On Sep 16, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
yes - also it's intuitive and really not very different from Yang-Mills theory.
----------------Internal Yang-Mills Field----- Curvature-Torsion Field
Symmetry Group G = U(1), SU(2), SU(3) ----------- P10 = T4xSO(1,3)
Compensating gauge 1-form B^i ---------------- B^a where e^a = I^a + B^a, ds^2 = e^aea = guvdx^udx^v
i,j,k = 1 U(1); i,j,k = 1,2,3 SU(2); i,j,k = 1,2,3, ... 8 SU(3); a,b,c = 0,1,2,3 T4
Yang-Mills field 2-form
F^i = DB^i = dB^i + c^ijkB^j/\B^k
c^ijk = structure constants of Lie algebra {Q^i} of G
[Q^i,Q^j] = c^i^jkQ^k
Compare to the INTRINSIC torsion field 2-form
T'^a = D'B^a = dB^a + w^abcB^b/\B^c
Where the INTRINSIC spin-connection 1-form is
S'^a^b = w^a^bcB^c
w's are the spin-connection tetrad coefficients - but not directly structure constants of the P10 Lie algebra.
Also, there seems to be really no Yang-Mills analog to Riemann curvature 2-form in this tetrad POV, which is additional structure
R'^a^b = dS'^a^b + S'^ac/\S'^cb
Flash back to I^a for Minkowski spacetime
ds^2(Minkowski) = I^aIa
I^a = I^ausx^u
in global Minkowski geodesic inertial frames GIFs
a geodesic means zero intrinsic acceleration of the center of mass of the local frame (detector).
I^au = Kronecker-delta - ALIGNMENT
In LOCAL intrinsically accelerating off-geodesic non-inertial frames LNIFs or "rocket frames" that may also rotate, I^au(x) is a 4x4 matrix of functions of local coordinate charts encoding the inertial g-forces that we eliminate in globally superluminal geodesic zero g-force warp drive with "time travel" in all significant meanings - the goal of "metric engineering".
Define the Minkowski spin connection
So^a^b = w^a^bcI^a
Do = d + So^ac/\
Obviously
To^a = Doe^a = 0
Ro^a^b = DoSo^a^b = 0
Furthermore, if we only locally gauge 4-parameter T4 as in Einstein's 1916 GR we get w^a^bc(T4).
Let the Lie algebra of T4 be {Pa} with structure constants
C^a^bc
[P^a,P^b] = C^a^bcP^c
a,b,c = 0,1,2,3 0 timelike, 1,2,3 spacelike
note the deformed Lie algebra of non-commutative spacetime is non-Abelian
What is the relation of w^a^bc(T4) to C^a^bc?
If as in Utiyama 1956 we only locally gauge the 6-parameter SO(1,3) with Lie algebra {P^[a,b]}
[P^[a,b],P^[a',b']] = C^[a,b]^[a',b'][a",b"]P^[a",b"]
we get w^a^bc(SO(1,3)
If we do Kibble 1961 locally gauge 10-parameter P10 we get
w^a^bc = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3) + w^a^bc(T4,SO(1,3))
3rd term of RHS from cross commutators of 4 P^a with 6 P^[a',b']
Sticking now only with Einstein's 1916 GR we have ONLY w^a^bc(T4) that I will call w^a^bc belopw
D = d + S^ac/\
S^a^b = w^a^bc(T4)e^c
T^a = De^a = 0 zero total torsion field 2-form
where
De^a = d(I^a + B^a) + w^ac'c(I^c' + B^c')/\(I^c + B^c) = 0
where
dI^a + w^ac'cI^c'/\I^c = 0
Therefore,
De^a = dB^a + w^ac'c[I^c'/\B^c + B^c'/\I^c + B^c'/\B^c] = 0
Similarly for the curvature 2-form
R^a^b = DS^a^b
In general w^a^bc are functions of the local coordinates not fixed constants - I think?
On Sep 16, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
If the tetrad formalism facilitates the description of interactions with spinning test particles and
helps to re-formulate Einstein's theory of gravitational in terms of a gauge-field model, of course
that's a strong argument in favor of the tetrad model.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I agree with Rovelli Ch 2 "Quantum Gravity" that the tetrad 1-forms
e^a = e^audx^u
are the most natural choice for the gravitational field with the most compact way of doing GR
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = (Minkowski)abe^ae^b = e^aea
Curvature 2-form is R^a^b = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb
S^a^b = S^a^budx^u is spin-connection 1-form
e^a = I^a + B^a
I^a is for Minkowski spacetime
Flat base-space geometry.
Yes, but no perturbation theory on a fixed non-dynamical background implied. Of course, you can do that if you further require
B^a << I^a
but you do not NEED to do that. The general theory is obviously background-independent in Lee Smolin's sense.
B^a is analogous to v = vudx^u = (h/m)dTheta = superflow 3-velocity 1-form
B^a expresses the deviation of the actual base geometry from flat.
Yes, key word is "actual" i.e. "intrinsic", "locally objectively real" in terms of Einstein's 1917 operational "local coincidences" of small detectors in arbitrary relative motion.
But like I^a it also carries information about reference frames once you introduce a coordinate basis where the basis vectors are aligned with the physical coordinates (using directional coordinate derivatives).
Yes, those are the choices for I^au(x) & B^au(x) that are completely arbitrary maps of the territory.
The MAP is NOT the Territory (Alfred Korzybski)
with possible exception of a STRANGE LOOP of the physical conscious mind?
Clearly this must be so if e^a = I^a + B^a, and the tetrads e^a are to represent both intrinsic spacetime geometry *and* frame acceleration (in non-inertial frames).
Clearly. Yes that is the way I picture it.
Since the B^a field is a spin 1 vector field under Lorentz group, it is obviously the natural starting point to understand gravity and torsion SIMPLY as the local gauging of the global 10-parameter Poincare group that IS 1905 special relativity analogous to internal symmetry Yang-Mills theory of electro-weak-strong forces.
Well, you still haven't specified which instance of the Poincare group you are talking about here.
"Instance"? There is only one Poincare group with an intrinsic Lie algebra. Rovelli shows how to use different representations of Poincare Lie algebra {P^a, P^[a',b']} in the minimal covariant coupling of tetrad gravity fields to scalar, spinor and vector matter source fields. Explicit formulae in his Ch 2.
Is this a coordinate invariance group, or a geometric symmetry group? Both can be described as "Poincare".
Since I am only doing local coordinate-free objective physics obviously the latter I would think. I don't see how this informal language distinction changes the actual formal structure? I mean how is that a difference that makes a physical difference in the calculation of observables? Maybe, but I have no need of that distinction so far.
Einstein-Minkowski (1907 version) clearly involves a *metric* n_uv that reflects the geometry of the Minkowski
manifold, subject to the SR definition of the "line element" (which implies the restriction of covariance to the Lorentz group).
No, 1905 special relativity uses the 10 parameter Poincare group P10 = T4xO(1,3). The 6-parameter Lorentz group O(1,3) is a subgroup. All actions are invariant under RIGID P10. Curvature without torsion is when T4 is localized where the GCTs are the local T4 gauge transformations. Torsion induces curvature if you only localize O(1,3) as Utiyama did in 1956. The complete story of curvature + torsion is Kibble 1961. Now you can also localize GL(4,R) with up to 16 parameters.
The distance between spacetime points is in this case determined by the Minkowski metric, and not directly
by the coordinates as in Einstein's 1905 theory.
Precisely
dso^2 = I^aIa 1905 SR
ds^2 = I^aIa + I^aBa + B^aIa + B^aB^a 1916 GR
most tests of GR only use I^aBa + B^aIa with spin 1 gravi-vector quanta if you could do a quantum gravity test is my prediction. All the weak field curvature classical solutions are same of course.
Only in strong field, i.e. B^aBa term will you get spin 0 gravi-scalar & spin 2 tensor "gravitons" as well as spin 1 quanta is my counter-intuitive prediction!
From a mathematical POV the non-covariant Minkowski metric is an artificial construct, since once you have
a geometric model for the 1905 theory you might as well write the generally covariant expression
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v
which renders the choice of (well-behaved) mathematical coordinates completely arbitrary.
I do not understand your use of "non-covariant"
ds0^2 = I^aIa
is even GCT covariant
it is of form guv(x)dx^udx^v for local off-geodesic observers who need to use generally curvilinear I^au(x) not the constant Kronecker delta for geodesic inertial observers.
Torsion and curvature vanish even when you use curvilinear guv(x) for non-geodesic observers in Minkowski spacetime.
Of course the *physical* coordinates must in this case still be Lorentz (for inertial frames) or pointwise instantaneously co-moving Lorentz (for non-inertial frames). All other choices of physical coordinates are excluded, even while the choice of *mathematical* coordinates is still arbitrary (subject to purely technical considerations such as differentiability etc.).
Not sure what you mean apart from what I said. Most simply put in operational pragmatic terms - non-inertial off-geodesic observers who feel g-forces always need guv(x). Geodesic observers without g-forces of any kind on their centers of mass and ignorable tidal curvature and torsion distortions in their relative coordinates to the center of mass, only need Minkowski metric nab for local measurements, i.e. equivalence principle to a sufficient approximation.
In fact The Pundits have not done so - inventing cumbersome formalisms at the 2nd rank GCT metric tensor, Levi-Civita connection level, that are not needed to get to the important physics quickly IMHO.
If you want to handle spinning particles, then I agree that you need a more sophisticated formalism.
Basic matter fields have spin, therefore, 1916 tensor theory is seriously physically incomplete.
On Sep 16, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Agreed, and this is the advantage of Einstein-Cartan, but my point here is that you don't need tetrads in order to separate the mathematical coordinate charts from the physical coordinate charts.
Maybe, but I never use mathematical coordinate charts in my conceptualization of the objective reality physics.
But there is nothing to stop you. You can use, e.g., polar coordinates in a 1-1 Minkowski spacetime just as you can in a 2-dim Euclidean space. There is no need in this context to worry about any relationship with observer frames, detector arrays, or the motion of test particles -- none of which is affected (except as to mathematical *description*) by the choice of abstract coordinates.
I do not understand your above remark. You have eliminated the physics completely. Physics is only about "observer frames, detector arrays, or the motion of test particles" they are the babies in the bathwater. Basic tetrad equations are coordinate-independent and even GCT & Lorentz local-frame independent
e.g.
Scalar action density of pure gravity field
~ (antisymmetric tensor)abcd {R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + (Lambda)e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d}
It is only when you "piggyback" frame-dependent coordinate stipulations on geometric spacetime transformations (as in Einstein's 1905 treatment) and use coordinates to describe metrical changes that you have to worry about such things.
No one does that anymore. It's beating a dead horse. Yes, if you select say static off-geodesic "accelerating" observers outside the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole for example then you use the particular metric representation
g00 = - grr^-1 = (1 - 2rs/r)
rs/r < 1
note I^aBa + B^aIa dominates when rs/r << 1
Note that the "accelerating" observers do not move in this curved spacetime - unlike common sense in flat space of Euclid with Newton's physics!
This is part of what I mean by the "dualism" in the use of spacetime coordinates in Einstein's theories, subject to reformulation by Minkowski in terms of a geometric model (4 dimensional "spacetime").
Fine, but excess baggage.
I only think of relationships between locally coincident tiny detector observers "Alice" and "Bob" in strictly operational pragmatic terms.
This is what I'm calling "physical" spacetime coordinates. You are simply implementing the Einsteinian concept of a *relativistic reference frame* using spacetime coordinates to describe the effects of observer motion on the results of measurements carried out in such frames, as in Einstein's 1905 model.
I agree with the Cornell Physics Department philosophy of the late 1950's (Feynman, Bethe, Salpeter, Morrison, Gold, Kinoshita ...) keep the math minimal.
But you cannot conflate coordinates applied to the fully covariant expression dx^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v with physical coordinates, which latter must be pointwise Lorentz or instantaneously co-moving Lorentz for *physical* reasons. If you do you will get bogged down in contradictions -- certainly in the context of GR.
You lost me. Give an example. In any case I have not done that.
Fancy math is usually a cover for lack of a good physical idea as we see in string theory and loop quantum gravity - not always of course.
The idea of a generally covariant formalism -- independently of physical considerations -- is hardly "fancy math". It's built into the 1915 theory. Yes Einstein got very confused about these questions, but that doesn't mean we should also be confused about them.
The symbols I use, e.g.
ds^2 = e^aea
are generally covariant and do not rely on any particular choice of coordinates or observers.
It was Kretschmann in 1917 who pointed out that there is no direct logical relationship between general covariance and physical relativity, and Einstein agreed. Physical relativity is defined with respect to *reference frame invariance*, whereas general covariance is a metatheoretic property that depends on the way in which a physical theory is mathematically formulated. They are two very different animals.
Fine, but so what? How does that affect what I propose? Tetrads are immune from that disease.
So in developing a gauge field model of gravity, I think one must be very clear in specifying exactly which instance of the Poincare group we are talking about that is to be "locally gauged". Is it a coordinate invariance group, or a physical symmetry group?
I have always explicitly said "physical symmetry group," i.e. dynamical actions of source matter fields are invariant under it.
Indeed, start with SPINOR matter fields, therefore, MUST use tetrads. However, I do not see where your distinction makes a significant difference in any actual calculation of physical importance. Give an example.
If the latter, exactly which physical symmetries of spacetime are we referring to?
In every text book. 4 displacements of local detectors, and 6 spacetime rotations of local detectors in sum are P10. The complete RIGID Lie algebra is given in Schwinger's notes for example.
Almost every theory paper on the gr-qc archive goes nowhere in terms of physical insight on the real problems, e.g. dark energy, dark matter - much fancy math, but very little physics. After looking at many of those papers I ask "So what?" "Why bother?" "What's your point?" Perhaps I am mistaken? ;-)
Well, I actually agree, but I'm afraid if this is not carefully resolved, it will simply perpetuate the confusion.
OK, if you prefer not to deal with such issues, how do you explain the use of a coordinate basis in the tetrad model?
Give an example. I don't know what you mean. I have not needed any particular choice of e^au(x) in any statement of the fundamental structure of the theory if that's what you mean?
How can you have your cake and also eat it?
Just make sure Crazy Roy is not close to the Caffe Trieste counter to spit on it? :-)
PS as a purely mathematical exercise fine - i.e. conceptual art. Let's see if LHC makes a difference if it ever goes online, similarly for LISA/LIGO.
What is purely mathematical here is the issue of formal covariance. What is not purely mathematical is how the tetrads represent reference frames, when *as vectors in a tangent space* they are clearly coordinate-invariant objects.
From your POV, how do you explain this?
I see nothing needing explanation.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
This is how the tetrad model accounts for the dual role of spacetime coordinates in 1915 GR. It is this tacit duality in Einstein's approach that has caused much confusion in the teaching of relativity theory IMHO. Of course one of my personal hobbyhorses is that you can also do all this without tetrads,
You need the tetrads to couple gravity to spinor fields - that's important since all the basic matter fields (leptons & quarks) are spinor fields. The spin 1 vector fields (including the curvature tetrads and torsion spin connections) are induced by localizing the different symmetry groups of the action of the spinor fields.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Physics Today
I agree with Rovelli Ch 2 "Quantum Gravity" that the tetrad 1-forms
e^a = e^audx^u
are the most natural choice for the gravitational field with the most compact way of doing GR
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = (Minkowski)abe^ae^b = e^aea
Curvature 2-form is R^a^b = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb
S^a^b = S^a^budx^u is spin-connection 1-form
e^a = I^a + B^a
I^a is for Minkowski spacetime
B^a is analogous to v = vudx^u = (h/m)dTheta = superflow 3-velocity 1-form
Since the B^a field is a spin 1 vector field under Lorentz group, it is obviously the natural starting point to understand gravity and torsion SIMPLY as the local gauging of the global 10-parameter Poincare group that IS 1905 special relativity analogous to internal symmetry Yang-Mills theory of electro-weak-strong forces. In fact The Pundits have not done so - inventing cumbersome formalisms at the 2nd rank GCT metric tensor, Levi-Civita connection level, that are not needed to get to the important physics quickly IMHO.
On Sep 16, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Agreed, and this is the advantage of Einstein-Cartan, but my point here is that you don't need tetrads in order to separate the mathematical coordinate charts from the physical coordinate charts.
Maybe, but I never use mathematical coordinate charts in my conceptualization of the objective reality physics. I only think of relationships between locally coincident tiny detector observers "Alice" and "Bob" in strictly operational pragmatic terms. I agree with the Cornell Physics Department philosophy of the late 1950's (Feynman, Bethe, Salpeter, Morrison, Gold, Kinoshita ...) keep the math minimal. Fancy math is usually a cover for lack of a good physical idea as we see in string theory and loop quantum gravity - not always of course. Almost every theory paper on the gr-qc archive goes nowhere in terms of physical insight on the real problems, e.g. dark energy, dark matter - much fancy math, but very little physics. After looking at many of those papers I ask "So what?" "Why bother?" "What's your point?" Perhaps I am mistaken? ;-)
PS as a purely mathematical exercise fine - i.e. conceptual art. Let's see if LHC makes a difference if it ever goes online, similarly for LISA/LIGO.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
This is how the tetrad model accounts for the dual role of spacetime coordinates in 1915 GR. It is this tacit duality in Einstein's approach that has caused much confusion in the teaching of relativity theory IMHO. Of course one of my personal hobbyhorses is that you can also do all this without tetrads,
You need the tetrads to couple gravity to spinor fields - that's important since all the basic matter fields (leptons & quarks) are spinor fields. The spin 1 vector fields (including the curvature tetrads and torsion spin connections) are induced by localizing the different symmetry groups of the action of the spinor fields.
I agree with Rovelli Ch 2 "Quantum Gravity" that the tetrad 1-forms
e^a = e^audx^u
are the most natural choice for the gravitational field with the most compact way of doing GR
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = (Minkowski)abe^ae^b = e^aea
Curvature 2-form is R^a^b = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb
S^a^b = S^a^budx^u is spin-connection 1-form
e^a = I^a + B^a
I^a is for Minkowski spacetime
B^a is analogous to v = vudx^u = (h/m)dTheta = superflow 3-velocity 1-form
Since the B^a field is a spin 1 vector field under Lorentz group, it is obviously the natural starting point to understand gravity and torsion SIMPLY as the local gauging of the global 10-parameter Poincare group that IS 1905 special relativity analogous to internal symmetry Yang-Mills theory of electro-weak-strong forces. In fact The Pundits have not done so - inventing cumbersome formalisms at the 2nd rank GCT metric tensor, Levi-Civita connection level, that are not needed to get to the important physics quickly IMHO.
On Sep 16, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Agreed, and this is the advantage of Einstein-Cartan, but my point here is that you don't need tetrads in order to separate the mathematical coordinate charts from the physical coordinate charts.
Maybe, but I never use mathematical coordinate charts in my conceptualization of the objective reality physics. I only think of relationships between locally coincident tiny detector observers "Alice" and "Bob" in strictly operational pragmatic terms. I agree with the Cornell Physics Department philosophy of the late 1950's (Feynman, Bethe, Salpeter, Morrison, Gold, Kinoshita ...) keep the math minimal. Fancy math is usually a cover for lack of a good physical idea as we see in string theory and loop quantum gravity - not always of course. Almost every theory paper on the gr-qc archive goes nowhere in terms of physical insight on the real problems, e.g. dark energy, dark matter - much fancy math, but very little physics. After looking at many of those papers I ask "So what?" "Why bother?" "What's your point?" Perhaps I am mistaken? ;-)
PS as a purely mathematical exercise fine - i.e. conceptual art. Let's see if LHC makes a difference if it ever goes online, similarly for LISA/LIGO.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 14, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
This is how the tetrad model accounts for the dual role of spacetime coordinates in 1915 GR. It is this tacit duality in Einstein's approach that has caused much confusion in the teaching of relativity theory IMHO. Of course one of my personal hobbyhorses is that you can also do all this without tetrads,
You need the tetrads to couple gravity to spinor fields - that's important since all the basic matter fields (leptons & quarks) are spinor fields. The spin 1 vector fields (including the curvature tetrads and torsion spin connections) are induced by localizing the different symmetry groups of the action of the spinor fields.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Einstein(1916)-Utiyama(1956)-Kibble(1961)
Meaning of the spin connection coefficients & Lie algebra structure constants
I cannot push the analogy of the GR spin-connection coefficients w^a^bc with the structure constants c^i^jk of the internal symmetry Yang-Mills Lie algebras too far, although there is a physical relation it is not direct.
