Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
A few comments/queries on Ed Witten's semi-popular "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time" in Physics Today, April, 1996.
Witten seems to think that his string parameter alpha' is really a new independent fundamental constant of nature independent of the gravity parameter G, speed of light in non-exotic vacuum c and Planck's constant h. Also he calls alpha' a "string tension." I think actually it is the reciprocal of the string tension. It is useful to do an explicit dimensional analysis and not set h = c = 1 too quickly.
Look at Einstein's semi-classical field equation with the zero point vacuum fluctuation correction
Guv + /\zpfguv = - (8piG/c^4)Tuv(matter)
Guv has dimensions 1/Area i.e. curvature.
Tuv has dimensions Energy/Volume
Therefore
G/c^4 has dimensions Length/Energy = 1/(String Tension)
Gm^2/hc is dimensionless.
Regge slope is of form (G*/hc^5)E^2 when the quantized spin is a pure number where G* is a variable G not necessarily equal to Newton's constant.
The definition of alpha' is
Spin = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
Therefore, keeping all the constants explicit
alpha' = G*/hc^5 = (hcstring tension)^-1
alpha' is a measure of the spatial extension of the "particle" as a "vibrating string" where it is understood that most of the vibrations are "extra-dimensional" in the Calabi-Yau "fiber space."
alpha' = 0 is the point particle low energy local quantum field theory limit, i.e.quantum field theory without gravity in globally flat space-time.
This is consistent with setting G or more generally G* = 0, i.e. particle structure is a geometrodynamic effect like in Wheeler's "wormhole" "Mass without mass" which does work when the micro G is G* = 10^40G(Newton). Note that the wormhole handle is exactly like a string with two ends stuck to the brane! Wheeler had that one in 1956, but his G was too small. So far so good. Also these wormhole handles = open strings with ends stuck to 3-dim brane worlds make the black hole-string connection intuitively obvious and easy to picture. You can let h ->0 as long as c -> infinity, which is the classical non-relativistic limit with finite G.
If you let h -> 0 by itself with c fixed, then the string tension must go infinite to have both finite c and finite alpha -- and so on.
There is also the issue of whether the slick duality idea is really complete or does it leave out essential physics needed to solve the Cosmological Constant puzzle?
Witten likes to take h = c = 1 and think of alpha' = 1/(string tension) as an "area". Suppose this "area" is some-kind of variable Planck area like in the Susskind "world hologram" with Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3 = Lp^4/3L^2/3 at scale L, which just happens to be Lp*^2 = (1 fermi)^2 when L = c/Ho, Ho is present epoch value of the Hubble parameter R(t)^-1R(t),t in the FRW cosmology metric.
Witten's key duality is r' = alpha'/r
The "winding energy" is like the classical gravity radius r = G*m/c^2, the momentum quantization energy is simply the deBroglie quantum relation r' = h/p specialized to the Compton relation r' = h/mc. Therefore, the m's cancel out.
rr' = G*h/c^3 = Lp*^2 = alpha'
rather trivial really. ;-)
A similar thing happens in the Schwarzschild solution for the isotropic radial coordinate, which is always outside the event horizon. There we have
r'r ~ (Gm/c^2)^2
Where r & r' are in the two coordinate patches outside the event horizon of the SSS vacuum solution of Einstein's Ruv = 0.
There are TWO more coordinate patches INSIDE the event horizon where important physics happens!
Similarly, I wonder if Witten and All The King's Men are not missing some important physics INSIDE alpha' = Lp*^2 that is germane to the Humpty Dumpty Cosmological Constant puzzle? Or does this Emperor have no clothes other than the G-string? :-)
G.E. Volovik in "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" thinks so. It's like condensed matter physicists mis-computing a very large phonon zero point crystal vibration energy because they neglect what is going on INSIDE the unit cells of the lattice, i.e. sub-alpha' physics.
On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 03:01 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The way Ed Witten might write my basic formulae in terms of the fundamental string parameter alpha' with h = c = 1 so that alpha' is essentially the effective Planck area inside of which we need fancy math like non-commutative "matrix" space-time, i.e. Galois extension of space-time continuum of real numbers to the hypercomplex numbers like the "fermionic" extra space dimensions of supersymmetry. The formulae below are at scales larger than effective Planck area.
Einstein's geometrodynamic field = Minkowski metric + alpha' (Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
,u are ordinary partial derivatives in 4D
Goldstone Phase = arg (Vacuum Coherence)
/\zpf = Exotic Vacuum Unified Dark Energy/Matter Field = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1)
/\zpf > 0 is w = -1 anti-gravity exotic vacuum "dark energy"
/\zpf < 0 is w = -1 gravitating exotic vacuum "dark matter" which mimics w = 0 CDM for us distant observers.
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Field)e^i(Goldstone Field)
O(2) symmetry implies 1D string quantized vortex core topological defects like in a Type II superconductor.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look at "Elegant Universe" NOVA tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to stuck-on-brane EM waves for communication between parallel "Level 1 & II" (Max Tegmark) IT worlds. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
PS
In my theory
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
David Gross wrote:
"Dear Colleague:
I write to request suggestions for KITP programs for the 2005-2006 academic year.
As you know, our main activity consists of organizing 4-6 month focused research programs.
However, we are also interested in ideas for shorter programs of 2-3 months, for mini-programs,
workshops lasting 2-4 weeks, or for conferences. ..."
Idea for Seminar:
Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
The way Ed Witten might write my basic formulae in terms of the fundamental string parameter alpha' with h = c = 1 so that alpha' is essentially the effective Planck area inside of which we need fancy math like non-commutative "matrix" space-time, i.e. Galois extension of space-time continuum of real numbers to the hypercomplex numbers like the "fermionic" extra space dimensions of supersymmetry. The formulae below are at scales larger than effective Planck area.
Einstein's geometrodynamic field = Minkowski metric + alpha' (Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
,u are ordinary partial derivatives in 4D
Goldstone Phase = arg (Vacuum Coherence)
/\zpf = Exotic Vacuum Unified Dark Energy/Matter Field = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1)
/\zpf > 0 is w = -1 anti-gravity exotic vacuum "dark energy"
/\zpf < 0 is w = -1 gravitating exotic vacuum "dark matter" which mimics w = 0 CDM for us distant observers.
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Field)e^i(Goldstone Field)
O(2) symmetry implies 1D string quantized vortex core topological defects like in a Type II superconductor.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look at "Elegant Universe" NOVA tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to EM waves. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
PS
In my theory
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
"Dear Colleague:
I write to request suggestions for KITP programs for the 2005-2006 academic year.
As you know, our main activity consists of organizing 4-6 month focused research programs.
However, we are also interested in ideas for shorter programs of 2-3 months, for mini-programs,
workshops lasting 2-4 weeks, or for conferences. ..."
Idea for Seminar:
Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
The way Ed Witten might write my basic formulae in terms of the fundamental string parameter alpha' with h = c = 1 so that alpha' is essentially the effective Planck area inside of which we need fancy math like non-commutative "matrix" space-time, i.e. Galois extension of space-time continuum of real numbers to the hypercomplex numbers like the "fermionic" extra space dimensions of supersymmetry. The formulae below are at scales larger than effective Planck area.
Einstein's geometrodynamic field = Minkowski metric + alpha' (Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
,u are ordinary partial derivatives in 4D
Goldstone Phase = arg (Vacuum Coherence)
/\zpf = Exotic Vacuum Unified Dark Energy/Matter Field = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1)
/\zpf > 0 is w = -1 anti-gravity exotic vacuum "dark energy"
/\zpf < 0 is w = -1 gravitating exotic vacuum "dark matter" which mimics w = 0 CDM for us distant observers.
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Field)e^i(Goldstone Field)
O(2) symmetry implies 1D string quantized vortex core topological defects like in a Type II superconductor.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look at "Elegant Universe" NOVA tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to EM waves. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
PS
In my theory
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
Paul Zielinski wrote:
Einstein never explicitly abandoned equivalence and true general relativity. Not even in
his "Autobiographical Notes", which is just about his last word on the subject.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You cannot render tidal effects negligible in the approach to a
singularity until effective Planck scale is reached.
That scale may not be 10^19 Gev after all. It may be 1 Gev?
