Saturday, April 28, 2007

“Gravity is that field which corresponds to a gauge invariance with
respect to displacement transformations.” Richard Feynman[i]

[i] http:/ F. Hehl, p. 21

There is a part of F. Hehl's paper 1996 that to me suggests a
connection of the torsion gap, i.e. dislocation density in Kleinert's
world crystal lattice as a kind of poor-man's noncommutative geometry
i.e. 4.3 eqs 51 - 53

More on this - also supersymmetry is the square root of T4 and
Feynman means T4 above - same as me. Same as Hehl. Of course to do it
right we need full 10 parameter Poincare group. T4 enough to get
Einstein 1915 GR with non-dynamical "dummy" spin connections like the
Wheeler-Feynman EM potentials eliminated in terms of the charges &
action both ways in time on the light cones.

Hehl cites a Phys Rev. D Editor high energy theorist Lowell S. Brown who does not
understand Noether's theorem nor what Feynman says above and has
banned torsion papers from Phys. Rev like Stapp's paper on
retrocausality caused a similar ban on related papers!

Friday, April 27, 2007

Ed Witten & Lenny Susskind lament on absence of an "organizing idea" for M Theory (equivalence principle was the organizing idea for Einstein's 1915 GR). They need lament no more - it's the same organizing idea!

There has been a recent flurry in letters in Physics Today - a bit odd in that Weinberg seems unfamiliar with Hehl's work, yet Hehl gave famous lectures on torsion theory at Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton published in Rev. Mod. Phys. 1976.

Hehl lectures on Einstein's GR as a limiting case of a local Poincare group theory. Utiyama's & Kibble's work on that done in ~ 1961. However, Hehl makes IMHO the incorrect assumption that the torsion field is generated only by the micro-quantum spins hence it does not propagate as a far field wave. Richard Hammond has shown that this assumption is not necessary and indeed there is experimental evidence against it. The coupling should be to the total 4D angular momentum field tensor of all sources including orbital (for 3D part) both real and virtual - the latter includes IMHO both repulsive dark energy and attractive dark matter as negative and positive quantum pressure exotic vacuum phases respectively of a quintessent /\zpf locally variable microscopic -> macroscopic field.

96% of our possibly pocket Hubble bubble universe on the overpopulated cosmic landscape of eternal chaotic inflation (self-created Gott-Li?) is random incoherent off-shell virtual quanta acting as the external "wood" source pump of the "marble" Higgs-Goldstone coherent vacuum condensate field whose Goldstone phase(s) modulation is the smooth c-number emergent warped Einstein-Cartan fabric of spacetime. The Calabi-Yau extra-dimensions are from the 6 "angle parameters" from locally gauging the Lorentz-group whose implied full 4D rotation tensor is the torsion source in the same way that the full 4D translational group's implied "matter" stress-energy tensor is the curvature source. Why only choose the quantum spins of on-shell quanta in the former?

That all non-gravity fields, both real and virtual, participate as sources is part of the equivalence principle.

To be a bit more precise

The 4-parameter translational group's Lie algebra of "observable charges" forms the global total energy-momentum 4-vector of all the source fields. These global integrals are over local stress-energy tensors of the non-gravity fields whose dynamical actions are gauge invariant with respect to the localized Poincare group where curvature and torsion are derived from more fundamental compensating gauge potentials at the square root tetrad + spin connection Cartan 1-form "substratum" level. Supersymmetry is natural in the substratum as is the coupling to spinor field sources. Difficulties in properly defining the integrals at the derived quadratic geometrodynamical level and in trying to include the gravity field itself requiring asymptotic flatness are not relevant to the more fundamental point here. As Penrose et-al point out the pure gravity vacuum field does not have a local self-source stress-energy tensor even though there is total energy-momentum in the vacuum gravity field.

Similarly, the 6-parameter space-time translation group is generated by integrals of the 4D rotational source field tensors of all the non-gravity fields. These 6 parameters are the dimensions of the local Calabi-Yau fiber.