In GR including torsion extension
S^a^b = w^a^bce^c = spin-connection 1-form
e^c = tetrad 1-form
a,b,c = 0,1,2,3
in all cases i.e.
Einstein 1916 localize 4-parameter T4 i,j,k = 0,1,2,3 gives GCT curvature no torsion
Utiyama 1956 localize 6-parameter SO(1,3) i,j,k = 4,5,6,7,8,9 gives a torsion induced curvature GCTs put in ad-hoc
Kibble 1961 localize 10-parameter P10 = T4xSO(1,3) gives curvature + torsion with GCTs built in
Therefore there is a mapping
w^a^bc = w^a^bc(c^i^jk)
where in general
a,b,c = 0,1,2,3
and for the Kibble 1961 theory
i,j,k = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 i.e. Gennady Shipov's "oriented point"
where 4,5,6,7,8,9 is the connection to Calabi-Yau space of string theory's extra space dimensions with
e^i i.e. tetrads in 9D + 1 "oriented point" manifold
S^i^j = W^i^jke^k in Gennady Shipov's 10D manifold.
The W^i^jk should be the structure constants of the 10 generators of the Poincare group Lie algebra which determine the spin connection coefficients w^a^b,c in the 3D + 1 space-time where 3D volume-without-volume is the holographic image of something like the dark energy retro-causal future de Sitter horizon.
Something like that.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS Also Paul what you have been looking for is natural in this tetrad substratum. It is not natural on the metric tensor/Levi-Civita connection level because of bilinear tetrad cross terms.
Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is
e^a = I^a + B^a
Where B^a is the intrinsic curvature tetrad field - without committing to my specific hologram model where
B^a to N^-1/3A^a
N = (Closed Surrounding Horizon 2D Surface)/4Lp^2 Bekenstein's formula
Except that as I understand it your I-B tetrad split doesn't correspond to my decomposition at all, since your I component in isolation describes a flat intrinsic spacetime geometry,
Yes.
while the B term when added in accounts for the presence of curvature;
Yes
whereas in my proposed L-C decomposition, there is no dependence whatever on the intrinsic geometry, flat or otherwise, in the "coordinate" component of the decomposition. So I think we may have our wires crossed here.
OK - I am just pointing out that the tetrad formalism does have a sharp clean split between flat and curved/torsioned that is non-perturbative and background-independent, but that disappears at the bilinear metric tensor level. Of course inertial g-forces are curvature independent, they only pertain to the center of mass of an extended test particle, the curvature is detected only in the relative coordinates of the extended test particle. In an N-particle system we can separate the CM coordinate from the relative coordinates. Simplest for idealized 2-body problem of course.
Granted the precise relationship between the two decompositions should be carefully investigated, which I plan to do.
OK
Of course you are technically correct about the I-B cross terms that appear when you recover the LC connection from the tetrads.
No perturbation theory on background dependent Minkowski spacetime is implied here. That's a Red Herring.
That's "linearized GR", which I suppose corresponds nicely with the Kraitchnan-Deser-Feynman spin-2 model. I understand that your model does not rely on linearized GR, and your I + B decomposition has nothing to do with "perturbations" applied to a flat geometry. Your model is clearly non-perturbative.
Right.
My model is background-independent in Lee Smolin's sense.
Right -- although your I tetrad component in isolation describes a flat spacetime geometry, correct?
Yes.
Nothing I say demands B^a << I^a as in perturbation theory.
Right.
I^a has all the inertial force effects of non-geodesic frames in Minkowski spacetime.
But only given a "coordinate" basis, as I understand the tetrad model.
Depends what is meant.
I^a = I^audx^u
I^au is a first-rank linear affine tensor in the u-index
so that I^a is an affine invariant.
In general when we have non-affine transformations, i.e. to accelerated frames in Minkowski spacetime i.e. no real gravity curvature - forget torsion for simplicity since it's not in 1916 GR anyway
Then
I^au to I^au' = X^uu'I^au + X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u
for linear affine frame transformations
X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u = 0 by definition
Note that for GR
e^a = I^b + B^b is GCT invariant
i.e. GCT frame transformations include linear affine of 1905 SR + nonlinear (non-affine = localized T4) - of CMs of spatially extended detectors.
That is
B^au to B^au' = X^uu'B^au - X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u
so that total Einstein-Cartan e^au is a GCT first rank tensor in u, but "Yang-Mills" spin 1 Bu is not - like the EM vector potential is not a tensor under U(1). This is precisely why Kibble's 1961 localized T4 = Einstein's 1916 GCTs. Very neat. Very pretty - showing natural Yang-Mills gauge structure is at tetrad level not where Ashtekar & LQG people put it at Levi-Civita composite level where it has obscure non-physical excess formal baggage leading to "non-renormalizability" puzzles. We need tetrads to couple spinor matter fields to gravity, so why this is not an obvious way to go for the Pundits astounds me.
I^a, B^a & e^a are affine 1st rank tensors under rigid Lorentz group - zero torsion field case.
I suppose we should play same game there, i.e. e^a still a torsion localized Lorentz group tensor & I^a & B^a not so, only their sum.
If e^a not a localized Lorentz group tensor then ds^2 = e^aea no longer invariant in curvature-torsion extension of 1916 GR - very dramatic new physics if that is the case! This is something to ponder.
Note that
T^a(Minkowski) = dI^a + w^abcI^b/\I^c = 0 zero torsion 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
and
R^a^b(Minkowski) = d(w^a^bcI^c) + w^ac'cI^c'/\w^b^cc"I^c" = 0 zero curvature 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
However, cross terms I^a with A^b occur in the general case mixing inertial with intrinsic effects.
I think this is only when you use a coordinate basis
I don't know what you mean. In 1905 SR - zero curvature, zero torsion
I^au to Kronecker-delta in all global inertial Minkowski geodesic frames related only by linear affine transformations. It is curvilinear in accelerated non-geodesic Minkowski frames from the X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u "inertial g-forces".
-- otherwise your "I" has no discernible relationship to observer frames, but is simply an arbitrary orthonormal basis in a tangent space with no intrinsic relationship to spacetime coordinates.
I don't understand your sentence. Tetrad formalism is GCT invariant like using intrinsic vectors curlA, divA in vector calculus
i.e. e^a = e^audx^u is GCT scalar, i.e. local GCT frame invariant for all local observers independent of coordinate basis relative to the 4-parameter T4 group. However, it is a first rank tensor for the 6-parameter Lorentz group SO(1,3).
Note Utiyama 1956 localized only SO(1,3) he got torsion induced curvature and had to stick in Einstein's 1916 GCTs ad-hoc. Kibble 1961 localized complete P10 = T4xSO(1,3) and got GCTs from localized T4 absent in Utiyhama 1956. Kibble's theory larger than Einstein's 1916 curvature only theory. People got confused not understanding that Utiyama's torsion-induced curvature is not the same as Einstein's torsion-free curvature. This is trivial using tetrads as Cartan forms. In terms of crystalography, dislocation defects can induce disclination defects but not vice versa - or so it appears from
T^a = De^a torsion 2-form
R^a^b = DS^a^b
S^a^b = spin connection 1-form
with Yang-Mills mapping
S^a^b = w^a^bce^c
w^a^bc are the symmetry group G Lie algebra structure constants.
[Q^a,Q^b] = w^a^bcQ^c
for 1916 GR
G = T4
for Utiyama 1956
G = SO(1,3)
for Kibble 1961
G = P10 = T4 x SO(1,3).
Therefore, in general
w^a^bc = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3))
where
Einstein 1916 GR uses only w^a^bc(T4)
Utiyama 1956 uses only w^a^bc(SO(1,3))
Kibble 1961 uses the full w^a^bc = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3))
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The A^a q-number part is still emergent, it's just that it is the residual q-number random zero point part.
OK, but then how can you say that this part is equivalent to a quantized Yang-Mills field of the kind considered by t'Hooft, for purposes of renormalization?
Because it has a very similar formal structure to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills quantum field operators.
Positive frequency part creates a q-number A^a quantum out of the coherent c-number A^a condensate. Negative frequency part puts a quantum back into the c-number condensate etc. 2 independent polarizations if massless etc.
Let's just look at the intrinsic q-part, there is a natural "Yang-Mills" field 2-form
F^a = dA^a + w^ac'cA^c'/\A^c
With Lagrangian density 0-form ~ *[(1/4)*F^a/\Fa]
Note that A^a = A^a(condensate c-number) + A^a(q-number)
so that the bare Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian has quartic terms. Thus is same formal structure as in Yang-Mills.
Think of sound waves in a crystal. Sound, like gravity and torsion, is an emergent collective phenomenon out of the individual lattice atoms right? You can have "classical" "condensate" sound waves (many phonons in same momentum state - I mean narrow wave packet), but also you can detect "particle" like phonon quantum effects in the fluctuations - but the phonon itself is a collective object out of the atomic substratum.
And these phonon quantum effects can be treated as manifestations of an "emergent" quantized field?
Is that what you mean?
Yes. Sound is an emergent collective phenomenon. At low intensities you get quantum fluctuations - phonon analog to quantum optics effects Poisson noise, sub-Poisson et-al. Sound has both classical wavelike properties and quantized particle phonon properties for different kinds of experiments. I am saying that both intrinsic tetrad curvature ~ A^a and intrinsic torsion ~ w^a^bcA^c are both collective emergent both c-number and q-number like sound is. Sakharov basically had this idea in 1967 though not as detailed.
Note I suppress the possible model-dependent "hologram" N^-1/3 coupling factors and pure Minkowski I^a terms in the above rough heuristics,
Meaning of the spin connection coefficients & Lie algebra structure constants
I cannot push the analogy of the GR spin-connection coefficients w^a^bc with the structure constants c^i^jk of the internal symmetry Yang-Mills Lie algebras too far, although there is a physical relation it is not direct.
In GR including torsion extension
S^a^b = w^a^bce^c = spin-connection 1-form
e^c = tetrad 1-form
a,b,c = 0,1,2,3
in all cases i.e.
Einstein 1916 localize 4-parameter T4 i,j,k = 0,1,2,3 gives GCT curvature no torsion
Utiyama 1956 localize 6-parameter SO(1,3) i,j,k = 4,5,6,7,8,9 gives a torsion induced curvature GCTs put in ad-hoc
Kibble 1961 localize 10-parameter P10 = T4xSO(1,3) gives curvature + torsion with GCTs built in
Therefore there is a mapping
w^a^bc = w^a^bc(c^i^jk)
where in general
a,b,c = 0,1,2,3
and for the Kibble 1961 theory
i,j,k = 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 i.e. Gennady Shipov's "oriented point"
where 4,5,6,7,8,9 is the connection to Calabi-Yau space of string theory's extra space dimensions with
e^i i.e. tetrads in 9D + 1 "oriented point" manifold
S^i^j = W^i^jke^k in Gennady Shipov's 10D manifold.
The W^i^jk should be the structure constants of the 10 generators of the Poincare group Lie algebra which determine the spin connection coefficients w^a^b,c in the 3D + 1 space-time where 3D volume-without-volume is the holographic image of something like the dark energy retro-causal future de Sitter horizon.
Something like that.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS Also Paul what you have been looking for is natural in this tetrad substratum. It is not natural on the metric tensor/Levi-Civita connection level because of bilinear tetrad cross terms.
Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is
e^a = I^a + B^a
Where B^a is the intrinsic curvature tetrad field - without committing to my specific hologram model where
B^a to N^-1/3A^a
N = (Closed Surrounding Horizon 2D Surface)/4Lp^2 Bekenstein's formula
Except that as I understand it your I-B tetrad split doesn't correspond to my decomposition at all, since your I component in isolation describes a flat intrinsic spacetime geometry,
Yes.
while the B term when added in accounts for the presence of curvature;
Yes
whereas in my proposed L-C decomposition, there is no dependence whatever on the intrinsic geometry, flat or otherwise, in the "coordinate" component of the decomposition. So I think we may have our wires crossed here.
OK - I am just pointing out that the tetrad formalism does have a sharp clean split between flat and curved/torsioned that is non-perturbative and background-independent, but that disappears at the bilinear metric tensor level. Of course inertial g-forces are curvature independent, they only pertain to the center of mass of an extended test particle, the curvature is detected only in the relative coordinates of the extended test particle. In an N-particle system we can separate the CM coordinate from the relative coordinates. Simplest for idealized 2-body problem of course.
Granted the precise relationship between the two decompositions should be carefully investigated, which I plan to do.
OK
Of course you are technically correct about the I-B cross terms that appear when you recover the LC connection from the tetrads.
No perturbation theory on background dependent Minkowski spacetime is implied here. That's a Red Herring.
That's "linearized GR", which I suppose corresponds nicely with the Kraitchnan-Deser-Feynman spin-2 model. I understand that your model does not rely on linearized GR, and your I + B decomposition has nothing to do with "perturbations" applied to a flat geometry. Your model is clearly non-perturbative.
Right.
My model is background-independent in Lee Smolin's sense.
Right -- although your I tetrad component in isolation describes a flat spacetime geometry, correct?
Yes.
Nothing I say demands B^a << I^a as in perturbation theory.
Right.
I^a has all the inertial force effects of non-geodesic frames in Minkowski spacetime.
But only given a "coordinate" basis, as I understand the tetrad model.
Depends what is meant.
I^a = I^audx^u
I^au is a first-rank linear affine tensor in the u-index
so that I^a is an affine invariant.
In general when we have non-affine transformations, i.e. to accelerated frames in Minkowski spacetime i.e. no real gravity curvature - forget torsion for simplicity since it's not in 1916 GR anyway
Then
I^au to I^au' = X^uu'I^au + X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u
for linear affine frame transformations
X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u = 0 by definition
Note that for GR
e^a = I^b + B^b is GCT invariant
i.e. GCT frame transformations include linear affine of 1905 SR + nonlinear (non-affine = localized T4) - of CMs of spatially extended detectors.
That is
B^au to B^au' = X^uu'B^au - X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u
so that total Einstein-Cartan e^au is a GCT first rank tensor in u, but "Yang-Mills" spin 1 Bu is not - like the EM vector potential is not a tensor under U(1). This is precisely why Kibble's 1961 localized T4 = Einstein's 1916 GCTs. Very neat. Very pretty - showing natural Yang-Mills gauge structure is at tetrad level not where Ashtekar & LQG people put it at Levi-Civita composite level where it has obscure non-physical excess formal baggage leading to "non-renormalizability" puzzles. We need tetrads to couple spinor matter fields to gravity, so why this is not an obvious way to go for the Pundits astounds me.
I^a, B^a & e^a are affine 1st rank tensors under rigid Lorentz group - zero torsion field case.
I suppose we should play same game there, i.e. e^a still a torsion localized Lorentz group tensor & I^a & B^a not so, only their sum.
If e^a not a localized Lorentz group tensor then ds^2 = e^aea no longer invariant in curvature-torsion extension of 1916 GR - very dramatic new physics if that is the case! This is something to ponder.
Note that
T^a(Minkowski) = dI^a + w^abcI^b/\I^c = 0 zero torsion 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
and
R^a^b(Minkowski) = d(w^a^bcI^c) + w^ac'cI^c'/\w^b^cc"I^c" = 0 zero curvature 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
However, cross terms I^a with A^b occur in the general case mixing inertial with intrinsic effects.
I think this is only when you use a coordinate basis
I don't know what you mean. In 1905 SR - zero curvature, zero torsion
I^au to Kronecker-delta in all global inertial Minkowski geodesic frames related only by linear affine transformations. It is curvilinear in accelerated non-geodesic Minkowski frames from the X^uu'(d/dx^u")X^u"u "inertial g-forces".
-- otherwise your "I" has no discernible relationship to observer frames, but is simply an arbitrary orthonormal basis in a tangent space with no intrinsic relationship to spacetime coordinates.
I don't understand your sentence. Tetrad formalism is GCT invariant like using intrinsic vectors curlA, divA in vector calculus
i.e. e^a = e^audx^u is GCT scalar, i.e. local GCT frame invariant for all local observers independent of coordinate basis relative to the 4-parameter T4 group. However, it is a first rank tensor for the 6-parameter Lorentz group SO(1,3).
Note Utiyama 1956 localized only SO(1,3) he got torsion induced curvature and had to stick in Einstein's 1916 GCTs ad-hoc. Kibble 1961 localized complete P10 = T4xSO(1,3) and got GCTs from localized T4 absent in Utiyhama 1956. Kibble's theory larger than Einstein's 1916 curvature only theory. People got confused not understanding that Utiyama's torsion-induced curvature is not the same as Einstein's torsion-free curvature. This is trivial using tetrads as Cartan forms. In terms of crystalography, dislocation defects can induce disclination defects but not vice versa - or so it appears from
T^a = De^a torsion 2-form
R^a^b = DS^a^b
S^a^b = spin connection 1-form
with Yang-Mills mapping
S^a^b = w^a^bce^c
w^a^bc are the symmetry group G Lie algebra structure constants.
[Q^a,Q^b] = w^a^bcQ^c
for 1916 GR
G = T4
for Utiyama 1956
G = SO(1,3)
for Kibble 1961
G = P10 = T4 x SO(1,3).
Therefore, in general
w^a^bc = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3))
where
Einstein 1916 GR uses only w^a^bc(T4)
Utiyama 1956 uses only w^a^bc(SO(1,3))
Kibble 1961 uses the full w^a^bc = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3))
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The A^a q-number part is still emergent, it's just that it is the residual q-number random zero point part.
OK, but then how can you say that this part is equivalent to a quantized Yang-Mills field of the kind considered by t'Hooft, for purposes of renormalization?
Because it has a very similar formal structure to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills quantum field operators.
Positive frequency part creates a q-number A^a quantum out of the coherent c-number A^a condensate. Negative frequency part puts a quantum back into the c-number condensate etc. 2 independent polarizations if massless etc.
Let's just look at the intrinsic q-part, there is a natural "Yang-Mills" field 2-form
F^a = dA^a + w^ac'cA^c'/\A^c
With Lagrangian density 0-form ~ *[(1/4)*F^a/\Fa]
Note that A^a = A^a(condensate c-number) + A^a(q-number)
so that the bare Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian has quartic terms. Thus is same formal structure as in Yang-Mills.
Think of sound waves in a crystal. Sound, like gravity and torsion, is an emergent collective phenomenon out of the individual lattice atoms right? You can have "classical" "condensate" sound waves (many phonons in same momentum state - I mean narrow wave packet), but also you can detect "particle" like phonon quantum effects in the fluctuations - but the phonon itself is a collective object out of the atomic substratum.
And these phonon quantum effects can be treated as manifestations of an "emergent" quantized field?
Is that what you mean?
Yes. Sound is an emergent collective phenomenon. At low intensities you get quantum fluctuations - phonon analog to quantum optics effects Poisson noise, sub-Poisson et-al. Sound has both classical wavelike properties and quantized particle phonon properties for different kinds of experiments. I am saying that both intrinsic tetrad curvature ~ A^a and intrinsic torsion ~ w^a^bcA^c are both collective emergent both c-number and q-number like sound is. Sakharov basically had this idea in 1967 though not as detailed.
