Memorandum for the Record

On Jun 23, 2007, at 1:48 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Jack

I have not looked at Hal's latest model, but it is painful seeing this exchange. I note that you have a habit of quoting things that people never said.

- Michael

On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No Michael what I have said about Hal's model is completely accurate. You are fooling yourself on this. People on this list who know the physics cannot be fooled.

Here for the record is the true state of affairs with regard to his important issue of principle.

typo-corrected 2nd draft below

On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jun 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/23/2007 1:25:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

"I have clearly explained what is wrong with Hal's basic idea. His ambient zero point energy density outside the electron is 78 powers of ten larger than is possible for our universe to exist."

Hal: The 78 powers of ten you cite is simply the difference between the vacuum energy of empty space applicable to cosmology problems, and the regularized vacuum that applies to vacuum fluctuation problems with topology (boundary conditions). Different vacuua. Your "clear" explanation is "not even wrong." (Pauli) :-)

Jack: No Hal you are using a spurious polemic here. I addressed this in last message. You need a huge positive zero point energy density with w = +1/3 outside your shell of charge. You must show why that w = +1/3 does not extend out to the entire universe. BTW if it did you would still have a problem because that universe could not exist either!

OK, let T00(ZPE, s) be the total stress-energy tensor of the physical vacuum for all quantum fields at scale s. This is something like a wavelet transform. Your statement is that for s ~ 10^-11 cm in neighborhood of the outside of the electron shells that T00(ZPE, 10^-11 cm) ~ 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc is positive with w = 1/3 and that T00(ZPE, s ~ > 10^26 cm - 10^28 cm) has w = -1 at level of 10^-29 gm/cc.

i.e think of a resolution power spectrum of T00(ZPE,s) that is roughly a smeared out Dirac delta function at s/s(IR) ~ 0, i.e. 10^-11/10^26.

Maybe, but you must give some kind of justification for that. Also you only consider virtual photons and ignore virtual electron-positron pairs - why? Also you ignore all the other quantum fields without any discussion.

Hal does not accept Einstein's GR that even a uniform zero point energy "bends" spacetime.

Hal: Ridiculous statement, of course. If there were "a uniform zero point energy" it would indeed "bend" spacetime. But there isn't.

Jack: First of all there is a uniform zero point energy and it does bend spacetime. It's the dark energy density ~ 10^-29 gm/cc accelerating the expansion of 3D space.
I am glad to see that you have finally retracted your earlier position (I think in "Aviation Week" for example) and you definitely only a few years ago told me that in your theory uniform zero point energy does not bend spacetime that only differences in the zero point energy density bend spacetime. I did not make that story up. That WAS your position in 2002 for sure. I am glad to see you have changed it with the new facts from cosmology. Note all statements about the enormous ZPE energy locked inside the vacuum are WRONG at least at large scales. These were common beliefs prior to 1999. I made the same error myself until 2002! I know if I Google I will find such statements by you.


Hal: The EM ZPE effects arise in interactions between EM boundary conditions and the vacuum, perhaps best captured by E. T. Jaynes (who did not believe in "a uniform zero point energy") in Jaynes Axiom: "The complete interchangeability of source-field effects and vacuum-fluctuations effects shows that source-field effects are the same as if vacuum fluctuations were present." Topology and boundary conditions (involved in vacuum regularization procedures) matter. This may be "subtle, but it's not malicious!" (Einstein) :-)

Jack: This is word salad out of context. Look I know who Ed Jaynes is. He was the PhD advisor to Fred W Cummings who was my PhD advisor. Jaynes is talking about the well-known equivalence of Van Der Waals forces and the Casimir virtual photons - this is discussed in detail in Peter Milonni's book "Quantum Vacuum" that has no GR in it of course. Look Hal, take parallel plates Casimir, the topology shift in w = -1, if any in that case, would apply BETWEEN the plates not outside them for Ibison's AFOs far from the open sides of the plates. Similarly for a spherical shell of charge the w = +1/3 is for modes inside the shell not outside. Or, if outside, the effect must decay and you must show how that works. I do not have DeWitt's paper in front of me. Did you send it? It may be on my computer, but I have his book with this stuff in my office and will look later to see if his curved space example even applies to your model - I think not.

Hal does not believe in the equivalence principle,


Hal: of course I do

Jack: You pay lip service to it, but your PV violates it, and your electron shell model violates it (as above). With regard to PV you do not have tensors, hence you cannot obey EEP, i.e. you have no LIFs & LNIFS in local coincidence without tensor quantities.

nor does he accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating,

Hal: of course I do

Jack: Then you are being inconsistent until you show the limiting relationship between your w = +1/3 virtual photons outside the shell and the w = - 1 virtual photons at the large cosmological scale.

OR, he is inconsistent since his model violates the latter two mainstream views.

Hal: Only your misrepresentation of my model violates the latter two mainstream views. I think we should coin a new axiom: Sarfatti's "Straw Man." Oh, oh, just googled, and found that "Straw Man" has already been thought of. Pity. :-)

Jack: Hal you are evading the real issues here and are in denial. You are not being logical here. Again to recapitulate:

1. Why in your model are there no virtual photons inside the charged shell, but only outside? "Who ordered that?" (I. Rabi)

2. What happened to the virtual electron-positron pairs? You pretend they do not exist.

3. How far out from the surface of your spherical shell do your alleged w = +1/3 virtual photons at density 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc extend before they damp down 78 powers of 10 to w = -1 dark energy?

Note, my model for the same electron shell is much better than yours. My model is simpler and prettier - much less Rube Goldberg than your model.

In my model there is also a spherical shell of charge at ~ 10^-13 cm classical electron radius in its rest frame. There is w = -1 dark ZPE energy ~ 10^-29 gm/cc outside the shell up to the shell itself or maybe only up to the virtual plasma ball ~ 10^-11 cm Compton radius. However INSIDE the shell I have DeWitt's w = +1/3 virtual photons! That's INSIDE Hal as DeWitt says! They say X doesn't know up from down. Well Hal you don't know inside from outside! :-) I am using DeWitt correctly here. And indeed the virtual photon energy density INSIDE the shell of charge is 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc - SAME NUMBER YOU GET Hal but it's INSIDE the shell not OUTSIDE. That is a topological difference Hal that you seem to ignore - another "inconvenient truth." ;-) Also I have virtual electron-positron pairs inside the shell of charge - that also attract sucking in the charge preventing it from exploding.

OK, so look Hal your theory is literally an EMPTY SHELL. ;-) Your SHELL GAME here is obvious! The Emperor has no clothes - no virtual dressing! ;-) I have a dark matter core inside the shell. The interior of my charged shell is full of your DeWitt w = +1/3 virtual photons and the virtual electron-positron pairs at huge energy density. Both have positive pressure and suck in the electric charge! Outside it's simply the observed weak positive dark energy density 10^-29 gm/cc of negative pressure from w = -1.

Also my dynamical equilibrium equation is pretty - oh so pretty ... (West Side Story)

/\zpfr^4 + (Classical Electron Radius)r + (Compton Quantum Radius)^2 = 0

That's a pretty cool equation (some dimensionless coefficients omitted dependent on charge configuration) I got there Hal. You must admit and you must also quit. ;-)

Memorandum for the Record

Michael
Your point eludes me. You keep retreating to Asymptopia in the land of the ineffable. I at first understood you to mean that you found a proof that warp drive is impossible. Now you seem to have changed your stance. There is no conventional propellant in warp drive period. HFGW are a conventional propellant in this sense easy to prove and I did. What is your ghostly propellant? Does it walk the parapets of Elsinore?

Meantime write the paper with Eric Davis and be sure to mention my name and let me see it for comment. Meantime I will write up my thoughts in conventional math notation.

My NOT understanding your thoughts have led me to new ones even more interesting.

See Harold Bloom on CREATIVE MISREADING in literature - applies also to theoretical physics. More on this anon. OK let me find it now on Bloom's "anxiety of influence." pp 7-8 'The Western Canon":

"I have tried to confront greatness directly ... what makes the author and the works canonical? The answer, more often than not, has turned out to be strangeness, a mode of originality that either cannot be assimilated, or that so assimilates us that we cease to see it as strange. ... Fresh metaphor, or inventive troping, always involves a departure from previous metaphor, and that departure depends upon at least a partial turning away from or rejection of prior figuration ... Shylock is a strong misreading or creative misinterpretation of Barabas ."

My new ideas stimulated by yours that I creatively misread.

1. Alcubierre warp bubbles can take any kind of world line, timelike, spacelike and reverse in time relative to AFO's because warp bubbles obey the local T4(x) group of 1916 GR whilst AFOs obey the RIGID T4 group of 1905 SR. Hence warp bubbles are SR singular paths - the SR rules you invoke do not work - no propellant need apply!

2. Bohm's SR Klein-Gordon quantum potential has precisely that effect on its "particles".

3. Therefore a deep connection between your tiny warp bubbles and Bohm's RIGID T4 Quantum Potential.

4. Feynman's path integral QM requires such behavior in QED, e.g. electron-positron annihilation and creation and virtual spacelike photons outside light cone etc.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 11:06 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Jacks

Surely this is proof that you comment on things you have only half read. On
realizing the omission, IMMEDIATELY following the email in question of last
week I sent a corrected version - 60 seconds or so after the first - with
the subject title 'erratum corrected'. It is attached here.

You cannot be serious that you think this is point of debate??? Surely you
are not stooping that low?

- Michael

"She stoops to conquer." ;-)


"What Michael relates below is completely correct. It couldn't
be better articulated."

Eric Davis

From: "michael ibison"

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:39:14 -0500


snip----------------------------------

... "I have said no such thing. Are you being intentionally
obstreperous?

No.

Let me repeat what you are saying back to you so you cannot keep
misrepresenting
me:

Zero 4D covariant 4-acceleration means on-board g-force.

No, the correct statement is

Zero 4D covariant 4-acceleration means NO on-board g-force.

Such 'motion' does not require propellant. Indeed, there must be no
propellant in order for such motion to take place.

I will assume that you are with me so far, and move on:

The above statement are assumed valid for the craft and it's
passengers.
They
are valid because of the assumed metric bubble enveloping the craft.
At some point the metric bubble flattens out to flat space (I am
working in coordinates such that g_00=1, g_0i=0.) Put a box
around that
metric-bubble-plus-craft. Call that box a 'particle'.