J = L + S

S = quantum spin

L = orbital angular momentum

is only for the 3 space rotations of the Lorentz group's Lie algebra. Hehl, oddly only takes S as the source of the torsion field. This is not even a covariant choice IMHO.

In addition there are the 3 boosts (spacetime rotations) that will contribute to the torsion field.

Gennady Shipov has the germ of this idea in his concept of the "oriented point" needing 2 metrics 4D translation and 6D rotational - the latter years before string theory's construct of the Calabi-Yau fiber space.

The Calabi-Yau space fiber is compactified in a anisotropic way in general so that the above simple spheres look more like

But the idea is clearly similar. Shipov had years before M theory was a glimmer in Witten's eye.

The Kaluza-Klein radii are Ri i = 1 ... 6

Kaluza-Klein charges are ei ~ G*^1/2h/cRi

G* is running gravity coupling constant of the secondary spin-2 geometrodynamic field.

Note that the renormalizable spin-1 vector tetrad fields have dimensionless couplings

(G*h/\zpf/c^3)^1/2 for each vertex in the Feynman diagrams where /\zpf is the quintessent field -> Einstein's cosmological constant in large space scale limit.

The reciprocal of this is the Bekenstein BIT number of deSitter future horizons i.e.

Wheeler's IT FROM BIT

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

For example the classical static Coulomb potential e^2/r when Fourier analyzed is off mass shell i.e. zero frequency virtual photons of all 3D wave vectors K. Indeed the power spectrum of wave vectors is ~ e^2/K^2.
So we need to imagine huge numbers of virtual spacelike photons outside the light cone with longitudinal polarization parallel to each K 3-vector. The relative distribution of the occupation numbers nK of each purely spatial mode (in rest frame of the source charge) ~ 1/K^2. These must be Glauber macroquantum coherent states with ~ 1/K^2.
While all random zero point photons are virtual, not all virtual photons are random zero point. The induction EM near fields inside the walls of our houses and appliances, are non-random macroscopic Bose-Einstein like condensations of jillions and jillions of virtual photons which directly influence phenomena and indeed are a large part of everyday phenomena.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 10:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

We need to distinguish the classical limit from the quantum electrodynamics with only a small number of photons.
In quantum electrodynamics the non-propagating EM fields are the off-mass-shell virtual photons. In terms of Feynman's path quantum theory, where second quantized creation and destruction operators are not used, the virtual photons responsible for micro near fields are the contributions that are not at the pole k = 0 of the photon propagator with the common factor ~ 1/k^2 in 4-momentum space for all 4 polarizations. The Lorentz gauge condition k^uAu = 0 is used. Note that k^2 = k^uku The Lorentz gauge condition constrains the longitudinal near field polarization of the 3-vector potential to the timelike polarization of the scalar potential.

Classical near fields only exist when there are a macroscopic number of virtual photons occupying the same wavepacket "mode" with longitudinal polarization of the 3-vector potential. This requires an extension of the Feynman formalism to include ODLRO in the electrodynamic vacuum. One analogy would be trying to do superfluid helium in the language of the Feynman path integrals.

If we use second-quantized canonical formalism of q-number creation and destruction operators then ODLRO formally is

ak = Ak + @k

Ak is a c-number

ak & @k are q numbers

where k here is only the longitudinal & timelike polarizations if we ignore radiation at first.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

According to standard physics

Fuv is the EM field tensor that obeys the Lorentz group
i.e. transforms as an antisymmetric 2nd rank tensor under the transformations of the 6-parameter Lorentz group, specifically the 3 boosts.