Paul Zielinski wrote:
That may well be the case, but this is not part of canonical GR. No doubt a deeper
theory, if it ever finally comes, will answer such questions.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Ed Witten thinks that's M-theory. It's now on NOVA! I am beginning to read Witten. I am getting a little uneasy
about all this duality stuff in string theory because it is beginning to remind me of my
debate with Hal Puthoff on his use of "isotropic r" vs. "curvature r" in the SSS model.
This debate is described in my Dec 2002 book "Space-Time and Beyond II".
My debate with Puthoff was that he was misinterpreting the physics not realizing
that the expansion of space inside a critical radius was an illusion of not realizing
what the coordinate patch was in the curved differential manifold. Matt Visser
makes this clear in "Lorentzian Wormholes" in contest of Kruskal coordinates.
There is a kind of duality there with
r' = r*^2/r
but r' and r are both OUTSIDE the "horizon." Puthoff and Ibison make the conceptual error that r' is INSIDE the horizon!
I am wondering if Witten, Greene & Co are making a similar conceptual error in that really they ignore the physics INSIDE
Lp*^2 which G.E. Volovik in "Universe in a Helium Drop" says is essential for solving the smallness of the Cosmological
Constant problem. It's like in condensed matter physics not going inside the unit cell of the crystal lattice. If you do that you
will get a zero point energy for phonons that is much too large! This is Volovik's insight.
String theory is like 2D field theory because the string sweeps out a world sheet in ordinary space-time rather than the 1D world line. This is a great thing because it essentially does away with the infinities of point particle renormalization although it does not explain the Cosmological Constant problem, which worries Witten and rightly so.
There are analogies of string theory with lattice spin Ising models which have a "duality" relating a T theory to a 1/T theory in a dual lattice.
Witten introduces the famous alpha' as basically a new "string" fundamental constant. He does not seem to connect it to the Salam gravity I worked on in 1973.
Using his h = c = 1 units. Witten's alpha' is essentially an "effective field Planck area". If we believe Susskind's "world hologram" we have
alpha' = Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3L^1/3
at scale L
If we choose L = c/Ho in a kind of Mach Principle of large scale influence on small scale
Ho = Hubble
Lp* ~ 1 fermi
The problem with this is the time dependence in H(t) where Ho is the present epoch value.
Note, in Witten's conventions, "energy" is 1/Length
Therefore
alpha' is the universal Regge slope, which for hadronic resonance has
alpha' ~ (1 fermi)^2
Quantized spin of resonance = alpha'(Energy of resonant peak)^2 + intercept
alpha' is reciprocal string tension since Energy/Length ~ 1/Area in the h = c = 1 convention used by Witten & Co.
In my theory
/\zpf = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1}
Einstein's gravity emerges from
guv = (Minkowski)uv + (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)}
"anholonomic" torsion field "potential" = (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)[,u,v]
The O(2) internal symmetry of this complex numbered scalar Vacuum Coherence local field implies 1D string topological defects in 4D spacetime as
a rigorous theorem in the text books.
More generalized models of O(N) "hypercomplex numbered" MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) coherence order parameters will give the "brane world" topological defect generalizations of these "strings" that should also have torsion on the microscale.
BTW, how does your theory explain mechanical inertia?
Exactly as in Wheeler's book "Geometrodynamics" with "Mass without mass" except now I have G* = 10^40 G(Newton) at the fermi scale.
The characteristic rest mass of the spatially extended lepto quark of "Charge without charge" rotating with " Spin without spin" is
m = e^2/\zpf^1/2 = e^2/Lp* = e^2(alpha')^-1/2
because Vacuum Coherence -> inside the "Type II" superconductor quantized flux vortex "vibrating string" exotic vacuum "dark matter" core with ends pinned to the 3Dim brane world we are stuck on like Ed Abbott's "Flatlanders" if the basic Witten & Co ideas are on right track.
These 1 Dim strings vibrate in the extra boson space dimensions and the extra fermion supersymmetry "matrix" space-dimensions forming the Calabi-Yau space generalization of the Kaluza-Klein hyperspace of the 1920's.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 07:02 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Appendix
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:44 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 10:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul
The MTW argument against Yilmaz is simply that one cannot make a
local
classical vacuum pure gravity stress-energy density tensor from the
torsion-free non tensor connection without violating the equivalence
principle.
But we have to be very careful about what we mean by "the equivalence
principle".
There is the so-called "EEP"; there is Einstein's original
"equivalence principle;" which
can be viewed as an interpretation of the "EEP"; and there is the
alternative interpretation
of the "EEP" in terms of *inertial compensation* which rejects
Einstein's fundamental
identification of gravitational and inertial fields.
What you need to do is spell out carefully all of these different
versions in "formal" terms and in clear
operational terms to see if there is really any scientific difference
of any importance.
Of course. That's what I'm working on.
I'm looking for a tame mathematician who really knows differential
geometry,
since I can't seem to find the theorem I need in the standard sources.
The key is decomposing the metric gradients (with respect to the
coordinates)
into inertial (transformational) and gravitational (deformational)
components.
Define this distinction mathematically. Look at Hagen Kleinert's free
books online.
I already have. The gradients of the g_uv at a spacetime point with respect
to the x_v are each the sum of two distinct contributions, as a matter of
pure mathematics. These map separately to the inertial and "permanent"
gravitational contributions to the local connection field.
In that case please show me the exact math here. I have the books. Right now I do not understand
what you mean until I see the actual math. Presumably the "permanent" term is some kind of "tidal" term
that vanishes if the local curvature tensor vanishes. This will be a very simple matter to decide if you
show me the math. Ordinary words not good enough here. They are too imprecise and ambiguous - good
for poetry not for physics.
The torsion-free connection can probably be split into the homogeneous tensor part + the inhomogeneous part.
Indeed I remember that and can quickly look it up. So if that is all you mean, then that is standard Einstein.
What then is the point here?
I gather "deformational" means Ruvwl curvature tensor =/= 0 at P ?
It means the contribution to the connection field (i.e. metric gradients) that results
from the deformation of the spacetime manifold, where Ruvwl =/= 0.
"Transformational" is when Ruvwl = 0?
It's what you have left when you set Ruvwl = 0. It is obviously still
present even when Ruvwl =/= 0 in almost all frames.
Fine.
This is really a matter of pure differential geometry, since it holds
generally in the
abstract, without any specific reference to spacetime manifolds.
I do not understand
what you mean by "inertial compensation" above.
Just think of how inertial and electrical forces interact and how this
is described
mathematically in *standard GR*. The EM field is not geometrodynamic,
while the
pure inertial field (no gravitational sources) is.
EM field is geometrodynamical in Kaluza-Klein with one extra space
dimension.
That's not *standard GR*, Jack
Right, but it is mainstream in 2003.
.
I think the "fictitious" or "inertial" g-force i.e. the metric
torsion-free connection for parallel transport in the original 1915
theory is LOCALLY equivalent to a
"gravity force".
Einstein's principle was that a uniform gravitational field is
*fundamentally
indistinguishable* from an inertial field. That is all in the
historical record.
Depends what one means by "fundamentally".
It is quite clear what Einstein meant. He was quite forthcoming on this.
I think it's important to recognize that this is the cornerstone of Einstein's
concept of general relativity. The meaning of Einstein's principle is quite
unambiguous when placed in context.
Fine, but nothing wrong with what Einstein said above except that physically we never have
a global uniform gravity field. That's only an idealization.
Tidal differences in the g-force between P and P + dP means curvature
i.e. real gravity as opposed to simulated gravity.
Yes, exactly. That is what is meant by a "permanent" or "intrinsic"
gravitational field.
Fine, so what's the problem?
It turns out (and I didn't know this when I first got onto it) that the position I
am advancing here is essentially Eddington's as set out in 1924. At that time he
viewed Einstein equivalence as heuristic and tentative in character, and not as
a fundamental principle.
I say he was right on the money.
This is the view that was later echoed by Bergmann, Synge, and others.
EEP as technically formulated by Wheeler is fine -- but it is consistent with either
interpretation (Einstein's or Eddington's).
So it seems your point is one of the history of relativity on how Einstein's ideas evolved.
I do not see however how this will lead to new physics today unless you mean that
addition torsion local gauge field and possibly local gauge fields from ALL of the
conformal group will modify EEP which is only based upon the 4-parameter
translation group of the 15 parameter Conformal Group for Minkowski space-time.