IF that particle has mass, that is: if the ADM adjusted mass of the
ship is non-zero, then that particle must conserve momentum IN FLAT
SPACE; it cannot accelerate as measured against that flat
space without
propellant
-
again as defined by the flat space observer.

Please think about this before replying. It is entirely possible that
the motion of the craft is geodesic and there is no
propellant as seen
from on board the craft. Whilst, AT THE SAME TIME, the flat space
observer for whom craft-plus-metric-bubble = particle, there must be
propellant if that box has ordinary acceleration. Yes: ORDINARY
ACCELERATION! Why? Because they can only see flat space coordinates
plus a 'particle', the interior details of which do not concern them.
They are only interested in the fact that the 'particle'
(as a
unit) has a non-zero mass as referred (unambiguously) to their
coordinate system. To their level of acuity, Covariant
Acceleration of
'particle' = Ordinary Acceleration of 'particle'.

Please observe the fact that I am referring to the
craft-plus-metric-bubble as a unit = 'particle'. That unit requires
propellant to accelerate. You, by contrast, keep referring to the
craft. The craft DOES NOT NEED PROPELLANT to accelerate (if, as
assumed, it moves on a geodesic). Please take time to understand this
distinction before replying!

This is pretty trivial stuff Jack. You seem to be so beguiled
by metric
bubbles and warp drives that you cannot hear what I am
saying. Once you
see what I am saying rather than what you THINK I am saying, no doubt
you will say that it is obvious and not worthy of debate. It is
obvious! It isn't worthy of debate! But since you are having
difficulty, Eric and & have decided to write it up as a short paper -
just in case there are others out there who cannot see the
wood for the
trees. We'll see you in court!

- Michael

On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:32 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

At 11:18 PM 6/20/2007, RAY HUDSON wrote:
I was going to respond to this as well, but how could I do better than Creon has done? He has captured all of the thoughts I was going to offer from an engineering perspective… and then some! The most interesting to me (not surprising given my flight controls bias) is the gyroscopic effect of a spinning mass where rotation provides a “stiffness” that permits attitude maintenance with respect to some inertial reference. Ergo, rotation leads to stability, and stability is a result of converting the otherwise chaotic effects in the universe into something orderly (and therefore easier to perceive).

Ray


Stability is indeed the central issue here.

In order to get past the description of particles as perfect points (with infinite energy of self-repulsion
due to charge being all in one point), the obvious alternative is to describe them
as stable "lumps" of force... "solitons," in physics-talk.

You know I have solved this problem in the frame work of Bohm's objective nonlocal pilot wave-Hidden Variable (HV) ontological picture of quantum theory. CFD (Counter Factual Definiteness) is absent here completely - it's a rather obscure notion to begin with in the Copenhagen type interpretations with literal "collapse" for particle theory. See my book Super Cosmos. My solution came out of my debate with Hal Puthoff on Ken Shoulders's "charge clusters."

OK imagine a hollow thin spherical shell of electric charge e of rest mass m that is rotating with spin J of radius a. We use Galilean relativity i.e. v/c << 1, though we can use 1905 SR later with the gamma factor.

The unstable self-Coulomb repulsive potential energy is ~ +e^2/r. We are in the rotating non-inertial rest frame of the charged shell. Therefore, the effective rotational potential energy is ~ +J^2/mr^2.

This total classical potential is unstable repulsive. OK zero point energy comes to rescue! That's what Lorentz, Abraham & Becker and Poincare did not have back ~ 1900. We have an inner core of negative zero point energy ZPE density ~ /\zpf with positive quantum pressure. This will strongly gravitate according to Einstein's 1916 GR. It is the attractive glue for stability. Furthermore the effective Sakharov ZPE induced gravity is so strong that the electron looks like a "point particle" to Ibison's AFO from the extreme micro-space warping! Same for quarks of course explaining deep inelastic electron scattering off protons etc.

The total potential energy is now (mod some dimensionless coefficients ~ 1)

U(charged shell)= -mc^2/\zpfr^2 + e^2/r + J^2/mr^2

The net force is

F = - dU/dr = 2mc^2/\zpfr + e^2/r^2 + 2J^2/mr^2

F = 0 in dynamic equilibrium in the rotating frame

Therefore, we have to find the roots of a quartic polynomial

Homework problem: Find the roots!

2mc^2/\zpfr + e^2/r^2 + 2J^2/mr^3 = 0

i.e.

/\zpfr^4 + e^2r/2mc^2 + 2J^2/2m^2c^2 = 0

i.e.

(/\zpf)r^4 + (classical electron radius)r + (Compton wave length)^2 = 0

Fine structure constant = (classical electron radius)/(Compton wave length) ~ 1/137 at low energy

Note with these sign conventions /\zpf > 0 means negative ZPE pressure, stability requires /\zpf < 0 i.e. positive ZPE exotic vacuum pressure.

Stability of this dynamic equilibrium from elementary calculus of max & min is

y = f(x)

dy/dx = 0 critical point

d^2y/dx^2 > 0

is a minimum, hence

d^2U/dr^2 > 0

no problem, there are stable solutions for /\zpf < 0

Check that as a homework problem.


But stability is not so easy to achieve. All known stable solitons require "topological charge" of some kind.
(See Makhankov et al, The Skyrme Model, or Rajaraman, Solitons and Instantons.)
They end up having to have rotation... i.e. spin coupled to isospin.

This is the start of a very important story -- but only the start.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
http://stayaerusa.org
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

On Jun 21, 2007, at 10:19 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:


***************************************************************************

"You might remember this old note that I called to the attention of JS:
Thermodynamics as a Finsler Space with Torsion
One of the most striking features of thermodynamics is the division into two sets of those variables that appear in thermodynamic constraints: there are intensities (like Pressure and Temperature, E and B) which appear in the thermodynamic functions as variables homogeneous of degree 0, and there are extensive quantities (like Volume, Energy and Entropy, D and H) which appear as variables homogeneous of degree 1. Classically, there is no way to distinguish (geometrically) these two different species. However, it has long been recognized in the calculus of variations of a singly parameterized function, L(x,V;t), with dx-Vdt=0 as a constraint, that homogeneous functions play a critical role. The variational integral is independent of the choice of parameterization, t, if and only if the function L(x,V,t) is homogeneous of degree one in the variables, V. This means that V, or anything proportional to V, such as U=b(x,V) V can be used in the constraints, dx-Vdt = 0 = dx-Uds, where the new parameterization function satisfies ds - bdt = 0. Then the variational procedure on the variational integrand L(x,V,t)dt or on the variational integrand L(x,U,s)ds will give the same minimal result.

When a vector field, V, is considered to be the same vector field, independent from any factor of scaling (or renormalization), then Chern calls the vector field, V, a projectivized vector field. A projective geometry is a geometry that is independent from scales, and can be modeled as the set of all rays through some point of perspective, named the origin."

(Jack wrote) Dirac quantum kets and bras are an example for orthodox QM. What are QBIT spaces with "curvature" and "torsion"?

(Kiehn wrote) "The mathematical vehicle of parametric independent variational calculus distinguishes functions which are homogeneous of degree 1. Such is the arena of thermodynamics, and therefor projective geometries share some of the properties of a thermodynamic system.

But there is more to the story, for in 1919 Finsler developed a thesis in which he studied a geometry which, if unconstrained, was not only non-euclidean, but also non-Riemannian. Special constraints would reduce Finsler geometries to the more common Riemannian geometries. The new feature permitted in Finsler spaces (a feature that is missing in Riemannian geometries because of quadratic, or quartic constraints) is the property of Torsion. Chern has shown how to interpret Finsler spaces in terms of the parametric independent calculus of variations, where the dual field, V, is projectivized.

Cartan recognized in 1922 that spaces with torsion existed, but he achieved this result from an entirely different tack than that used by Finsler. Cartan hypothecated that in the sense that a structural defect of closure in a basis frame implies the existence of curvature 2-forms, a structural defect of closure in the position of the origin could imply the existence of torsion 2-forms. "

(Jack Sarfatti wrote)

TORSION^a = D(TETRAD)^a = d(TETRAD)^a + (SPIN CONNECTION)^ac/\(TETRAD)^c

CURVATURE^a^b = D(SPIN CONNECTION)^a^b

(TETRAD)^a = (MINKOWSKI)^a + @(WARP)^a

(SPIN CONNECTION)^a^b has 2 independent pieces the one from localizing rigid 4-parameter T4, the other from localizing rigid 6-parameter O(1,3). The latter is Shipov's "oriented point" to Calabi-Yau space of superstring theory
i.e. FROM

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Shipov.jpg

TO

http://qedcorp.com/APS/CalabiYauSpace.jpg

is obvious.

Local T4(x) only gives disclination curvature defects in 4D world crystal lattice, local O(1,3)(x) gives BOTH disclination curvature and dislocation torsion gaps (failure of tiny parallelograms to close in 2nd order of smallness for parallel transport of vectors on them).

@ = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3 ~ 10^-41 ~ (Eddington number)^-1

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

h = Planck's QUANTUM of ACTION

G = scale-dependent Newtonian gravity coupling.

c = speed of real massless photon in classical vacuum without dark energy/matter

/\zpf at large scales is Einstein's cosmological constant /\(Einstein) = 1/R^2

R = radius of FUTURE dark energy deSitter horizon of our pocket Hubble bubble universe on the cosmic landscape of many worlds that reaches back in time to cosmic trigger the inflation -> big bang

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/images/443145a-i1.0.jpg

Power of 1/3 in dimensionless renormalizable spin 1 vector coupling is from World Hologram

&R = @R = Lp^2/3R^1/3 ~ 1 fermi i.e. 1Gev (origin of nuclear physics scale - as above so below)

&R = quantum gravity fluctuation in the future de Sitter horizon retrocausal advanced signal cosmic trigger creating pocket universes in globally consistent Novikov loops in time.

/\zpf at small scales it is the quintessent field that we control for manufacture of warp drive and star gate time travel.

Note that dark energy density ~ (1/(LpR)^1/2)^4 ~ (10^-3 ev)4 ~ 10^-29 grams/cc

i.e. in more conventional units this is (c^4/G)/\zpf = (hc/Gh/c^3)/\zpf = hc/Lp^2R^2

(LpR)^1/2 ~ 10^-2 cm ~ geometric mean of smallest UV and largest length IR scales

in a IR-UV duality

(Kiehn) "As Brillouin (1959) states

'If one does not admit the symmetry of the (connection) coefficients, one obtains the twisted spaces of Cartan, spaces which scarcely have been used in physics to the present, but which seem to be called to an important role.'

