Most of these issues are pseudo-problems based on the ambiguity of plain English and the unconscious shifts in meaning of the same nouns such as "gravitational field" that has at least two independent meanings. Also there is a paradigm shift between Newton and Einstein that causes a lot of confusion e.g. Puthoff's PV theory one example, string theory another. See L. Smolin "The Trouble with Physics" on "background-independence."

1. There is nothing wrong with Einstein's original formulation of the equivalence principle.

2. Equivalence principle is general not restricted to static uniform Newtonian gravity fields.

3. Operational definitions of g-force on the one hand, and curvature tidal effects on the other are completely orthogonal, independent, compatible, they "commute" to use quantum analogy.

4. Strictly speaking, "gravity force" is eliminated in Einstein, but not in Newton. Elementary particle theorists think of "gravity force" as a perturbation-based S-Matrix spin 2 RIGID Poincare group 2nd rank tensor force on a par with spin 1 RIGID Poincare group vector gauge force. The latter are renormalizable (t' Hooft ~ 1973), the former are not! This is also the string theory background-dependent approach with Minkowski spacetime as the Newtonian non-dynamical arena, rather than the Leibnizian background-independent where the geometrodynamic (GMD) field (fabric of 3D space changing in time for arbitrary slicing (foliations) of 4D spacetime) is on an equal ontological footing with all other matter fields on a pre-metrical manifold with minimal couplings - the latter a form of the equivalence principle.

5. My original idea is to use the tetrad fields because they are intrinsically spin 1 vector fields (in Poincare group sense) hence renormalizable if you use perturbation theory.

6. In addition another one of my original ideas is to apply P.W. Anderson's "More is different" = Sid Colman's "hidden symmetry" = Brout & Englert & Higgs "spontaneous broken symmetry" so that the c-number tetrad compensating fields from localizing 4D translations T4 and the dynamically independent c-number spin connections from localizing Lorentz group emerge from the coherent Goldstone phases of the post-inflation vacuum Higgs field order parameters in precisely the same way as does the coherent MACRO-QUANTUM CONDENSATE resistantless superfluid flow (more complex algebra of course). This leaves over the quantum zero point fields of virtual quanta that become "normal fluid" on-mass-shell.

7. The rules of MACRO-QUANTUM THEORY are "More is different" from micro-quantum theory - same as for General Relativity compared to Special Relativity.

Conservation of information = Unitarity? Yes for micro-qm, NO for MACRO-QM!

Signal locality? Yes for micro-qm, NO for MACRO-QM! This opens door to "consciousness" as well as paranormal "remote viewing" and other spooky techgnostic UFO super technology that scares the mainstream physics CSICOPS establishment - including even their most visionary thinkers like L. Smolin and Max Tegmark.

See A. Valentini's "violation of sub-quantal equilibrium" allowing use of nonlocal entanglement as a stand-alone C^3 as in Lawry Chickering's 1982 letter to Richard De Lauer Under Secretary of Defense about my work in the 80's. Contact Cap Weinberger Jr for details on this period. Chickering ran ICS a Reagan think tank with Cap Weinberger Sr, Brent Scowcroft, Milton Friedman, Ed Meese on their board ("The Buttoned Down Bohemians, SF Sunday Chronicle, 1986) Don Rumsfeld also ran it in mid-80's.

On Oct 20, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The answer is yes and no depending on the context.

There is an objective local empirical measurable difference between un-accelerated zero-g force geodesics and accelerated non-geodesics with g-force. In this sense 1 "acceleration is absolute."

In other words there are still preferred frames in GR -- the inertial frames -- but what is and what is not an inertial frame now depends on the matter distribution?

Yes, if the meaning of "preferred" is "g-force". The key structure are the null geodesics. Obviously detectors on timelike geodesics measure zero g-force. Only a non-gravity force can push you off a timelike geodesic and then you feel g-force = weight AND you are TIME DILATED in a twin situation (action principle for test particles).

