as quantum foam, has its origin in quantum ﬂuctuations of spacetime. Arguably it is the source of the holographic principle, which severely limits how densely information can be packed in space. Its physics is also intimately linked to that of black holes and computation. In particular, the same underlying physics is shown to govern the computational power of black hole quantum computers.

1. Introduction

Early last century, Einstein’s general relativity promoted spacetime from a passive and static arena to an active and dynamical entity. Nowadays many physicists also believe that spacetime, like all matter and energy, undergoes quantum ﬂuctuations. These quantum ﬂuctuations make spacetime foamy on small spacetime scales. (For a discussion of the relevant phenomenology and for a more complete list of references, see Ref. 1.)

But how large are the ﬂuctuations? How foamy is spacetime? Is there any theoretical evidence of quantum foam? In what follows, we address these questions. By analysing a gedanken experiment for spacetime measurement, we show, in section 2, that spacetime ﬂuctuations scale as the cube root of distances or time durations.Then we argue that this cube root dependence is consistent with the holographic principle. In section 3, we discuss how quantum foam affects the physics of clocks (accuracy and lifetime) and computers (computational rate and memory space). We also show that the physics of spacetime foam is intimately connected to that of black holes, giving a poor man’s derivation of the Hawking black hole lifetime and the area law of black hole entropy. Lastly a black hole computer is shown to compute at a rate linearly proportionalto its mass.

2. Quantum Fluctuations of Spacetime

If spacetime indeed undergoes quantum ﬂuctuations, the ﬂuctuations will show up when we measure a distance (or a time duration), in the form of uncertainties in the measurement. Conversely, if in any distance (or time duration) measurement, we cannot measure the distance (or time duration) precisely, we interpret this intrinsic limitation to spacetime measurements as resulting from ﬂuctuations of spacetime.

The question is: does spacetime undergo quantum ﬂuctuations? And if so, how large are the ﬂuctuations? To quantify the problem, let us consider measuring a distance l. The question now is: how accurately can we measure this distance? Let us denote by dl the accuracy with which we can measure l. We will also refer to dl as the uncertainty or ﬂuctuation of the distance l for reasons that will become obvious shortly. We will show that dl has a lower bound and will use two ways to calculate it. Neither method is rigorous, but the fact that the two very different methods yield the same result bodes well for the robustness of the conclusion. (Furthermore, the result is also consistent with well-known semi-classical black hole physics. See section 3.)

3. Gedanken Experiment. In the ﬁrst method, we conduct a thought experiment to measure l. The importance of carrying out spacetime measurements to ﬁnd the quantum ﬂuctuations in the fabric of spacetime cannot be over-emphasized. According to general relativity, coordinates do not have any intrinsic meaning independent of observations; a coordinate system is deﬁned only by explicitly carrying out spacetime distance measurements. Let us measure the distance between two points. Following Wigner 2, we put a clock at one point and a mirror at the other. Then the distance l that we want to measure is given by the distance between the clock and the mirror. By sending a light signal from the clock to the mirror in a timing experiment, we can determine the distance l. However, quantum uncertainties in the positions of the clock and the mirror introduce an inaccuracy dl in the distance measurement. We expect the clock and the mirror to contribute comparable uncertainties to the measurement. Let us concentrate on the clock and denote its mass by m. Wigner argued that if it has a linear spread dl when the light signal leaves the clock, then its position spread grows to dl+hl(mcdl)^-1 when the light signal returns to the clock, with the minimum at dl =(hl/mc)^1/2."

[Note by JS: this is the geometric mean of the shortest Compton quantum length and the “longest” length we are measuring. No gravity as yet.]

"Hence one concludes that

dl^2 > hl/mc (1)

General relativity provides a complementary bound.To see this, let the clock be a light-clock consisting of a spherical cavity of diameter D, surrounded by a mirror wall of mass m, between which bounces a beam of light. For the uncertainty in distance measurement not to be greater than D, the clock must tick off time fast enough that

D/c < dl/c. But D, the size of the clock, must be larger than the Schwarzschild radius rS = 2Gm/c^2 of the mirror, for otherwise one cannot read the time registered on the clock. From these two requirements, it follows that

dl > Gm/c2 (2)

The product of Eq. (2) with Eq. (1) yields Eq. (3)

dl > [(hl/mc)(Gm/c2)] 1/3 = (LP2l)1/3 (3)

where LP = (hG/c3)^1/2 is the Planck length. (Note that the result is independent of the mass m of the clock and, hence, one would hope, of the properties of the speciﬁc clock used in the measurement.) The end result is as simple as it is strange and appears to be universal: the uncertainty dl in the measurement of the distance l cannot be smaller than the cube root of LP^2l.