I refer to the paper by Utiyama I think in mid-60's also Kibble's later paper in
which the general relativity principle is rederived as a kind of local Yang Mills
gauge principle in the curved space-time base space of the fiber bundle where the
fiber is the U(1)SU(2)SU(3) or its GUT internal symmetry generalization. Roughly, the gauge forces are
in the principle bundle with unstable globally flat space-time as a coset space mod the internal symmetry
subgroup of the total group and the lepto-quarks are the associated vector bundle. One then
does the same trick again inside the coset space whose symmetry group is the Conformal Group.
The interpretation expounded in Pauli's 1921 encyclopaedia article was Einstein's. It is
inconsistent with Eddington's as stated in "Mathematical Theory of Relativity".
MTW seem to use both, which strikes me as an example of Bohrian complementarity
-- AKA "speaking with forked tongue" -- in the context of spacetime physics.
That is a very bold hypothesis, as Feynman pointed out on many
occasions.
But it is at the core of Einstein's concept of "general relativity",
as Einstein
himself consistently emphasized (specifically to von Laue).
Of course, this was later formulated as a local cancellation of the
gravitational
force field in a free-fall frame, together with our ability to render
tidal effects
negligible by going to a sufficiently small neighborhood. This makes
it look
on the surface like the Einstein principle is still valid -- hence the
misleading
acronym "EEP".
Forget what Einstein allegedly thought in his early days.
Jack, this was integral and indispensable to Einstein's idea of general relativity.
So, if you forget about this -- and also Pauli's entire 1921 exposition of GR --
you then have "general relativity" *without actual general relativity*, as I said early
on.
I mean, this is a historical point about the initial immature conception of relativity that got
further refined into the modern ideas launched in MTW.
Looks like I was right.
But if you are willing to drop this and hew to a consistent non-Einsteinian interpretation
of EEP, then fine.
But then, the MTW argument against localized vacuum gravitational stress-energy
falls apart (though of course that does not in itself mean there are no other valid objections).
The only way you can attack MTW there is to say that their initial assumption that the localized
vacuum tensor is quadratic in the connection is a Straw Man, i.e. not complete. That there is
another form based only on the nonlinear products of the curvature tensor but that would
change the field equation from (neglecting zero point /\zpfguv)
Guv = -(8piG/c^4)Tuv
to
Guv + Nonlinear products of 4th rank curvature tensor = -(8piG/c^4)Tuv
The extra terms are a power series in Lp^2 = hG/c^3
they may be there, but are too small on the macro-scale.
Is that what you mean?
I cannot understand really what you mean until I see formal statements in math that pin down the ambiguities of ordinary language.
This is why I feel uneasy about Bohr's reliance on ordinary language in the quantum reality problem.
Which is what I originally argued: the bare "EEP" does not establish that the
gravitational energy density must vanish at a point, or that its components depend
upon the frame of reference in a non-covariant manner. It only requires that the
net measurable combined gravitational and inertial forces vanish at a point in some
coordinate system.
To get the true gravitational stress-energy, we simply ignore the inertial contribution
-- that's all.
Eddington himself explicitly states that in GR the inertial field has a "stress-energy"
that is frame-dependent and represented by a non-tensor. But this is a *fictitious*
stress-energy, unless you believe in Einstein equivalence *as originally stated* --
which it now appears that you don't.
He was
perhaps a bit confused whilst the theory was immature.
The point is that it's coherent conceptually today in the form MTW have.
I cannot agree. See above. This is a *real interpretive dichotomy* at the most fundamental
level.
Now you could say somethinglike this about Schroedinger, who really thought he had a
wave theory in the classical sense -- but later had to give this up for a number of reasons.
Einstein never explicitly abandoned equivalence and true general relativity. Not even in
his "Autobiographical Notes", which is just about his last word on the subject.
You cannot render tidal effects negligible in the approach to a
singularity until effective Planck scale is reached.
That scale may not be 10^19 Gev after all. It may be 1 Gev?
That may well be the case, but this is not part of canonical GR. No doubt a deeper
theory, if it ever finally comes, will answer such questions.
Ed Witten thinks that's M-theory. It's now on NOVA! I am beginning to read Witten. I am getting a little uneasy
about all this duality stuff in string theory because it is beginning to remind me of my
debate with Hal Puthoff on his use of "isotropic r" vs. "curvature r" in the SSS model.
This debate is described in my Dec 2002 book "Space-Time and Beyond II".
My debate with Puthoff was that he was misinterpreting the physics not realizing
that the expansion of space inside a critical radius was an illusion of not realizing
what the coordinate patch was in the curved differential manifold. Matt Visser
makes this clear in "Lorentzian Wormholes" in contest of Kruskal coordinates.
There is a kind of duality there with
r' = r*^2/r
but r' and r are both OUTSIDE the "horizon." Puthoff and Ibison make the conceptual error that r' is INSIDE the horizon!
I am wondering if Witten, Greene & Co are making a similar conceptual error in that really they ignore the physics INSIDE
Lp*^2 which G.E. Volovik in "Universe in a Helium Drop" says is essential for solving the smallness of the Cosmological
Constant problem. It's like in condensed matter physics not going inside the unit cell of the crystal lattice. If you do that you
will get a zero point energy for phonons that is much too large! This is Volovik's insight.
String theory is like 2D field theory because the string sweeps out a world sheet in ordinary space-time rather than the 1D world line. This is a great thing because it essentially does away with the infinities of point particle renormalization although it does not explain the Cosmological Constant problem, which worries Witten and rightly so.
There are analogies of string theory with lattice spin Ising models which have a "duality" relating a T theory to a 1/T theory in a dual lattice.
Witten introduces the famous alpha' as basically a new "string" fundamental constant. He does not seem to connect it to the Salam gravity I worked on in 1973.
Using his h = c = 1 units. Witten's alpha' is essentially an "effective field Planck area". If we believe Susskind's "world hologram" we have
alpha' = Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3L^1/3
at scale L
If we choose L = c/Ho in a kind of Mach Principle of large scale influence on small scale
Ho = Hubble
Lp* ~ 1 fermi
The problem with this is the time dependence in H(t) where Ho is the present epoch value.
Note, in Witten's conventions, "energy" is 1/Length
Therefore
alpha' is the universal Regge slope, which for hadronic resonance has
alpha' ~ (1 fermi)^2
Quantized spin of resonance = alpha'(Energy of resonant peak)^2 + intercept
alpha' is reciprocal string tension since Energy/Length ~ 1/Area in the h = c = 1 convention used by Witten & Co.
In my theory
/\zpf = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1}
Einstein's gravity emerges from
guv = (Minkowski)uv + (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)}
"anholonomic" torsion field "potential" = (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)[,u,v]
The O(2) internal symmetry of this complex numbered scalar Vacuum Coherence local field implies 1D string topological defects in 4D spacetime as
a rigorous theorem in the text books.
More generalized models of O(N) "hypercomplex numbered" MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) coherence order parameters will give the "brane world" topological defect generalizations of these "strings" that should also have torsion on the microscale.
BTW, how does your theory explain mechanical inertia?
Exactly as in Wheeler's book "Geometrodynamics" with "Mass without mass" except now I have G* = 10^40 G(Newton) at the fermi scale.
The characteristic rest mass of the spatially extended lepto quark of "Charge without charge" rotating with " Spin without spin" is
m = e^2/\zpf^1/2 = e^2/Lp* = e^2(alpha')^-1/2
because Vacuum Coherence -> inside the "Type II" superconductor quantized flux vortex "vibrating string" exotic vacuum "dark matter" core with ends pinned to the 3Dim brane world we are stuck on like Ed Abbott's "Flatlanders" if the basic Witten & Co ideas are on right track.
These 1 Dim strings vibrate in the extra boson space dimensions and the extra fermion supersymmetry "matrix" space-dimensions forming the Calabi-Yau space generalization of the Kaluza-Klein hyperspace of the 1920's.
But it only takes one physical effect that is not "locally" negligible
in this sense
to blow out Einstein equivalence.
Einstein equivalence is only a classical weak field approximation or
your "correspondence principle" in the informal sense for the zero
torsion limit.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Einstein thought it held without
restriction.
Looks like you don't agree.
I am not sure without doing a careful look. In any case, of course there have been
subtle modifications or refinements of Einstein's early thinking. These are small
corrections so to speak. Only minor clarifications of his great insights. There is
nothing revolutionary in the distinctions you propose here that I am able to
understand at least.