To this day not much has been done with Cartan's spaces with torsion, except in the Kondo theory of dislocation defects in solids. However, Cartan's notions can be made precise and more general in terms of subspaces of a projectivized basis frame. Then not only the position of the origin (the point of perspective in projective geometry), but also its dual polar axis can have closure defects, leading to dislocations and disclinations respectively

(Kiehn 1994)

*****************

NOWADAYS, my thinking has gone beyond geometrical concepts. Scaling and Renormalization should be replaced with homogenization and self-similarity, which are topological ideas. This means that Affine torsion (which is transitive) is not the key idea, and needs to be replaced by a concept that requires a "fixed" (or singular) point. The 3-form of topological torsion, A^dA, goes beyond affine torsion."

(Jack) Does that not that appear in 2D anyons? Chern something or other?

So T^a = De^a is "affine torsion" in your language?

Note in my theory

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

So I can have a A^adAb.
Examples can be given for which affine torsion is not zero, but topological torsion is zero.

(Kiehn) "The vector arrray of Affine torsion 2-forms of a matrix basis frame of functions can be transformed away (but not by a diffeomorphism) if the components of affine torsion are integrable. The transforation is a matrix of integrating factors acting on the Basis Frame.

However, if the components of the vector of affine torsion 2-forms are not integrable, (A^dA not zero) then they cannot be transformed away.

Hence to focus attention on affine torsion and its possible dynamic effects IMO is useless.

The concept of emergence appears to require topological torsion, a key artifact of non-equilibirum thermodynamics.

see http://www22.pair.com/csdc/pdf/ecosud07.pdf

Regards

RMK"

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


bcc

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

bcc

"Dear Prof.Jack Sarfatti,

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

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

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

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

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

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



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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Absolute parallelism" to me means

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

where

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

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

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

Note the torsion field 2-form

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ = World Hologram dimensionless coupling

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

the 1/3 power gives World Hologram formula

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

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

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

In my theory the torsion spin conection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards, yours sincerely,

Juris Tambergs"


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
http://stayaerusa.org
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

On Jun 20, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

A deep topic. Please don't take it personally, but I cannot say I agree, or even that I understand, your thoughts l-4 your message.

Here are my own thoughts why rotation is so fundamental, to mainstream physics and to "fringe" physics:

1. Every object in the universe is spinning. From elementary particles to galaxy clusters and beyond. Perhaps even the entire universe. And (interestingly) if you graph mass vs. angular momentum across the universe of scales, you get an interesting result....

URL? Picture? You do not mean a Regge trajectory sort of thing

J ~ M^2

do you?


2. Rotation in fundamentally associated with the most interesting areas in each branch of physics. I.e.:
in mechanics: precession, pseudo-forces, torsion...
in fluid dynamics: vorticity and vortices...
in electromagnetism: magnetism itself, unipolar induction, gravitational magnetism,
in relativity: Mach's principle, Kerr solution (time travel), extended relativity (Shipov, Sarfatti-Klienert, etc)
in geophysics: dynamo theory, weather
in astrophysics: stellar evolution, galactic structure, jets, disks...
in quantum mechanics: spin-statistics, rotons,
in chemical physics: orbitals, paired and unpaired spins, Fermi correlation....

3. Angular momentum is one of the very few conserved quantities in physics, especially conserved quantities that laypeople have direct experience with.

4. Our identity as a tool-using technological species is to a large extent bound up with rotational machines: The wheel, the screw, the engine, the turbine, the drill, the gyroscope, the dynamo....

5. We are confronted with, and in actuality living on and made of, what are essentially "perpetuum mobiles" of the rotational sort. The earth rotates around its axis, our DNA coils itself into superhelices, and the very atoms of our bodies spin endlessly.

Tim Ventura wrote:
Hi Jack & Creon --

I'd like to ask, on a conceptual level, what your thoughts are on why we see "rotation" in so much of the mythology: Searl, Nazi-Bell, Heim, DePalma, etc...I could probably dig up several hundred examples for this, but you probably already know them so I won't waste your time.

Conceptually, I've had a couple of thoughts, for whatever their worth:

1. Rotation is a means of dynamic energy storage: perhaps like a flywheel for effects that modify time-space.

Maybe.

2. Rotation confines the disturbance of time/space resulting from linear motion (an electron through a wire) to a particular area & magnifies it (same as a magnetic coil).

No comprende.

3. Rotation adds a 4th-dimensional element to any system, making it a hypersystem (although that's mostly a semantic argument I guess).

No comprende.

4. Rotation converts energy to a negative-state, which I picked up from the notion that rotation in a wormhole is similar to a weak negative energy in the throat (which may be innaccurate).

Ask Burinski. I vaguely remember something about negative mass parameter in the analytic extension of vacuum Kerr solution. No time to look it up right now. I could be not even wrong on that.

These are just a couple of thoughts, though.

I understand that Einstein viewed angular momentum as being distinctly different than linear momentum - or so I've heard.

Depends what you mean by "different."

Any thoughts on his perception of rotation based on what you've read?

Tim

Indeed, I do:


Matter fields have a symmetric T4 translational stress-energy tensor Tuv = Tvu with 10 independent components. They also have an antisymmetric O(1,3) angular momentum tensor Juv = - Jvu with 6 independent components where

Juv = Luv(orbital) + Suv(spin)

sort of split.

Suv(spin) is definitely a source of the NON-PROPAGATING RICCI torsion field Cartan 2-form T^a

e^a are the tetrad 1-forms

T^a = De^a = de^a + W^ac/\e^c =/= 0

W^a^c = - W^c^a is the spin-connection

W^a^c = W^a^c(T4(x)) + W^a^c(O(1,3, x))

from locally gauging RIGID T4 and RIGID O(1,3) respectively, where

de^a + W^a^c(T4(x))/\e^c = 0

therefore

T^a = (W^ac(T4(x)) + W^ac(O(1,3, x)))/\(W^c^b(T4(x)) + W^c^b(O(1,3, x))) =/=0

W^a^b(T4(x)) gives only disclination defect rotations of rotations of vectors parallel transported round closed infinitesimal parallelogram "loops," i.e. tidal stress-squeeze conformal vacuum curvature and expansion and contraction Ricci curvature from the matter fields including dark energy zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations. W^ac(O(1,3, x)) gives the torsion gap field per se i.e. dislocation defects! Note the curvature-torsion coupling in T^a.

Roughly speaking in terms of curvature disclination connection and torsion dislocation connection

Torsion 2-form Field = (Curvature Connection)/\(Curvature Connection) + (Torsion Connection)/\ (Torsion Connection)

+ (Curvature Connection /\ Torsion Connection) coupling cross terms.

Similarly for the extended curvature 2-form field

R^a^b = DW^a^b.

So we have non-trivial couplings between 4D translational group curvature and 4D rotational group torsion!

Note, a torsion field will always give a curvature field, but not vice versa!

So the BIG ISSUE for all the exotic effects including Shipov's 4D gyro, Podkletnov's "beam" based on the Nazi Bell, maybe even Blackett effect is whether the orbital rotation of matter fields is a direct source of PROPAGATING CONFORMAL VACUUM TORSION WAVES? Note with dark energy we also have PROPAGATING RICCI TORSION WAVES in the EXOTIC VACUUM for the metric engineering of WEIGHTLESS (geodesic) WARP DRIVE and WORMHOLE star gate.


From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:45 PM
To: Creon Levit
Cc: Tim Ventura; 'Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars'; 'SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com'; 'Tony Smith'; 'Arkadiusz Jadczyk'; 'saul-paul & mary-minn sirag'; 'Carlos Castro'; 'Brian Josephson'; 'mat pit'; 'Basil Hiley'; lark1@quantumfuture.net; 'Gennady Shipov'; 'Vladimir Poponin'; rkiehn2352@aol.com; 'Srikanth R'; 'David M Mcmahon'; 'Waldyr Jr.'; 'Diego Lucio Rapoport'; 'Burinskii Ya.'; 'Massimo Teodorani'; 'Andrew Beckwith'; 'Mark Pesses'; 'michael ibison'; 'Hagen Kleinert'; 'nick herbert'; 'George Weissmann'; stapp@thsrv.lbl.gov; 'Russell Targ'; 'Elizabeth Rausher'; 'Hal P'; 'RAY HUDSON'; 'alan parker'; 'Paul Werbos'; 'Paul Murad'; 'GRELET CHRISTOPHE'; 'Eshel Ben-Jacob'; fhp@aps.org; 'Dan Smith'; 'bruce maccabee'; 'colin bennett'; 'William Birnes'; 'Bruce Cornet'; 'Eric Davis'; 'ROBERT BECKER'; 'James Woodward'; 'Alan Holt'; lfuller@telus.net; 'vic xianto'
Subject: Re: STAIF: ++++-- "space-time"? Tony Smith & Ibison's & Davis's claim

Thanks Creon. Yes but there was some Munich experiment Saul-Paul mentioned at ISSO more recent than Blackett's and I think it was to test Heim's theory?

On Jun 20, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

The German is Heim. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim

The guy with the rotating sphere was Blackett himself, though as Saul-Paul pointed out in Nature v278 pp535-8 (1979), Blackett did not actually spin the sphere.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yeah what's the name of that German? I think he lost some limbs and an eye in an explosion? Also he may be the same guy with the rotating sphere that Saul-Paul was interested in because of the Blackett effect. Or maybe I got different things garbled?
On Jun 20, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Hi Jack --
For whatever it's worth, don't forget Martin Tajmar & Clovis De Matos team getting an accelerometer deviation at 1-million times the predicted relativistic magnitude from a rotating superconductor in the lab. Last I heard, the military was giving Tajmar an exemption to use an ICBM-grade accelerometer to ensure that these results are valid and not simply emerging from some as-yet unidentified experimental error. However, they have performed 300+ tests over 4 years now, so if there is something wrong with the experiment then it's probably equipment and not transient environmental anomalies...
Tim

From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars

Subject: STAIF: ++++-- "space-time"? Tony Smith & Ibison's & Davis's claim

"Where shall wisdom be found?" (Job?)

"The greatest ideas are the greatest events." Nietzsche (via Yale's Harold Bloom)

OK I cannot recall off-hand the German who AIAA gave an award to for exotic propulsion. It created a minor scandal as it seemed to be "crackpot." But perhaps it deserved a second look? As I recall he also had a ++++-- signature group theory and he claimed to compute elementary particle masses. Now is this basically the same idea Tony Smith has been talking about?

