As Peter Woit has shown in his book "Not Even Wrong" judging an important idea at the foundations of physics is subtle. His book also points out deep differences in the values between creative theoretical physicists and nit-picking mathematicians who prematurely give bad PR to important ideas. Feynman would have met enormous resistance to the development of his "diagrams" in today's repressive environment in which theoretical physics has been taken over by formalists in theoretical physicist's clothing. Most of the theory papers on the electronic preprints in theoretical physics have no relation to experiment and observation and are basically unhelpful to the experimental physicist. Peter Woit goes into great detail on this. My work is in close contact with real data: Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances, dark energy repelling space from itself seen in Type Ia supernovae, dark matter galactic halos, dark matter globs displaced from visible matter, lab reports by Ken Shoulders of "charge clusters," Pioneer anomaly, gamma ray bursts, John Cramer's retrocausal signal experiment (in progress), consciousness, UFO (weightless warp drive) and remote viewing (retrocausal signal nonlocality showing breakdown of quantum theory). Of course my including of the latter three items as part of real experimental physics explains most of the wrath leveled against me. So be it. I ask no quarter, nor do I give it.

Odd to say, my most vehement critic is not the mathematician Waldyr Rodrigues (see below) but the string theorist and well-known blogger Lubos Motl. By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string theorist Lenny Susskind. Therefore, I wear Lubos's snide condescending purely polemical attacks on me (no physics in them at all) as a badge of honor.


2-28-2006

Waldyr Rodrigues slams first draft of Sarfatti paper on emergent gravity for mathematical errors

"Specifically we show that "Mathematics" used in Emergent Gravity is a potpourri of nonsense. This fact, unfortunately invalidates almost all claims of that paper."

On 2-28-2006 at 4:49 PM CST we received Jack Sarfatti's comment on the paper by Rodrigues:

"I appreciate Waldyr's corrections of minor formal details of my cursory presentation of background material in the first version of my paper no longer found in the current version. Waldyr's objections do not affect the key original new ideas found in the paper."


Updated on March 19, 2006

Dr. Jack Sarfatti revises paper (16th version!) on emergent gravity:

"The beautiful idea is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity emerges from the coherent ground state. The pop book to read about this way of thinking is Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe."

Comments from Sarfatti:

"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries" in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse on the cosmic landscape. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis's and David Gross's objections to Leonard Susskind's theory of accessing information beyond the different types of horizons are addressed in a way that probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range phase coherence."

In fact the claims of Waldyr Rodrigues are complete Red Herrings bearing no relation to any of the physical ideas even in the first draft of my archive paper. For example, Waldyr falsely claimed I did not know there were 4 tetrad 1-forms and 6 spin connection 1-forms, which is silly. He simply got confused on my notation. Second most of what his paper was about was on conservation laws in GR and my paper was not about that at all. Third of all, Waldyr admits he has made similar allegations of "mathematical nonsense" on many physics archive papers. Indeed, Waldyr privately did not have nice things to say about Lubos as I recall. Fourth, Waldyr admitted in writing to Tony Smith that he was pressured by "powerful people" to attack me under threat that they would take grants away from his students in Brazil.

Now on another tack, Lubos Motl has not done one important piece of work in real theoretical physics that has any relationship to real physics i.e. observable phenomena. In contrast, I was among the first to predict the supersolid phase of helium 4 in a peer reviewed journal Physics Letters in 1969 months before Tony Leggett's paper that gets the credit.

The basic idea of my archive paper is a good one, that Einstein-Cartan tetrads are emergent from modulations of the Goldstone phases of a vacuum ODLRO field "condensate" like v =( h/m)Grad theta in superflow. That's the idea of the paper. I also predict no dark matter on shell particles as a matter of principle. Unlike Lubos Motl defrocked from his Harvard post for obvious conduct unbecoming, I make testable predictions about real phenomena.

Finally read Feynman's 1965 Nobel Lecture to see how Waldyr's criterion of "mathematical nonsense" would have applied to Feynman's Nobel Prize work. Waldyr is a mathematician not a physicist, and so is Lubos. Mathematicians have different objectives of "rigor mortis" (Feynman's term) that impede creative work in theoretical physics actual phenomena such as the dark energy and the self-stress of the classical Lorentz electron as a Bohmian hidden variable.