I am not sure what happens when there is torsion-spin
coupling. It can break down for a variety of reasons.
Exactly -- you're not sure. The fact is it's anybody's guess and is ultimately
an empirical question.
Not quite - there is a lot of work in the published literature - it's only my personal lack of knowledge here I allude to.
Yet Einstein thought he was completely sure, and said so. That's why Feynman
made fun of him in "Lectures on Gravitation".
Z.
Again this is very minor compared to what is happening now and what I am talking about above in relation to
Witten & Co.
I do not have time to absorb all your points below. Later.
For example, multipole effects on spinning test particles.
In order to save his concept of strict equivalence, Einstein was
forced to
assume that Riemannian curvature -- which is absolute -- has no direct
physical significance from the standpoint of "local" measurements.
This is actually not true, as Feynman has pointed out. It only holds,
strictly
speaking, at a *point* in spacetime. But Riemann curvature is still
defined, and
need not vanish, at any point in a GR gravity field.
That is why I have argued that Einstein equivalence has now been
tacitly restricted
to a (weak) *correspondence principle*, which does not in itself imply
anything about the
fundamental physical indistinguishability of gravitational and
inertial fields.
The problem with MTW is that they try to have it both ways -- leading
to confusion.
They call everything "curvature". Wheeler claims in Wheeler and
Ciufolino that Einsteins'
theory was that gravity is "spacetime curvature" -- which is nonsense
if you interpret this
as *Riemann* curvature.
But if you call even a purely linear distortion of the Lorentz metric
"spacetime curvature",
then you might as well say that acceleration of one's frame of
reference "curves spacetime"
even in Newtonian mechanics.
Try it. Write ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v in a purely Newtonian context and
see what happens
when you accelerate the frame (non-linear coordinate transformation).
Whether or not that gravity force is "real" depends
on whether or not there is a local tidal curvature differential
in the g-force as described by the geodesic deviation equation between
two neighboring timelike geodesic LIF free float observers.
I am not so interested in what is "real", and what is not, as I am in
the hypothesis
of fundamental physical indistinguishability -- which I argue is
simply false.
The effects of deformation and transformation are certainly
distinguishable in differential
geometry -- but this basic mathematical distinction is papered over in
canonical GR so that
we can pretend that Einstein equivalence is still valid. The
mathematical distinction between
deformational and transformational effects on the metric components
g_uv (appearance
of non-vanishing gradients) is de-emphasized .
As far as I can see, this is done pedagogically in order to sustain
the myth of "general
relativity" (to be sharply distinguished from mere general covariance).
Stephen Weinberg devotes the better part of a chapter to this
distinction, after calling
himself a "heretic".
This curvature tensor tidal differential force cannot be eliminated
locally.
Yes. And of course everyone knows this. Riemann curvature -- which in
GR distinguishes
real gravitational fields from pure inertial fields -- is absolute.
All I mean effectively by "EEP" is the set of following "formal"
statements.
1. There exist local tetrads ea^u(P) at point P such that
nab = ea^u(P)eb^v(P)guv(P)
2. The local symmetric torsion-free connection from first derivatives
of the metric guv(P) can be set to zero locally at P.
This is one formulation. As far as I can see the use of tetrads does
not add to the physical
content of EEP, which is that a sufficiently small neighborhood of
spacetime can be *modeled*
as a flat Lorentz manifold *with respect to a certain class of
physical measurements*.
However, this does not mean that inside GR spacetime is actually
"flat" within *any*
neighborhood, no matter how small, in the presence of "permanent"
gravitational fields.
The point is that canonical GR uses the same metric g_uv to represent
both inertial and
gravitational phenomena. This is not a mathematical necessity, as
shown by various bi-metric
approaches.
The historical origins of this fusion of gravitational and inertial
metrics lies with Einstein's
bold hypothesis of strict gravitational-inertial equivalence, and his
closely related concept
of "general relativity".
What I am trying to do is to relax Einsteinian *strict* equivalence
while retaining a single
metric -- which means the theory can be physically re-interpreted,
breaking the conceptual
logjam, with minimal disturbance to the existing mathematical
formalism.
If this allows the definition of a localized gravitational field
stress-energy density represented
by a Diff(4) world-tensor, it could have significant bottom-line
physical consequences.
This defines the distinction between LIFs on timelike geodesics and
LNIF's on timelike non-geodesics both intersecting at same P.
Sure. Again, I have no problem with this. The problem for me is, What
exactly does this mean
physically in relation to Einstein equivalence and Einsteinian
"general relativity"?
Note timelike non-geodesics could not exist without electrical charge.
This is a contingent fact that I do not regard as fundamental to the
interpretation of GR. Any
repulsive forces would do.
Neither presumably could "light" hence no light cones hence nothing -
not even null geodesics. This suggests in itself that gravity is an
emergent collective effect primarily from electromagnetism and
Heisenberg quantum uncertainty as
suggested by Sakharov's "metric elasticity."
OK.
Part of the confusion is that "curvature" = "field strength" in the
modern fiber bundle picture of the spin 1 gauge forces.
That word "curvature" again. What does this mean? What kind of
curvature?
The "connection" for parallel transport in the internal dimensions
beyond space-time (or extra space dimensions of Kaluza-Klein et-al) is
theYang-Mills "potential" like the EM 4-vector potential Au(P) in the
U(1) EM simplest case.
OK, this is how you draw your correspondence between the
phenomenological
g-field and the underlying spin-1 gauge field?
On the other hand it is the metric, specifically goo(P) ~ (1 +
2U(Newton)/c^2) in weak field slow motion static spherically symmetric
vacuum case outside M
where U(Newton) = -GM/r = Gravity potential energy per test particle
from source mass M
leading to notion of gravity force as connection from Newton's 2nd law
on test particle m
F = -m GradU(Newton)
F is locally eliminitable on the LIF timelike geodesics in curved
space-time.
Tidal inhomogeneous differentials F(P+dP) - F(P) are not.
Which appears to say that the metric deformations of GR have a
*physical origin*
in the properties of the underlying spin-1 field?
It seems to me that however you slice this, the implication is that
the deformable metric
of GR is a reflection of the physical properties of the quantum
vacuum, as opposed to
simply characterizing an abstract Riemannian "geometry" of pure
spacetime (vacuum as
void).
If so, then this reduces the combined gravitational-inertial metric of
GR to the status of a
mere predictive mathematical model -- much as we now view Ptolemaic
astronomy.
"EEP", as I understand it, merely requires that the net
gravitational-inertial forces
acting on any test particle locally vanish in the free-fall frame,
while tidal effects can
always be locally neglected.
This last statement needs clarification. It is strictly not true. It
is
only a "weak field" approximation
that the tidal effects are of order (L/r)^2 where r is the local scale
of radius of curvature.
I am packing all this into the convenient term "locally", suitably
defined. So
of course I agree.
As Feynman said, this is only *strictly* valid at a spacetime point.
MTW make
this approximate nature of the remark very clear when I read them. You
have misinterpreted them
as making a much stronger statement and I think this is the root of
the
pseudo-problem you pose.
No, Jack.
You are absolutely right and I agree with you about the clarity of
their minimal
formulation of EEP. However, I am right that they go beyond this when
applying
this "EEP" in certain -- though not all -- contexts. They quietly add
additional
layers of interpretation in those contexts. That is how they try to
have it both
ways.
You have to keep your eye on that pea. Remember, MTW was written by a
committee!
I agree Wheeler is very clear in his 1992 formulation of "EEP", and on
the absolute
character of *Riemann* curvature. The dispute is about what these
things mean
physically in regard to Einstein equivalence.
If Einstein was a bit confused on this in the early days, I don't
know,
it is of no real consequence
except in the history of the evolution of the idea.
This is completely inaccurate. Einstein was quite emphatic that strict
equivalence
was at the core of his theory of general relativity. No strict
equivalence, no general
relativity.
I have not been able to find any explicit abandonment of this bold
idea *anywhere*
in Einstein's writings.
Again, the MTW and Wheeler formulations of "EEP" are technically OK.
The problem
I have is how they further interpret "EEP" as they have presented it
in *certain* contexts.
So I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. This is a rather
subtle but very
important point.