As to my epiphany on waking from the dream a few hours ago on the Ibison-Davis claims. My idea still seems good to me. Again for the record (listening to Haydn's String Quartet in D Major):

Noether's theorem 1918 post Einstein's 1916 GR is that

1a. RIGID Lie group G symmetries of the GLOBAL action S(Psi(x)) of a field Psi(x) imply conserved GLOBAL Lie algebra "charges" Q^a that are conserved in "time"

dQa/dt = 0

[Qa,Qb] = f^cabQc

f^cab = structure constants of the Lie algebra

a,b,c = 1,2, ... n = number of group parameters

RIGID means the group parameters are constant and uniform, i.e. the same independent of local coordinate charts {x} in the neighborhoods of events p that are Einstein's "local coincidences" in the sense of the "Einstein hole paradox" of 1917.

1b. Noether's theorem (not in it's most general form only for 3D+1) presupposed the absolute arena of 1905 gravity-free GLOBALLY flat Minkowski spacetime in which not only is the action S invariant under G, but is also invariant under the 10-parameter Poincare group

P10 = T4xO(1,3) = semi-direct product of 4-parameter space-time translation group T4 and 6-parameter space-time rotation Lorentz group O(1,3). I leave a lot of unimportant well-known details here for the Elmer Fuddy Duddies suffering "rigor mortis" (Feynman) who are ready to pounce as they are not important for the essential physical ideas relevant to the new point I am trying to make.

1c. Einstein's 1916 GR is a self-referential case where RIGID G = T4 and we locally gauge T4 to T4(x) whose gauge transformations are the GCTs

x^u(p) -> x^u(x^u'(p))

to get the non-trivial compensating gauge connection tetrad potential Cartan 1-forms A^a.

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms are spin 1 vector fields (if quantized)

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

where @ is a dimensionless coupling constant. More on that later. @ is determined by the world hologram ansatz that that h -> 0, c -> infinity switches off warps in addition to G -> 0 plus dark energy /\zpf broken super symmetry defining the area of a future deSitter horizon for our pocket universe on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse of parallel worlds. In short @ = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3 ~ 10^-41 if /\zpf ~ (10^-3ev)^4, Lp^2 = hG/c^3.

What is I^a? It is the trivial tetrad for globally flat Minkowski spacetime with RIGID P10.

I^a = I^audx^u

In Minkowski geodesic Global Inertial Frames (GIFs) I^au = Kronecker Delta^au. However, in non-geodesic GNIFs I^au is a general curvilinear function describing observer detector g-forces without intrinsic conformal tensor curvature in the classical vacuum.

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

Spin 2 level connection field = e^uae^av,w

,w is flat ordinary partial derivative.

In the zero torsion field T^a 2-form limit

T^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\ec = T^auvdx^u/\dx^v = 0

The spin connection 1-forms

S^a^b = - S^b^a = S^a^budx^u

are partially determined by the A^a with an 8-fold Higgs-Goldstone phase gauge freedom of the post-inflation field because there are 16 independent e^au and 24 independent S^a^bu.

The curvature 2-form field is

R^a^b = - R^b^c = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density 0-form integrated over a 4D region with (detguv)^1/2d^4x is

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

{abcd} is the completely antisymmetric tensor of Minkowski spacetime.

R = 0 in classical vacuum of course without any dark energy density ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf.

However, in my theory we need /\zpf =/= 0 to get gravity in the first place.

2. The Ibison-Davis thesis
As far as I can understand their claim, they say a "propellant" is needed in any warp drive. I do not think so. They do not specify what their propellant actually is or even what it could be. However, their argument, which tentatively I classify as "not even wrong" (W. Pauli) pending their promised detailed math "paper" - so far I have only seen sketchy mostly ambiguous plain language hand-waving from Ibison so I cannot really get what he is driving at. What I do get is that he imagines a flat gravity-free absolute background Minkowski spacetime with a very tiny warp bubble with the space ship inside. That is, the thing is observed by the outside Asymptotically Flat Observers (AFOs) with EM signals whose wavelengths are much larger than the scale of the warp bubble. What their ghostly propellant is I cannot imagine. However, their fragment of a vague idea did lead me to some interesting ideas in which propellants need not apply.

OK we have a tiny "particle" geodesic warp bubble. Warp means that GR applies on the bubble shell. Note the ship itself must be in a flat interior to avoid tidal stretch-squeeze curvature. GR is T4(x) local group not RIGID T4 of SR. Therefore, the world line of the "tiny" warp bubble with USS electron inside it as a Bohm hidden variable is locally geodesic but is globally relative to the AFOs anything! It can be a tachyon and even turn around in "time" exactly like in Feynman's path integral quantum mechanics! This is because relative to RIGID T4 1905 SR the warp bubble worldline is a SINGULARITY where the SR rules break down and the GR rules take over! Therefore the WARP BUBBLE may be a way of describing the Bohm quantum potential Q in SR. It is known that the Bohm quantum potential Q for the spin 0 Klein-Gordon field causes the particle to go spacelike tachyonic and even turn around backwards in time like Feynman's positron. Not only that, but since the warp bubble is locally geodesic it has no time dilation relative to the GIF it starts out with. Assuming that it starts and returns in the same GIF - there will be no time difference between two twins one one the warp voyage round trip and the other who stays at home no matter how far in space or even to what time period past or future the voyager traveled. Note that there are TWO TIMES external global AOF and internal local Bohm hidden variable. The external Minkowski proper time of the Feynman amplitude is that calculated by the AOFs so that there is constructive interference of the amplitudes in the classical limit. However, the internal proper time of the voyager is the same as the zero warp Minkowski timelike geodesic proper time connecting the start and finish of the voyage in the same GIF, i.e. the same foliation of the flat Minkowski proper time. Issues of conservation of the COM momentum of the warp bubble are not even wrong in my opinion because RIGID T4 symmetry breaks down on the singular line (world tube) of the warp bubble therefore dP^i(COM)/dt (i = 1,2,3) seen by AOF need not be zero even though there is no propellant ejected from the warp bubble. The warp bubble's path is locally geodesic, but is globally non-geodesic.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jun 18, 2007, at 8:30 PM, saul-paul & mary-minn sirag wrote:

Hi Jack and Tony,

...

I'll attach a pdf of one of the latest things I've written, which is just an update of something I published in 1993 -- "Hyperspace Refelections." This update should be published next year. You can see that I'm still strongly in favor of string theory (and supersymmetry, of course).

I think I have found the physical reason, the "organizing idea" as it were for the main parts of string theory and WHY supersymmetry must be broken for the universe to exist. But I am not completely sure as yet.

Basically it's simple. It's this. Localize the rigid T4 translations, the resulting gauge connection is not the Levi-Civita connection which comes in later, it is the warped tetrad 1-forms A^a = A^audx^u where the Minkowski indices a,b .. act like Yang-Mills internal flavor/color fiber indices.

Note this is a spin 1 field not a spin 2 field. Spin 1 gauge fields are renormalizable as quantum field theories, so that's the clue! Like QED has e^2/hc dimensionless coupling, hence the T4 tetrad theory has dimensionless (Lp^2/\zpf)^p/q where Lp^2 = hG/c^3.
No gravity if h = 0, if c ---> infinity and most important if there is perfect supersymmetry! That is we need /\zpf =/= 0 where

/\zpf = 1/R^2

R = deSitter future horizon radius

dark energy density is ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf ~ (10^-3 ev)^4

p = 1 & q = 3 give the world hologram i.e. geometrodynamics is 2D "anyon"

&R = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3R = Lp^2/3R^1/3 ~ 1 fermi i.e. 10^9ev

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms are, therefore

e^a = I^a + (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3A^a

You get the Levi-Civita spin 2 connections from e^uae^av,w where , is ordinary partial derivative and

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

note that (Lp^2/\zpf)^-1 ~ 10^120-123 Bekenstein BITS

&

(Lp^2/\zpf)^-1/3 ~ 10^40-41 is one of your Eddington numbers!

So what about that Saul-Paul? ;-)

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html


On Clifford space:
I should point out that the group algebra of the octahedral double group, C[OD], has both the group basis OD and a matric basis which makes C[OD] equivalent to the direct sum of M(1) + M(2) + M(3) + M(4) + M(3) + M(2) + M(1) + M(2), where M(x) is the set of all complex x-by-x matrices. These dimensional numbers can be read off directly from the extended E7 Coxeter graph, with balance numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2. [Note that the sum of the squares of these numbers is 48, which is the order of OD.] So we can then see that M(1) + M(2) + M(3) will contain as unitary elements: U(1) x U(2) x U(3) -- which contains U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3). Also M(2) + M(2) + M(4) constitute two Clifford algebras, the complex Pauli algebra M(2) + M(2) and the complex Dirac algebra M(4). There is one piece of C[OD] still to be accounted for -- a second copy of M(3). This contains, as unitary elements, U(3) and thus SU(3), which could be used as a symmetry acting on the three fermion family structure.

All for now ;-)
Saul-Paul




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Jun 18, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yeah I think you have a good insight here Tony.
I really don't know how Saul-Paul is? I can't find any new stuff from him on Google last I tried a few weeks ago.

On Jun 18, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

It is true that,as Carlos says, "... The C-space ... is more complicated
than the ordinary 4D and 6D spacetime ...",
but
it seems to me that the heart of the locality - nonlocality argument
does not need to use the full complication of C-space,
but
could equally clearly be proven by using the
fact that Spin(2,4) 6-dim spacetime conformal structure is basically
Lie Sphere Geometry of light-cone correlations among the entangled things
giving 6-dim conformal locality,
which
from a 4-dm spacetime point of view looks nonlinear.

In my view, the further complications of C-space are mathematically
very interesting but not necessary to build a realistic physics model.

Tony

PS - Jack, is Saul-Paul OK?


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

"Where shall wisdom be found?" (Job?)

"The greatest ideas are the greatest events." Nietzsche (via Yale's Harold Bloom)

OK I cannot recall off-hand the German who AIAA gave an award to for exotic propulsion. It created a minor scandal as it seemed to be "crackpot." But perhaps it deserved a second look? As I recall he also had a ++++-- signature group theory and he claimed to compute elementary particle masses. Now is this basically the same idea Tony Smith has been talking about?