Note I suppress the possible model-dependent "hologram" N^-1/3 coupling factors and pure Minkowski I^a terms in the above rough heuristics,
On Sep 13, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Our early universe has low entropy compared to present universe. Sir Roger Penrose says this is a big problem for inflation theory - it's the Arrow of Time problem - why irreversible aging is in same sense as expansion of 3D space with dark energy speeding up of that cosmic expansion.
Our past universe post-inflation is not de Sitter. Our future universe is de Sitter with
/\ ~ 1/NLp^2
N ~ 10^122 Bekenstein bits.
This gives the actually observed large-scale dark energy density
10^-29 grams/cc ~ (10^-2cm)^-4 ~ hc/NLp^4
note that NLp^4 = (Geometric mean of smallest Planck scale with largest future Omega deSitter horizon scale)^4
i.e. 10^-2 cm ~ (10^-33 cm 10^28 cm)^1/2
this is precisely what we expect from the retro-causal world hologram in which 3D space at our moments of perception of our entire pocket universe on the landscape is simply a hologram image of the future 2D deSitter horizon.
World hologram says that N area bits on the surrounding horizon are 1-1 with N interior "volume without volume" BITs.
i.e. &L ~ N^-1/6 Lp
L ~ N^1/2Lp
L^3 ~ N^3/2Lp^3
&L^3 ~ N^1/2Lp^3
L^3/&L^3 = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N
where &L^3 = volume-without-volume of quantum gravity foam bubble. Exactly N bubbles for N area quanta - 1-1. This is the fundamental physical meaning of the "world hologram".
In this case the horizon is not a closed spacelike surrounding 2D surface on a 3D spacelike slice of spacetime, but is the 2D de Sitter horizon of our future light cone of our detectors. That is, all the converging blue-shifted advanced null signals on our telescopes and other advanced signals back to the moment of inflation. The future dark energy created de Sitter horizon is the world hologram. See figure 19 (i) p. 130 "causal diamond" of Hawking & Ellis "The large-scale Structure of space-time" for a Penrose diagram picture of what I am talking about. I mean the upper half of (i).
This solves Penrose's problem with inflation since retro-causal measurement lowers the entropy of the past object (Alpha inflation) being measured and raises the entropy of the future measuring apparatus (G. Moddell, AAAS USD Retrocausality Workshop, June 2006) - Omega (far future de Sitter horizon) - Alpha (inflation phase transition) form a globally consistent Novikov loop of self-creation.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS Also Paul what you have been looking for is natural in this tetrad substratum. It is not natural on the metric tensor/Levi-Civita connection level because of bilinear tetrad cross terms.
Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is
e^a = I^a + B^a
Where B^a is the intrinsic curvature tetrad field - without committing to my specific hologram model where
B^a --> N^-1/3A^a
N = (Closed Surrounding Horizon 2D Surface)/4Lp^2 Bekenstein's formula
No perturbation theory on background dependent Minkowski spacetime is implied here. That's a Red Herring. My model is background-independent in Lee Smolin's sense.
Nothing I say demands B^a << I^a as in perturbation theory.
I^a has all the inertial force effects of non-geodesic frames in Minkowski spacetime.
Note that
T^a(Minkowski) = dI^a + w^abcI^b/\I^c = 0 zero torsion 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
and
R^a^b(Minkowski) = d(w^a^bcI^c) + w^ac'cI^c'/\w^b^cc"I^c" = 0 zero curvature 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
However, cross terms I^a with A^b occur in the general case mixing inertial with intrinsic effects.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The A^a q-number part is still emergent, it's just that it is the residual q-number random zero point part.
OK, but then how can you say that this part is equivalent to a quantized Yang-Mills field of the kind considered
by t'Hooft, for purposes of renormalization?
Because it has a very similar formal structure to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills quantum field operators.
Positive frequency part creates a q-number A^a quantum out of the coherent c-number A^a condensate. Negative frequency part puts a quantum back into the c-number condensate etc. 2 independent polarizations if massless etc.
Let's just look at the intrinsic q-part, there is a natural "Yang-Mills" field 2-form
F^a = dA^a + w^ac'cA^c'/\A^c
With Lagrangian density 0-form ~ *[(1/4)*F^a/\Fa]
Note that A^a = A^a(condensate c-number) + A^a(q-number)
so that the bare Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian has quartic terms. Thus is same formal structure as in Yang-Mills.
Think of sound waves in a crystal. Sound, like gravity and torsion, is an emergent collective phenomenon out of the individual lattice atoms right? You can have "classical" "condensate" sound waves (many phonons in same momentum state - I mean narrow wave packet), but also you can detect "particle" like phonon quantum effects in the fluctuations - but the phonon itself is a collective object out of the atomic substratum.
And these phonon quantum effects can be treated as manifestations of an "emergent" quantized field?
Is that what you mean?
Yes. Sound is an emergent collective phenomenon. At low intensities you get quantum fluctuations - phonon analog to quantum optics effects Poisson noise, sub-Poisson et-al. Sound has both classical wavelike properties and quantized particle phonon properties for different kinds of experiments. I am saying that both intrinsic tetrad curvature ~ A^a and intrinsic torsion ~ w^a^bcA^c are both collective emergent both c-number and q-number like sound is. Sakharov basically had this idea in 1967 though not as detailed.
Note I suppress the possible model-dependent "hologram" N^-1/3 coupling factors and pure Minkowski I^a terms in the above rough heuristics,
Our early universe has low entropy compared to present universe. Sir Roger Penrose says this is a big problem for inflation theory - it's the Arrow of Time problem - why irreversible aging is in same sense as expansion of 3D space with dark energy speeding up of that cosmic expansion.
Our past universe post-inflation is not de Sitter. Our future universe is de Sitter with
/\ ~ 1/NLp^2
N ~ 10^122 Bekenstein bits.
This gives the actually observed large-scale dark energy density
10^-29 grams/cc ~ (10^-2cm)^-4 ~ hc/NLp^4
note that NLp^4 = (Geometric mean of smallest Planck scale with largest future Omega deSitter horizon scale)^4
i.e. 10^-2 cm ~ (10^-33 cm 10^28 cm)^1/2
this is precisely what we expect from the retro-causal world hologram in which 3D space at our moments of perception of our entire pocket universe on the landscape is simply a hologram image of the future 2D deSitter horizon.
World hologram says that N area bits on the surrounding horizon are 1-1 with N interior "volume without volume" BITs.
i.e. &L ~ N^-1/6 Lp
L ~ N^1/2Lp
L^3 ~ N^3/2Lp^3
&L^3 ~ N^1/2Lp^3
L^3/&L^3 = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N
where &L^3 = volume-without-volume of quantum gravity foam bubble. Exactly N bubbles for N area quanta - 1-1. This is the fundamental physical meaning of the "world hologram".
In this case the horizon is not a closed spacelike surrounding 2D surface on a 3D spacelike slice of spacetime, but is the 2D de Sitter horizon of our future light cone of our detectors. That is, all the converging blue-shifted advanced null signals on our telescopes and other advanced signals back to the moment of inflation. The future dark energy created de Sitter horizon is the world hologram. See figure 19 (i) p. 130 "causal diamond" of Hawking & Ellis "The large-scale Structure of space-time" for a Penrose diagram picture of what I am talking about. I mean the upper half of (i).
This solves Penrose's problem with inflation since retro-causal measurement lowers the entropy of the past object (Alpha inflation) being measured and raises the entropy of the future measuring apparatus (G. Moddell, AAAS USD Retrocausality Workshop, June 2006) - Omega (far future de Sitter horizon) - Alpha (inflation phase transition) form a globally consistent Novikov loop of self-creation.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS Also Paul what you have been looking for is natural in this tetrad substratum. It is not natural on the metric tensor/Levi-Civita connection level because of bilinear tetrad cross terms.
Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is
e^a = I^a + B^a
Where B^a is the intrinsic curvature tetrad field - without committing to my specific hologram model where
B^a --> N^-1/3A^a
N = (Closed Surrounding Horizon 2D Surface)/4Lp^2 Bekenstein's formula
No perturbation theory on background dependent Minkowski spacetime is implied here. That's a Red Herring. My model is background-independent in Lee Smolin's sense.
Nothing I say demands B^a << I^a as in perturbation theory.
I^a has all the inertial force effects of non-geodesic frames in Minkowski spacetime.
Note that
T^a(Minkowski) = dI^a + w^abcI^b/\I^c = 0 zero torsion 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
and
R^a^b(Minkowski) = d(w^a^bcI^c) + w^ac'cI^c'/\w^b^cc"I^c" = 0 zero curvature 2-form in Minkowski spacetime
However, cross terms I^a with A^b occur in the general case mixing inertial with intrinsic effects.
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The A^a q-number part is still emergent, it's just that it is the residual q-number random zero point part.
OK, but then how can you say that this part is equivalent to a quantized Yang-Mills field of the kind considered
by t'Hooft, for purposes of renormalization?
Because it has a very similar formal structure to the internal symmetry Yang-Mills quantum field operators.
Positive frequency part creates a q-number A^a quantum out of the coherent c-number A^a condensate. Negative frequency part puts a quantum back into the c-number condensate etc. 2 independent polarizations if massless etc.
Let's just look at the intrinsic q-part, there is a natural "Yang-Mills" field 2-form
F^a = dA^a + w^ac'cA^c'/\A^c
With Lagrangian density 0-form ~ *[(1/4)*F^a/\Fa]
Note that A^a = A^a(condensate c-number) + A^a(q-number)
so that the bare Hamiltonian from the Lagrangian has quartic terms. Thus is same formal structure as in Yang-Mills.
Think of sound waves in a crystal. Sound, like gravity and torsion, is an emergent collective phenomenon out of the individual lattice atoms right? You can have "classical" "condensate" sound waves (many phonons in same momentum state - I mean narrow wave packet), but also you can detect "particle" like phonon quantum effects in the fluctuations - but the phonon itself is a collective object out of the atomic substratum.
And these phonon quantum effects can be treated as manifestations of an "emergent" quantized field?
Is that what you mean?
Yes. Sound is an emergent collective phenomenon. At low intensities you get quantum fluctuations - phonon analog to quantum optics effects Poisson noise, sub-Poisson et-al. Sound has both classical wavelike properties and quantized particle phonon properties for different kinds of experiments. I am saying that both intrinsic tetrad curvature ~ A^a and intrinsic torsion ~ w^a^bcA^c are both collective emergent both c-number and q-number like sound is. Sakharov basically had this idea in 1967 though not as detailed.
Note I suppress the possible model-dependent "hologram" N^-1/3 coupling factors and pure Minkowski I^a terms in the above rough heuristics,
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Creon Levit wrote:
Jack, this is very important, right?
Very.
It might help me (and a lot of us struggling to understand) if you could write very sort answers to the following questions:
1) If gravity = tetrads = spin-1 = renormalizable, then do you have renormalizable quantum gravity formulation?
I believe so. But I am not expert in the details of t'Hooft's 1972 paper for which he got the Nobel. That my formulation falls within his paper seems self-evident to me, but I could be wrong here.
Or is it old news because you have essentially classical gravity, and it is only when you have (nonclassical) gravitational quanta that normalization becomes problematic for gravity theories.
I do not understand your sentence. The steps I use are:
1. Local gauge principle
2. 10-parameter Poincare group P10 of 1905 special relativity
3. A^a is the compensating "curvature" "Yang-Mills" spin 1 vector classical field from locally gauging ONLY the 4-parameter subgroup T4 of P10. The gauge transformations are precisely Einstein's local coordinate transformations of 1916. This was shown by Kibble clearly in 1961! t'Hooft's argument is when you quantize the classical A^a field. In t'Hooft "a" is an internal index. In my theory "a" is the tetrad Minkowski space index. The Lie algebras are not the same, t'Hooft's Lie groups are compact, P10 is not, but the formal structure seems to me to be essentially the same as far as physics is concerned.
From Rovelli I think
S^a^b = w^a^bce^a which gives instantly the FORMAL Yang-Mills structure for gravity!
S^a^b is the "spin connection" whose independent torsion field dynamics comes from locally gauging the 6-parameter Lorentz subgroup of P10 that Einstein did NOT do in 1916. This is the new torsion field physics of dark energy IMHO.
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea found in Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity"
My original WORLD HOLOGRAM Ansatz - completely original to me, and perhaps wrong, is
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a
I^a is the global Minkowski space-time tetrad 1-form
A^a is the intrinsically CURVED tetrad 1-form.
A^a is obviously a spin 1 vector field under the Lorentz group
A^a' = L^a'aA^a
L^a'a' is a Lorentz transformation
A^a = A^audx^u
A^au' = X^u'uA^au
X^u'u = Einstein local coordinate transformation (aka GCT) = T4 local gauge transformation.
A^a is a GCT INVARIANT!
N = Bekenstein's BITs
i.e. N = Surrounding 2D Area/4Lp^2
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2 = quantum of area
G = Newton's gravity constant
Surrounding Area here has no boundary, but is itself not a boundary because it encloses N point defects in the macro-quantum coherent vacuum ODLRO order parameter with three real Higgs spin 0 scalar fields that is the "fabric of 4D spacetime". These point defects are somewhat like the simple poles (Residue)(z - zi)^-1 of a complex function w = f(z) of complex variable z.
Note also A^a = M^a^a
S^a^b = M^[a,b]
M^a^b = dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b
Theta^a & Phi^b are 8 zero-form Goldstone phase Lorentz 4-vectors whose two magnitudes Theta & Phi (3 real Higgs fields) make the point monopoles of the geometrodynamic field (AKA fabric of 4D spacetime).
This is the WORLD HOLOGRAM of "Volume without volume" that there is a 1-1 correspondence between an area quantum and its hologram image "volume quantum".
2) What are the [gravitational] quanta in your theory?
Obviously there are 3 kinds, spin 0 gravi-scalar, spin 1 gravi-vector and spin 2 gravi-tensor AKA "graviton".
This is completely elementary because Einstein's metric field guv is a quadratic form in A^a i.e.
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = I^aIa + N^-1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + N^-2/3A^aAa
N^-1/3 term gives only spin 1 quanta
N^-2/3 terms gives ALL THREE! spin 0, spin 1, spin 2 from elementary quantum field theory when
A^a classical field is replaced by A^a(classical ODLRO) + A^a(quantum fluctuation) as in Gorkov's theory of BCS superconductor for example.
Is there any graviton-like entity that emerges? Is there any need for one?
Explained above. Spin 0, spin 1 & spin 2 gravitons.
3) What happens in your theory at the Planck scale, where the uncertainty principle "demands" the existence of complementary huge (or should we say "massive") momentum and energy fluctuations?
Planck scale is trivial. It's when the post-inflation field order parameter vanishes like at the point monopole defect. No big deal. Same as in Yang-Mills quantum field theory. I have reduced gravity to a Yang-Mills theory. When the order parameter vanishes curvature and torsion also vanish - we are back to special relativity quantum field theory! This IS the pre-inflation false vacuum! The core of the point monopole is a small remnant of the pre-inflation false vacuum. This is really simple and elegant conceptually. The point monopoles are the equilibrium points of Hagen Kleinert's world crystal lattice. There disclination defects are curvature and their dislocation defects are torsion. Torsion induces curvature, but not vice versa. This is obvious from the local gauge theory of P10 BTW.
4) Is it not these fluctuations which drive the nonlinearities in GR to dominate and thus make the standard formulations analytically intractable and/or unrenormalizable? Is this the basic quantum gravity conundrum, or is that something else?
I have no idea what you mean. Again:
1. Lorentz vector classical field theories WHEN QUANTIZED are renormalizable in general says t'Hooft 1972
2. The Einstein-Cartan tetrad theory of curvature and torsion is clearly formally a vector classical field theory.
That's all folks.
5) Does your theory have a way around this conundrum? How so?
There is no conundrum here only a badly formulated question.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" (J.A. Wheeler) :-)
Jack Sarfatti wrote: OK I need a copy of the current STAIF Log 1 paper that the referees have. :-)
What's good about tetrads is that they are spin 1 vector field like Yang-Mills they are renormalizable because of t'Hooft's work - was it in 1972? Formally my A^a is same structure as t'Hooft's Yang-Mills - that he used compact internal SU(2) & SU(3) and I use non-compact Poincare group is not an essential difference in regard to renormalizablity I suspect.
On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:
Jack,
That is a start.
Now I want you to make a short, one paragraph description of what you just said.
A PARAGRAPH. Not a long one.
Start with the quantum fluctuations in a spin 1 vector field. Then jump from there
to the tetrad field theory.
...
If your theory has such a compact description of it, you need to include
this in the paper. That in itself is a MAJOR result. And it should definitely
be in your STAIF Log 1 paper.
I cannot stress how important this is.
Andy
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
i gave you my definition which is more than adequate for this paper's
purposes
quantum foam is trivial in my tetrad A^a field theory - same as quantum
fluctuations in any spin 1 vector field
quantum foam = virtual A^a quanta in QGMD
just like virtual photons are virtual A quanta in QED
my theory is much simpler than the previous theories
quantum foam = zero point fluctuations in the A^a field where
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a already in paper
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa already in paper
no big deal on "quantum foam"
Jack, this is very important, right?
Very.
It might help me (and a lot of us struggling to understand) if you could write very sort answers to the following questions:
1) If gravity = tetrads = spin-1 = renormalizable, then do you have renormalizable quantum gravity formulation?
I believe so. But I am not expert in the details of t'Hooft's 1972 paper for which he got the Nobel. That my formulation falls within his paper seems self-evident to me, but I could be wrong here.
Or is it old news because you have essentially classical gravity, and it is only when you have (nonclassical) gravitational quanta that normalization becomes problematic for gravity theories.
I do not understand your sentence. The steps I use are:
1. Local gauge principle
2. 10-parameter Poincare group P10 of 1905 special relativity
3. A^a is the compensating "curvature" "Yang-Mills" spin 1 vector classical field from locally gauging ONLY the 4-parameter subgroup T4 of P10. The gauge transformations are precisely Einstein's local coordinate transformations of 1916. This was shown by Kibble clearly in 1961! t'Hooft's argument is when you quantize the classical A^a field. In t'Hooft "a" is an internal index. In my theory "a" is the tetrad Minkowski space index. The Lie algebras are not the same, t'Hooft's Lie groups are compact, P10 is not, but the formal structure seems to me to be essentially the same as far as physics is concerned.
From Rovelli I think
S^a^b = w^a^bce^a which gives instantly the FORMAL Yang-Mills structure for gravity!
S^a^b is the "spin connection" whose independent torsion field dynamics comes from locally gauging the 6-parameter Lorentz subgroup of P10 that Einstein did NOT do in 1916. This is the new torsion field physics of dark energy IMHO.
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea found in Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity"
My original WORLD HOLOGRAM Ansatz - completely original to me, and perhaps wrong, is
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a
I^a is the global Minkowski space-time tetrad 1-form
A^a is the intrinsically CURVED tetrad 1-form.
A^a is obviously a spin 1 vector field under the Lorentz group
A^a' = L^a'aA^a
L^a'a' is a Lorentz transformation
A^a = A^audx^u
A^au' = X^u'uA^au
X^u'u = Einstein local coordinate transformation (aka GCT) = T4 local gauge transformation.
A^a is a GCT INVARIANT!
N = Bekenstein's BITs
i.e. N = Surrounding 2D Area/4Lp^2
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2 = quantum of area
G = Newton's gravity constant
Surrounding Area here has no boundary, but is itself not a boundary because it encloses N point defects in the macro-quantum coherent vacuum ODLRO order parameter with three real Higgs spin 0 scalar fields that is the "fabric of 4D spacetime". These point defects are somewhat like the simple poles (Residue)(z - zi)^-1 of a complex function w = f(z) of complex variable z.
Note also A^a = M^a^a
S^a^b = M^[a,b]
M^a^b = dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b
Theta^a & Phi^b are 8 zero-form Goldstone phase Lorentz 4-vectors whose two magnitudes Theta & Phi (3 real Higgs fields) make the point monopoles of the geometrodynamic field (AKA fabric of 4D spacetime).