This can be consistently interpreted in at least two different ways:
(1) as the consequence
of a (local) *fundamental physical identity* of gravitational and
inertial fields (Einstein, Pauli);
or (2) as merely the result of inertial compensation of the
separately
existing gravitational
field (Eddington et al.) in conjunction with the natural attenuation
of tidal effects within
arbitrarily small neighborhoods of spacetime.
Either way , the theory remains generally covariant, and a "weak"
correspondence
relationship with SR holds -- locally measurable effects that locally
discriminate between
the predictions of SR ("flat" spacetime) from those of GR ("curved"
spacetime) can be
regarded as practically negligible in a sufficiently small
neighborhood.
Yes, in the weak field limit, but not at a black hole, which Puthoff
wrongly claims does not exist.
Which is immaterial to the *correspondence* relation between GR and
SR, since
black holes are clearly beyond the domain of SR and there is no
empirical
success of the predecessor theory to explain.
In any case, Einstein didn't believe in them.
I would argue that a "weak" correspondence relation is all that one
can reasonably
demand of the re-interpreted theory. There is in reality no "flat"
spacetime *anywhere*.
Fine, that's how I read MTW anyway. Also in my theory, globally flat
space-time is intrinsically
dynamically unstable from quantum electrodynamics.
That's how MTW reads in some places, but not in others.
Also, it is important to understand that none of this depends on the
empirical correctness of
Yilmaz's particular theory vis a vis GR.
I find Yilmaz's idea completely obscure intuitively.
It's just a different theory. I think it's at least internally
consistent.
For example, the alternative approach is taken in a
number of bimetric theories that agree empirically with GR. These
employ a "background"
metric that accounts for inertial effects in conjunction with a
separate (though commensurable)
"gravitational" metric that accounts for physical gravitation.
Very ugly. Less with more.
Unless it leads to conceptual errors of the kind I have been
investigating.
Although I agree it would be nice to keep a single unified g_uv, which
is
what I am trying to do under an alternative interpretation.
My point is that there is no *mathematical necessity* for this.
In the alternative interpretation, I believe the way is open to
consistently defining a true
gravitational field stress-energy density, which is fully
localizable,
and an inertially-compensated
*net effective* stress-energy density which corresponds to the force
field that is actually
measured in an accelerated frame of reference.
Show me the math otherwise the words have no meaning to me.
I'm working on it.
I have to show that when the purely inertial component of the
gravitational stress-
energy density is removed, one is left with a true Diff(4) tensor.
This means that Mach's principle is effectively abandoned -- along
with his rather loony brand
of strict empiricism (remember, Mach flatly rejected the atomic
theory).
Mach's idea reenters in the Holographic World where
Lp* = Lp^2/3(c/H)^1/3 = 1 fermi "now".
But this may have a fatal flaw since H is cosmic time dependent in the
FRW regime.
OK.
The connection for parallel transport locally vanishes in
LIF's on timelike geodesics.
Of course it does. But we can (at least locally) distinguish between
the inertial and
the gravitational *components* of the canonical connection field
(distinct contributions
to the net metric gradients). That comes right out of the
differential
geometry (also, see e.g.
Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology").
I think I said that above.
You did?
Does this mean you now agree with my proposal for a local decomposition
of the Christoffel connection?
I don't know what you really mean until I see some math.
------------------------------------
On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Peter Mutnick wrote:
"Henry Stapp says that there are two worlds: the matter-like world,
represented by the state vector; and the world of experience,
represented by the projection operators. The classical world exists
only as an idea or a useful set of ideas within the world of
experience; i.e., within the mind of the observer.
I say everything is within the mind of the observer, which is the
quantum implicate order, from which all else unfolds. The classical
world, which is the world of the observer, is closer to the mind of the
observer than that which is observed, it is true, but it is in fact the
first negation of the wholeness constituted by the mind of the
observer. The noumenon in nature is of course the more fundamental
negation of the wholeness of the implicate order, since the explicate
order is unfolded in order to know the noumenon, which evades knowledge
through introspection. The character of the classical world is hence
that of an external reality, or the first expression of external
reality - it is distinct from the realm of ideas, which also emanate
from the mind of the observer at an early stage of the unfoldment.
The profound message of modern physics is that neither the world of
experience, nor the classical world of the experiencer, are physical,
but are in fact far removed (many worlds removed) from the physical
world. The first descent from the observer, i.e. the world of
classical attributes, was accomplished by relativity, wherein the
classical attribute of extension is projected as the extensive
spacetime continuum. This first descent reaches as far as the
phenomenal world of experience. The second descent was accomplished by
quantum theory, which reaches all the way down to the atomic realm of
the noumenon in nature."
Einstein never explicitly abandoned equivalence and true general relativity. Not even in
his "Autobiographical Notes", which is just about his last word on the subject.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You cannot render tidal effects negligible in the approach to a
singularity until effective Planck scale is reached.
That scale may not be 10^19 Gev after all. It may be 1 Gev?
Paul Zielinski wrote:
That may well be the case, but this is not part of canonical GR. No doubt a deeper
theory, if it ever finally comes, will answer such questions.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Ed Witten thinks that's M-theory. It's now on NOVA! I am beginning to read Witten. I am getting a little uneasy
about all this duality stuff in string theory because it is beginning to remind me of my
debate with Hal Puthoff on his use of "isotropic r" vs. "curvature r" in the SSS model.
This debate is described in my Dec 2002 book "Space-Time and Beyond II".
My debate with Puthoff was that he was misinterpreting the physics not realizing
that the expansion of space inside a critical radius was an illusion of not realizing
what the coordinate patch was in the curved differential manifold. Matt Visser
makes this clear in "Lorentzian Wormholes" in contest of Kruskal coordinates.
There is a kind of duality there with
r' = r*^2/r
but r' and r are both OUTSIDE the "horizon." Puthoff and Ibison make the conceptual error that r' is INSIDE the horizon!
I am wondering if Witten, Greene & Co are making a similar conceptual error in that really they ignore the physics INSIDE
Lp*^2 which G.E. Volovik in "Universe in a Helium Drop" says is essential for solving the smallness of the Cosmological
Constant problem. It's like in condensed matter physics not going inside the unit cell of the crystal lattice. If you do that you
will get a zero point energy for phonons that is much too large! This is Volovik's insight.
String theory is like 2D field theory because the string sweeps out a world sheet in ordinary space-time rather than the 1D world line. This is a great thing because it essentially does away with the infinities of point particle renormalization although it does not explain the Cosmological Constant problem, which worries Witten and rightly so.
There are analogies of string theory with lattice spin Ising models which have a "duality" relating a T theory to a 1/T theory in a dual lattice.
Witten introduces the famous alpha' as basically a new "string" fundamental constant. He does not seem to connect it to the Salam gravity I worked on in 1973.
Using his h = c = 1 units. Witten's alpha' is essentially an "effective field Planck area". If we believe Susskind's "world hologram" we have
alpha' = Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3L^1/3
at scale L
If we choose L = c/Ho in a kind of Mach Principle of large scale influence on small scale
Ho = Hubble
Lp* ~ 1 fermi
The problem with this is the time dependence in H(t) where Ho is the present epoch value.
Note, in Witten's conventions, "energy" is 1/Length
Therefore
alpha' is the universal Regge slope, which for hadronic resonance has
alpha' ~ (1 fermi)^2
Quantized spin of resonance = alpha'(Energy of resonant peak)^2 + intercept
alpha' is reciprocal string tension since Energy/Length ~ 1/Area in the h = c = 1 convention used by Witten & Co.
In my theory
/\zpf = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1}
Einstein's gravity emerges from
guv = (Minkowski)uv + (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)}
"anholonomic" torsion field "potential" = (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)[,u,v]
The O(2) internal symmetry of this complex numbered scalar Vacuum Coherence local field implies 1D string topological defects in 4D spacetime as
a rigorous theorem in the text books.
More generalized models of O(N) "hypercomplex numbered" MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) coherence order parameters will give the "brane world" topological defect generalizations of these "strings" that should also have torsion on the microscale.
BTW, how does your theory explain mechanical inertia?
Exactly as in Wheeler's book "Geometrodynamics" with "Mass without mass" except now I have G* = 10^40 G(Newton) at the fermi scale.