As to my epiphany on waking from the dream a few hours ago on the Ibison-Davis claims. My idea still seems good to me. Again for the record (listening to Haydn's String Quartet in D Major):

Noether's theorem 1918 post Einstein's 1916 GR is that

1a. RIGID Lie group G symmetries of the GLOBAL action S(Psi(x)) of a field Psi(x) imply conserved GLOBAL Lie algebra "charges" Q^a that are conserved in "time"

dQa/dt = 0

[Qa,Qb] = f^cabQc

f^cab = structure constants of the Lie algebra

a,b,c = 1,2, ... n = number of group parameters

RIGID means the group parameters are constant and uniform, i.e. the same independent of local coordinate charts {x} in the neighborhoods of events p that are Einstein's "local coincidences" in the sense of the "Einstein hole paradox" of 1917.

1b. Noether's theorem (not in it's most general form only for 3D+1) presupposed the absolute arena of 1905 gravity-free GLOBALLY flat Minkowski spacetime in which not only is the action S invariant under G, but is also invariant under the 10-parameter Poincare group

P10 = T4xO(1,3) = semi-direct product of 4-parameter space-time translation group T4 and 6-parameter space-time rotation Lorentz group O(1,3). I leave a lot of unimportant well-known details here for the Elmer Fuddy Duddies suffering "rigor mortis" (Feynman) who are ready to pounce as they are not important for the essential physical ideas relevant to the new point I am trying to make.

1c. Einstein's 1916 GR is a self-referential case where RIGID G = T4 and we locally gauge T4 to T4(x) whose gauge transformations are the GCTs

x^u(p) -> x^u(x^u'(p))

to get the non-trivial compensating gauge connection tetrad potential Cartan 1-forms A^a.

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms are spin 1 vector fields (if quantized)

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

where @ is a dimensionless coupling constant. More on that later. @ is determined by the world hologram ansatz that that h -> 0, c -> infinity switches off warps in addition to G -> 0 plus dark energy /\zpf broken super symmetry defining the area of a future deSitter horizon for our pocket universe on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse of parallel worlds. In short @ = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3 ~ 10^-41 if /\zpf ~ (10^-3ev)^4, Lp^2 = hG/c^3.

What is I^a? It is the trivial tetrad for globally flat Minkowski spacetime with RIGID P10.

I^a = I^audx^u

In Minkowski geodesic Global Inertial Frames (GIFs) I^au = Kronecker Delta^au. However, in non-geodesic GNIFs I^au is a general curvilinear function describing observer detector g-forces without intrinsic conformal tensor curvature in the classical vacuum.

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

Spin 2 level connection field = e^uae^av,w

,w is flat ordinary partial derivative.

In the zero torsion field T^a 2-form limit

T^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\ec = T^auvdx^u/\dx^v = 0

The spin connection 1-forms

S^a^b = - S^b^a = S^a^budx^u

are partially determined by the A^a with an 8-fold Higgs-Goldstone phase gauge freedom of the post-inflation field because there are 16 independent e^au and 24 independent S^a^bu.

The curvature 2-form field is

R^a^b = - R^b^c = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density 0-form integrated over a 4D region with (detguv)^1/2d^4x is

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

{abcd} is the completely antisymmetric tensor of Minkowski spacetime.

R = 0 in classical vacuum of course without any dark energy density ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf.

However, in my theory we need /\zpf =/= 0 to get gravity in the first place.

2. The Ibison-Davis thesis
As far as I can understand their claim, they say a "propellant" is needed in any warp drive. I do not think so. They do not specify what their propellant actually is or even what it could be. However, their argument, which tentatively I classify as "not even wrong" (W. Pauli) pending their promised detailed math "paper" - so far I have only seen sketchy mostly ambiguous plain language hand-waving from Ibison so I cannot really get what he is driving at. What I do get is that he imagines a flat gravity-free absolute background Minkowski spacetime with a very tiny warp bubble with the space ship inside. That is, the thing is observed by the outside Asymptotically Flat Observers (AFOs) with EM signals whose wavelengths are much larger than the scale of the warp bubble. What their ghostly propellant is I cannot imagine. However, their fragment of a vague idea did lead me to some interesting ideas in which propellants need not apply.

OK we have a tiny "particle" geodesic warp bubble. Warp means that GR applies on the bubble shell. Note the ship itself must be in a flat interior to avoid tidal stretch-squeeze curvature. GR is T4(x) local group not RIGID T4 of SR. Therefore, the world line of the "tiny" warp bubble with USS electron inside it as a Bohm hidden variable is locally geodesic but is globally relative to the AFOs anything! It can be a tachyon and even turn around in "time" exactly like in Feynman's path integral quantum mechanics! This is because relative to RIGID T4 1905 SR the warp bubble worldline is a SINGULARITY where the SR rules break down and the GR rules take over! Therefore the WARP BUBBLE may be a way of describing the Bohm quantum potential Q in SR. It is known that the Bohm quantum potential Q for the spin 0 Klein-Gordon field causes the particle to go spacelike tachyonic and even turn around backwards in time like Feynman's positron. Not only that, but since the warp bubble is locally geodesic it has no time dilation relative to the GIF it starts out with. Assuming that it starts and returns in the same GIF - there will be no time difference between two twins one one the warp voyage round trip and the other who stays at home no matter how far in space or even to what time period past or future the voyager traveled. Note that there are TWO TIMES external global AOF and internal local Bohm hidden variable. The external Minkowski proper time of the Feynman amplitude is that calculated by the AOFs so that there is constructive interference of the amplitudes in the classical limit. However, the internal proper time of the voyager is the same as the zero warp Minkowski timelike geodesic proper time connecting the start and finish of the voyage in the same GIF, i.e. the same foliation of the flat Minkowski proper time. Issues of conservation of the COM momentum of the warp bubble are not even wrong in my opinion because RIGID T4 symmetry breaks down on the singular line (world tube) of the warp bubble therefore dP^i(COM)/dt (i = 1,2,3) seen by AOF need not be zero even though there is no propellant ejected from the warp bubble. The warp bubble's path is locally geodesic, but is globally non-geodesic.

Memorandum for the Historical Record in the History of Theoretical Physics

I awoke with a start. So I want to record this before I forget the "dream."

OK consider Ibison's "point" approximation of the "Alcubierre" geodesic warp drive bubble history in an otherwise 1905 Special Relativity (SR) globally flat Minkowski space-time. In the usual way choose a Global Inertial Frame (GIF) allowing a spacelike foliation/slicing into 3D hypersurfaces. As I said the geodesic warp drive bubble "point" is a singularity relative to the SR theory in which RIGID T4 symmetry is broken replaced by ELASTIC T4(x) GCT symmetry. The SR observers outside the geodesic warp bubble are Ibison's AFO Minkowski observers who can be inertial geodesic or not -- doesn't matter.

But the geodesic warp drive history can be arbitrarily SPACELIKE TACHYONIC relative to the AOFs. That is ANYTHING GOES! Imagine a starting point at the t = 0 spacelike hypersurface at initial position P(0) where the tiny ship "electron" switches on its geodesic warp bubble. The ship arrives at the t hypersurface at some final position P'(t). Note that the proper time is the same for all possible warp bubble histories. Well this is precisely Feynman's quantum path integral picture of the propagator of a relativistic point particle that takes ALL POSSIBLE spacetime paths connecting P(0) to P'(t) including spacelike and BACKWARDS IN TIME (particle-antiparticle production and annihilation). In Bohm's picture this is the work of the Quantum Potential Q.

Therefore, Bohm's quantum potential Q for a "point particle" in otherwise gravity free globally flat Minkowski spacetime is equivalent to a microscopic geodesic warp drive bubble in which the Captain like in The Flying Dutchman takes all possible voyages from StarGate Portal P(0) to StarGate Portal P(t) where t can even be negative (backwards in time).

OK so Ibison and Davis are going to write a "paper" are they? Well it better not have this idea in it without mentioning that it's my idea given to me by ET perhaps? IN A WAKING DREAM. It's 5:47 AM PST Wed June 20, 2007 San Francisco.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 9:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

2nd draft

What Michael Ibison and Eric Davis do not understand, do not grok about their claim is that like the spacetime singularity of a black hole in curved spacetime, their warp drive stringy world line is also a singularity of their global special relativity model. They do not understand how the group theory applies to their classical model. Each theory has a limited domain of validity specified by the symmetries of the theory. Those domains of validity are like circles of convergence of power series in complex function theory. The warp drive history is like a pole in the complex plane of w = w(z). The theory stops there and we need a larger theory. In a way this is Godel's incompleteness theorem of 1931 since any theory is a formal system. Progress in theoretical physics is like analytic continuation in the mathematics of complex functions of several complex variables.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 6:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

What is this bait and switch? Ibison has simply parroted back my ideas as if he was saying that all the time? I will put my ideas he has fed back to me in red below.

RIGID SYMMETRY is GLOBAL SYMMETRY with a CONSERVED GLOBAL CHARGE.

RIGID SYMMETRY means there is Lie group G with n space-time independent parameters under which the global dynamical action of the system of the source fields is invariant.

In such a case, one can define local source current densities Ju that are locally conserved. This means that the globally flat Minkowksi spacetime SR 4-divergence of the currents vanish

J^au^,u = 0

u = 0,1,2,0 with 0 timelike inside the local light cone

a = 1 ... n

Given a spacelike slice of 4D spacetime the 3D integral of J0^a = Q^a the conserved charge i.e.

dQ/dx0 = 0 Emmy Noether's theorem of 1918 not known by Einstein really in 1916 in the most general form.

Now all this assumes that in addition to G that the dynamical action is invariant under RIGID T4 where a = 0,1,23 and the stress-energy current densities are now Tuv for a given set of classical fields

Total energy E = 3D space integral of T00

Pi = 3D space integral of T0i

i = 1,2,3

But you cannot do this in general in Einstein's general relativity because RIGID T4 is no longer a symmetry group of the dynamical action if real gravity fields are present, i.e. non-vanishing 4 rank GCT conformal curvature tensor fields in classical vacuum. No dark zero point Ricci source exotic vacuum energy - to keep it simple for now. This is basically the equivalence principle. The curved tetrad fields A^a are the compensating gauge connection fields when the 4 spacetime independent physical displacement parameters of T4 become arbitrary functions of the local coordinate chart. We now have a warped 4D "world crystal" where the parameters of the locally gauged NON-RIGID T4, i.e. T4(x) are the crystal distortions, and the gauge transformations are precisely Einstein's GCT's (General Coordinate Transformations).