This Fuv includes the longitudinal near fields.
This is all a classical physics problem at this stage.
One must think of experiments that can test the transformations of the near fields.
The problem here is to measure from a moving frame S' whose speed v relative to lab frame S
is v ~ c.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

William (et-al)

typo eq 25 should be "-" not "+"

You have already confirmed part of your prediction for microwaves as I recall.
What you say may have practical importance in nanotechnology - especially computer hardware.
These effects have not shown up in the design of high energy accelerators.
They should be there in electrical power systems using near fields.
Clearly a careful analysis is warranted.
Your results do not impact on the experimental tests of either special or general relativity (Cliff Will) because those tests use only far fields for the EM signals. General relativity is a macroscopic theory. However, attempts to model the electron as an extended object, e.g. a kind of tiny Kerr blackhole (or even naked singularity) (A. Burinski) with strong short-range gravity (from extra space dimensions of string theory) and also possible torsion fields as a Bohm hidden variables would seem to be sensitive to the sorts of effects you are suggesting. Indeed an analog for gravity waves as well I would imagine?
Your effects should show up in off-mass-shell virtual quantum propagation in quantum gauge theory calculation of Feynman diagrams perhaps impinging on issues of regularization and renormalization?

On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks William
Since your results apply only to the non-radiating near field there is probably no real conflict because the light cone structure basis of relativity only applies to the radiating far-field transverse polarization for on-shell photons, not to the virtual off shell photons in coherent states forming the near induction fields. I will definitely read your paper soon with great interest. :-)

On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:46 AM, William D. Walker wrote:

Hi Jack,

This is William Walker. How are you doing? It has been a long time since we met at the Vigier IV conference in Paris. By the way, do you know of any other similar conferences coming up soon? It would be nice to meet up again.

Not at the moment. With regard to your question deleted here, American theoretical physics is in a depressing state in contrast to experimental physics, which is basically what you do. See the book "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit on the dominance of string theory in academic departments. It's controversial and I have not completely given up on certain aspects of string theory as I seem to get what is effectively 6 extra space dimensions in gravity as emergent from a 4D ODLRO "supersolid" version of Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" in a natural way consistent with the torsion theory of Gennady Shipov. The nodes of the lattice are point defects in the supersolid order parameter that has two Goldstone coherent "world hologram phases" when the theory is projected from 9 + 1 to 3 + 1.

Since we last met, I have continued my research on superluminal near-field EM and gravitational fields. I have written a new paper which I think you might find interesting:

The paper shows that contrary to the Michelson-Morley results, the speed of light is dependent on the velocity of the source or observer, as well as being faster than c in the nearfield. Because Einstein's relativity theory is based on the assumption that the speed of light is both constant and independent of the source or observer velocity, based on these new findings, I have looked into the possible implications to relativity theory.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Of course the model below is only a toy model illustrating a set ideas organized in an unfamiliar way in an attempt to shed some light on the greatest mystery in physics today

What is our universe mostly made of?

Jack Sarfatti ( wrote:
Decoding The Cipher of Genesis

Looking at elementary cavity quantum field theory for a scalar field U(x,t) in 1+1 spacetime, e.g. string standing wave oscillations, the mass shell condition f = (signal speed)k for zero dispersion and zero rest mass is enforced by boundary conditions e.g. U(0,t) = U(L,t) so that

f(l) = l(signal speed)/2L

where l is the mode index that in this simple case is an integer 1 to infinity.

group speed = signal speed = phase speed

in this non-dispersive toy model.

The resulting Fock occupation number states |n) are n identical real on shell quanta each of frequency f(l) in the lth mode of wave length 2L/l with l = 1 the fundamental, l =2 the first harmonic and so on. The Fock space vacuum of a given mode with n = 0 has an effective random noise occupation number of 1/2.

In contrast to Fock states that are orthogonal inside a single mode (the modes are, in addition, mutually orthogonal)

(n|n') = 0 when n =/= n'

The macroquantum ODLRO coherent Glauber states |z) are coherent superpositions of different numbers of "real" quanta they are not orthogonal for a given l mode, i.e.