This is the WORLD HOLOGRAM of "Volume without volume" that there is a 1-1 correspondence between an area quantum and its hologram image "volume quantum".
2) What are the [gravitational] quanta in your theory?
Obviously there are 3 kinds, spin 0 gravi-scalar, spin 1 gravi-vector and spin 2 gravi-tensor AKA "graviton".
This is completely elementary because Einstein's metric field guv is a quadratic form in A^a i.e.
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = I^aIa + N^-1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + N^-2/3A^aAa
N^-1/3 term gives only spin 1 quanta
N^-2/3 terms gives ALL THREE! spin 0, spin 1, spin 2 from elementary quantum field theory when
A^a classical field is replaced by A^a(classical ODLRO) + A^a(quantum fluctuation) as in Gorkov's theory of BCS superconductor for example.
Is there any graviton-like entity that emerges? Is there any need for one?
Explained above. Spin 0, spin 1 & spin 2 gravitons.
3) What happens in your theory at the Planck scale, where the uncertainty principle "demands" the existence of complementary huge (or should we say "massive") momentum and energy fluctuations?
Planck scale is trivial. It's when the post-inflation field order parameter vanishes like at the point monopole defect. No big deal. Same as in Yang-Mills quantum field theory. I have reduced gravity to a Yang-Mills theory. When the order parameter vanishes curvature and torsion also vanish - we are back to special relativity quantum field theory! This IS the pre-inflation false vacuum! The core of the point monopole is a small remnant of the pre-inflation false vacuum. This is really simple and elegant conceptually. The point monopoles are the equilibrium points of Hagen Kleinert's world crystal lattice. There disclination defects are curvature and their dislocation defects are torsion. Torsion induces curvature, but not vice versa. This is obvious from the local gauge theory of P10 BTW.
4) Is it not these fluctuations which drive the nonlinearities in GR to dominate and thus make the standard formulations analytically intractable and/or unrenormalizable? Is this the basic quantum gravity conundrum, or is that something else?
I have no idea what you mean. Again:
1. Lorentz vector classical field theories WHEN QUANTIZED are renormalizable in general says t'Hooft 1972
2. The Einstein-Cartan tetrad theory of curvature and torsion is clearly formally a vector classical field theory.
That's all folks.
5) Does your theory have a way around this conundrum? How so?
There is no conundrum here only a badly formulated question.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" (J.A. Wheeler) :-)
Jack Sarfatti wrote: OK I need a copy of the current STAIF Log 1 paper that the referees have. :-)
What's good about tetrads is that they are spin 1 vector field like Yang-Mills they are renormalizable because of t'Hooft's work - was it in 1972? Formally my A^a is same structure as t'Hooft's Yang-Mills - that he used compact internal SU(2) & SU(3) and I use non-compact Poincare group is not an essential difference in regard to renormalizablity I suspect.
On Sep 11, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:
Jack,
That is a start.
Now I want you to make a short, one paragraph description of what you just said.
A PARAGRAPH. Not a long one.
Start with the quantum fluctuations in a spin 1 vector field. Then jump from there
to the tetrad field theory.
...
If your theory has such a compact description of it, you need to include
this in the paper. That in itself is a MAJOR result. And it should definitely
be in your STAIF Log 1 paper.
I cannot stress how important this is.
Andy
Jack Sarfatti
i gave you my definition which is more than adequate for this paper's
purposes
quantum foam is trivial in my tetrad A^a field theory - same as quantum
fluctuations in any spin 1 vector field
quantum foam = virtual A^a quanta in QGMD
just like virtual photons are virtual A quanta in QED
my theory is much simpler than the previous theories
quantum foam = zero point fluctuations in the A^a field where
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a already in paper
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa already in paper
no big deal on "quantum foam"
Thursday, September 06, 2007
this is key point about remote viewing
> Unfortunately, the Dopfer thesis does not discuss what was observed in
> the lower detector with the coincidence requirement removed. For this
> reason, a crucial test of quantum phenomena would be to re-create the
> Dopfer Experiment and observe the role of the coincidence requirement
> on what is observed in the lower arm detector. Several research groups
> are considering doing this, but there are no results yet
Mainstream view is that you get only random noise locally when you
remove the coincidence requirement - that's what orthodox QM says, i.e.
"signal locality" co-exists with "nonlocal entanglement". "Signal
nonlocality" is a dramatic violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory.
Antony Valentini explains this essential difference in his papers based
upon Bohm's ontological interpretation that enables us to conceive of a
theory beyond quantum theory that reduces to quantum theory in the
"sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" limit. You cannot do this in any of
the other interpretations - except maybe for Cramer's "transactional"?
What Cramer is talking about might disprove Lenny Susskind's idea on
how information loss down a black hole happens that Hawking caved in on
at GR 17 - so this is a key issue in physics today.
Note that things impossible in globally flat 1905 special relativity -
like time travel to the past - are possible in variably locally curved
1916 general relativity. The lesson is that more general covering
theories make possible what is impossible in the smaller relatively
more approximate theory corresponding to a limiting case of some
control parameter of the more general covering theory. In the case of
Einstein's two relativity theories the control parameter is curvature
(and we also need torsion)
>
>
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Amara D. Angelica wrote:
> Yes, he summarizes the experiment here:
> http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml, but points out the need
> for a
> better design. I'll scan the pages from Sheehan's book and send to you.
> Unfortunately, the Dopfer thesis does not discuss what was observed in
> the lower detector with the coincidence requirement removed. For this
> reason, a crucial test of quantum phenomena would be to re-create the
> Dopfer Experiment and observe the role of the coincidence requirement
> on what is observed in the lower arm detector. Several research groups
> are considering doing this, but there are no results yet
Mainstream view is that you get only random noise locally when you
remove the coincidence requirement - that's what orthodox QM says, i.e.
"signal locality" co-exists with "nonlocal entanglement". "Signal
nonlocality" is a dramatic violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory.
Antony Valentini explains this essential difference in his papers based
upon Bohm's ontological interpretation that enables us to conceive of a
theory beyond quantum theory that reduces to quantum theory in the
"sub-quantal thermal equilibrium" limit. You cannot do this in any of
the other interpretations - except maybe for Cramer's "transactional"?
What Cramer is talking about might disprove Lenny Susskind's idea on
how information loss down a black hole happens that Hawking caved in on
at GR 17 - so this is a key issue in physics today.
Note that things impossible in globally flat 1905 special relativity -
like time travel to the past - are possible in variably locally curved
1916 general relativity. The lesson is that more general covering
theories make possible what is impossible in the smaller relatively
more approximate theory corresponding to a limiting case of some
control parameter of the more general covering theory. In the case of
Einstein's two relativity theories the control parameter is curvature
(and we also need torsion)
>
>
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Amara D. Angelica wrote:
> Yes, he summarizes the experiment here:
> http://www.analogsf.com/0612/altview.shtml, but points out the need
> for a
> better design. I'll scan the pages from Sheehan's book and send to you.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Jack Sarfatti on Coast to Coast Talk Radio Aug 26, 2007 10PM Pacific Time
Clear Channel Radio Network
http://qedcorp.com/APS/C2CJack1.mp3 listen here
listen here to me on Coast to Coast last nite
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/08/26.html
On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yrpxlc
Also Richard Dolan "UFOs and the National Security State" is on. I think I am first guest as they are calling me at 10:30 PM Pacific time Aug 26 Sunday, Richard comes on later.
Clear Channel Radio Network
http://qedcorp.com/APS/C2CJack1.mp3 listen here
listen here to me on Coast to Coast last nite
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/08/26.html
On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yrpxlc
Also Richard Dolan "UFOs and the National Security State" is on. I think I am first guest as they are calling me at 10:30 PM Pacific time Aug 26 Sunday, Richard comes on later.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Yes, but the real issue here is whether the effect can be used for practical superluminal communications AKA signal nonlocality. Note that virtual quanta do have a direct gravity effect. They do not have a direct electrodynamic effect in the case of photons, i.e. a virtual photon does not make a counter click, though it does shift sharp atomic spectra. A Valentini has shown how quantum theory must be changed to allow signal nonlocality.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:39 PM, art wagner wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0681.pdf
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I looked at the 2002 paper on the Hartman effect below which is certainly correct. The author at end seems to say you cannot use the stored energy in non-propagating evanescent standing waves to effectively transmit a bit faster than light using the "group delay" eq (13), but, while that may be true, he does not prove or explain why it is that way.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Again issue is whether they can show useful FTL signaling to move data around computers for example. Probably not.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:22 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:
Boffins issue speeding ticket for FTL photons
Photons will appeal, citing Hartman
By Lucy Sherriff ? More by this author
Published Friday 17th August 2007
Two German scientists claim to have broken the speed of light with a tunneling photon, a pair of prisms and a gap of about three feet. According to New Scientist, Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen from the University of Koblenz claim to have made the photon jump "instantaneously" across a barrier ranging from a few millimeters to three feet.
They started with a pair of prisms sandwiched together to make a 40cm cube. Then, they shone microwaves with a wavelength of 33cm through the prism. As they gradually moved the prisms apart, the microwaves, which had passed straight through, began to be refracted. Some of the microwave photons, however, tunneled across the gap. So far, so good. All in line with our expectations. But Nimtz and Stahlhofen say the refracted photons and the tunneling photons arrived at their respective detectors at the same time, regardless of the size of the gap. This, they claim, suggests that the tunneling photons have jumped the gap much faster than the speed of light. Nimtz told the magazine that the results were a violation of Einstein's theory of special relativity. But not everyone is convinced the pair have interpreted their results correctly. Some argue that what the scientists have observed can be explained by the so-called Hartman Effect. This predicts that "the tunneling (sic) time becomes independent of barrier length for thick enough barriers, ultimately resulting in unbounded tunneling (sic) velocities." What this means is that single photons can appear to travel faster than the speed of light. But researchers suggest that tunneling time should not be considered as a transit time, but rather as a "cavity lifetime." Herbert G Winful from the University of Michigan explains in this paper that anomalously short delays in barrier tunneling "should not be linked to a velocity since evanescent waves do not propagate." So, Einstein is off the hook, and thus restored to his rightful place as top boffin. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/17/photons_ftl_not/
On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:39 PM, art wagner wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0681.pdf
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I looked at the 2002 paper on the Hartman effect below which is certainly correct. The author at end seems to say you cannot use the stored energy in non-propagating evanescent standing waves to effectively transmit a bit faster than light using the "group delay" eq (13), but, while that may be true, he does not prove or explain why it is that way.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Again issue is whether they can show useful FTL signaling to move data around computers for example. Probably not.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 5:22 AM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:
Boffins issue speeding ticket for FTL photons
Photons will appeal, citing Hartman
By Lucy Sherriff ? More by this author
Published Friday 17th August 2007
Two German scientists claim to have broken the speed of light with a tunneling photon, a pair of prisms and a gap of about three feet. According to New Scientist, Günter Nimtz and Alfons Stahlhofen from the University of Koblenz claim to have made the photon jump "instantaneously" across a barrier ranging from a few millimeters to three feet.
They started with a pair of prisms sandwiched together to make a 40cm cube. Then, they shone microwaves with a wavelength of 33cm through the prism. As they gradually moved the prisms apart, the microwaves, which had passed straight through, began to be refracted. Some of the microwave photons, however, tunneled across the gap. So far, so good. All in line with our expectations. But Nimtz and Stahlhofen say the refracted photons and the tunneling photons arrived at their respective detectors at the same time, regardless of the size of the gap. This, they claim, suggests that the tunneling photons have jumped the gap much faster than the speed of light. Nimtz told the magazine that the results were a violation of Einstein's theory of special relativity. But not everyone is convinced the pair have interpreted their results correctly. Some argue that what the scientists have observed can be explained by the so-called Hartman Effect. This predicts that "the tunneling (sic) time becomes independent of barrier length for thick enough barriers, ultimately resulting in unbounded tunneling (sic) velocities." What this means is that single photons can appear to travel faster than the speed of light. But researchers suggest that tunneling time should not be considered as a transit time, but rather as a "cavity lifetime." Herbert G Winful from the University of Michigan explains in this paper that anomalously short delays in barrier tunneling "should not be linked to a velocity since evanescent waves do not propagate." So, Einstein is off the hook, and thus restored to his rightful place as top boffin. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/17/photons_ftl_not/
This is evidence for my theory in http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 quite obviously - region of positive ZPF pressure w = -1 exotic vacuum without real matter in it - some dynamic change - recently forming not enough time to attract a lot of real matter to it. X rays from some real electrons, ions in it accelerated by negative pressure inhomogeneities, i.e. post-collision "train wreck" exotic vacuum region inhomogeneous mainly positive pressure with transient negative pressure ripples.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Gary S Bekkum wrote:
A link to a related paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3048
Astrophysics
Title: A Dark Core in Abell 520
Authors: A. Mahdavi (UVic), H. Hoekstra (UVic), A. Babul (UVic), D. Balam (UVic), P. Capak (Caltech)
(Submitted on 21 Jun 2007)
Abstract: The rich cluster Abell 520 (z=0.201) exhibits truly
extreme and puzzling multi-wavelength characteristics. It may best
be described as a "cosmic train wreck." It is a major merger showing
abundant evidence for ram pressure stripping, with a clear offset in
the gas distribution compared to the galaxies (as in the bullet
cluster 1E 0657-558). However, the most striking feature is a
massive dark core (721 h_70 M_sun/L_sun) in our weak lensing mass
reconstruction. The core coincides with the central X-ray emission
peak, but is largely devoid of galaxies. An unusually low mass to
light ratio region lies 500 kpc to the east, and coincides with a
shock feature visible in radio observations of the cluster. Although
a displacement between the X-ray gas and the galaxy/dark matter
distributions may be expected in a merger, a mass peak without
galaxies cannot be easily explained within the current collisionless
dark matter paradigm. Interestingly, the integrated gas mass
fraction (~0.15), mass-to-light ratio (220 h_70 M_sun/L_sun), and
position on the X-ray luminosity-temperature and mass-temperature
relations are unremarkable. Thus gross properties and scaling
relations are not always useful indicators of the dynamical state of
clusters.
Comments: 10 pages, 5 figures, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal, higher resolution version at this http URL
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0706.3048v1 [astro-ph]
Submission history
From: Andisheh Mahdavi [view email]
*[v1]* Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:41:04 GMT (764kb)
Gary S Bekkum wrote:
Don't know if you saw this yet ...
Galactic Collision Challenges Dark Matter Theories
By Phil Berardelli
/Science/NOW Daily News
17 August 2007
Astronomer Arthur Eddington's prophetic quote about the universe still holds: It is stranger than we can imagine. And new images from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory combined with views from two ground-based optical telescopes have produced one of the biggest cosmic mysteries yet. A collision between giant galactic clusters seems to have separated the galaxies from their dark matter cores. The find threatens to turn current thinking about dark matter on its ear.
Dark matter was first predicted 75 years ago, when astronomers noticed that the Milky Way's stars moved faster than they should given the galaxy's mass. Ever since, scientists have searched for evidence of the mysterious substance, which is thought to compose about 25% of the universe. (Visible matter accounts for only 5%, and the even more mysterious dark energy makes up the rest.) So far, they have only been able to detect dark matter's gravitational influence. Clumps of the stuff seem to pull a galaxy together. So, it comes as a major surprise that the new Chandra and ground images apparently show a giant zone of dark matter and a bunch of galaxies going their separate ways.
The images depict hundreds of galaxies merging into a huge cluster called Abell 520, located about 2.4 billion light-years away. As astronomer Andisheh Mahdavi of the University of Victoria in Canada and colleagues will report in the 20 October issue of /The Astrophysical Journal/, some of the galaxies have moved as far away as 2 million light-years from their dark matter anchors, far enough that gravity will never bring them back. Perhaps just as incredible, the clouds of hot interstellar gas formerly contained by the galaxies--and superheated by the collision so they glow in x-ray light--seem to have been grabbed by the dark matter instead of being flung into space.
The scene contrasts with that of a similar collision reported a year ago in the bullet cluster (/Science/NOW, 21 August 2006). There, dark matter could be seen clearly holding on to the galaxies, not the gas. Abell 520 suggests that something not yet understood has acted to split the galaxies away from dark matter after the collision. The problem, Mahdavi says, is that computer simulations haven't yet been able to duplicate the effects seen in Abell 520, so for now, the phenomenon remains a complete mystery.
Joshua Barnes of the University of Hawaii, Manoa, agrees: "This sort of separation is not supposed to happen." One possible explanation, Barnes says, is that the configuration is more complex than it appears in the images. Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says it's better to wait for new observations before revising ideas of dark matter. Mahdavi's team plans to look at Abell 520 with the Hubble Space Telescope soon in hopes of gleaning further clues.
*Related sites*
# The paper
# More on Abell 520
# More on dark matter
On Aug 17, 2007, at 8:27 PM, Gary S Bekkum wrote:
A link to a related paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3048
Astrophysics
Title: A Dark Core in Abell 520
Authors: A. Mahdavi
(Submitted on 21 Jun 2007)
Abstract: The rich cluster Abell 520 (z=0.201) exhibits truly
extreme and puzzling multi-wavelength characteristics. It may best
be described as a "cosmic train wreck." It is a major merger showing
abundant evidence for ram pressure stripping, with a clear offset in
the gas distribution compared to the galaxies (as in the bullet
cluster 1E 0657-558). However, the most striking feature is a
massive dark core (721 h_70 M_sun/L_sun) in our weak lensing mass
reconstruction. The core coincides with the central X-ray emission
peak, but is largely devoid of galaxies. An unusually low mass to
light ratio region lies 500 kpc to the east, and coincides with a
shock feature visible in radio observations of the cluster. Although
a displacement between the X-ray gas and the galaxy/dark matter
distributions may be expected in a merger, a mass peak without
galaxies cannot be easily explained within the current collisionless
dark matter paradigm. Interestingly, the integrated gas mass
fraction (~0.15), mass-to-light ratio (220 h_70 M_sun/L_sun), and
position on the X-ray luminosity-temperature and mass-temperature
relations are unremarkable. Thus gross properties and scaling
relations are not always useful indicators of the dynamical state of
clusters.
Comments: 10 pages, 5 figures, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal, higher resolution version at this http URL
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0706.3048v1
Submission history
From: Andisheh Mahdavi [view email
*[v1]* Thu, 21 Jun 2007 05:41:04 GMT (764kb)
Gary S Bekkum wrote:
Don't know if you saw this yet ...
Galactic Collision Challenges Dark Matter Theories
By Phil Berardelli
/Science/NOW Daily News
17 August 2007
Astronomer Arthur Eddington's prophetic quote about the universe still holds: It is stranger than we can imagine. And new images from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory combined with views from two ground-based optical telescopes have produced one of the biggest cosmic mysteries yet. A collision between giant galactic clusters seems to have separated the galaxies from their dark matter cores. The find threatens to turn current thinking about dark matter on its ear.
Dark matter was first predicted 75 years ago, when astronomers noticed that the Milky Way's stars moved faster than they should given the galaxy's mass. Ever since, scientists have searched for evidence of the mysterious substance, which is thought to compose about 25% of the universe. (Visible matter accounts for only 5%, and the even more mysterious dark energy makes up the rest.) So far, they have only been able to detect dark matter's gravitational influence. Clumps of the stuff seem to pull a galaxy together. So, it comes as a major surprise that the new Chandra and ground images apparently show a giant zone of dark matter and a bunch of galaxies going their separate ways.
The images depict hundreds of galaxies merging into a huge cluster called Abell 520, located about 2.4 billion light-years away. As astronomer Andisheh Mahdavi of the University of Victoria in Canada and colleagues will report in the 20 October issue of /The Astrophysical Journal/, some of the galaxies have moved as far away as 2 million light-years from their dark matter anchors, far enough that gravity will never bring them back. Perhaps just as incredible, the clouds of hot interstellar gas formerly contained by the galaxies--and superheated by the collision so they glow in x-ray light--seem to have been grabbed by the dark matter instead of being flung into space.