So let's look at this simply. Suppose the AFO (Asymptotically Flat Observer) outside the warp bubble in its FUTURE LIGHT CONE receives long waves only that are much bigger than the warp bubble with the ship inside it. The bubble is a "point" to such probes. The history of the warp bubble is a SINGULAR STRING WORLD LINE like a cut for a complex function w = f(z) in the complex z-plane. That is 1905 SR with RIGID T4 symmetry breaks down on the string replaced by NON-RIGID ELASTIC T4(x) that is a larger symmetry group. The A^a warped tetrad fields are zero outside the singular warp string. They are not zero in the string. If you think of vortices A^a are like the vorticity of the vortex core.

OK let 3G(ti) & 3G(tf) be the initial and final 3 Geometries (hypersurfaces) connected by the warp bubble string. The ship leaves at ti and arrives at tf in some localized foliation. Now ANYTHING GOES, there is no reason why the Pu of the matter fields of the ship and its occupants need to be conserved, i.e. need to be the same on both initial and final spacelike hypersurfaces. They CAN BE, they NEED NOT BE! It's completely arbitrary subject to the whim of the captain of the ship because the warp history does not obey RIGID T4 NO PROPELLANT NEED APPLY!

NO SYMMETRY --> NO CONSERVATION!

LOCAL CONSERVATION of T4 CURRENTS does not imply GLOBAL CONSERVATION of T4 CHARGES on 3D spacelike hypesurfaces when T4 is violated inside the 4D spacetime region where the WARP BUBBLE is.

NO PROPELLANT NEED APPLY!

Note that for internal symmetries and RIGID T4 the above does not apply because there is no 4D equivalence principle for internal symmetries and their conservation laws.

Then we have spontaneous symmetry breakdown - another story.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:

What Michael relates below is completely correct. It couldn't be better articulated.

Eric



snip----------------------------------

Bullshit. I have said no such thing. Are you being intentionally obstreperous?
Let me repeat what you are saying back to you so you cannot keep misrepresenting
me:

Zero 4D covariant 4-acceleration means on-board g-force.

NO Mike you got it wrong. That's NOT what I wrote. I will give you benefit of the doubt that it's a typo.

What I wrote a JILLION TIMES seemingly to no avail was JUST THE OPPOSITE

Zero 4D covariant 4-acceleration means ZERO on-board g-force. NO g-force.

The Einstein GR geodesic equation for this is

DP^u/ds = 0

Assuming dm/ds = 0 i.e. no actual ejection of rest mass - and this include a jet of HFGW (High Frequency Gravity Waves), or photons, or atoms, or anything, then

DP^u/ds = mcdV^u/ds - mc(Connection)^uvwV^vV^w = On-board g-force = 0

I mean here 4-force obviously.

P^u = mcV^u

m = rest mass of COM of ship

V^u = dx^u/ds

ds = dt/(gamma)

d/ds = (gamma)d/dt

gamma = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2

Now

mcdV^u/ds is the kinematical "Euclidean" APPARENT "Newtonian" g-force (generalized to 1905 SR) computed from radar bounces et-al

mc(Connection)^uvwV^vV^w is, if you like sci-fi, the curved (possibly torsioned) spacetime "inertial compensation" term. That is the term we must control with dark zero point energy to metric engineer warp and wormhole for controlled geodesic dogfights without on-board g-force and NO TIME DILATION!

Such 'motion' does not require propellant. Indeed, there must be no propellant
in order for such motion to take place.

Parrots back what I have repeatedly written in the public record.

I will assume that you are with me so far, and move on:

Obviously Mike you and Eric must be under the control of an Evil Alien or a Malevolent Fairy or some self-professed Skeptic perhaps?


Amazing Randi

This is your bait and switch where you take my words and throw it back at me as if you are "educating" me! You could sell used cars in Tijuana with that shtick. ;-)

The above statement are assumed valid for the craft and it's passengers. They
are valid because of the assumed metric bubble enveloping the craft.

So you parrot back what I have written.

At some point the metric bubble flattens out to flat space (I am working in
coordinates such that g_00=1, g_0i=0.)
Put a box around that metric-bubble-plus-craft. Call that box a 'particle'.

IF that particle has mass, that is: if the ADM adjusted mass of the ship is
non-zero, then that particle must conserve momentum IN FLAT SPACE;
it cannot accelerate as measured against that flat space without propellant -
again as defined by the flat space observer.

Conserve momentum where-when? This is your error! Of course when the metric bubble vanishes it will need propellant in the usual Newtonian and SR way. SO WHAT?

Look when the warp bubble flattens out as you put it, then of course obviously there are global inertial frames GIFs where

(Connection Field) = 0 at all points in the flat region

and Tuv^,v(Ship) = 0

etc. so momentum of the COM of ship is LOCALLY CONSERVED in usual SR -> Galilean fashion when there is no anomalous warp bubble. SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

Please think about this before replying. It is entirely possible that the motion
of the craft is geodesic and there is no propellant as seen from on board the
craft. Whilst, AT THE SAME TIME, the flat space observer for whom
craft-plus-metric-bubble = particle, there must be propellant if that box has
ordinary acceleration.

But the box does not have ordinary acceleration inside the warp bubble - that's the point!

It would be nice if you defined your terms.

I mean dV^u/ds as "ordinary acceleration". Indeed that would be what radar sees if the bubble is small compared to wavelength of signal, but that's not what we have in general. It's the other way around so we need the Terrell type calculations. Follow the null geodesics from different points on the ship to the AFO's. Not a trivial simulation even for Alcubierre's toy model I bet. Why don't you try it?


Yes: ORDINARY ACCELERATION! Why? Because they can only
see flat space coordinates plus a 'particle', the interior details of which do
not concern them.

See above.


They are only interested in the fact that the 'particle' (as a
unit) has a non-zero mass as referred (unambiguously) to their coordinate
system. To their level of acuity, Covariant Acceleration of 'particle' =
Ordinary Acceleration of 'particle'.

That is only true if (CONNECTION) = 0 at every future light cone origin along the ship's world line where the ship's future light cones intercept AFO's detectors. That is only when warp bubble is not there! Draw a spacetime diagram.


Please observe the fact that I am referring to the craft-plus-metric-bubble as a
unit = 'particle'. That unit requires propellant to accelerate. You, by
contrast, keep referring to the craft. The craft DOES NOT NEED PROPELLANT to
accelerate (if, as assumed, it moves on a geodesic). Please take time to
understand this distinction before replying!

Einstein said, make it simple, but not simpler than is possible. You are making it more complicated than is needed. So where is this phantom meta-propellant of yours to come from? It's not required for Einstein's GR and beyond to Einstein-Cartan with torsion. You got turtles on turtles. "It's turtles all the way down." Hawking in "A Brief History of Time" intro.

Basically you have obliterated the difference between

Tuv^,v(ship) = 0 NO WARP BUBBLE


Tuv,^;v(ship) = 0 WARP BUBBLE

Where Tuv is a finite world tube of support for the material fields of the ship inside the warp bubble.

There is no AOF global P^u conservation before warp and after warp needed. Strict Pu global conservation is only true for RIGID T4 symmetry which is VIOLATED inside the warp bubble! It's NOT LIKE S-Matrix theory. Your analogical argument is not good. This is one reason why "quantum gravity" is elusive.


This is pretty trivial stuff Jack. You seem to be so beguiled by metric bubbles
and warp drives that you cannot hear what I am saying.

So far you have not said anything real. You have invoked some ghost propellant not required by GR or its extensions.

Once you see what I am
saying rather than what you THINK I am saying, no doubt you will say that it is
obvious and not worthy of debate. It is obvious! It isn't worthy of debate! But
since you are having difficulty, Eric and & have decided to write it up as a
short paper - just in case there are others out there who cannot see the wood
for the trees. We'll see you in court!

By all means write a paper, but don't leave my name out of it as if I don't exist, and let me check that you cite me correctly I mean that you don't misrepresent my ideas.

To give you the benefit of the doubt Michael & Eric, your verbal arguments are too vague. You have not shown enough math to pin down your meaning. Hence I say "not even wrong" - Pauli

In a nut shell - the "point" warp bubble is a kind of SINGULARITY for the AFOs in which RIGID T4 symmetry is VIOLATED. Hence, by Noether's theorem you cannot conclude that GLOBAL Pu for the ship is CONSERVED in time on spacelike slices.

You do not get the RIGID GLOBAL SYMMETRY implies and is implied by GLOBAL CONSERVATION.

The symmetry group here is T4.

The warp bubble VIOLATES T4 invariance of the warp bubble-ship field action. If you think of warp bubble + ship inside it as a POINT, then what you have is a SINGULARITY - a world tube singularity in which T4 is violated.

NO SYMMETRY --> NO CONSERVATION!

OK we have binary pulsars http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

Gravity waves are emitted and you can use Minkowski background - energy momentum is conserved here in the usual way. The issue however is whether an observer on the in-spiraling rotating neutron star feels a g-force recoil from the gravity.

waves? http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/grav_rad.htm has:

"Relativity predicts that the binary system will lose energy with time as orbital energy is converted to gravitational radiation.
In 1983, Taylor and collaborators reported that there was a systematic shift in the observed time of periastron relative to that expected if the orbital separation remained constant. In the diagram shown here, data taken in the first decade after the discovery showed a decrease in the orbital period as reported by Taylor and his colleagues of about 76 millionths of a second per year. By 1982, the pulsar was arriving at its periastron more than a second earlier than would have been expected if the orbit had remained constant since 1974.
(Figure from Weisberg et al. 1981)
In the intervening decade, continued timing of the pulsar shows the continued decrease just as predicted by Einstein.
Because the binary system is losing energy, the orbits are shrinking, and someday the two stars should coalesce. Such a merger might produce strong enough gravitational radiation to be detected by instruments like the Laser Inteferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory now under contruction.
The pulsar's orbit is shrinking with time as shown in this diagram; currently, the orbit shrinks by about 3.1 mm per orbit. The two stars should merge in about 300 million years from now."


On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:34 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Jack said: Any kind of propellant pushes the ship off-geodesic, i.e. g-forces felt on board the ship.

ii) I doubt this is true - gravitational radiation is a perfectly good propellant. Can you tell me how that would manage to push the ship off a geodesic?

First of all gravity waves are much too weak to be a practical propellant - even high frequency. Second, gravity waves are part of the geometrodynamic field. They simply cause the local geodesic to very weakly wiggle from POV of AFO. The WO still feels no g-force from the emitted gravity waves.