(z|z') =/= 0 ODLRO states when z =/= z'

z is a complex number

z = (n)^1/2e^itheta

theta is the coherent phase

(n) is the mean occupation number

Uncertainty principle

delta(n)delta(theta) ) 1/2

z is a displaced Gaussian in the complex z-plane

|z) = e^(z*a - za*)|0)

|0) is the Fock space vacuum for the single lth standing wave mode of the 1D cavity.

aa* - a*a = 1

a|0) = 0

(0|a* = 0

The single mode Hamiltonian is global over the entire cavity space

H(l) = hf(l)[a*(l)a(l) + 1/2]

I will drop the l for simplicity, understood only a single standing wave mode of sharp wavelength and a definite frequency.

(0|H|0) = hf/2

is the random zero point energy ZPE of that single mode.

This zero point energy in the Fock vacuum |0) directly antigravitates repulsively like an isotropic fluid with w = - 1 in the 3D case - not the present 1D model.

You can think of microquantum |0) as a toy model for the unstable false pre-inflation random incoherent vacuum whose collapse to a more stable less random more coherent macroquantum Glauber state ODLRO "superfluid" vacuum |z).

OK so here is how to do the ODLRO "superfluid" for this single mode.

a = A + @

A is the ODLRO c-number condensate

@ are the random zero point quanta in the coherent vacuum at absolute zero temperature where there are no on-shell elementary excitations "normal fluid" excited states above this Higgs field vacuum where theta is a Goldstone phase.

H(ODLRO) = hf(A* + @*)(A + @) + hf/2

The Glauber states |z) are defined relative to the @ and @* second quantized single-mode destruction and creation operators NOT the original a & a*.

a & a* are the pre-inflation false unstable vacuum operators

@ & @* are the post-inflation dark energy-dark matter metastable vacuum ZPE operators at absolute zero temperature prior to the hot big bang creating ordinary matter and radiation that is only 4% of all the stuff of our accelerating expanding pocket universe in the cosmic landscape of the megaverse of parallel universes including the parallel Virgin Earth's that are part of our Manifest Destiny Matrix - the space migration now professed by Stephen Hawking.

The energy of our false incoherent Fock vacuum without any ODLRO macroquantum condensate is

(0|H|0) = (0|(hf + 1/2)a*a|0) = hf/2

The energy of our more stable coherent vacuum condensate is

(z|H(ODLRO)|z) = hf(|A|^2 + A*z + Az* + |z|^2 + 1/2)

Note if |A| = 0 i.e. no ODLRO

(z|H|z) = ((n) + 1/2)hf ) (0|H|0)

The energy difference of the vacuum phase transition in this single-mode 1D toy model is

(z|H(ODLRO)|z) - (0|H|0) = hf(|A|^2 + A*z + Az* + |z|^2) < 0 stability

|A|^2 = vacuum condensate density

is it real or virtual quanta? (Larry Krauss in "Quintessence")

What does that distinction even mean here?

I opt for virtual since we are at absolute zero.

In superfluid helium at absolute zero the condensate density is 10%, the zero point density is 90% and the total superfluid density is the sum 100% with zero % normal fluid real particles at finite temperature - in thermal equilibrium approximation of course.

|z|^2 = zero point dark energy/matter density

The cross terms are the flow of virtual random quanta into and out of the coherent vacuum condensate reservoir out of which the curved fabric of spacetime emerges as I showed elsewhere.

The energy density per mode released in this first order vacuum phase transition making the hot Big Bang that creates the 4% ordinary matter and radiation we are made out of is determined by the coherent Goldstone phase lag constraint

Vacuum Condensate Density + Dark Energy ZPF Density

+ 2(Vacuum Condensate Density)(Dark Energy ZPF Density)^1/2cos(Goldstone Phase Lag) < 0

Phase lag is between the vacuum condensate phase and the ZPE dark energy phase in this 3 fluid (not 2-fluid macroquantum cosmology toy model with advanced signal retrocausality - discussed elsewhere (pun intended).

These quantum energy densities can go negative.