The characteristic rest mass of the spatially extended lepto quark of "Charge without charge" rotating with " Spin without spin" is
m = e^2/\zpf^1/2 = e^2/Lp* = e^2(alpha')^-1/2
because Vacuum Coherence -> inside the "Type II" superconductor quantized flux vortex "vibrating string" exotic vacuum "dark matter" core with ends pinned to the 3Dim brane world we are stuck on like Ed Abbott's "Flatlanders" if the basic Witten & Co ideas are on right track.
These 1 Dim strings vibrate in the extra boson space dimensions and the extra fermion supersymmetry "matrix" space-dimensions forming the Calabi-Yau space generalization of the Kaluza-Klein hyperspace of the 1920's.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 07:02 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Appendix
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 01:44 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 10:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul
The MTW argument against Yilmaz is simply that one cannot make a
local
classical vacuum pure gravity stress-energy density tensor from the
torsion-free non tensor connection without violating the equivalence
principle.
But we have to be very careful about what we mean by "the equivalence
principle".
There is the so-called "EEP"; there is Einstein's original
"equivalence principle;" which
can be viewed as an interpretation of the "EEP"; and there is the
alternative interpretation
of the "EEP" in terms of *inertial compensation* which rejects
Einstein's fundamental
identification of gravitational and inertial fields.
What you need to do is spell out carefully all of these different
versions in "formal" terms and in clear
operational terms to see if there is really any scientific difference
of any importance.
Of course. That's what I'm working on.
I'm looking for a tame mathematician who really knows differential
geometry,
since I can't seem to find the theorem I need in the standard sources.
The key is decomposing the metric gradients (with respect to the
coordinates)
into inertial (transformational) and gravitational (deformational)
components.
Define this distinction mathematically. Look at Hagen Kleinert's free
books online.
I already have. The gradients of the g_uv at a spacetime point with respect
to the x_v are each the sum of two distinct contributions, as a matter of
pure mathematics. These map separately to the inertial and "permanent"
gravitational contributions to the local connection field.
In that case please show me the exact math here. I have the books. Right now I do not understand
what you mean until I see the actual math. Presumably the "permanent" term is some kind of "tidal" term
that vanishes if the local curvature tensor vanishes. This will be a very simple matter to decide if you
show me the math. Ordinary words not good enough here. They are too imprecise and ambiguous - good
for poetry not for physics.
The torsion-free connection can probably be split into the homogeneous tensor part + the inhomogeneous part.
Indeed I remember that and can quickly look it up. So if that is all you mean, then that is standard Einstein.
What then is the point here?
I gather "deformational" means Ruvwl curvature tensor =/= 0 at P ?
It means the contribution to the connection field (i.e. metric gradients) that results
from the deformation of the spacetime manifold, where Ruvwl =/= 0.
"Transformational" is when Ruvwl = 0?
It's what you have left when you set Ruvwl = 0. It is obviously still
present even when Ruvwl =/= 0 in almost all frames.
Fine.
This is really a matter of pure differential geometry, since it holds
generally in the
abstract, without any specific reference to spacetime manifolds.
I do not understand
what you mean by "inertial compensation" above.
Just think of how inertial and electrical forces interact and how this
is described
mathematically in *standard GR*. The EM field is not geometrodynamic,
while the
pure inertial field (no gravitational sources) is.
EM field is geometrodynamical in Kaluza-Klein with one extra space
dimension.
That's not *standard GR*, Jack
Right, but it is mainstream in 2003.
.
I think the "fictitious" or "inertial" g-force i.e. the metric
torsion-free connection for parallel transport in the original 1915
theory is LOCALLY equivalent to a
"gravity force".
Einstein's principle was that a uniform gravitational field is
*fundamentally
indistinguishable* from an inertial field. That is all in the
historical record.
Depends what one means by "fundamentally".
It is quite clear what Einstein meant. He was quite forthcoming on this.
I think it's important to recognize that this is the cornerstone of Einstein's
concept of general relativity. The meaning of Einstein's principle is quite
unambiguous when placed in context.
Fine, but nothing wrong with what Einstein said above except that physically we never have
a global uniform gravity field. That's only an idealization.
Tidal differences in the g-force between P and P + dP means curvature
i.e. real gravity as opposed to simulated gravity.
Yes, exactly. That is what is meant by a "permanent" or "intrinsic"
gravitational field.
Fine, so what's the problem?
It turns out (and I didn't know this when I first got onto it) that the position I
am advancing here is essentially Eddington's as set out in 1924. At that time he
viewed Einstein equivalence as heuristic and tentative in character, and not as
a fundamental principle.
I say he was right on the money.
This is the view that was later echoed by Bergmann, Synge, and others.
EEP as technically formulated by Wheeler is fine -- but it is consistent with either
interpretation (Einstein's or Eddington's).
So it seems your point is one of the history of relativity on how Einstein's ideas evolved.
I do not see however how this will lead to new physics today unless you mean that
addition torsion local gauge field and possibly local gauge fields from ALL of the
conformal group will modify EEP which is only based upon the 4-parameter
translation group of the 15 parameter Conformal Group for Minkowski space-time.
I refer to the paper by Utiyama I think in mid-60's also Kibble's later paper in
which the general relativity principle is rederived as a kind of local Yang Mills
gauge principle in the curved space-time base space of the fiber bundle where the
fiber is the U(1)SU(2)SU(3) or its GUT internal symmetry generalization. Roughly, the gauge forces are
in the principle bundle with unstable globally flat space-time as a coset space mod the internal symmetry
subgroup of the total group and the lepto-quarks are the associated vector bundle. One then
does the same trick again inside the coset space whose symmetry group is the Conformal Group.
The interpretation expounded in Pauli's 1921 encyclopaedia article was Einstein's. It is
inconsistent with Eddington's as stated in "Mathematical Theory of Relativity".
MTW seem to use both, which strikes me as an example of Bohrian complementarity
-- AKA "speaking with forked tongue" -- in the context of spacetime physics.
That is a very bold hypothesis, as Feynman pointed out on many
occasions.
But it is at the core of Einstein's concept of "general relativity",
as Einstein
himself consistently emphasized (specifically to von Laue).
Of course, this was later formulated as a local cancellation of the
gravitational
force field in a free-fall frame, together with our ability to render
tidal effects
negligible by going to a sufficiently small neighborhood. This makes
it look
on the surface like the Einstein principle is still valid -- hence the
misleading
acronym "EEP".
Forget what Einstein allegedly thought in his early days.
Jack, this was integral and indispensable to Einstein's idea of general relativity.
So, if you forget about this -- and also Pauli's entire 1921 exposition of GR --
you then have "general relativity" *without actual general relativity*, as I said early
on.
I mean, this is a historical point about the initial immature conception of relativity that got
further refined into the modern ideas launched in MTW.
Looks like I was right.
But if you are willing to drop this and hew to a consistent non-Einsteinian interpretation
of EEP, then fine.
But then, the MTW argument against localized vacuum gravitational stress-energy
falls apart (though of course that does not in itself mean there are no other valid objections).
The only way you can attack MTW there is to say that their initial assumption that the localized
vacuum tensor is quadratic in the connection is a Straw Man, i.e. not complete. That there is
another form based only on the nonlinear products of the curvature tensor but that would
change the field equation from (neglecting zero point /\zpfguv)
Guv = -(8piG/c^4)Tuv
to
Guv + Nonlinear products of 4th rank curvature tensor = -(8piG/c^4)Tuv
The extra terms are a power series in Lp^2 = hG/c^3
they may be there, but are too small on the macro-scale.
Is that what you mean?
I cannot understand really what you mean until I see formal statements in math that pin down the ambiguities of ordinary language.
This is why I feel uneasy about Bohr's reliance on ordinary language in the quantum reality problem.
Which is what I originally argued: the bare "EEP" does not establish that the
gravitational energy density must vanish at a point, or that its components depend
upon the frame of reference in a non-covariant manner. It only requires that the
net measurable combined gravitational and inertial forces vanish at a point in some
coordinate system.
To get the true gravitational stress-energy, we simply ignore the inertial contribution
-- that's all.
Eddington himself explicitly states that in GR the inertial field has a "stress-energy"
that is frame-dependent and represented by a non-tensor. But this is a *fictitious*
stress-energy, unless you believe in Einstein equivalence *as originally stated* --
which it now appears that you don't.
He was
perhaps a bit confused whilst the theory was immature.
The point is that it's coherent conceptually today in the form MTW have.