Exactly. So why are you saying that a propellant must push the ship off a geodesic???

"Propellant" must be a non-gravity field configuration of some sort.

I mean, in the text book "test particle" limit - the non-geodesic version of Newton's "F = ma"

DV^u/ds = dV^u/ds + {LC}^uvwV^vV^w = F^u(Propellant)/m(ship)

V^u is 4-velocity of the ship.

Read what you wrote above:

" Any kind of propellant pushes the ship off-geodesic, i.e. g-forces felt on board the ship."

The parts of a system which as a total emits gravitational waves and otherwise interacts only gravitationally all move on geodesics. Hence the ship plus metric bubble can emit gravitational radiation as propellant and still move on a geodesic. Of course it will not look like that to the SFO. It will look like propellant is causing the ship to accelerate with respect to her flat-space coordinates.

However, in fact the Alcubierre metric, admittedly only a toy model, does not have any gravity waves as an essential part of its working.

- Michael

in order to really see what the AFO actually does see. All this Newtonian sophistry on COM momentum is really off the point not the real problem.

On Jun 12, 2007, at 3:48 PM, michael ibison wrote:

From: michael ibison [mailto:ibison@earthtech.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:48 PM
To: 'Jack Sarfatti'

Subject: RE: Captain Kirk agrees with AFO

Jack, you haven't read or do not understand what I wrote. Your warp-drive with no propellant violates COM despite the lack of g-forces on the ship.

No you have contradicted yourself because you do not take into account the global - local distinction of GR that is absent in SR & in Newtonian-Galilean limit. Lenny Susskind's "black hole complementarity" is an example.
The reason for the breakdown lies outside of the ship. It does so because of what happens to the center of mass of everything outside of the ship during the short time in which the warp drive is switched on.

This is operationally meaningless. You are imposing Newtonian thinking beyond its domain of validity.

All you can say is that the ship is locally on a geodesic in a strongly warped region. The WO feels no g-force. Therefore, using Newtonian idea the WO says "I cannot measure any acceleration of my CM. I am operationally "standing still" ie. in uniform motion in Newtonian Galilean terms. Now what the AFO sees here really needs to be calculated in detail like in the Terrell problem.
During that transient the matter in the rest of the universe appears to an AFO to be compressed towards one side and extended away from the other side of the ship.
What "matter"? No matter. The ship is in vacuum. What is essentially compressed and extended is the geometrodynamic field itself. Whether there is matter in the warped region is secondary.

Except in the per-chance case of perfectly symmetric distribution of matter on a 1D arc through the ship, the AFO's universe suffers non COM at that time. It does so likewise when the warp-drive is switched off.

Again I don't know what your sentence means operationally. You are using apriori Newtonian thinking. What one must do is actually take the warp metric and calculate the null geodesics transmitters on the ship. These null geodesics must pass through the warp bubble. Not obvious at all what the AFO sees "during" the warp flight.

We need GR version of this http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/paper2.pdf

- Michael

Michael your gedankenexperiment may be "not even wrong" on closer analysis, but I am not yet sure. The real problem here is not as simple as you first posed it.

The Lorentz Contraction is Invisible

We have discussed the fact that these relativistic effects violate our common sense because they are unobservable in our everyday life. The reason for the unobservability is that the speed of light is so large compared to everyday speeds that it is effectively infinite.

In 1940 physicist George Gamow published a book, Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland, that imagines a world where the speed of light is only 30 miles per hour. In this world these relativistic effects are readily observable. It has been collected with another of his works dealing with Quantum Mechanics by Cambridge University Press into a book titled Mr. Tompkins in Paperback.

In Wonderland, people observed length contractions, time dilations, etc. in their everyday life. In 1959 Terrell showed that this is not quite correct. When we see the length of a moving rod, we are seeing the light from the back and from the front of the rod that enters our eyes simultaneously. But if the rod is to our left and moving toward us, the light entering our eyes from the back left the rod before the light entering our eyes from the front. Thus it looks longer than it really is. It turns out that this effect cancels the length contraction. So we do not see the length contraction, although careful measurements of the simultaneous positions of the front and back of the rod will indicate that the length is in fact contracted.

In fact, the object will look like it is rotated but not contracted.

A Flash animation demonstrating this effect has been prepared. It requires the Flash 5 player on your computer, and has a file size of 92k. To access the animation click here.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/SpecRel.html#Invisible

OK so we need to do this Terrell type SR simulation for the GR Alcubierre warp bubble metric. Kip Thorne may be doing this for Stephen Spielberg for the film "Interstellar" - it's not a trivial problem - it's a problem in "numerical relativity."

From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:29 PM
To: ibison@earthtech.org
Subject: Re: Captain Kirk agrees with AFO

If you read carefully what I wrote

NO PROPELLANT

and both AFO & Sar Ship Captain agree 3-momentum is conserved, i.e no g-force felt in warp drive is exactly what one feels when CM momentum of ship is conserved! Nevertheless, round trip Earth to Mars in 4 hours not counting time on Mars without time dilation. You are not understanding what I have shown - what is the Alcubierre basic idea.

On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:45 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Read what I sent to Creon. AFO is defined there: Asymptotically Flat Observer (shorthand for observer in flat space making observations of box whose boundaries are in flat space, but whose interior is whatever- you-like-fancy-metric-plus-ship).


Yes, OK, but what you have not had time to GROK (Heinlein "Stranger in a Strangeland") yet is that GUESS WHAT?
AFO and Captain Kirk AGREE!

OK, cool, I believe you (for now ;) ). Now, what about the propellant???
Captain Mike

4) For reference, including five eyewitness reports beyond those who have submitted images, please see Earthfiles below:

• 06/08/2007 —
More Drone Photos and Other Eyewitnesses
• 05/30/2007 —
Birmingham-Type "Drone" Seen At Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, in Mid-1980s
• 05/28/2007 —
Letters About Unidentified "Drone" Aerial Objects
• 05/25/2007 —
Two More Eyewitnesses of Aerial "Drones" in 2005 and 2006
• 05/21/2007 —
Updated: Odd Aerial "Drone"? Photographed Again Over Capitola, California
• 05/16/2007 —
Updated: Odd Aerial "Drones"? Over Lake Tahoe and Central California
• 05/16/2007 —
Updated: Engineer Comments About Odd Aerial "Drones"? Over Lake Tahoe and Central California


Linda Moulton Howe

On Jun 12, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Celtic Grail Scholar Courtney Love's Dad Hank Harrison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Harrison wrote:

Jack et al: for list: Its about time. As you know I have been in
correspondence with several people on your list about the drone
technology for several years.

All the while you were bashing your brains at SRI trying to peer into
the distant Sargasso, I was working on a black project down the
Peninsula at Lockheed. It was known at the time as Aquila. That drone
turned out to be the Predator, but in those days it had a carburetor
Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine and couldn't make the needed
altitude, still we all knew it was going somewhere when Lockheed
sealed our lips with nice bonus bribes and sold the whole thing t the
Israeli's...

That was 1978. Now here we are nearly 30 years later and you dummies
are entranced by these drone sightings....hey man they never stopped
doing the drone research at the Skunkenwerken... the reason you see
them up in Big Basin and near AFB installations is because that State
Park is in a straight line to Lockheed.Martin down in Santa Clara and
the AFBs are launch locations

The basket drones reported by Linda Howe absorb electricity from
various sources close to the ground then go back up to the
stratosphere because they don't need an aspirated engine to fly, this
means they don't need a jet or a gasoline pack.

They are electromechanical and they fly with the wind and compressed
air. The pictures you showed were during the absorption deployment
mode, but all of that wiring and cage like apparatus folds up and the
"wings" fly the thing in the jet stream etc.... they are not
anti-gravity devices, but a gullible mind could easily be lead to
believe that they are.

The spec was to build a flying drone that could perpetually stay aloft
in the atmosphere without detection...ultimate stealth. They are
currently being used to detect satellite signals and are guided by our
own satellites and/or our own microwave and radio inboard computers.
They also have compressed air propulsion units, photovoltaic cells,
micro gyros and are launched In a folded configuration from planes. In
other words they are almost like kite based solar wind satellites that
make their own power. One future deployment is for the manned Mars
expedition, but I assure you they are currently terrestrial and they
are ours.... hank

OK here is what is wrong with Michael's clever argument in a nutshell.

Think in the "S-Matrix" way, but be careful, the analogy is imperfect.

In the past 4D flat spacetime region with warp drive switched off the center of mass momentum of the enemy alien saucer is conserved. There is no propulsion without an ejected propellant there as Michael says because

Tuv(enemy ship)^,v = 0

,v is ordinary partial derivative

Pu(Past) = spacelike integral of Tuo d^3x

and

dPu(Past)/dt = 0

in that region from Noether's theorem where RIGID P10 (10-parameter Poincare group) is a symmetry group of the ship's dynamical action in that pre-warp region.

Note the spacelike integral is over a small finite 3D region.

Switch on PROPELLANTLESS PROPULSION WEIGHTLESS GEODESIC WARP DRIVE in a finite intermediate background Minkowski region. In that intermediate region RIGID P10 is no longer a symmetry group. There is local current conservation but no global "charge" conservation in that WARPED intermediate 4D region.

Unlike S-Matrix theory of HEP P10 is suspended in the "scattering region," i.e. there is no Dirac delta function of

&(Pu(ship past) - Pu(ship future)) in the "Feynman diagrams" assuming perturbation theory works here.

That is, for the enemy vessel's center or mass momentum although dPu(ship past)/dt = 0 prior to warp switch ON

and

That is although dPu(ship future)/dt = 0 after warp switch OFF

There is no reason to suppose Pu(ship past) = Pu(ship future)

But it is even more subtle than that, because even in simple physics, the total momentum changes when a force is applied. The situation here is that there is never a "force" applied in the GR Einstein paradigm because the motion of the enemy ship is always locally geodesic, i.e. g-force-free in warp drive. In GR only non-gravity forces like the EM Lorentz force and radiation reaction jerks will make g-forces pushing the ship off its local Levi-Civita connection timelike geodesic. Note torsion forces must be kept small same as tidal curvature forces in a star gate traversable wormhole time travel portal like we see, perhaps, at the Skinwalker Utah Ranch owned by Robert Bigelow of Las Vegas?

On Jun 11, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Michael Ibison gives a very interesting clever thought-provoking argument that propellantless propulsion is not possible. Like Nick Herbert's FLASH, which led to the no-cloning theorem of quantum information theory, I suspect that Ibison's idea, though incorrect, is incorrect for a very subtle reason that will lead to progress in the practical metric engineering of warp and wormhole.