Either the vacuum condensate energy density or the ZPF energy density can be negative.
Let their ratio be x. The stability inequality is

x + 1/x < 1

therefore x < 0.

positive ZPF energy density is repulsive dark energy

negative ZPF energy density is attractive dark matter

of course the model below is only a toy model illustrating a set ideas organized in an unfamiliar way in an attempt to shed some light on the greatest mystery in physics today

What is our universe mostly made of?

Jack Sarfatti ( wrote:
Sidney Coleman's 1973 Erice Lectures on Hidden Secret Symmetries i.e. spontaneous broken symmetry of ground state comes closest. But Kraus's formulation of the problem may be spurious.

If we have a generally locally variable Higgs field of n real components Psi(x,t) its Fourier integral (assume globally flat spacetime for now) will have components for all frequencies and all wave vectors - hence a mass shell condition makes no sense.

Coleman defines the vacuum condensate for a renormalizable quartic (Mexican Hat) spin 0 scalar quantum field in terms of the connected generating functional W(J) where

e^iW(J) = (0+|0-)

vacuum to vacuum Feynman amplitude

The classical ODLRO vacuum condensate field Psi(x,t) is the functional derivative of W with respect to external source current density J(x)

The effective action is a functional Legendre transform of the generating functional by the global integral of J(x) multiplies by the ODLRO condensate field.

The effective action is also a Taylor series expansion of all nth order IPI Green's functions of the scalar field with nth order product of the ODLRO order parameters. Now I think those IPI Greens functions are all virtual quanta exchanges because "no propagators on the external lines" but I am not sure.

One then gets an effective potential V of the ODLRO vacuum condensate order parameter.

This only scratches the surface of course. Not a solution.

Jack Sarfatti ( wrote:
The problem is not trivial. Appeal to BCS Green's function not good because the condensate there, and in superfluid helium, is on shell real particles in a ground state.

In the case of the actual Higgs field of our universe from inflation out of which curved spacetime emerges, i.e. the tetrad and spin connection 1-forms from the Goldstone phases of the ODLRO coherent vacuum - the issue is are there pole contributions to the vacuum in the Green's functions for elementary excitations of the coherent vacuum, or are the pole terms only in the elementary excitations of the pre-inflation false vacuum prior to the Cosmic Trigger advanced signal from the future deSitter horizon of the emergent pocket universe on the Landscape? The advanced signal lowers the entropy of the early universe explaining how the Arrow of Time of the Second Law of Thermo is "parallel" to the now accelerating expansion of 3D space.

Larry Krauss writes in his book "Quintessence":

"phase transitions in the 'vacuum' (or ground state) of nature can occur. In such cases a finite density of real particles might 'condense' into the new vacuum state." p. 41

If the macro-quantum ODLRO part(s) is from a pole(s) in the appropriate Green's function(s) then Kraus is correct, i.e. if there is a mass shell constraint p^upu = m^2 for the quanta inside the effective BEC(s). There is no microscopic theory of the inflation Higgs field(s) as yet.

For example, in the Glauber state |z) of quantum optics where

a|z) = z|z)

z = (n)^1/2e^i(coherent phase)

f = ck for transverse radiation real photons on mass shell (here mass shell = light cone)

is true physically.

However if one uses a wavelet mode basis this need not be true at all.

A finite spatial wave packet has many k for same frequency f like a virtual photon. This is physically important in a cavity. Of course, such a wavepacket may also have a frequency spread where f = ck.

In the quantum oscillator problem one only uses f and then ad-hoc imposes f = ck in the case of far field transverse photons. However, one can imagine coherent states of virtual photons off mass shell including longitudinal polarization in which a given f has all possible k.

That is, the second-quantized operators a & a* where aa* - a*a = 1 do not refer to plane waves in infinite space but are wave packets inside a cavity.

Note also that the classical static Coulomb potential

V = +- e^2/r

consists of virtual longitudinal photons in a macroquantum coherent f = 0 (DC) state with all possible k momenta i.e.