The scene contrasts with that of a similar collision reported a year ago in the bullet cluster (/Science/NOW
Joshua Barnes of the University of Hawaii, Manoa, agrees: "This sort of separation is not supposed to happen." One possible explanation, Barnes says, is that the configuration is more complex than it appears in the images. Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says it's better to wait for new observations before revising ideas of dark matter. Mahdavi's team plans to look at Abell 520 with the Hubble Space Telescope soon in hopes of gleaning further clues.
*Related sites*
# The paper
# More on Abell 520
# More on dark matter
Global conservation laws require global symmetries.
Tuv^,v = 0
,v = ordinary global T4 partial derivative
Tuv = stress-energy current density local AFFINE tensor of non-gravity matter fields i.e. only for global Poincare group!
globally conserved integrals for Pu exist no problem in accord with usual ideas of energy-momentum conservation.
In 1915 GR above picture breaks down replaced by
Tuv^;v = 0
;v = T4(x) covariant derivative from bilinear forms of e^a and its gradients (e.g. Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Ch 2 of "Quantum Gravity")
All the trouble of Roger Penrose's "nonlocal gravity field energy" leading to wrong theories like the Yilmaz theory embraced by Eric Davis et-al, abandoned by Yilmaz himself it is alleged, come from
[Tuv(matter) + tuv(gravity-matter)]^,v = 0
Now tuv(gravity-matter) though still an AFFINE T4 tensor is not a GCT T4(x) tensor.
This is THE TROUBLE.
General relativity breaks, in particular, global T4 symmetry inducing general transformations between locally coincident observers Alice and Bob in arbitrary relative motion including accelerations, jerks et-al to all orders. This is different from simply painting new coordinate labels for a fixed local observer. I will call the latter non-physical "redundant gauge transformations" as distinct from the former physical "local frame transformations." This issue also arises in Yang-Mills internal symmetry field theory with global special relativity for the internal transformations of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces. "Solved" for special relativity quantum field theory by Faddeev & Popov using Feynman path integrals - very complicated with ghost fields that violate spin-statistics connection in 3D+1 spacetime, i.e. spin zero fermion ghosts. Feynman tried to apply this to GR "quantum gravity" as well, but with a global flat background I think missing all important non-perturbative strong field phenomena.
The special relativity total 4-momentum Pu of any field or set of coupled fields are global integrals of local stress-energy density currents on 3D spacelike surfaces.
Because of causality they are not observables, only the local current densities are.
Total 4-momentum Pu are the Lie algebra "charges" of the 4-parameter global translation subgroup T4 of the 10-parameter global Poincare group that is the universal symmetry group defining 1905 Special Relativity that is a GLOBAL theory, i.e. inertial frames span the entire universe. See Julian Barbour on difficulties with this conception, but that need not concern us here.
Carmeli et-al in "Gravitation, L(2,C) Gauge Theory and Conservation Laws" Ch 4 gives historical summary
1. Einstein's local gravity field nonsymmetric non-tensor
2. Landau-Lifshitz's symmetric fix
Both above have the Bauer paradox, i.e. the non-physical repainting of coordinates for the same observer of the Galilean relativity form
x^0' = x^0
x^j' = f^j'(x^j)
ji,j = 1,2,3
change tuv(gravity, matter)
3. Moller's version
4. SL(2,C) local tensor
however none of the above are satisfactory
Note that Carmeli's SL(2,C) is incomplete. He is simply doing Utiyama 1956 local gauging of only 6-parameter Lorentz group. Doing that gives both disclination curvature from dilocation torsion gap - his gauge field. Locally gauging only 4-parameter T4 to GCT T4(x) gives only disclination curvature without torsion (H. Kleinert) This causes confusion in the literature from formalists who do not have the H. Kleinert world crystal lattice physics picture to guide their intuition. Tensors came from crystallography in the first place.
Note adding quantum gravity makes the world crystal lattice spacing a fractal "wavelet" ~ N^1/6Lp, N is the wavelet ZOOM parameter, i.e. if you measure a length L, the quantum uncertainty in L is
(1) &L = (Lp^2L)^1/3 from Wigner
However, from Bekenstein -> World Hologram
(2) L^2 ~ NLp^2
substitute (2) in (1) to get
(3) &L ~ N^1/6Lp
N = number of Bekenstein BITS on the dominating causal "horizon," e.g. FUTURE RETRO-CAUSAL dark energy de Sitter observer-dependent cosmological horizon ~ 10^122 for our pocket universe in the multiverse, which as a bonus explains "Arrow of Time" (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
The physical local frame transformations of 1915 GR come from locally gauging ONLY T4 to T4(x) the compensating gauge potential is the piece of tetrad A^a where
e^a = e^audx^u = I^a + @A^a
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea is Einstein's 1916 GR
@ is a dimensionless renormalizable coupling constant
I^aIa = ds^2 for 1905 special relativity
I^au(x) is curvilinear in non-geodesic frames defined relative to Minkowski spacetime. Otherwise it is Kronecker delta in Global Inertial Frames GIFs.
e^a is a Minkowski 4-vector.
Let L^a'a be a Lorentz group transformation
e^a' = L^a'ae^a
However,
I^a' = L^a'aI^a + X Not a Minkowski tensor because of inhomogeneous term X
A^a' = L^a'aA^a - X/@
keeping total e^a a Minkowski 4-vector
formally the same as e.g, U(1) EM internal symmetry gauge transformations
When A^a = 0, then X = 0
i.e. I^a' = L^aaI^a is strictly only for global T4 frame transformations, X =/= 0 is only for local T4(x) transformations.
The dislocation torsion field 2-form is the formal Yang-Mills spin 1-field
T^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c
The disclination curvature 2-form (that can include torsion parts) is
R^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b
S^a^b = - S^b^a = S^a^budx^u is spin connection 1-form where
S^a^b = w^a^bce^c
Note that when A^a = 0
R^a^b = 0
Einstein's vacuum field equations are Rovelli's (2.9)
{I,J,K,L}[e^I/\R^J^K + (Dark Energy Curvature)e^I/\e^J/\e^K] = 0
{I,J,K,L} = antisymmetric Minkowski tensor - this is a classical cubic Yang-Mills field equation that is t'Hooft renormalizable if quantized.
Note the substratum decomposition
e^a = I^a + @A^a
in my emergent gravity world hologram model
@ = 1/N^1/3
A^a = M^a^a diagonal elements of world hologram "destiny" (retro-causal) matrix of 8 vacuum ODLRO post-inflation Goldstone phases from 9 real Higgs spin 0 fields.
torsion field part of spin connection is
S^a^b = M^[a,b] = - S^b^a
in gr-qc/0602022
Tuv^,v = 0
,v = ordinary global T4 partial derivative
Tuv = stress-energy current density local AFFINE tensor of non-gravity matter fields i.e. only for global Poincare group!
globally conserved integrals for Pu exist no problem in accord with usual ideas of energy-momentum conservation.
In 1915 GR above picture breaks down replaced by
Tuv^;v = 0
;v = T4(x) covariant derivative from bilinear forms of e^a and its gradients (e.g. Rovelli's eq 2.89 in Ch 2 of "Quantum Gravity")
All the trouble of Roger Penrose's "nonlocal gravity field energy" leading to wrong theories like the Yilmaz theory embraced by Eric Davis et-al, abandoned by Yilmaz himself it is alleged, come from
[Tuv(matter) + tuv(gravity-matter)]^,v = 0
Now tuv(gravity-matter) though still an AFFINE T4 tensor is not a GCT T4(x) tensor.
This is THE TROUBLE.
General relativity breaks, in particular, global T4 symmetry inducing general transformations between locally coincident observers Alice and Bob in arbitrary relative motion including accelerations, jerks et-al to all orders. This is different from simply painting new coordinate labels for a fixed local observer. I will call the latter non-physical "redundant gauge transformations" as distinct from the former physical "local frame transformations." This issue also arises in Yang-Mills internal symmetry field theory with global special relativity for the internal transformations of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces. "Solved" for special relativity quantum field theory by Faddeev & Popov using Feynman path integrals - very complicated with ghost fields that violate spin-statistics connection in 3D+1 spacetime, i.e. spin zero fermion ghosts. Feynman tried to apply this to GR "quantum gravity" as well, but with a global flat background I think missing all important non-perturbative strong field phenomena.
The special relativity total 4-momentum Pu of any field or set of coupled fields are global integrals of local stress-energy density currents on 3D spacelike surfaces.
Because of causality they are not observables, only the local current densities are.
Total 4-momentum Pu are the Lie algebra "charges" of the 4-parameter global translation subgroup T4 of the 10-parameter global Poincare group that is the universal symmetry group defining 1905 Special Relativity that is a GLOBAL theory, i.e. inertial frames span the entire universe. See Julian Barbour on difficulties with this conception, but that need not concern us here.
Carmeli et-al in "Gravitation, L(2,C) Gauge Theory and Conservation Laws" Ch 4 gives historical summary
1. Einstein's local gravity field nonsymmetric non-tensor
2. Landau-Lifshitz's symmetric fix
Both above have the Bauer paradox, i.e. the non-physical repainting of coordinates for the same observer of the Galilean relativity form
x^0' = x^0
x^j' = f^j'(x^j)
ji,j = 1,2,3
change tuv(gravity, matter)
3. Moller's version
4. SL(2,C) local tensor
however none of the above are satisfactory
Note that Carmeli's SL(2,C) is incomplete. He is simply doing Utiyama 1956 local gauging of only 6-parameter Lorentz group. Doing that gives both disclination curvature from dilocation torsion gap - his gauge field. Locally gauging only 4-parameter T4 to GCT T4(x) gives only disclination curvature without torsion (H. Kleinert) This causes confusion in the literature from formalists who do not have the H. Kleinert world crystal lattice physics picture to guide their intuition. Tensors came from crystallography in the first place.
Note adding quantum gravity makes the world crystal lattice spacing a fractal "wavelet" ~ N^1/6Lp, N is the wavelet ZOOM parameter, i.e. if you measure a length L, the quantum uncertainty in L is
(1) &L = (Lp^2L)^1/3 from Wigner
However, from Bekenstein -> World Hologram
(2) L^2 ~ NLp^2
substitute (2) in (1) to get
(3) &L ~ N^1/6Lp
N = number of Bekenstein BITS on the dominating causal "horizon," e.g. FUTURE RETRO-CAUSAL dark energy de Sitter observer-dependent cosmological horizon ~ 10^122 for our pocket universe in the multiverse, which as a bonus explains "Arrow of Time" (2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
The physical local frame transformations of 1915 GR come from locally gauging ONLY T4 to T4(x) the compensating gauge potential is the piece of tetrad A^a where
e^a = e^audx^u = I^a + @A^a
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea is Einstein's 1916 GR
@ is a dimensionless renormalizable coupling constant
I^aIa = ds^2 for 1905 special relativity
I^au(x) is curvilinear in non-geodesic frames defined relative to Minkowski spacetime. Otherwise it is Kronecker delta in Global Inertial Frames GIFs.
e^a is a Minkowski 4-vector.
Let L^a'a be a Lorentz group transformation
e^a' = L^a'ae^a
However,
I^a' = L^a'aI^a + X Not a Minkowski tensor because of inhomogeneous term X
A^a' = L^a'aA^a - X/@
keeping total e^a a Minkowski 4-vector
formally the same as e.g, U(1) EM internal symmetry gauge transformations
When A^a = 0, then X = 0
i.e. I^a' = L^aaI^a is strictly only for global T4 frame transformations, X =/= 0 is only for local T4(x) transformations.
The dislocation torsion field 2-form is the formal Yang-Mills spin 1-field
T^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c
The disclination curvature 2-form (that can include torsion parts) is
R^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b
S^a^b = - S^b^a = S^a^budx^u is spin connection 1-form where
S^a^b = w^a^bce^c
Note that when A^a = 0
R^a^b = 0
Einstein's vacuum field equations are Rovelli's (2.9)
{I,J,K,L}[e^I/\R^J^K + (Dark Energy Curvature)e^I/\e^J/\e^K] = 0
{I,J,K,L} = antisymmetric Minkowski tensor - this is a classical cubic Yang-Mills field equation that is t'Hooft renormalizable if quantized.
Note the substratum decomposition
e^a = I^a + @A^a
in my emergent gravity world hologram model
@ = 1/N^1/3
A^a = M^a^a diagonal elements of world hologram "destiny" (retro-causal) matrix of 8 vacuum ODLRO post-inflation Goldstone phases from 9 real Higgs spin 0 fields.
torsion field part of spin connection is
S^a^b = M^[a,b] = - S^b^a
in gr-qc/0602022
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Assault on Freedom of Speech by San Francisco Supervisors
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Well said Colin. :-)
I agree to being self-righteous and outrageously moral. However, I do not think I have been irrational and prejudiced? I have also been humorous and satirical and have used ridicule. That aside your points are well taken.
PS Martin Garvis who won for Don Imus and who defended Lenny Bruce is on Michael Savage's legal defense team with Daniel Horowitz. Martin wrote from Italy where he is vacationing "If Michael needs me I will come."
"I have listened to what you say carefully ... Sandoval is lying about what you said about immigrants. Then he is organizing a mob to take your job away. ... He (Sandoval) is using the power of the State to deprive you of your rights ... "
Attorney Daniel Horowitz to Michael Savage on the radio to millions of Americans.
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:21 PM, COLIN BENNET wrote:
Andrew,
When I evaluate what you say purely intellectually, I agree with every single point you are making. However the right to moral outrage is a fundamental manifestation of the human condition. It is the one thing that separates us from animals and robots. We are not dealing with exact science here. We are dealing with very deep archetypal feelings (on all the sides involved, I am sure). Jack's shouts show that he cares, just as does the recent screaming between myself and Pippin. Both of us care. Both of us are being self-righteous and outrageously moral, which any good psychiatrist would say was therapeutic.To ask Jack or anybody else to divest themselves of self-righteousness, irrationality, and prejudice, is to ask to demythologise the troubled identity of the tragic animal that is Man. Unfortunately for liberals and social democrats, the best thinking is always troubled and anarchic, often quite ridiculously inspired, and it all takes place in a mysterium of conflicts which can go any way which way. This is Aristotle's idea of purgation (in the Poetics)To ask that Jack put aside his anger is to ask for a rationalisation which would take away from his personality. To ask such a person to joint the ranks of the Victorian Station Masters and become reasonable in these circumstances is like asking Jack to kiss Eric Davis on both cheeks and send birthday cards both to his mother, his Agent, and his publisher.
Colin
www.combat-diaries.co.uk
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:
I wish it were so simple.
You are speaking of a democratic milieu which existed prior to Richard Nixon. In
this sense I hearken to the tradition you are referring to.
Moral outrage is, unfortunately, one of the casualities of modern life where cheap
instant psycho drama has overtaken the genuine manistifications of this most
basic emotions.
The sad thing I reflect upon is that Jack DOES have a right to be furious. He also
runs the risk of having that moral insult trivialized by charlatans into a manistification
of mental problems, which are used to attack his credibility.
To whit, this has become the new norm of governance. If you " make a stink, you
see a shrink " has become the modus operandi of big business, and of charlatans
in governmental service to intimidate ordinary citizens into tollerating situations no
sane person would put up with half a century ago.
I am not faulting Jack for his anger. I am asking him to play smart in an arena
where psychiatric diagnosis has become the weapon of choice by the status
quo to fend off needed change.
Indeed, a Soviet tactic. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
On Aug 14, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
They are on item 31 - 32 items to go. Aaron Peskin head of the board put near the end - 69 items. Will they even get to it?
It may be on web at SFGTV website? I have not checked.
63.
071185
[Condemning defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against the immigrant community]
Supervisors Sandoval, Ammiano
Resolution condemning defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against the immigrant community.
8/7/2007, REFERRED FOR ADOPTION WITHOUT COMMITTEE REFERENCE AGENDA AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
Question: Shall this Resolution be ADOPTED?
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=65655
On Aug 14, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/9/213250.shtml?s=ic
http://tinyurl.com/2n6rgc
http://tinyurl.com/2h84ov
Let all the drug-dazed San Fransicko Libs with mental disorders and mush for minds put their money where their mouth is and invite the homeless and the illegal immigrants, and Muslim terrorists disguised as illegals, into their homes and give them sanctuary. Better yet, let them move to Berserkley. ;-)
Where is Chertoff when we need him tomorrow to round up the illegals in front of the Savage Radio Station? Where is the FBI? Where are the Federal Marshals? Where is the Border Patrol? Where is Dog, The Bounty Hunter? Where are the Hell's Angels? Is anybody home? Are you all out to lunch? ;-) The idiot Scandalover does not seem to know that Michael has 370 radio stations across America with at least 15 million supporters who have registered on his website.
Blog Responses to the Attack on Michael Savage
Hilarious! The only INTOLERANCE at work here is from the San Francisco STALINISTS who want to condemn ANY OPINION that disagrees with theirs. They are intolerant of any contrary opinion. To express legitimate disgust with welfare hounds and illegal immigrant communists and anti-American, racist bigots, fostered by groups like La Raza and the Orwellian-named "Peace and Justice" gang, to name a few, is SIMPLY free speech. It is still America, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and not yet you’re MEX-AMERIKA!
thomistic.blogspot.com (Conservative Blogger)
Apparently feeling he is not getting enough attention from the city's drug-addicted tranny street hookers and Satanist lobby, District 11 Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval - who you may remember as the bloody genius who made the talk show rounds saying that America doesn't need an army - tried to one-up Daly by introducing a resolution condemning the “defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants.”
sanfransanity.blogspot.com (Conservative Blogger)
Responses Posted on FreeRepublic.com
Whew! This action by city officials is a "Nazi-like" step by Marxists. They probably have already established re-education camps. This action shows how far afield from our constitution our country has strayed. Is thought control where we are headed? ...Against someone simply asking that current laws be enforced to protect our borders, language, and culture? ...Shocking to say the least! Posted by Olezip
The Leftists in San Francisco have borrowed a page right out of the Communist gulag system. Anyone can be hauled off to the "Re-Education" death camp for making "counter revolutionary statements" or saying anything "defamatory against progress.” The buzz words "hatred and racism" are the Western Left's equivalent. Moreover, the political prison camps of North Korea, China, and Cuba are filled with whole families today because they have sinned against the all powerful state. America used to be a free country where you could tell people to go starve themselves to death if they wished because they were advocating lunacy. Now, the PC Poliezi are out in force. God help us all. Posted by SkyPilot
Helooo San Fransicko... How pathetic, demonize Savage to steal even more money from the taxpayer’s wallets, for a law that should be Unconstitutional, “if” Hazelton cannot pass ordinances that regulate illegals, how can SF pass laws that go the other way? Posted by padre35
I’ve never heard of something like this being aimed at any talk show host or newsman. What a dangerous precedent. Posted by SmoothTalker
Typical San Fran sicko stunts. And sicko Sandoval is the mincing meterosexual who blocked the US Navy warship from a permanent berth there for tourism Posted by Dennisw
The left will stop at nothing short of getting him and all conservatives off the radio.... since their Air America went belly up. Posted by b4its2late
On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
re: http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1963
US politician (1909 - 1998)
Jerry
Let's stick to the issues and the ideas. You do not seem to understand them. This is beyond party politics. Attorney Dan Horowitz is considered a Liberal (in best sense of "I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it" - real Classical Liberal not a Commie pretending to be one right out of Orwell's Pig in "Animal Farm.") and he is defending Savage against the Soviet Totalitarian Supervisors of San Fransicko. So is Dannie's cousin who defended Lenny Bruce and who has written a book on the threat to the Constitution of idiots like Scandalover who has had to pay damages for slander in the past mind you. Let them fix the San Francisco streets and leave foreign affairs to the Feds. Throw the Bums out!