However, the key intrinsic GMD field LOCAL GCT (T4(x)) invariants e^a & S^a^b & R^a^b are FRAME-INVARIANT (also coordinate chart invariant) mod Lorentz group connecting coincident LIFs. These are LOCAL in sense of complete gauge orbits P not bare manifold points p connected by "active diffeomorphisms" (see Rovelli Ch 2 for pictures of this).

ds^2 = e^aea is absolute invariant of course under locally gauged Poincare group

P10(x) = T4(x)@ O1,3(x)

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

it's ACTION DENSITY is

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

e^a = I^a + A^a

in 1905 SR, A^a = 0

1905 SR only includes GIF -> GIF' where

I^a = I^audx^u

Ia^u = 4x4 identity matrix = Kronecker delta in all GIFs (Global Inertial Frames).

A^a =/=0 in a GNIF even when R^a^b = 0

A^a = 0 in a LIF in 1916 GR

but A^a =/= 0 in a LNIF

and now R^a^b =/= 0 is possible unlike GNIF..

For examples see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_fields_in_general_relativity

￼

sigma = my e

this is for static non-geodesic LNIF "shell observers" (Wheeler's term)

e.g.

I^0t = 1

A^0t = (1 - 2m/r)^1/2 -1

Note that when m -> 0, A^0t -> 0

I^1r = 1

A^1r = (1 - 2m/r)^-1/2 -1

Note that when m -> 0, A^1r -> 0

etc.

Also in this case R^a^b =/= 0

Obviously these BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENT A^a is the fundamental spin 1 vector "Yang-Mills" compensating gravity field. The background-dependent spin 2 objects are not-fundamental but composite so no wonder they do not renormalize in perturbation theory. Note that in non-commutative geometry A^aPa do not commute. However, the full theory is non-commutative Yang-Mills anyway in ordinary commuting geometry since we must use the complete P10 Lie algebra

{A^aPa, S^a^bPab} in forming the minimally coupled covariant derivatives on the matter spinor fields (Rovelli Ch 2) to agree with the equivalence principle.

The latter always require a non-gravity force.

Yes, it requires a non-gravity force to push a freely falling test object off a GR geodesic.

Note also the action principle that timelike geodesics have the longest elapsed time compared to all other neighboring world lines that intersect them in two coincidences. Most popular discussions of "gravity field" are sloppy in this regard - even Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics". The "gravity field" = g-force = "shell static observer" (Schwarzschild solution outside event horizon). That is, you cannot locally distinguish a non-geodesic g-force from the non-gravity force needed to keep you stationary in simple situations like a static spherically symmetric curvature field. The non-geodesic Center Of Mass (COM) force is sloppily called the "gravity force" - it vanishes on the free-float geodesic. The curvature as tidal geodesic deviation (in coordinates relative to COM) is measured in the absence of any g-force.

The geodesic deviation of freely falling test particles can also be measured in the presence of a net "g-force".

Yes, but it's Rube Goldberg messy way to do it. R^a^b is T4(x) INVARIANT - same for LIF & LNIF at same local coincidence P

￼

In addition, the field GCT tensor and spinor equations of classical and quantum physics including the background-independent geometrodynamic field for evolving 3D space (no matter how 4D space-time is sliced or "foliated') on an equal footing with the electromagnetic and all matter fields have the same local frame invariant forms whether the frames are unaccelerated geodesic or accelerated non-geodesic. In this last sense 2 "acceleration is relative." The equivalence principle is not restricted to uniform static fields.

Depends on which version you are talking about.

I mean the time record of g-force on a single detector is locally equivalent to some dynamic GMD field for a some LNIF observer.

Note the equivalence principle is a two-sided coin:

i) COM g-forces in flat 4D spacetime are locally indistinguishable from the non-gravity forces needed to keep one fixed relative to the source in curved spacetime. The world line of a test particle fixed relative to the source (e.g. confirmed by Doppler radar) is off-(timelike) geodesic (always a local g-force).

ii) COM g-forces vanish on unaccelerated timelike geodesics.