Vk ~ e^2/k^2

1/k^2 is the almost photon propagator Green's function i.e.

e (1/k^2)e

is essentially a Feynman diagram with charges e at each vertex (dot) and a wiggley virtual photon line connecting the two dots.

To add advanced and retarded boundary conditions

1/(k^2 +- iepsilon)

Jack Sarfatti ( wrote:

Larry Krauss in his 2000 book "Quintessence" says the vacuum condensate is a large number of Bose-Einstein condensed real on shell particles in the same single-particle state. I picture them as virtual off-shell. Who is correct? Must look at Gorkov theory of BCS Green's functions with ODLRO to see what is what here. Real particles are poles in complex energy plane of Green's functions. Pole + off pole parts at T = 0 is 100% L-G superfluid density. Off pole part = locally incoherent nonlocally coherent EPR entangled ZPF if pole part is the ODLRO condensate. I am checking into this.
No anonymous comments. Must ID yourself in a way that can be checked.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Thanks. I have been saying that for at least ten years since reading
his first book.
On Apr 5, 2007, at 11:30 AM, art wagner wrote:

> (um, .... it's a book title)
> docs/PBG-StrangeLoopPostcard.pdf

My macro post-quantum theory with signal nonlocality has the strange
loop built in beyond the no-cloning signal locality of micro-quantum
theory. The adaptive self-organizing strange loop is a no-brainer in
the Bohmian ontological interpretation (e.g. A. Valentini's violation
of sub-quantal equilibrium,
but is inconceivable in Asher Peres's interpretation. Orthodox
quantum physicists like Satinover (Yale) have cognitive dissonance
over "post-quantum theory" because they implicitly accept the Peres
type interpretation where the wave function is a purely cognitive
tool for making statistical predictions and is not an objective
physical field as it is in the Bohmian picture.

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

Monday, April 02, 2007

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." True?

Hiley shows by explicit calculations that there is no "retrocausality" in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment nor in the variations with a maser cavity in one channel of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Even Aharonov & Vaidman made a mistake there! Hiley totally refutes the Asher Peres interpretation of quantum theory, though the late Peres was formidable - a powerful mind. Peter Woit suggest that string theory is pseudoscience, but Hiley shows there has been a lot of bad mystical physics at the foundations of quantum theory - that an ontological reality can be maintained - that Bohr was wrong on that point and Einstein was right, though many of Bohr's insights survive because the opposite of a great truth is another great truth.

Thus Hiley's Bohmian analysis is consistent with the no cloning theorem in which the denial of signal nonlocality imposes strict limits on imperfect optimal cloning of an unknown quantum bit - something like 5/6 for maximal fidelity of the cloning beyond which one gets signal nonlocality and true retrocausality as in the remote viewing and presponse experiments on living matter. This is consistent with David Deutsch's and Wigner's view that consciousness is a violation of microscopic quantum theory. Note there is no measurement problem and no "collapse" in the Bohmian view of micro-quantum theory although in many experiments it's as if collapse. True retrocausality with signal nonlocality is a fundamental breakdown microscopic quantum theory's "sub-quantal equilibrium" (A. Valentini) in which macroquantum spontaneous symmetry breaking leading to emergent phenomena like conscious brains and our accelerating expanding pocket deSitter horizoned universe on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse are prime examples. There is no Hawking wave function of the universe in the macro-world, although it is there in the initial cosmic trigger from the future that retro-causally creates the primordial inflation bubble evolving to the hot Big Bang whose remnant we see in the COBE & WMAP NASA probes. The Hawking wave function of the universe is replaced by the Landau-Ginzburg order parameter that in 3D + 1 is local, which is why there are no giant Schrodinger Cats. Note however that 2D + 1 boundaries with "anyons" have nonlocal order parameters which have a hologram nature.

On Apr 2, 2007, at 8:01 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Demystifies a lot of quantum

nonsense not only in pop books, but also in standard text books. Even the great Wheeler may be wrong about the quantum?

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