I cannot agree. See above. This is a *real interpretive dichotomy* at the most fundamental
level.
Now you could say somethinglike this about Schroedinger, who really thought he had a
wave theory in the classical sense -- but later had to give this up for a number of reasons.
Einstein never explicitly abandoned equivalence and true general relativity. Not even in
his "Autobiographical Notes", which is just about his last word on the subject.
You cannot render tidal effects negligible in the approach to a
singularity until effective Planck scale is reached.
That scale may not be 10^19 Gev after all. It may be 1 Gev?
That may well be the case, but this is not part of canonical GR. No doubt a deeper
theory, if it ever finally comes, will answer such questions.
Ed Witten thinks that's M-theory. It's now on NOVA! I am beginning to read Witten. I am getting a little uneasy
about all this duality stuff in string theory because it is beginning to remind me of my
debate with Hal Puthoff on his use of "isotropic r" vs. "curvature r" in the SSS model.
This debate is described in my Dec 2002 book "Space-Time and Beyond II".
My debate with Puthoff was that he was misinterpreting the physics not realizing
that the expansion of space inside a critical radius was an illusion of not realizing
what the coordinate patch was in the curved differential manifold. Matt Visser
makes this clear in "Lorentzian Wormholes" in contest of Kruskal coordinates.
There is a kind of duality there with
r' = r*^2/r
but r' and r are both OUTSIDE the "horizon." Puthoff and Ibison make the conceptual error that r' is INSIDE the horizon!
I am wondering if Witten, Greene & Co are making a similar conceptual error in that really they ignore the physics INSIDE
Lp*^2 which G.E. Volovik in "Universe in a Helium Drop" says is essential for solving the smallness of the Cosmological
Constant problem. It's like in condensed matter physics not going inside the unit cell of the crystal lattice. If you do that you
will get a zero point energy for phonons that is much too large! This is Volovik's insight.
String theory is like 2D field theory because the string sweeps out a world sheet in ordinary space-time rather than the 1D world line. This is a great thing because it essentially does away with the infinities of point particle renormalization although it does not explain the Cosmological Constant problem, which worries Witten and rightly so.
There are analogies of string theory with lattice spin Ising models which have a "duality" relating a T theory to a 1/T theory in a dual lattice.
Witten introduces the famous alpha' as basically a new "string" fundamental constant. He does not seem to connect it to the Salam gravity I worked on in 1973.
Using his h = c = 1 units. Witten's alpha' is essentially an "effective field Planck area". If we believe Susskind's "world hologram" we have
alpha' = Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3L^1/3
at scale L
If we choose L = c/Ho in a kind of Mach Principle of large scale influence on small scale
Ho = Hubble
Lp* ~ 1 fermi
The problem with this is the time dependence in H(t) where Ho is the present epoch value.
Note, in Witten's conventions, "energy" is 1/Length
Therefore
alpha' is the universal Regge slope, which for hadronic resonance has
alpha' ~ (1 fermi)^2
Quantized spin of resonance = alpha'(Energy of resonant peak)^2 + intercept
alpha' is reciprocal string tension since Energy/Length ~ 1/Area in the h = c = 1 convention used by Witten & Co.
In my theory
/\zpf = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1}
Einstein's gravity emerges from
guv = (Minkowski)uv + (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)}
"anholonomic" torsion field "potential" = (alpha'){Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence)[,u,v]
The O(2) internal symmetry of this complex numbered scalar Vacuum Coherence local field implies 1D string topological defects in 4D spacetime as
a rigorous theorem in the text books.
More generalized models of O(N) "hypercomplex numbered" MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) coherence order parameters will give the "brane world" topological defect generalizations of these "strings" that should also have torsion on the microscale.
BTW, how does your theory explain mechanical inertia?
Exactly as in Wheeler's book "Geometrodynamics" with "Mass without mass" except now I have G* = 10^40 G(Newton) at the fermi scale.
The characteristic rest mass of the spatially extended lepto quark of "Charge without charge" rotating with " Spin without spin" is
m = e^2/\zpf^1/2 = e^2/Lp* = e^2(alpha')^-1/2
because Vacuum Coherence -> inside the "Type II" superconductor quantized flux vortex "vibrating string" exotic vacuum "dark matter" core with ends pinned to the 3Dim brane world we are stuck on like Ed Abbott's "Flatlanders" if the basic Witten & Co ideas are on right track.
These 1 Dim strings vibrate in the extra boson space dimensions and the extra fermion supersymmetry "matrix" space-dimensions forming the Calabi-Yau space generalization of the Kaluza-Klein hyperspace of the 1920's.
But it only takes one physical effect that is not "locally" negligible
in this sense
to blow out Einstein equivalence.
Einstein equivalence is only a classical weak field approximation or
your "correspondence principle" in the informal sense for the zero
torsion limit.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Einstein thought it held without
restriction.
Looks like you don't agree.
I am not sure without doing a careful look. In any case, of course there have been
subtle modifications or refinements of Einstein's early thinking. These are small
corrections so to speak. Only minor clarifications of his great insights. There is
nothing revolutionary in the distinctions you propose here that I am able to
understand at least.
I am not sure what happens when there is torsion-spin
coupling. It can break down for a variety of reasons.
Exactly -- you're not sure. The fact is it's anybody's guess and is ultimately
an empirical question.
Not quite - there is a lot of work in the published literature - it's only my personal lack of knowledge here I allude to.
Yet Einstein thought he was completely sure, and said so. That's why Feynman
made fun of him in "Lectures on Gravitation".
Z.
Again this is very minor compared to what is happening now and what I am talking about above in relation to
Witten & Co.
I do not have time to absorb all your points below. Later.
For example, multipole effects on spinning test particles.
In order to save his concept of strict equivalence, Einstein was
forced to
assume that Riemannian curvature -- which is absolute -- has no direct
physical significance from the standpoint of "local" measurements.
This is actually not true, as Feynman has pointed out. It only holds,
strictly
speaking, at a *point* in spacetime. But Riemann curvature is still
defined, and
need not vanish, at any point in a GR gravity field.
That is why I have argued that Einstein equivalence has now been
tacitly restricted
to a (weak) *correspondence principle*, which does not in itself imply
anything about the
fundamental physical indistinguishability of gravitational and
inertial fields.
The problem with MTW is that they try to have it both ways -- leading
to confusion.
They call everything "curvature". Wheeler claims in Wheeler and
Ciufolino that Einsteins'
theory was that gravity is "spacetime curvature" -- which is nonsense
if you interpret this
as *Riemann* curvature.
But if you call even a purely linear distortion of the Lorentz metric
"spacetime curvature",
then you might as well say that acceleration of one's frame of
reference "curves spacetime"
even in Newtonian mechanics.
Try it. Write ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v in a purely Newtonian context and
see what happens
when you accelerate the frame (non-linear coordinate transformation).
Whether or not that gravity force is "real" depends
on whether or not there is a local tidal curvature differential
in the g-force as described by the geodesic deviation equation between
two neighboring timelike geodesic LIF free float observers.
I am not so interested in what is "real", and what is not, as I am in
the hypothesis
of fundamental physical indistinguishability -- which I argue is
simply false.
The effects of deformation and transformation are certainly
distinguishable in differential
geometry -- but this basic mathematical distinction is papered over in
canonical GR so that
we can pretend that Einstein equivalence is still valid. The
mathematical distinction between
deformational and transformational effects on the metric components
g_uv (appearance
of non-vanishing gradients) is de-emphasized .
As far as I can see, this is done pedagogically in order to sustain
the myth of "general
relativity" (to be sharply distinguished from mere general covariance).
Stephen Weinberg devotes the better part of a chapter to this
distinction, after calling
himself a "heretic".
This curvature tensor tidal differential force cannot be eliminated
locally.
Yes. And of course everyone knows this. Riemann curvature -- which in
GR distinguishes
real gravitational fields from pure inertial fields -- is absolute.
All I mean effectively by "EEP" is the set of following "formal"
statements.
1. There exist local tetrads ea^u(P) at point P such that
nab = ea^u(P)eb^v(P)guv(P)
2. The local symmetric torsion-free connection from first derivatives
of the metric guv(P) can be set to zero locally at P.
This is one formulation. As far as I can see the use of tetrads does
not add to the physical
content of EEP, which is that a sufficiently small neighborhood of
spacetime can be *modeled*
as a flat Lorentz manifold *with respect to a certain class of
physical measurements*.