Alleged Fact: We see UFOs fly and they have propellantless propulsion. Therefore, Ibison's argument is wrong, but how exactly is it wrong?


On Jun 11, 2007, at 1:26 PM, michael ibison wrote:

I have no problem with you posting my previous comments.

However, your present qualifications based on off-mass-shell virtual interactions (gravitational or otherwise) just obscure the point I am making but do not address it. My point is valid in the case where the initial and final states of the metric are Minkowski.

Yes, it appears so. You have the analog to the S-Matrix with asymptotically free "in" and "out" states at past and present infinity. In your case you have asymptotically flat 4D spacetime geometries with a perturbative model of warp drive switched on for a finite "time". You assume a flat background metric - what Roger Penrose calls the "linear graviton," i.e. huv is a small spin 2 tensor field representing the warp drive.

guv = (Minkowski)uv + huv(warp drive)

huv(warp drive) << (Minkowski)uv


Any near-field virtual interactions associated with the warp drive must be absent at those times. If not, then we are not discussing the same thing. If the ship is somehow 'dressed' by some local metric change, then that is not the same ship we started with, which was in Minkowski spacetime. I will wait until you have switched off all such engineered fluctuations of the metric. When you are quite finished we must be back in Minkowski spacetime and my statement applies.

It would seem so, but perhaps not. We live in a Higgs field(s), which is cohered virtual quanta forming the vacuum condensate. Indeed, in my model of gravity curvature tetrad 1-forms and torsion spin-connection 1-forms emergent from the Goldstone phase 0-forms of the post-inflation Higgs field(s) in the same way that the superflow field velocity 1-form emerges from the exterior derivative of a single Goldstone phase 0-form, therefore you simply cannot switch off the zero point ambient zpf dark energy density that is a Ricci source of curvature. The issue then is how strong is it on different scales and is it scale-dependent being large on the microscale of a fermi?

Remember the actual measured value of (10^-3 ev)^4 is only the IR long wave limit where an entire galaxy is approximated as a mathematical point in the FRW metric model.

Your objection / qualification reminds me of the "Newton's third law doesn't apply" argument often leveled at the case of magnetic interactions in the scattering of two charges. Whilst they are interacting, working out how there is conservation of momentum may be tricky and may depend on the choice of the EM SET. But we can avoid all those complications by confining attention to the times long before the charges are close, and long afterwards. Before they get close we can ignore all EM interactions, and so the mechanical energy and momentum are all that matter ;). Long after the scattering, one can ignore all near-field EM considerations, there are then no Lorentz forces, no hidden momentum, and no virtual photons. Then only the mechanical energy and momentum, and the energy and momentum of radiation matter.

Consequently, if the CoM of the charges is different in that final stage than it was in the initial stage, then one can be sure that there is radiation - which is the 'propellant'.

I have no idea what you mean by an exotic vacuum being a source or sink of momentum. Are you giving up on conservation of momentum?

Possibly. Depends what you mean by "momentum" global or local? GR raises still not settled questions about global conservation laws.

Let's go back to Noether's theorem of 1918.

Conservation of total global energy and linear momentum only holds when the RIGID continuous 4-parameter translation group is a symmetry group of the dynamical action of the relevant fields.

That is, x^u -> x'^u = x^u + a^u

where a^u is a constant 4-vector the same over the entire history of the universe!

This is very unphysical! It certainly violates locality!

Indeed, when we localize T4 i.e. let a^u -> a^u(x^v) we get Einstein's 1916 curvature field (with zero torsion gaps) as a consequence of a warped tetrad field that is the compensating spin 1 gauge 4-potential analogous to Au in EM. The spin 2 geometrodynamic connection is composite bilinear in the spin 1 tetrad fields. Note the QM spin addition rules from SU(2) group representation theory in Hilbert spaces of qubit fields

1 + 1 = 2,1, 0

i.e.

3x3 = 5 + 3 + 1

OK how do we approximately represent the space ship that has a warp drive generator? It's basically a localized source field with a confined soliton structure. Let's call this the Psi source field and a U(1) EM field Au. Treat it as spin 0 for simplicity. Also we allow torsion fields so that the geometrodynamic connection is not symmetric Levi-Civita, but also has an antisymmetric contortion term.

The Einstein field equation is

Guv(geometry) + /\zpfguv(geometry) + kTuv(Psi(ship), Au) = 0

/\zpf is the ambient zero point dark energy/matter field.

dark energy is positive pressure

dark matter is negative pressure

when w < - 1/3

There is also a second torsion field equation coupled to the source angular momentum tensor.

e.g. Kibble 1961

It's complicated and its details are not important here for my qualitative points.

Because of the torsion field, in terms of the symmetric torsion free Levi-Civita connection covariant derivative ;

Guv^;v =/= 0 unlike 1916 GR.

In fact, assuming metricity, i.e. guv^.;v = 0

Guv^;v + /\zpf^,vguv + kTuv(Psi,Au)^;v = 0

this is the local conservation law for the 4D spacetime translational stress-energy current densities.

Note that Tuv ~ functional derivative of source (ship) action with respect to the metric guv variation.

There is a similar local law for the 4D space-time rotational torsion "vortex" current densities.

All derivatives of the source field Psi are covariant "minimal coupling" derivatives for both localized P10 (Poincare) and localized U(1) groups.

What did I mean by virtual vacuum current reservoir for center of mass momentum of ship?

Well suppose

Guv^;v = 0 to a good approximation, then

/\zpf(Dark Energy)^,vguv(geometry) + kTuv(Psi(Warp Drive Generator),Au(EM))^;v = 0

/\zpf(Dark Energy)^,vguv(geometry) = virtual vacuum translational current reservoir source and sink of linear momentum

Now in fact, you may not be able to make asymptotically flat states, but even if you can, there is no reason at all to assume that the total linear momentum of the Psi(ship) soliton source field (localized support in 4D background Minkowski spacetime) is conserved! Why? Because the total linear momentum, the global spacelike integral including both geometrodynamic and source & EM fields is not conserved.

That is, when you include the geometrodynamic field as a dynamical actor on equal basis with source ship and EM fields there is no global energy-momentum conservation law on spacelike slices in the intermediate warp drive finite spacetime regions.

Note, as an example of violation of global T4 conservation laws, the total energy of our expanding accelerating dark energy deSitter universe is not conserved! The dark energy density is constant on IR scale so that the total dark energy scales as a(t)^3 where a(t) is the FRW scale factor.

From the POV of Noether's theorem this is obvious because RIGID T4 is not a symmetry group of the total dynamical action of the universe.

So the above is my off-the-cuff back-of-the-envelope retort to your interesting argument. I could be wrong or not even wrong. However, I think your argument is interesting and provocative and should be debated in same way as Nick Herbert's FLASH argument. :-)

Non-conservation of energy or momentum that may appear in a vacuum interaction must be an artifact of the method of (perturbative) analysis. Space-translation invariance of the action is all we need to be sure that the momentum is exactly conserved at all times - vacuum fields or no vacuum fields. Hence the ship cannot move without propellant - regardless of any fancy warp-drive physics.

- Michael

From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:55 PM
To: ibison@earthtech.org
Subject: RE: Inertial mass, rest mass & zero rest mass

I wish you would make a public statement. :-)

I see what you say based on perturbation theory. However, I don't think we need real on-mass-shell propellant. Off mass shell virtual "dark energy" propellant inside vacuum is what is happening here. We do not need on light cone gravity waves in far field - it's all near geometrodynamic field. We can debate this. There will be exotic vacuum trace of the warp that is the momentum source & sink.

What your argument really shows is that warp drive is NONPERURBATIVE like the superconducting ground state cannot be derived in a finite number of terms in perturbation expansion.

michael ibison wrote:
Looking over what you have said recently on this topic, I am in complete
agreement with you.

Based on past discussions. I fear though that some folks may have come to
erroneous conclusions on the possibilities for space-travel based on warp-drive
ideas. To illustrate, consider:

i) Start with a system with no fancy metric, eg close to Minkowski spacetime.
ii) Switch on warp drive (bend metric etc) in vicinity of craft, and wait whilst
craft moves along geodesic of curved spacetime
iii) Turn off warp drive - spacetime is once again Minkowski.


Whatever qualities of the warp drive are employed, at the end of all this, it is
provably the case that the centre of mass (COM) of the total system cannot be
different than it was at the start. That is, one cannot use a warp drive to
conclude that the craft can get from A to B (whose coordinates are referred to
the starting and finishing MINKOWSKI spacetime) with no other reciprocal change.
Conservation of momentum demands that that there must be another mass that has
moved along the vector BA such that the COM is preserved. In other words, the
displacement cannot be achieved without propellant. This conclusion applies
irrespective of talk of fancy Alcubierre metric waves carrying the ship along.

Fancy warp drive physics do not get around the problem of the need for
propellant. Of course, the propellant could take the form of gravitational
radiation, but propellant there must be.

- Michael


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
>Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:25 AM
>To: ibison@earthtech.org
>Subject: Re: Inertial mass, rest mass & zero rest mass
>
>yes
>On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:19 PM, michael ibison wrote:
>
>> Jack: why did you send this to (just) me? Are you expecting a
>> reaction?
>>
>> - Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:08 PM
>>> To: michael ibison
>>> Subject: Fwd: Inertial mass, rest mass & zero rest mass
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Jack Sarfatti
>>>> Date: June 10, 2007 2:05:30 PM PDT
>>>> To: MPOGO@aol.com
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: Inertial mass, rest mass & zero rest mass
>>>>
>>>> Don't evade the point here. It's important and it shows
>why all the
>>>> schemes suggested by
>>>> 1) Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole ... ZPE friction
>>>>
>>>> 2) Mach's Principle - Woodward
>>>>
>>>> 3) EM stress - Jim Corum
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> All schemes except for variations on the Alcubierre toy
>model - true
>>>> metric engineering the fabric of space will fail to explain UFO
>>>> evidence with zero g-force EVEN IF THEY WORKED AS ADVERTISED
>>>> (doubtful).
>>>>
>>>> The one solid reliable empirical reference here is Paul
>>> Hill's book as
>>>> Hal Puthoff & Eric Davis agree. The key idea in that book is the
>>>> "acceleration field," i.e. "geodesic weightless warp
>drive" in more
>>>> modern jargon.
>>>>


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784