Observed net g-forces vanish along geodesics.

"net" has no meaning - excess verbal baggage

Localizing the rigid translation gauge group T4 universally the same way for all non-gravity matter fields introduces the compensating tetrad fields A^a that encode the non-geodesic accelerating local frames and also the curvature if present - it need not be.

Where the compensation acts to restore the original T4 symmetry?

If you like. What that means precisely is that you now have a larger action which is invariant under the large localized T4(x) group - with new curvature field dynamics in addition to the original lepton-quark-EM-weak-strong fields of the standard model.

Am I correct to call T4 a group of coordinate transformations?

If you are careful. The redundant p -> p' coordinate maps on SAME gauge orbit P are factored out!

This is Fadeev-Popov trick taken over from Yang-Mills quantization case (with ghosts violating spin-statistics in Feynman path integrals - so it's already set up for quantizing residual zero point - normal excitations in and out of condensate (Gorkov) in my emergent gravity model. Holography is looking at 2D + 1 non-bounding cycles surrounding 3D + 1 spacetime regions with GMD point monopoles and

&L ~ (Lp^2L)^1/3 (Wigner-Salecker-Bohr-Rosenfeld)

L ~ N^1/2Lp (hologram)

&L ~ N^1/6Lp

N = # Bekenstein c-bits on FUTURE dark energy pumped retro-causal de Sitter horizon with signal nonlocality in A. Valentini's sense.

￼

P orbits are the vertical solid curves, the dots are p, p', p" etc.

e^a = I^a + A^a

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = nabe^a^eb = e^aea

nab = Minkowski constant metric of absolutely non-accelerating frames

guv is the curvilinear metric of absolutely accelerating frames

1905 SR only permits unaccelerated global frames where

I^a = I^audx^u

I^au = Kronecker delta 4x4 identity matrix

As soon as we have an accelerated frame A^a =/= 0

So A^a, like the LC connection, is not a GCT tensor?

Exactly. Same as in EM where the vector potential is not a tensor relative to the internal U(1) group.

e.g.

simple example 1+1 spacetime Galilean relativity limit

gt/c << 1

x' = x - (1/2)gt^2

t' = t

(x,t) = GIF

(x',t') = GNIF

dx' = dx - gtdt

dt' = dt

ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx^2 = (cdt')^2 - (dx' + gt'dt')^2

= c^2[1 - (gt'/c)^2]dt'^2 - 2gt'dx'dt' - dx'^2

gt't' = [1 - (gt'/c)^2]

gt'x' = -2gt'/c

gx'x' = -1

gtt = 1

gxt = 0

gxx = -1

The tetrad components are

e^tt' = &t/&t' = + 1

dx = dx' - gt'dt'

e^tx' = &t/&x' = 0

e^xx' = &x/&x' = 1

e^xt' = -gt'/c

e^t = dt' = I^t

e^x = dx' - gt'dt' = I^x + A^x

I^x = dx'

Where did you get this expression for I^x?

from the above equations - if it's not obvious you are missing something. I would have to do it in math text standard symbols - it's elementary calculus of partial derivatives and gradient directional derivatives etc.

A^x = -gt'dt' = gravimagnetic tetrad field

Where did you get this expression for A^x?

ditto - it should be obvious

All you've given us is

e^a = I^a + A^a

which is not enough to get I^x = dx', A^a = -gt'dt'.

Yes it is. You are not understanding the calculus.

e.g.

df(x,y) = (&f/&x)dx + (&f/&y)dy

e^au means &x^a(IF)/&x^u(NIF)

x' = x - (1/2)gt^2

t' = t

(x,t) = GIF

(x',t') = GNIF

x^a(IF) = (x,t)

x^u(NIF) = (x',t')

## Saturday, October 20, 2007

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

## No comments:

Post a Comment