On Jul 14, 2007, at 7:43 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,
 
Version 13 of your Paper was the last version that contained the References to my work. That was the last major version of your Paper prior to the long break in time before you rewrote the Paper in June 2007.

I lost all the originals in the laptop crash. I may have some of them on on Mac dot storage. In any case they are up on the archive - good so historians can see the dynamical evolution of the ideas in the digital age.
 
Sounds like your "graviphotons" may be the same animal as theirs. Theirs are not mathematically motivated in this Paper (though they do reference other theoretical work by Beck where the idea originated; I have not seen this work). Their graviphotons are just qualitatively defined to be photons that can gravitationally interact (gravitionally active photons) as opposed to those photons that can not (gravitationally "inactive").

Well my graviphotons have nothing to do with electromagnetic photons, though they will couple together of course in the gauge covariant derivatives.

Spin 1 EM photons A^a come from locally gauging the U(1) compact internal symmetry group.

My spin 1 graviphotons are from locally gauging the non-compact spacetime T4 symmetry group. They couple to Minkowski spacetime with scale-dependence 1/N^1/3

N ~ (Surrounding Area of Volume-without-volume World Hologram)/Lp^2

This is the real quantum geometrodynamics. Loop QMG and string theory are useless, though some of their leitmotifs are recognizable in my theory.

Spin 2 tensor gravitons are entangled triplet pairs of A^a tetrad T4 quanta.

Spin 0 scalar gravitons are entangled singlet pairs of A^a tetrad T4 quanta.

 
They do attribute the massive gravitons to a Higgs mechanism, and symmetry breaking does play an important role in their considerations. There is a very brief discussion at the end of the Paper on dynamical symmetries and their breaking. They note the analogy of EM gauge invariance breaking to gravitational local general covariance breaking. 

Gravity local general covariance is simply localizing rigid T4 and yes we could hide that symmetry with a vacuum condensate - that seems an OK idea. But in my theory that will give massive scalars, massive vectors, and massive tensors. Now if that coupling scales holographically as 1/N^1/3 then those quantum effects get stronger as the scaling parameter N decreases down to 1 at the Planck scale. This is good.
 
The references to R. Becker in this Paper are again not to me , but to Richard Becker I believe, to whom they anachronistically attribute a model of a relatively delayed Cooper Pair current to explain the London Moment. (Richard Becker could not have known about Cooper Pairs in the early 30s).

Is that Becker who wrote an EM text book?
 
As I said, it is a well intended Paper, that does seek to explain the two different Tajmar "anomalies" and the Tate anomaly in SC. And within an order of magnitude, it does do this quantitatively. But it has numerous ad hoc assumptions and shortcuts that I think severely fray its reasonableness - unless the experimental results stand up to scrutiny and there are no alternative explanations.
 
Take care,
 
Robert