Obviously the accuracy of the distance measurement is intrinsically limited by this amount of uncertainty or quantum ﬂuctuation. We conclude that there is a limit to the accuracy with which one can measure a distance; in other words, we can never know the distance l to a better accuracy than the cube root of LP^2l .

Similarly one can show that we can never know a time duration t to a better accuracy than the cube root of LP^2t/c2 = tP^2t where tP= LP/c is the Planck time. Because the Planck length is so inconceivably short, the uncertainty or intrinsic limitation to the accuracy in the measurement of any distance, though much larger than the Planck length, is still very small. For example, in the measurement of a distance of one kilometer, the uncertainty in the distance is to an atom as an atom is to a human being.

4. The Holographic Principle. Alternatively we can estimate dl by applying the holographic principle. 4,5 In essence, the holographic principle 6 says that although the world around us appears to have three spatial dimensions, its contents can actually be encoded on a two-dimensional surface, like a hologram. To be more precise, let us consider a spatial region measuring l by l by l. According to the holographic principle, the number of degrees of freedom that this cubic region can contain is bounded by the surface area of the region in Planck units, i.e.,l^2/LP^2 instead of by the volume l^3/LP^3 of the region as one may naively expect. This principle is counter-intuitive, but is supported by black hole physics in conjunction with the laws of thermodynamics, and it is embraced by both string theory and loop quantum gravity. So strange as it may be, let us now apply the holographic principle to deduce the accuracy with which one can measure a distance.

First, imagine partitioning the big cube into small cubes. The small cubes so constructed should be as small as physical laws allow so that we can associate one degree of freedom with each small cube. In other words, the number of degrees of freedom that the region can hold is given by the number of small cubes that can be put inside that region. But how small can such cubes be? A moment’s thought tells us that each side of a small cube cannot be smaller than the accuracy dl with which we can measure each side l of the big cube. This can be easily shown by applying the method of contradiction: assume that we can construct small cubes each of which has sides less than dl. Then by lining up a row of such small cubes along a side of the big cube from end to end, and by counting the number of such small cubes, we would be able to measure that side (of length l) of the big cube to a better accuracy than dl. But, by deﬁnition, dl is the best accuracy with which we can measure l. The ensuing contradiction is evaded by the realization that each of the smallest cubes (that can be put inside the big cube) measures dl by dl by dl. Thus, the number of degrees of freedom in the region (measuring l by l by l) is given by l^3/dl^3, which, according to the holographic principle, is no more than l^2/LP^2. It follows that

l^3/dl^3 < l^2/LP^2"

JS: Note the algebra

l^3 < l^2dl^3/LP^2

l < dl^3/LP^2

lLP^2 < dl^3

"dl is bounded (from below) by the cube root of lLP^2 the same result as found above in the gedanken experiment argument. Thus, to the extent that the holographic principle is correct, spacetime indeed ﬂuctuates, forming foams of size dl on the scale of l. Actually, considering the fundamental nature of spacetime and the ubiquity of quantum ﬂuctuations, we should reverse the argument and then we will come to the conclusion that the 'strange' holographic principle has its origin in quantum ﬂuctuations of spacetime."

Rest of paper is deleted from this excerpt as it is peripheral to my purpose at the moment. BTW I knew Saleckar at UCSD La Jolla in the 60’s.

"One of us (YJN) thanks the organizers of the Coral Gables Conference for inviting him to present the materials contained in this paper. We dedicate this article to our colleague Paul Frampton on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. This work was supported in part bythe US Department of Energy and the Bahnson Fund of the University of North Carolina. We thank L. L. Ng and T. Takahashi for their help in the preparation of this manuscript.