Michael has at least 15 million American activist voters. Has that fact, has that political reality sunk in to the the phony Libs with mental disorders? No, not yet. To be fair not many Republicans know it either. Wait till they come up for re-election. Throw the Bums out!
On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:14 PM, wrote:
jack, forgive the spelling errors, I am legally blind and can't really see the screen very well. I do use a magnifyer and sometimes audio aids, but I just over looked it this time. .as for Collin he is a miserable ass and just has to be over looked. Sorry to offend you fellows as I understand there is little compassion on this list..
Best as always
Jerry
www.jerrypippin.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "COLIN BENNET"Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Axis of Evil: Baghdad by the Bay of Orwell's Pigs: Communist Coup of San Francisco City Government commend Hugo Chavez
Jerry as Colin points out your spelling is illiterate.
Your message is inarticulate as if some mind rot has
set in? As Michael Savage says "Liberalism is a mental
disorder." He means phony Liberalism of course, which
is in reality Soviet Communism that is alive and well
in Berserkley and in the local San Francisco
Government who cannot fix the city streets because
they are too busy usurping the power of the Federales
on National Security and Foreign Policy. Fact is
Michael Savage is literate, with an IQ of 170 and a
PhD in bioscience area from UC Berkeley and that goes
a long way to explain why 15 million American voters
support him! That fact has not dawned on the Commies
pretending to be Liberals. A real Old-Line Liberal
Lawyer, Dannie Horowitz is on the case. Jerry besides
being inarticulate below you seem to have no
understanding of the First Amendment and what the real
issues are here that go beyond party politics.
--- COLIN BENNET wrote:
Pippin,
Please concentrate before you write emails. You
yourself need to take a long read of books on
grammar, spelling, and punctuation. What is a "small
intellegent man?" for Christs's sake? Sarfatti is a
tall genius, and he is terrible at public relations!
You must be talking about somebody else, maybe one
of the straw-behind-the-ears Oki from Muskogee
"Ufologists" you interview. I can smell the straw on
your studio floor from the UK. Fascism is not
liberal? Fantastic thinking, and what are the three
dots for?
Pippin wrote:
Jack you are a small intellegent man when it comes
to science and public relations, but facism is not
liberal, it is just the opposite, it when
corporations control everything..check out the
political science books and take a long read.
Your liberal friend
Jerry
Colin
www.combat-diaries.co.uk
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Well said Colin. :-)
I agree to being self-righteous and outrageously moral. However, I do not think I have been irrational and prejudiced? I have also been humorous and satirical and have used ridicule. That aside your points are well taken.
PS Martin Garvis who won for Don Imus and who defended Lenny Bruce is on Michael Savage's legal defense team with Daniel Horowitz. Martin wrote from Italy where he is vacationing "If Michael needs me I will come."
"I have listened to what you say carefully ... Sandoval is lying about what you said about immigrants. Then he is organizing a mob to take your job away. ... He (Sandoval) is using the power of the State to deprive you of your rights ... "
Attorney Daniel Horowitz to Michael Savage on the radio to millions of Americans.
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:21 PM, COLIN BENNET wrote:
Andrew,
When I evaluate what you say purely intellectually, I agree with every single point you are making. However the right to moral outrage is a fundamental manifestation of the human condition. It is the one thing that separates us from animals and robots. We are not dealing with exact science here. We are dealing with very deep archetypal feelings (on all the sides involved, I am sure). Jack's shouts show that he cares, just as does the recent screaming between myself and Pippin. Both of us care. Both of us are being self-righteous and outrageously moral, which any good psychiatrist would say was therapeutic.To ask Jack or anybody else to divest themselves of self-righteousness, irrationality, and prejudice, is to ask to demythologise the troubled identity of the tragic animal that is Man. Unfortunately for liberals and social democrats, the best thinking is always troubled and anarchic, often quite ridiculously inspired, and it all takes place in a mysterium of conflicts which can go any way which way. This is Aristotle's idea of purgation (in the Poetics)To ask that Jack put aside his anger is to ask for a rationalisation which would take away from his personality. To ask such a person to joint the ranks of the Victorian Station Masters and become reasonable in these circumstances is like asking Jack to kiss Eric Davis on both cheeks and send birthday cards both to his mother, his Agent, and his publisher.
Colin
www.combat-diaries.co.uk
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:
I wish it were so simple.
You are speaking of a democratic milieu which existed prior to Richard Nixon. In
this sense I hearken to the tradition you are referring to.
Moral outrage is, unfortunately, one of the casualities of modern life where cheap
instant psycho drama has overtaken the genuine manistifications of this most
basic emotions.
The sad thing I reflect upon is that Jack DOES have a right to be furious. He also
runs the risk of having that moral insult trivialized by charlatans into a manistification
of mental problems, which are used to attack his credibility.
To whit, this has become the new norm of governance. If you " make a stink, you
see a shrink " has become the modus operandi of big business, and of charlatans
in governmental service to intimidate ordinary citizens into tollerating situations no
sane person would put up with half a century ago.
I am not faulting Jack for his anger. I am asking him to play smart in an arena
where psychiatric diagnosis has become the weapon of choice by the status
quo to fend off needed change.
Indeed, a Soviet tactic. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
On Aug 14, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
They are on item 31 - 32 items to go. Aaron Peskin head of the board put near the end - 69 items. Will they even get to it?
It may be on web at SFGTV website? I have not checked.
63.
071185
[Condemning defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against the immigrant community]
Supervisors Sandoval, Ammiano
Resolution condemning defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against the immigrant community.
8/7/2007, REFERRED FOR ADOPTION WITHOUT COMMITTEE REFERENCE AGENDA AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
Question: Shall this Resolution be ADOPTED?
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=65655
On Aug 14, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/9/213250.shtml?s=ic
http://tinyurl.com/2n6rgc
http://tinyurl.com/2h84ov
Let all the drug-dazed San Fransicko Libs with mental disorders and mush for minds put their money where their mouth is and invite the homeless and the illegal immigrants, and Muslim terrorists disguised as illegals, into their homes and give them sanctuary. Better yet, let them move to Berserkley. ;-)
Where is Chertoff when we need him tomorrow to round up the illegals in front of the Savage Radio Station? Where is the FBI? Where are the Federal Marshals? Where is the Border Patrol? Where is Dog, The Bounty Hunter? Where are the Hell's Angels? Is anybody home? Are you all out to lunch? ;-) The idiot Scandalover does not seem to know that Michael has 370 radio stations across America with at least 15 million supporters who have registered on his website.
Blog Responses to the Attack on Michael Savage
Hilarious! The only INTOLERANCE at work here is from the San Francisco STALINISTS who want to condemn ANY OPINION that disagrees with theirs. They are intolerant of any contrary opinion. To express legitimate disgust with welfare hounds and illegal immigrant communists and anti-American, racist bigots, fostered by groups like La Raza and the Orwellian-named "Peace and Justice" gang, to name a few, is SIMPLY free speech. It is still America, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, and not yet you’re MEX-AMERIKA!
thomistic.blogspot.com (Conservative Blogger)
Apparently feeling he is not getting enough attention from the city's drug-addicted tranny street hookers and Satanist lobby, District 11 Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval - who you may remember as the bloody genius who made the talk show rounds saying that America doesn't need an army - tried to one-up Daly by introducing a resolution condemning the “defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants.”
sanfransanity.blogspot.com (Conservative Blogger)
Responses Posted on FreeRepublic.com
Whew! This action by city officials is a "Nazi-like" step by Marxists. They probably have already established re-education camps. This action shows how far afield from our constitution our country has strayed. Is thought control where we are headed? ...Against someone simply asking that current laws be enforced to protect our borders, language, and culture? ...Shocking to say the least! Posted by Olezip
The Leftists in San Francisco have borrowed a page right out of the Communist gulag system. Anyone can be hauled off to the "Re-Education" death camp for making "counter revolutionary statements" or saying anything "defamatory against progress.” The buzz words "hatred and racism" are the Western Left's equivalent. Moreover, the political prison camps of North Korea, China, and Cuba are filled with whole families today because they have sinned against the all powerful state. America used to be a free country where you could tell people to go starve themselves to death if they wished because they were advocating lunacy. Now, the PC Poliezi are out in force. God help us all. Posted by SkyPilot
Helooo San Fransicko... How pathetic, demonize Savage to steal even more money from the taxpayer’s wallets, for a law that should be Unconstitutional, “if” Hazelton cannot pass ordinances that regulate illegals, how can SF pass laws that go the other way? Posted by padre35
I’ve never heard of something like this being aimed at any talk show host or newsman. What a dangerous precedent. Posted by SmoothTalker
Typical San Fran sicko stunts. And sicko Sandoval is the mincing meterosexual who blocked the US Navy warship from a permanent berth there for tourism Posted by Dennisw
The left will stop at nothing short of getting him and all conservatives off the radio.... since their Air America went belly up. Posted by b4its2late
On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
re: http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater, acceptance speech as Republican candidate for President, 1963
US politician (1909 - 1998)
Jerry
Let's stick to the issues and the ideas. You do not seem to understand them. This is beyond party politics. Attorney Dan Horowitz is considered a Liberal (in best sense of "I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it" - real Classical Liberal not a Commie pretending to be one right out of Orwell's Pig in "Animal Farm.") and he is defending Savage against the Soviet Totalitarian Supervisors of San Fransicko. So is Dannie's cousin who defended Lenny Bruce and who has written a book on the threat to the Constitution of idiots like Scandalover who has had to pay damages for slander in the past mind you. Let them fix the San Francisco streets and leave foreign affairs to the Feds. Throw the Bums out!
Michael has at least 15 million American activist voters. Has that fact, has that political reality sunk in to the the phony Libs with mental disorders? No, not yet. To be fair not many Republicans know it either. Wait till they come up for re-election. Throw the Bums out!
On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:14 PM,
jack, forgive the spelling errors, I am legally blind and can't really see the screen very well. I do use a magnifyer and sometimes audio aids, but I just over looked it this time. .as for Collin he is a miserable ass and just has to be over looked. Sorry to offend you fellows as I understand there is little compassion on this list..
Best as always
Jerry
www.jerrypippin.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "COLIN BENNET"
Subject: Re: Axis of Evil: Baghdad by the Bay of Orwell's Pigs: Communist Coup of San Francisco City Government commend Hugo Chavez
Jerry as Colin points out your spelling is illiterate.
Your message is inarticulate as if some mind rot has
set in? As Michael Savage says "Liberalism is a mental
disorder." He means phony Liberalism of course, which
is in reality Soviet Communism that is alive and well
in Berserkley and in the local San Francisco
Government who cannot fix the city streets because
they are too busy usurping the power of the Federales
on National Security and Foreign Policy. Fact is
Michael Savage is literate, with an IQ of 170 and a
PhD in bioscience area from UC Berkeley and that goes
a long way to explain why 15 million American voters
support him! That fact has not dawned on the Commies
pretending to be Liberals. A real Old-Line Liberal
Lawyer, Dannie Horowitz is on the case. Jerry besides
being inarticulate below you seem to have no
understanding of the First Amendment and what the real
issues are here that go beyond party politics.
--- COLIN BENNET
Pippin,
Please concentrate before you write emails. You
yourself need to take a long read of books on
grammar, spelling, and punctuation. What is a "small
intellegent man?" for Christs's sake? Sarfatti is a
tall genius, and he is terrible at public relations!
You must be talking about somebody else, maybe one
of the straw-behind-the-ears Oki from Muskogee
"Ufologists" you interview. I can smell the straw on
your studio floor from the UK. Fascism is not
liberal? Fantastic thinking, and what are the three
dots for?
Pippin wrote:
Jack you are a small intellegent man when it comes
to science and public relations, but facism is not
liberal, it is just the opposite, it when
corporations control everything..check out the
political science books and take a long read.
Your liberal friend
Jerry
Colin
www.combat-diaries.co.uk
Friday, August 10, 2007
Also I only took the linear term in the Einstein-Hilbert tetrad action expansion.
Actually there are action denominator G terms ~ G(Newton)N^p/3 where p - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
in Lambda(zpf)e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a
For Salam f-gravity
N = 1/Lp^2/\zpf(f) ~ 10^66/(1/10^-13)^2 ~ 10^6610^-26 ~ 10^40
N^1/3 ~ 10^13
N^4/3 ~ 10^62
However there are other factors in the modified de Mateos-Beck equations not just powers of N.
More on this tomorrow. The induced gravimagnetic field is for Salam f-gravity
Bg ~ (angular rotation rate)(Gm/c^2)N^4/3(condensate density)(/\zpf)^-1
~ (angular rotation rate)10^-5210^62 10^-26(condensate density)
~ (angular rotation rate)10^-16(superconductor condensate density)
Actually there are action denominator G terms ~ G(Newton)N^p/3 where p - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
in Lambda(zpf)e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d
e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a
For Salam f-gravity
N = 1/Lp^2/\zpf(f) ~ 10^66/(1/10^-13)^2 ~ 10^6610^-26 ~ 10^40
N^1/3 ~ 10^13
N^4/3 ~ 10^62
However there are other factors in the modified de Mateos-Beck equations not just powers of N.
More on this tomorrow. The induced gravimagnetic field is for Salam f-gravity
Bg ~ (angular rotation rate)(Gm/c^2)N^4/3(condensate density)(/\zpf)^-1
~ (angular rotation rate)10^-5210^62 10^-26(condensate density)
~ (angular rotation rate)10^-16(superconductor condensate density)
Monday, July 30, 2007
Lubos Motl wrote:
"George Chapline just gave the most provoking and most bizarre colloquium we have seen at Harvard for years. (I guess that the talk would not be bizarre enough for Quantoken and perhaps not even for Arun, and I apologize if they will be disappointed by the amount of strangeness.) Chapline used to be a T.A. for Feynman's lectures, he was awarded by various awards, but his goal right now is to revolutionize our understanding of the strong gravitational fields.
...
In other words, Chapline did not like the idea about the horizon being a regular place in space. He did not explain how he wants to modify the laws of physics in such a way that his new critical behavior replacing the horizon suddenly turns on. He also sketched his condensed matter system where the speed of sound goes to zero and asked what happens. Bert Halperin answered but my guess is that during his next lecture, Chapline will repeat his remark that no one at all the famous universities he will have visited knew the answer ...
...
The causal structure is guaranteed by the rules of special relativity that have been tested in detail - and for which there are no good reasons to violate them in a drastical way. And the temperature and the entropy were first calculated by Hawking who followed Bekenstein, but then they were also reproduced by completely independent methods from the microscopic counting of string theory - a calculation that was definitely not guaranteed to give the same results but it did. That is a pretty strong double argument.
Someone asked whether Chapline's new picture of the black hole also requires one to alter the membrane paradigm by Kip Thorne, in which the horizon is viewed as a superconducting membrane, and the answer was that the speaker did not know what the paradigm was.
A particular example of the application of "emergent phenomena" beyond the realm of their validity was the attempt to explain gravity as an emergent phenomenon based on some spin-2 bound states of quasiparticles near the Fermi liquid - the type of work that was done by Zhang and others. In reality, the existence of such bound states was never really justified, and if there were any evidence that such bound states could have existed, such arguments would have allowed not only for the spin-2 "gravitons" but also for higher-spin particles that simply should not exist.
There are many theorems that show that gravity can't be constructed in one way or another, that the interactions are incompatible with higher-spin gauge symmetries, and all things like that. Such no-go theorems are sometimes circumvented by string/M-theory, but it always involves a non-trivial feature of string/M-theory that was not anticipated before and that violates some of the more or less hidden assumptions.
All these vague arguments about gravity being constructed as a solid state system only existed at the level of free particles and there were never hints that the interactions of these particles shall reproduce general relativity. Given the fact that the very reason for introducing gravity is that it is an interaction, the failure to reproduce the interactions is pretty serious.
But even a priori, is there any reason to believe such pictures and pursue them? I think that the primary motivation for such attempts is to satisfy our old instincts that everything, including the most mysterious objects such as those in high-energy physics and quantum gravity, must eventually be "made" of the things we know from the everyday life such as water, wine, bread, and butter.
These objects are macroscopic, slow, low-energy, and with the exception of wine, they are also predictable and deterministic.
In my humble opinion, this approach may be good to entertain ourselves and our non-physics friends, but it is a misguided approach to theoretical physics - and I don't mean just fundamental physics right now but any physics that transcends our everyday lives - simply because theoretical physics has become less intuitive and more mathematically abstract, and it had to be so. And it will be so in the future. And it is one of the symptoms of a true conceptual progress. The humans have been trained to comprehend phenomena associated with classical, non-relativistic, low-energy physics - and it should not be unexpected that the intuition fails if we try to understand quantum, relativistic, high-energy, unusual phenomena that go beyond the realm of validity of our naive approximations."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont-exist.html
Lubos Motl also allegedly wrote in http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists.html:
The Reference Frame:
Steven Weinberg vs weird physicists: torsion
The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a
conservative physicist's viewpoint
Saturday, March 03, 2007 ... /////
"Steven Weinberg vs weird physicists: torsion
A reader has pointed out the following exchange between Steven Weinberg and
Friedrich Hehl in the new issue of Physics Today. If you've never heard about
the latter, you're not the only one. For our purposes, it suffices to know that
this Gentleman has written down many meaningless theories of gravity with an
extra torsion tensor. They have no relevance for experiments and they have
nothing to do with the most important advances in physics of the last 100 years
or so.
Hehl offers some religious, scientifically meaningless statements or loud
screams why the torsion tensor is needed or why it is special, citing some
physically irrelevant sources from the early 1920s. Weinberg of course gives the
only answer that a sane physicist can give: the torsion tensor is just another
tensor field - one that isn't needed for any symmetry, consistency, or beauty -
so if there is no experimental reason why it should be added, and surely there
is no such reason today, it won't be added. Period."
I, Jack Sarfatti rebut Motl: Everything Lubos says here is simply false. Three good references showing Lubos statements to be false are
1. L. O' Raifeartaigh "The Dawning of Gauge Theory", Princeton 1997 Ch. 2, & Ch 10 on Utiyama 1956 locally gauging rigid SO(1,3) to get part of general relativity. Actually what Utiyama got was the torsion-induced curvature beyond Einstein's 1916 theory, but no one realized it at the time.
2. J. C. Taylor "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century" 3.1 "Gravity as a gauge theory" T.W.B. Kibble "Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field" J. Math Phys 2 (1061) 212-21 shows that Motl simply does not understand the facts. Kibble showed that when you locally gauge the full RIGID 10 parameter Poincare group of 1905 special relativity you get Einstein's theory generalized by Cartan to include torsion fields as well as curvature fields. Einstein's 1916 torsion-free theory is what you get when you locally gauge only the 4-parameter translation group. This gives the non-trivial part of the 4 tetrad 1-forms as the compensating "Yang-Mills" type compensating gauge potentials (Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport is bilinear in the tetrads and their gradients). When you, in addition, locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group you also get 6 dynamically independent spin-connection 1-forms as compensating potentials giving ultimately the contortion tensor used in theories like Hehl's, Hammond's, Kleinert's et-al. Note 1916 GR T4 only gives curvature-only spin-connections that do not have torsion gaps.
3. Hagen Kleinert's work http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/kleinert/
"part from the above, the book presents the general differential geometry of defects in spaces with curvature and torsion and establishes contact with the modern theory of gravity with torsion." - Kleinert
Lubos Motl continues
"Weinberg as a relativistic heretic
The origin of this controversy goes back to the 1970s. Weinberg's textbook on
general relativity was very modern - and oriented towards the interpretation of
general relativity as a part of the effective quantum field theory - as it
presented the metric tensor as another field in spacetime whose local symmetry
happens to coincide with the diffeomorphism symmetry but it is just a technical
detail: interacting spin-two fields simply must have gauge symmetries that
reproduce diffeomorphisms. Because of that, we can interpret the whole theory as
a theory of curved space but we don't have to: the metric tensor may also be
viewed as another field living in the Minkowski spacetime or, equivalently - by
symmetries - any other spacetime that you might imagine to be your starting
point. You don't need to know the words "curved space" to calculate the
predictions of general relativity."