References

1. Y. J. Ng, Mod.Phys.Lett.A18, 1073 (2003). See also Y.J. Ng, gr-qc/0401015.

2. E.P. Wigner, Rev.Mod.Phys.29, 255 (1957); H. Salecker and E.P. Wigner, Phys.Rev.109, 571 (1958).

3. Y.J. Ngand H. van Dam, Mod.Phys.Lett.A9, 335 (1994);A10, 2801 (1995); in Proc.of Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory, eds. D.M. Greenberger and A. Zeilinger, Ann. New York Acad. Sci.755, 579 (1995). Also see F. Karolyhazy, Nuovo CimentoA42, 390 (1966);T. Padmanabhan,Class.Quan.Grav.4, L107 (1987); D.V. Ahluwalia, Phys.Lett.B339, 301 (1994); and N. Sasakura,Prog.Theor.Phys.102, 169 (1999).

4. Y. J. Ng and H. van Dam, Found.Phys.30, 795 (2000);Phys.Lett. B477, 429 (2000).

5. Y. J. Ng, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D11, 1585 (2002).

6. G. ’t Hooft, in Salamfestschrift, edited by A. Ali et al. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1993), p. 284; L. Susskind, J.Math.Phys.(N.Y.)36, 6377 (1995). Also see J.A. Wheeler, Int.J.Theor.Phys.21, 557 (1982); J.D. Bekenstein, Phys.Rev.D7, 2333 (1973); S. Hawking, Comm.Math.Phys.43, 199 (1975).

7. Y. J. Ng, Phys.Rev.Lett.86, 2946 (2001), and (erratum)88, 139902-1 (2002);

Y. J.Ng in Proc.of OCPA2000, eds. N. P. Chang et al. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2002), p.235.

J.D. Barrow, Phys.Rev.D54, 6563 (1996).

N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin,Physica D120, 188 (1998).

S. Lloyd, Nature(London)406, 1047 (2000)."

---------------------------------------------------

On Jul 15, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

<52458_bPU113005_2sm.jpg>

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/physik_astronomie/bericht-52458.html

The close-packed little (figuratively speaking of course) "green balls" of "Volume-without-volume" are of size

&l ~ N^1/6 Lp

There is a point gravity monopole inside each "green ball" where the vacuum ODLRO order parameter drops to zero leaving the two effective 3D + 1 Goldstone phases undefined corresponding to this S^2 "vacuum manifold" of minima for coherently ordered holgraphic ground states of virtual quanta.

the surrounding surface area is A

N ~ A/Lp^2

In the case of a single electron

A ~ 10^-22 cm^2 corresponding to the shell of electric charge

N ~ 10^-2210^66 ~ 10^44

&l ~ 10^7Lp ~ 10^-27 cm

This is very much like Ken Wilson's "renormalization group" in lattice gauge theory.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1982/wilson-lecture.pdf

Note also on meaning of holography

"Euclidean quantum field theory in d-dimensional spacetime ~ classical statistical mechanics in d-dimensional space." A. Zee p. 262 "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell"

Therefore Euclidean quantum field theory on the ANYONIC fractional QM statistics 3-dimensional spacetime of the surrounding surface ~ classical statistical mechanics in 3-dimensional space, i.e. volume without volume.

On Jul 15, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

For the record I think Hal's paper is wrong. He has it inside out. Indeed the de Witt calculation show that the interior ZPF has w = +1/3 therefore positive ZPF pressure with positive ZPE density /\zpe ~ (mc/h)^2 ~ 10+22 cm^-2 is INSIDE and induces strong enough micro-gravity to glue the surface electric charge together. The outside ZPE density has w = -1 and is very small. Hal's picture is qualitatively wrong IMHO.

Note in the world hologram picture of t'Hooft as further clarified by Jack Ng's very readable papers (Univ. Maryland):

ZPE density is hc/NLp^4 = (hc/Lp^2)/\zpf

/\zpf ~ 1/NLp^2 ~ (10^66/N)cm^-2

N ~ 10^-2210^66 ~ 10^44

/\zpf ~ 10^22 cm^-2

Very very pretty picture!

It works. It really works semi-quantitatively.

Also the electron is not a point. It is a spatially extended Bohm hidden variable, but its gravity is so strong that it looks like a point by the time the scattering momentum transfers are ~ 2mc ~ 1 Mev

Hal's picture only works if you assume that uniform ZPE does not gravitate. This is wrong and squarely contradicts Einstein's GR as does his PV model.

Hal's paper shows what not to do.

On Jul 15, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

Hi Paul, attached is my latest use of the ZPE formalism, just came out in Int. Jour. Theor. Phys. Shows how the formalism leads naturally to a point electron without infinite mass generated by the coulomb fields.

Cheers,

Hal

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)