(Jack Sarfatti) This is simplistic as can be seen from Feynman's Lectures on Gravitation and Roger Penrose's work on the "nonlinear graviton".
The point is that you do not get the full power of GR for strong fields until you sum an infinity of Feynman diagrams based on the globally flat Minkowski background. This is non-analytic (Ken Wilson) "More is different" (PW Anderson) emergence like in the BCS theory of superconductors. Sure you can do post-Newtonian first order perturbation theory using flat spacetime background, but you will never get horizons.
For example, in SSS solution, the flat background is
g00 ~ 1 - 2GM/c^2r
only in the limit 2GM/c^2r << 1
BTW Puthoff makes a similar error in his PV theory. Dicke never meant his 1961 model to be used beyond the above approximation.
Lubos: "A certain group of people in cosmology has reacted just like religious bigots
and they wanted Weinberg to "retract" these statements whose validity is
completely obvious to anyone who has any idea how field theory - especially
quantum field theory - works."
Jack: Lubos completely misses the point here.
Lubos: "However, the deeper you penetrate into the
community of the loop-quantum-gravity-like pseudoscientists and their fans, the
less clear these things are to them. Weinberg has never retracted but I think
that it is fair to say that these loud irrelevant fourth-class scientists have
intimidated Weinberg into silence which is kind of scary."
Jack: So, Lubos thinks Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, Charles Misner are "fourth class"?
Lubos has shifted here from physics to polemics.
Lubos: "Unification vs segregation
Those people think exactly in the opposite way than a theoretical physicist
should. Theoretical physicists want to unify the laws of Nature. They want to
understand an ever greater set of phenomena using theories with an ever smaller
number of independent assumptions and parameters. Gravity is a manifestation of
something that we can call spacetime geometry - but all of physics may be viewed
as a manifestation of some "generalized geometry". There is no fundamental gap
between gravity and other fields. There is only one world whose parts constantly
interact. Any attempt to separate the world into two parts - geometry and matter
- is bound to be an approximation or worse. All of these objects in field theory
are just some tensors that are coupled according to some rules."
Jack: Too vague to be useful. However, the fact that gravity is simply Yang-Mills theory applied to the Poincare group rather than internal groups does do what Lubos yearns for here, but the price is the torsion field that Lubos says is crackpot physics! Lubos is hoisted by his own petard! My own polemics. ;-)
Lubos "In fact, string theory shows that the metric tensor field and the matter fields
arise in the very same way from more fundamental ingredients."
Jack:
ds^2 = e^aea = guvdx^udx^v
e^a is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form
Lubos "What's important for these interactions is whether they respect some crucial
symmetries and whether they lead to self-consistent predictions that are finite
and whether these predictions can be successfully compared to experiments. We
also want the number of independent parameters - the total number of all
coefficients of terms that can be added without modifying the symmetries - to be
as small as possible so that the theory's predictivity is as large as it can be."
Jack: Cliche. Sure. So what else is new?
Lubos: "Regardless of words, the most general interactions between your tensors must be
considered"
Jack: Cliche. Sure. So what else is new?
Lubos: "Everything else is just religious nonsense. You may try to guess other
principles or ideas how the theory should look like that can lead you to the
right theory if you're lucky. But they don't have to. You can't consider your
own idiosyncratic beliefs to be an argument for your approach before any other
material evidence - either theoretical or experimental - for your theory
appears."
Jack: Polemical ranting.
Lubos: "What about the torsion? Torsion is a hypothetical part of the Christoffel
connection that is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. In conventional
general relativity, the symmetric connection is derived from the metric tensor
and its torsion is simply zero. This is the grand theory that has been
successfully tested. The three-form H-field in many vacua of string theory may
be viewed as some kind of torsion. It's because the conditions for an unbroken
supersymmetry include the term proportional to the H-field in a way that is
analogous to the old papers that discussed torsion together with spinors."
Jack: Obviously Lubos has no knowledge of Kibble's 1961 paper. He is making something simple overly complicated. So like a string theorist! :-)
Lubos: "Other fields in string theory
But if you don't know this "torsion" jargon, you don't lose anything. The
two-form B-field and its exterior derivative, the H-field, are just other
examples of fields in the effective field theory. They have some couplings and
some gauge symmetries and string theory predicts all of them, up to field
redefinitions that can, of course, always be made. It is somewhat misleading to
use the word "torsion" because we can't really say that all objects are affected
universally by the background fields. It is more usual that we interpret the
H-field as a generalization of the electromagnetic field than a kind of a
torsion tensor. And we have good reasons to do so.
For example, charged objects are also influenced by non-gravitational gauge
fields. In the presence of matter, it is no longer true that the geometry knows
everything about the natural motion of objects in a general situation. We need
other fields, too. Once we accept that there are other fields, we must consider
the most general set of rules controlling these degrees of freedom that are
consistent with the given symmetry and consistency principles. In particular,
the torsion is just another tensor and it is not true that its couplings are
completely determined. All contractions of indices etc. are legitimate a priori.
The statements that the dogmatic torsion is necessary because of [some
incoherent principle] are completely dumb."
Jack: An ignorant remark for reasons stated above.
Lubos: "Torsion is not necessary simply
because the theories we have don't include any torsion, they are
self-consistent, and they moreover agree with experiments."
Jack: That 96% of the stuff of the universe is not atoms and photons etc MAY PERHAPS be the smoking gun for torsion fields. Also maybe the Pioneer anomaly. Indeed dark energy and dark matter are the elephant and the 800 gorilla in the room.
Lubos; "It is plausible that
a more complete theory would predict new fields but these fields must be
massive, otherwise they would contradict observations. For example, the
three-form H-field in four-dimensional string-theoretical vacua may be
Hodge-dualized to a one-form which is a gradient of a scalar field called the
universal axion. This particle may or may not exist but it must be massive,
otherwise it would induce new forces that are not observed.
Irrational pressures
At any rate, the idea that there are some additional aesthetic conditions in
field theory that tell you that you should include fields that are otherwise
clearly unnecessary or conditions that tell you that you shouldn't allow some
interactions of some fields just because you want to use some name for these
fields is analogous to astrology. Nothing like that can be used in science. Such
new ideas could only become valid if you showed that they are necessary for some
kind of new symmetry, or that they must arise from an underlying high-energy
theory. At the sociological level, I am flabbergasted how the people who
understand physics and contributed to physics at a rate below 0.1% of Steven
Weinberg are self-confident when they try to intimidate him."
Jack: Again Lubos is obviously not aware that locally gauging the Poincare group in same way as internal groups gives curvature + torsion Einstein-Cartan theory. All we need is the battle-tested local gauge principle applied to the rigid spacetime symmetries of global special relativity and you cannot avoid torsion in addition to curvature.
Lubos: "Einstein's flawed attempts
In the last decades of his life, Einstein used to think about many unified
theories. He thought that only gravity and electromagnetism were real:
everything else was supposed to miraculously emerge from the approach. So he has
tried all the silliest theories you can imagine - for example, an asymmetric
metric tensor whose antisymmetric part describes F_{mu nu}. Torsion was another
example. The greatest mistake of Einstein was his inability to accept the
probabilistic nature and predictions of quantum mechanics. But the unjustified
attempts to "extend" the metric tensor in order to cheaply include
electromagnetism may be viewed as the second greatest blunder of his life.
For example, if we imagine that the metric tensor is not symmetric, we are still
allowed to split it into the symmetric and antisymmetric part. These two parts
can be treated separately: they can have different interactions. If you treat
them separately, you are still able to satisfy all principles of your field
theory. The Lagrangian is locally Lorentz-symmetric and the full action is
diffeomorphism invariant if you do it right. An action written in terms of an
asymmetric tensor could "look" shorter than a general action describing the
action for the symmetric part and the antisymmetric part but Nature never cares
whether something "looks" shorter. For example, the action of eleven-dimensional
supergravity is not really "short" but it is the most symmetric gravitational
low-energy field theory that exists. It is symmetry and rigidity, not the
length, that matters in physics. The crackpots won't ever get this point."
Jack: Note Lubos use of "crackpot" - overkill, too broad a brush - a bad habit he picked up from John Baez who Lubos thinks is a crackpot for pushing L. Smolin's loop theory approach to quantum gravity. Rovelli is also a crackpot in Motl's black book. Lubos accepts 11D supergravity theory as some kind of Holy Revelation. Sir Roger Penrose then becomes a "crackpot" in Lubos's lexicon for his critique of extra dimensions in "The Road to Reality" for example.
Luubos: "The same comment applies to torsion. If you consider an asymmetric Christoffel
connection, you are still allowed to break it into pieces, i.e. irreducible
representations of the Lorentz group or "GL(4)", and to add different
interactions for these pieces. For diffeomorphism invariance, the symmetric part
will be equivalent to what you get from a metric tensor, and the antisymmetric
part is just another tensor field. There can't be any natural unification here."
Jack: Blatantly false as shown by Kibble cited above.
Lubos: "If your action looked simple in terms of an asymmetric metric tensor or an
asymmetric connection, it would be a pure coincidence. You would still have to
consider all possible deformations of this theory - in which the interactions of
the parts differ - to be equally valid candidates to describe reality.
Horizons and the geometric intuition
Is there something in GR that you can't derive by assuming that the metric
tensor is just another tensor field on some background - e.g. the Minkowski
background? Well, GR predicts the existence of spacetime topologies and causal
diagrams that differ from the Minkowski spacetime. Are they possible? Well,
almost certainly. But still, their existence is compatible with the
interpretation of the metric tensor as another field. The geometric intuition
just gives you a good tool to deal with some singularities: for example, you may
find that the black hole horizon is a coordinate singularity and you can
continue your physical laws to the interior of the black hole. You can see that
there is nothing special happening near the black hole event horizon."
Jack: Again false as shown by Feynman for example.
Lubos: "But this conclusion also follows from a careful analysis of field redefinitions
that are helpful to understand physics near the black hole horizon. These field
redefinitions are nothing else than diffeomorphisms,"
Jack: which are simply the local gauge transformations in going from rigid T4 to local T4(x).
Lubos: "and by making the geometry
look smooth near the event horizon, you obtain a natural hypothesis what should
happen when you cross the horizon: namely nothing."
Jack: True in GR, but not true in Chapline's replacement of GR,
Lubos: "Experimentally speaking,
we're not quite sure. We will never be sure unless the whole planet falls into a
black hole which is not the best collective career move.
It can still be true that you die when you hit the black hole horizon. But the
required laws would violate locality and causality - principles whose precise
form is influenced by non-zero values of the spin-two tensor that we happen to
call the metric. These principles are valuable. The dogma about the existence of
torsion is not an independently valuable physical principle and Weinberg has
always been 100% right when he rejected irrational arguments to include such
"principles" into science.
And that's the memo.
Update: Dean of crackpots
I was also told that the dean of crackpots has written about this exchange."
Jack: Who is that pray tell?
Lubos: "The dean himself offers several characteristically absurd comments attempting to
paint Steven Weinberg as the owner of extreme opinions. Steven Weinberg is one
of the people who have defined the mainstream of particle physics for more than
30 years.
In the discussion, some people including Sean Carroll and Moshe Rozali correctly
say that one must include all terms in the Lagrangian that are consistent with
given symmetries. The dean himself argues that "he understands the effective
field theory philosophy", but in order to instantly show that he doesn't, he
says that he is unconvinced because quantum field theories should be valid at
all energies. QCD is and N=8 SUGRA may also be, so why not. Well, he's just too
limited.
Whether or not these theories are well-behaved in the UV can't change the fact
that new physics must surely enter at the conventional 4D Planck scale or
earlier, for example because our world includes gravity. Our world can't be a
pure QCD as the famous apple demonstrates. With gravity, all these theories are
only effective field theories. Even in the case of N=8 SUGRA, the supergravity
description itself is clearly incomplete non-perturbatively because it can't
reproduce poles from the black hole intermediate states.
In the debate with Sean Carroll at the beginning of the debate, the dean shows
that he clearly doesn't understand that the torsion is just another tensor and
its couplings are not determined. It's just amazing how incredibly ignorant this
person is - a person that has been chosen by dozens of journalists to talk big
about physics."
Who is Lubos talking about?
Here Lubos's Polemic/Physics ratio is singular. ;-)
Lubos: "Crackpot Tony Smith tries to spin some - already bizarre - statements by Paul
Ginsparg who has conjectured that Steven Weinberg has "renounced his views". The
similarity of their language with the medieval catholic bigots is clearly
causing them no pain whatsoever. As an argument supporting the opinion that
Weinberg has "renounced" his views, they say that Weinberg likes extra
dimensions in string theory which are geometrical in nature. Well, that's nice
that they are geometrical but the low-energy field theory in 10D is just another
field theory with some tensors, and so is its decomposition in the form of the
four-dimensional effective field theories. In all cases, it is Weinberg's rules
of physics that are important, not pre-conceived opinions about "geometry".
All of string theory may be viewed as a certain generalization of geometry. The
real question is how exactly the right generalization works. ;-) There's no
doubt that string theory has already refined our notions about geometry - by
topology-changing transitions, mirror symmetry, T-duality and so on. If we want
to answer the question what is the right form of geometry in Nature, we must
isolate the right physics arguments and calculations instead of attaching silly
stickers "geometric - good" and "non-geometric - bad" to different ideas. If you
choose any set of axioms or ideas that are called "geometry" at a given moment,
you are never guaranteed that Nature is going to satisfy them. The previous
sentence has been proved many times in the history of physics. It is She who
decides, not you.
Another "wise man" called Eugene Stefanovich argues that Weinberg also has
non-orthodox views on quantum field theory because he starts his derivation of
the theory from particles which makes fields less fundamental. Last semester I
have largely followed Sidney Coleman's QFT I notes that start from particles,
too. What's exactly non-orthodox about it? All these concepts - including fields
and particles - are ultimately parts of the overall picture. There is no
God-given algorithm telling you what you should start with when you learn or
teach these things. Any attempt to pretend that such a God-given algorithm
exists is religious bigotry, not science. Every particle physicist who thinks
that particles are not important in particle physics is deeply confused.
Moreover, even if Coleman and Weinberg were the only two physicists who followed
this approach, which they're not, it would no longer be a fringe pedagogical
direction.
Why do we neglect higher-derivative terms
Peter Woit also completely misunderstands why we neglect higher-derivative terms
in various theories such as the Dirac theory or general relativity. He argues
that we must start with minimal couplings and boldly make predictions to avoid
being not even wrong. But this approach is the obsolete perspective of the
1920s. Today, a physicist who understand her field would certainly not argue in
this way. The reason why the higher-derivative terms (e.g. higher powers of
curvature in general relativity) are not that important is that they are
higher-dimension operators whose effects decrease faster as you go to longer
distances: every derivative adds a 1/L factor to the typical size. The operators
with many additional derivatives are called irrelevant perturbations and it is
the most relevant ones that dominate the long distance physics. You can always
choose sufficiently long distance scale so that the irrelevant operators will
become as unimportant as you wish. There is no other rational justification to
eliminate the higher-derivative terms - in fact, one can't completely eliminate
them at all without contradicting the rules of the renormalization group flow.
Even if the higher-derivative operators were absent at one scale, you generate
them if you flow into another scale. They can't be absent universally.
Because Peter Woit argues that one should study "simple" theories of this kind
because they are "beautiful" proves that his sense of "beauty" is based on ideas
that have been known to be inconsistent with the laws of quantum mechanics for
more than 30 years and he clearly can't understand anything important from the
last 30+ years of particle physics. Beauty can no longer be measured in this
obsolete Woitian way. It is no longer possible to truncate theories in this way.
There is nothing special about the "minimal" theories he likes to think about.
At the quantum level, one can't really define such minimal theories at all.
There's just far too much organized influence terrorizing people in science.
Whenever your results or conclusions of your work disagree with a sufficiently
large group of ignorants, they will attack you personally in the worst possible
ways and hire unwise journalists who do the same in the media. They will present
the fact that your results reject their preconceptions as your moral flaw."
Jack: Let He who is without Sin cast the first stone. Seems like Lubos has a large mote in his own eye? :-)
Lubos: "I think that it has become extremely unpleasant to be a part of
institutionalized science, and I am looking forward to be away from the focus of
these intellectual bottom-feeders who exist not only on Not Even Wrong and who
enjoy a silent approval by many of the leftist officials in the Academia."
Jack: "leftist"?
"George Chapline just gave the most provoking and most bizarre colloquium we have seen at Harvard for years. (I guess that the talk would not be bizarre enough for Quantoken and perhaps not even for Arun, and I apologize if they will be disappointed by the amount of strangeness.) Chapline used to be a T.A. for Feynman's lectures, he was awarded by various awards, but his goal right now is to revolutionize our understanding of the strong gravitational fields.
...
In other words, Chapline did not like the idea about the horizon being a regular place in space. He did not explain how he wants to modify the laws of physics in such a way that his new critical behavior replacing the horizon suddenly turns on. He also sketched his condensed matter system where the speed of sound goes to zero and asked what happens. Bert Halperin answered but my guess is that during his next lecture, Chapline will repeat his remark that no one at all the famous universities he will have visited knew the answer ...
...
The causal structure is guaranteed by the rules of special relativity that have been tested in detail - and for which there are no good reasons to violate them in a drastical way. And the temperature and the entropy were first calculated by Hawking who followed Bekenstein, but then they were also reproduced by completely independent methods from the microscopic counting of string theory - a calculation that was definitely not guaranteed to give the same results but it did. That is a pretty strong double argument.
Someone asked whether Chapline's new picture of the black hole also requires one to alter the membrane paradigm by Kip Thorne, in which the horizon is viewed as a superconducting membrane, and the answer was that the speaker did not know what the paradigm was.
A particular example of the application of "emergent phenomena" beyond the realm of their validity was the attempt to explain gravity as an emergent phenomenon based on some spin-2 bound states of quasiparticles near the Fermi liquid - the type of work that was done by Zhang and others. In reality, the existence of such bound states was never really justified, and if there were any evidence that such bound states could have existed, such arguments would have allowed not only for the spin-2 "gravitons" but also for higher-spin particles that simply should not exist.
There are many theorems that show that gravity can't be constructed in one way or another, that the interactions are incompatible with higher-spin gauge symmetries, and all things like that. Such no-go theorems are sometimes circumvented by string/M-theory, but it always involves a non-trivial feature of string/M-theory that was not anticipated before and that violates some of the more or less hidden assumptions.
All these vague arguments about gravity being constructed as a solid state system only existed at the level of free particles and there were never hints that the interactions of these particles shall reproduce general relativity. Given the fact that the very reason for introducing gravity is that it is an interaction, the failure to reproduce the interactions is pretty serious.
But even a priori, is there any reason to believe such pictures and pursue them? I think that the primary motivation for such attempts is to satisfy our old instincts that everything, including the most mysterious objects such as those in high-energy physics and quantum gravity, must eventually be "made" of the things we know from the everyday life such as water, wine, bread, and butter.
These objects are macroscopic, slow, low-energy, and with the exception of wine, they are also predictable and deterministic.
In my humble opinion, this approach may be good to entertain ourselves and our non-physics friends, but it is a misguided approach to theoretical physics - and I don't mean just fundamental physics right now but any physics that transcends our everyday lives - simply because theoretical physics has become less intuitive and more mathematically abstract, and it had to be so. And it will be so in the future. And it is one of the symptoms of a true conceptual progress. The humans have been trained to comprehend phenomena associated with classical, non-relativistic, low-energy physics - and it should not be unexpected that the intuition fails if we try to understand quantum, relativistic, high-energy, unusual phenomena that go beyond the realm of validity of our naive approximations."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont-exist.html
Lubos Motl also allegedly wrote in http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/steven-weinberg-vs-weird-physicists.html:
The Reference Frame:
Steven Weinberg vs weird physicists: torsion
The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a
conservative physicist's viewpoint
Saturday, March 03, 2007 ... /////
"Steven Weinberg vs weird physicists: torsion
A reader has pointed out the following exchange between Steven Weinberg and
Friedrich Hehl in the new issue of Physics Today. If you've never heard about
the latter, you're not the only one. For our purposes, it suffices to know that
this Gentleman has written down many meaningless theories of gravity with an
extra torsion tensor. They have no relevance for experiments and they have
nothing to do with the most important advances in physics of the last 100 years
or so.
Hehl offers some religious, scientifically meaningless statements or loud
screams why the torsion tensor is needed or why it is special, citing some
physically irrelevant sources from the early 1920s. Weinberg of course gives the
only answer that a sane physicist can give: the torsion tensor is just another
tensor field - one that isn't needed for any symmetry, consistency, or beauty -
so if there is no experimental reason why it should be added, and surely there
is no such reason today, it won't be added. Period."
I, Jack Sarfatti rebut Motl: Everything Lubos says here is simply false. Three good references showing Lubos statements to be false are
1. L. O' Raifeartaigh "The Dawning of Gauge Theory", Princeton 1997 Ch. 2, & Ch 10 on Utiyama 1956 locally gauging rigid SO(1,3) to get part of general relativity. Actually what Utiyama got was the torsion-induced curvature beyond Einstein's 1916 theory, but no one realized it at the time.
2. J. C. Taylor "Gauge Theories in the Twentieth Century" 3.1 "Gravity as a gauge theory" T.W.B. Kibble "Lorentz invariance and the gravitational field" J. Math Phys 2 (1061) 212-21 shows that Motl simply does not understand the facts. Kibble showed that when you locally gauge the full RIGID 10 parameter Poincare group of 1905 special relativity you get Einstein's theory generalized by Cartan to include torsion fields as well as curvature fields. Einstein's 1916 torsion-free theory is what you get when you locally gauge only the 4-parameter translation group. This gives the non-trivial part of the 4 tetrad 1-forms as the compensating "Yang-Mills" type compensating gauge potentials (Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport is bilinear in the tetrads and their gradients). When you, in addition, locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group you also get 6 dynamically independent spin-connection 1-forms as compensating potentials giving ultimately the contortion tensor used in theories like Hehl's, Hammond's, Kleinert's et-al. Note 1916 GR T4 only gives curvature-only spin-connections that do not have torsion gaps.
3. Hagen Kleinert's work http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/kleinert/
"part from the above, the book presents the general differential geometry of defects in spaces with curvature and torsion and establishes contact with the modern theory of gravity with torsion." - Kleinert
Lubos Motl continues
"Weinberg as a relativistic heretic
The origin of this controversy goes back to the 1970s. Weinberg's textbook on
general relativity was very modern - and oriented towards the interpretation of
general relativity as a part of the effective quantum field theory - as it
presented the metric tensor as another field in spacetime whose local symmetry
happens to coincide with the diffeomorphism symmetry but it is just a technical
detail: interacting spin-two fields simply must have gauge symmetries that
reproduce diffeomorphisms. Because of that, we can interpret the whole theory as
a theory of curved space but we don't have to: the metric tensor may also be
viewed as another field living in the Minkowski spacetime or, equivalently - by
symmetries - any other spacetime that you might imagine to be your starting
point. You don't need to know the words "curved space" to calculate the
predictions of general relativity."
(Jack Sarfatti) This is simplistic as can be seen from Feynman's Lectures on Gravitation and Roger Penrose's work on the "nonlinear graviton".
The point is that you do not get the full power of GR for strong fields until you sum an infinity of Feynman diagrams based on the globally flat Minkowski background. This is non-analytic (Ken Wilson) "More is different" (PW Anderson) emergence like in the BCS theory of superconductors. Sure you can do post-Newtonian first order perturbation theory using flat spacetime background, but you will never get horizons.
For example, in SSS solution, the flat background is
g00 ~ 1 - 2GM/c^2r
only in the limit 2GM/c^2r << 1
BTW Puthoff makes a similar error in his PV theory. Dicke never meant his 1961 model to be used beyond the above approximation.
Lubos: "A certain group of people in cosmology has reacted just like religious bigots
and they wanted Weinberg to "retract" these statements whose validity is
completely obvious to anyone who has any idea how field theory - especially
quantum field theory - works."
Jack: Lubos completely misses the point here.
Lubos: "However, the deeper you penetrate into the
community of the loop-quantum-gravity-like pseudoscientists and their fans, the
less clear these things are to them. Weinberg has never retracted but I think
that it is fair to say that these loud irrelevant fourth-class scientists have
intimidated Weinberg into silence which is kind of scary."
Jack: So, Lubos thinks Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, John Wheeler, Charles Misner are "fourth class"?
Lubos has shifted here from physics to polemics.
Lubos: "Unification vs segregation
Those people think exactly in the opposite way than a theoretical physicist
should. Theoretical physicists want to unify the laws of Nature. They want to
understand an ever greater set of phenomena using theories with an ever smaller
number of independent assumptions and parameters. Gravity is a manifestation of
something that we can call spacetime geometry - but all of physics may be viewed
as a manifestation of some "generalized geometry". There is no fundamental gap
between gravity and other fields. There is only one world whose parts constantly
interact. Any attempt to separate the world into two parts - geometry and matter
- is bound to be an approximation or worse. All of these objects in field theory
are just some tensors that are coupled according to some rules."
Jack: Too vague to be useful. However, the fact that gravity is simply Yang-Mills theory applied to the Poincare group rather than internal groups does do what Lubos yearns for here, but the price is the torsion field that Lubos says is crackpot physics! Lubos is hoisted by his own petard! My own polemics. ;-)
Lubos "In fact, string theory shows that the metric tensor field and the matter fields
arise in the very same way from more fundamental ingredients."
Jack:
ds^2 = e^aea = guvdx^udx^v
e^a is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form
Lubos "What's important for these interactions is whether they respect some crucial
symmetries and whether they lead to self-consistent predictions that are finite
and whether these predictions can be successfully compared to experiments. We
also want the number of independent parameters - the total number of all
coefficients of terms that can be added without modifying the symmetries - to be
as small as possible so that the theory's predictivity is as large as it can be."
Jack: Cliche. Sure. So what else is new?
Lubos: "Regardless of words, the most general interactions between your tensors must be
considered"
Jack: Cliche. Sure. So what else is new?
Lubos: "Everything else is just religious nonsense. You may try to guess other
principles or ideas how the theory should look like that can lead you to the
right theory if you're lucky. But they don't have to. You can't consider your
own idiosyncratic beliefs to be an argument for your approach before any other
material evidence - either theoretical or experimental - for your theory
appears."
Jack: Polemical ranting.
Lubos: "What about the torsion? Torsion is a hypothetical part of the Christoffel
connection that is antisymmetric in the lower two indices. In conventional
general relativity, the symmetric connection is derived from the metric tensor
and its torsion is simply zero. This is the grand theory that has been
successfully tested. The three-form H-field in many vacua of string theory may
be viewed as some kind of torsion. It's because the conditions for an unbroken
supersymmetry include the term proportional to the H-field in a way that is
analogous to the old papers that discussed torsion together with spinors."
Jack: Obviously Lubos has no knowledge of Kibble's 1961 paper. He is making something simple overly complicated. So like a string theorist! :-)
Lubos: "Other fields in string theory
But if you don't know this "torsion" jargon, you don't lose anything. The
two-form B-field and its exterior derivative, the H-field, are just other
examples of fields in the effective field theory. They have some couplings and
some gauge symmetries and string theory predicts all of them, up to field
redefinitions that can, of course, always be made. It is somewhat misleading to
use the word "torsion" because we can't really say that all objects are affected
universally by the background fields. It is more usual that we interpret the
H-field as a generalization of the electromagnetic field than a kind of a
torsion tensor. And we have good reasons to do so.
For example, charged objects are also influenced by non-gravitational gauge
fields. In the presence of matter, it is no longer true that the geometry knows
everything about the natural motion of objects in a general situation. We need
other fields, too. Once we accept that there are other fields, we must consider
the most general set of rules controlling these degrees of freedom that are
consistent with the given symmetry and consistency principles. In particular,
the torsion is just another tensor and it is not true that its couplings are
completely determined. All contractions of indices etc. are legitimate a priori.
The statements that the dogmatic torsion is necessary because of [some
incoherent principle] are completely dumb."
Jack: An ignorant remark for reasons stated above.
Lubos: "Torsion is not necessary simply
because the theories we have don't include any torsion, they are
self-consistent, and they moreover agree with experiments."
Jack: That 96% of the stuff of the universe is not atoms and photons etc MAY PERHAPS be the smoking gun for torsion fields. Also maybe the Pioneer anomaly. Indeed dark energy and dark matter are the elephant and the 800 gorilla in the room.
Lubos; "It is plausible that
a more complete theory would predict new fields but these fields must be
massive, otherwise they would contradict observations. For example, the
three-form H-field in four-dimensional string-theoretical vacua may be
Hodge-dualized to a one-form which is a gradient of a scalar field called the
universal axion. This particle may or may not exist but it must be massive,
otherwise it would induce new forces that are not observed.
Irrational pressures
At any rate, the idea that there are some additional aesthetic conditions in
field theory that tell you that you should include fields that are otherwise
clearly unnecessary or conditions that tell you that you shouldn't allow some
interactions of some fields just because you want to use some name for these
fields is analogous to astrology. Nothing like that can be used in science. Such
new ideas could only become valid if you showed that they are necessary for some
kind of new symmetry, or that they must arise from an underlying high-energy
theory. At the sociological level, I am flabbergasted how the people who
understand physics and contributed to physics at a rate below 0.1% of Steven
Weinberg are self-confident when they try to intimidate him."
Jack: Again Lubos is obviously not aware that locally gauging the Poincare group in same way as internal groups gives curvature + torsion Einstein-Cartan theory. All we need is the battle-tested local gauge principle applied to the rigid spacetime symmetries of global special relativity and you cannot avoid torsion in addition to curvature.
Lubos: "Einstein's flawed attempts
In the last decades of his life, Einstein used to think about many unified
theories. He thought that only gravity and electromagnetism were real:
everything else was supposed to miraculously emerge from the approach. So he has
tried all the silliest theories you can imagine - for example, an asymmetric
metric tensor whose antisymmetric part describes F_{mu nu}. Torsion was another
example. The greatest mistake of Einstein was his inability to accept the
probabilistic nature and predictions of quantum mechanics. But the unjustified
attempts to "extend" the metric tensor in order to cheaply include
electromagnetism may be viewed as the second greatest blunder of his life.
For example, if we imagine that the metric tensor is not symmetric, we are still
allowed to split it into the symmetric and antisymmetric part. These two parts
can be treated separately: they can have different interactions. If you treat
them separately, you are still able to satisfy all principles of your field
theory. The Lagrangian is locally Lorentz-symmetric and the full action is
diffeomorphism invariant if you do it right. An action written in terms of an
asymmetric tensor could "look" shorter than a general action describing the
action for the symmetric part and the antisymmetric part but Nature never cares
whether something "looks" shorter. For example, the action of eleven-dimensional
supergravity is not really "short" but it is the most symmetric gravitational
low-energy field theory that exists. It is symmetry and rigidity, not the
length, that matters in physics. The crackpots won't ever get this point."
Jack: Note Lubos use of "crackpot" - overkill, too broad a brush - a bad habit he picked up from John Baez who Lubos thinks is a crackpot for pushing L. Smolin's loop theory approach to quantum gravity. Rovelli is also a crackpot in Motl's black book. Lubos accepts 11D supergravity theory as some kind of Holy Revelation. Sir Roger Penrose then becomes a "crackpot" in Lubos's lexicon for his critique of extra dimensions in "The Road to Reality" for example.
Luubos: "The same comment applies to torsion. If you consider an asymmetric Christoffel
connection, you are still allowed to break it into pieces, i.e. irreducible
representations of the Lorentz group or "GL(4)", and to add different
interactions for these pieces. For diffeomorphism invariance, the symmetric part
will be equivalent to what you get from a metric tensor, and the antisymmetric
part is just another tensor field. There can't be any natural unification here."
Jack: Blatantly false as shown by Kibble cited above.
Lubos: "If your action looked simple in terms of an asymmetric metric tensor or an
asymmetric connection, it would be a pure coincidence. You would still have to
consider all possible deformations of this theory - in which the interactions of
the parts differ - to be equally valid candidates to describe reality.
Horizons and the geometric intuition
Is there something in GR that you can't derive by assuming that the metric
tensor is just another tensor field on some background - e.g. the Minkowski
background? Well, GR predicts the existence of spacetime topologies and causal
diagrams that differ from the Minkowski spacetime. Are they possible? Well,
almost certainly. But still, their existence is compatible with the
interpretation of the metric tensor as another field. The geometric intuition
just gives you a good tool to deal with some singularities: for example, you may
find that the black hole horizon is a coordinate singularity and you can
continue your physical laws to the interior of the black hole. You can see that
there is nothing special happening near the black hole event horizon."
Jack: Again false as shown by Feynman for example.
Lubos: "But this conclusion also follows from a careful analysis of field redefinitions
that are helpful to understand physics near the black hole horizon. These field
redefinitions are nothing else than diffeomorphisms,"
Jack: which are simply the local gauge transformations in going from rigid T4 to local T4(x).
Lubos: "and by making the geometry
look smooth near the event horizon, you obtain a natural hypothesis what should
happen when you cross the horizon: namely nothing."
Jack: True in GR, but not true in Chapline's replacement of GR,
Lubos: "Experimentally speaking,
we're not quite sure. We will never be sure unless the whole planet falls into a
black hole which is not the best collective career move.
It can still be true that you die when you hit the black hole horizon. But the
required laws would violate locality and causality - principles whose precise
form is influenced by non-zero values of the spin-two tensor that we happen to
call the metric. These principles are valuable. The dogma about the existence of
torsion is not an independently valuable physical principle and Weinberg has
always been 100% right when he rejected irrational arguments to include such
"principles" into science.
And that's the memo.
Update: Dean of crackpots
I was also told that the dean of crackpots has written about this exchange."
Jack: Who is that pray tell?
Lubos: "The dean himself offers several characteristically absurd comments attempting to
paint Steven Weinberg as the owner of extreme opinions. Steven Weinberg is one
of the people who have defined the mainstream of particle physics for more than
30 years.
In the discussion, some people including Sean Carroll and Moshe Rozali correctly
say that one must include all terms in the Lagrangian that are consistent with
given symmetries. The dean himself argues that "he understands the effective
field theory philosophy", but in order to instantly show that he doesn't, he
says that he is unconvinced because quantum field theories should be valid at
all energies. QCD is and N=8 SUGRA may also be, so why not. Well, he's just too
limited.
Whether or not these theories are well-behaved in the UV can't change the fact
that new physics must surely enter at the conventional 4D Planck scale or
earlier, for example because our world includes gravity. Our world can't be a
pure QCD as the famous apple demonstrates. With gravity, all these theories are
only effective field theories. Even in the case of N=8 SUGRA, the supergravity
description itself is clearly incomplete non-perturbatively because it can't
reproduce poles from the black hole intermediate states.
In the debate with Sean Carroll at the beginning of the debate, the dean shows
that he clearly doesn't understand that the torsion is just another tensor and
its couplings are not determined. It's just amazing how incredibly ignorant this
person is - a person that has been chosen by dozens of journalists to talk big
about physics."
Who is Lubos talking about?
Here Lubos's Polemic/Physics ratio is singular. ;-)
Lubos: "Crackpot Tony Smith tries to spin some - already bizarre - statements by Paul
Ginsparg who has conjectured that Steven Weinberg has "renounced his views". The
similarity of their language with the medieval catholic bigots is clearly
causing them no pain whatsoever. As an argument supporting the opinion that
Weinberg has "renounced" his views, they say that Weinberg likes extra
dimensions in string theory which are geometrical in nature. Well, that's nice
that they are geometrical but the low-energy field theory in 10D is just another
field theory with some tensors, and so is its decomposition in the form of the
four-dimensional effective field theories. In all cases, it is Weinberg's rules
of physics that are important, not pre-conceived opinions about "geometry".
All of string theory may be viewed as a certain generalization of geometry. The
real question is how exactly the right generalization works. ;-) There's no
doubt that string theory has already refined our notions about geometry - by
topology-changing transitions, mirror symmetry, T-duality and so on. If we want
to answer the question what is the right form of geometry in Nature, we must
isolate the right physics arguments and calculations instead of attaching silly
stickers "geometric - good" and "non-geometric - bad" to different ideas. If you
choose any set of axioms or ideas that are called "geometry" at a given moment,
you are never guaranteed that Nature is going to satisfy them. The previous
sentence has been proved many times in the history of physics. It is She who
decides, not you.
Another "wise man" called Eugene Stefanovich argues that Weinberg also has
non-orthodox views on quantum field theory because he starts his derivation of
the theory from particles which makes fields less fundamental. Last semester I
have largely followed Sidney Coleman's QFT I notes that start from particles,
too. What's exactly non-orthodox about it? All these concepts - including fields
and particles - are ultimately parts of the overall picture. There is no
God-given algorithm telling you what you should start with when you learn or
teach these things. Any attempt to pretend that such a God-given algorithm
exists is religious bigotry, not science. Every particle physicist who thinks
that particles are not important in particle physics is deeply confused.
Moreover, even if Coleman and Weinberg were the only two physicists who followed
this approach, which they're not, it would no longer be a fringe pedagogical
direction.
Why do we neglect higher-derivative terms
Peter Woit also completely misunderstands why we neglect higher-derivative terms
in various theories such as the Dirac theory or general relativity. He argues
that we must start with minimal couplings and boldly make predictions to avoid
being not even wrong. But this approach is the obsolete perspective of the
1920s. Today, a physicist who understand her field would certainly not argue in
this way. The reason why the higher-derivative terms (e.g. higher powers of
curvature in general relativity) are not that important is that they are
higher-dimension operators whose effects decrease faster as you go to longer
distances: every derivative adds a 1/L factor to the typical size. The operators
with many additional derivatives are called irrelevant perturbations and it is
the most relevant ones that dominate the long distance physics. You can always
choose sufficiently long distance scale so that the irrelevant operators will
become as unimportant as you wish. There is no other rational justification to
eliminate the higher-derivative terms - in fact, one can't completely eliminate
them at all without contradicting the rules of the renormalization group flow.
Even if the higher-derivative operators were absent at one scale, you generate
them if you flow into another scale. They can't be absent universally.
Because Peter Woit argues that one should study "simple" theories of this kind
because they are "beautiful" proves that his sense of "beauty" is based on ideas
that have been known to be inconsistent with the laws of quantum mechanics for
more than 30 years and he clearly can't understand anything important from the
last 30+ years of particle physics. Beauty can no longer be measured in this
obsolete Woitian way. It is no longer possible to truncate theories in this way.
There is nothing special about the "minimal" theories he likes to think about.
At the quantum level, one can't really define such minimal theories at all.
There's just far too much organized influence terrorizing people in science.
Whenever your results or conclusions of your work disagree with a sufficiently
large group of ignorants, they will attack you personally in the worst possible
ways and hire unwise journalists who do the same in the media. They will present
the fact that your results reject their preconceptions as your moral flaw."
Jack: Let He who is without Sin cast the first stone. Seems like Lubos has a large mote in his own eye? :-)
Lubos: "I think that it has become extremely unpleasant to be a part of
institutionalized science, and I am looking forward to be away from the focus of
these intellectual bottom-feeders who exist not only on Not Even Wrong and who
enjoy a silent approval by many of the leftist officials in the Academia."
Jack: "leftist"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