However, this does not mean that inside GR spacetime is actually
"flat" within *any*
neighborhood, no matter how small, in the presence of "permanent"
gravitational fields.
The point is that canonical GR uses the same metric g_uv to represent
both inertial and
gravitational phenomena. This is not a mathematical necessity, as
shown by various bi-metric
approaches.
The historical origins of this fusion of gravitational and inertial
metrics lies with Einstein's
bold hypothesis of strict gravitational-inertial equivalence, and his
closely related concept
of "general relativity".
What I am trying to do is to relax Einsteinian *strict* equivalence
while retaining a single
metric -- which means the theory can be physically re-interpreted,
breaking the conceptual
logjam, with minimal disturbance to the existing mathematical
formalism.
If this allows the definition of a localized gravitational field
stress-energy density represented
by a Diff(4) world-tensor, it could have significant bottom-line
physical consequences.
This defines the distinction between LIFs on timelike geodesics and
LNIF's on timelike non-geodesics both intersecting at same P.
Sure. Again, I have no problem with this. The problem for me is, What
exactly does this mean
physically in relation to Einstein equivalence and Einsteinian
"general relativity"?
Note timelike non-geodesics could not exist without electrical charge.
This is a contingent fact that I do not regard as fundamental to the
interpretation of GR. Any
repulsive forces would do.
Neither presumably could "light" hence no light cones hence nothing -
not even null geodesics. This suggests in itself that gravity is an
emergent collective effect primarily from electromagnetism and
Heisenberg quantum uncertainty as
suggested by Sakharov's "metric elasticity."
OK.
Part of the confusion is that "curvature" = "field strength" in the
modern fiber bundle picture of the spin 1 gauge forces.
That word "curvature" again. What does this mean? What kind of
curvature?
The "connection" for parallel transport in the internal dimensions
beyond space-time (or extra space dimensions of Kaluza-Klein et-al) is
theYang-Mills "potential" like the EM 4-vector potential Au(P) in the
U(1) EM simplest case.
OK, this is how you draw your correspondence between the
phenomenological
g-field and the underlying spin-1 gauge field?
On the other hand it is the metric, specifically goo(P) ~ (1 +
2U(Newton)/c^2) in weak field slow motion static spherically symmetric
vacuum case outside M
where U(Newton) = -GM/r = Gravity potential energy per test particle
from source mass M
leading to notion of gravity force as connection from Newton's 2nd law
on test particle m
F = -m GradU(Newton)
F is locally eliminitable on the LIF timelike geodesics in curved
space-time.
Tidal inhomogeneous differentials F(P+dP) - F(P) are not.
Which appears to say that the metric deformations of GR have a
*physical origin*
in the properties of the underlying spin-1 field?
It seems to me that however you slice this, the implication is that
the deformable metric
of GR is a reflection of the physical properties of the quantum
vacuum, as opposed to
simply characterizing an abstract Riemannian "geometry" of pure
spacetime (vacuum as
void).
If so, then this reduces the combined gravitational-inertial metric of
GR to the status of a
mere predictive mathematical model -- much as we now view Ptolemaic
astronomy.
"EEP", as I understand it, merely requires that the net
gravitational-inertial forces
acting on any test particle locally vanish in the free-fall frame,
while tidal effects can
always be locally neglected.
This last statement needs clarification. It is strictly not true. It
is
only a "weak field" approximation
that the tidal effects are of order (L/r)^2 where r is the local scale
of radius of curvature.
I am packing all this into the convenient term "locally", suitably
defined. So
of course I agree.
As Feynman said, this is only *strictly* valid at a spacetime point.
MTW make
this approximate nature of the remark very clear when I read them. You
have misinterpreted them
as making a much stronger statement and I think this is the root of
the
pseudo-problem you pose.
No, Jack.
You are absolutely right and I agree with you about the clarity of
their minimal
formulation of EEP. However, I am right that they go beyond this when
applying
this "EEP" in certain -- though not all -- contexts. They quietly add
additional
layers of interpretation in those contexts. That is how they try to
have it both
ways.
You have to keep your eye on that pea. Remember, MTW was written by a
committee!
I agree Wheeler is very clear in his 1992 formulation of "EEP", and on
the absolute
character of *Riemann* curvature. The dispute is about what these
things mean
physically in regard to Einstein equivalence.
If Einstein was a bit confused on this in the early days, I don't
know,
it is of no real consequence
except in the history of the evolution of the idea.
This is completely inaccurate. Einstein was quite emphatic that strict
equivalence
was at the core of his theory of general relativity. No strict
equivalence, no general
relativity.
I have not been able to find any explicit abandonment of this bold
idea *anywhere*
in Einstein's writings.
Again, the MTW and Wheeler formulations of "EEP" are technically OK.
The problem
I have is how they further interpret "EEP" as they have presented it
in *certain* contexts.
So I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. This is a rather
subtle but very
important point.
This can be consistently interpreted in at least two different ways:
(1) as the consequence
of a (local) *fundamental physical identity* of gravitational and
inertial fields (Einstein, Pauli);
or (2) as merely the result of inertial compensation of the
separately
existing gravitational
field (Eddington et al.) in conjunction with the natural attenuation
of tidal effects within
arbitrarily small neighborhoods of spacetime.
Either way , the theory remains generally covariant, and a "weak"
correspondence
relationship with SR holds -- locally measurable effects that locally
discriminate between
the predictions of SR ("flat" spacetime) from those of GR ("curved"
spacetime) can be
regarded as practically negligible in a sufficiently small
neighborhood.
Yes, in the weak field limit, but not at a black hole, which Puthoff
wrongly claims does not exist.
Which is immaterial to the *correspondence* relation between GR and
SR, since
black holes are clearly beyond the domain of SR and there is no
empirical
success of the predecessor theory to explain.
In any case, Einstein didn't believe in them.
I would argue that a "weak" correspondence relation is all that one
can reasonably
demand of the re-interpreted theory. There is in reality no "flat"
spacetime *anywhere*.
Fine, that's how I read MTW anyway. Also in my theory, globally flat
space-time is intrinsically
dynamically unstable from quantum electrodynamics.
That's how MTW reads in some places, but not in others.
Also, it is important to understand that none of this depends on the
empirical correctness of
Yilmaz's particular theory vis a vis GR.
I find Yilmaz's idea completely obscure intuitively.
It's just a different theory. I think it's at least internally
consistent.
For example, the alternative approach is taken in a
number of bimetric theories that agree empirically with GR. These
employ a "background"
metric that accounts for inertial effects in conjunction with a
separate (though commensurable)
"gravitational" metric that accounts for physical gravitation.
Very ugly. Less with more.
Unless it leads to conceptual errors of the kind I have been
investigating.
Although I agree it would be nice to keep a single unified g_uv, which
is
what I am trying to do under an alternative interpretation.
My point is that there is no *mathematical necessity* for this.
In the alternative interpretation, I believe the way is open to
consistently defining a true
gravitational field stress-energy density, which is fully
localizable,
and an inertially-compensated
*net effective* stress-energy density which corresponds to the force
field that is actually
measured in an accelerated frame of reference.
Show me the math otherwise the words have no meaning to me.
I'm working on it.
I have to show that when the purely inertial component of the
gravitational stress-
energy density is removed, one is left with a true Diff(4) tensor.
This means that Mach's principle is effectively abandoned -- along
with his rather loony brand
of strict empiricism (remember, Mach flatly rejected the atomic
theory).
Mach's idea reenters in the Holographic World where
Lp* = Lp^2/3(c/H)^1/3 = 1 fermi "now".
But this may have a fatal flaw since H is cosmic time dependent in the
FRW regime.
OK.
The connection for parallel transport locally vanishes in
LIF's on timelike geodesics.
Of course it does. But we can (at least locally) distinguish between
the inertial and
the gravitational *components* of the canonical connection field
(distinct contributions
to the net metric gradients). That comes right out of the
differential
geometry (also, see e.g.
Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology").
I think I said that above.
You did?
Does this mean you now agree with my proposal for a local decomposition
of the Christoffel connection?
I don't know what you really mean until I see some math.
------------------------------------
On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Peter Mutnick wrote:
"Henry Stapp says that there are two worlds: the matter-like world,
represented by the state vector; and the world of experience,
represented by the projection operators. The classical world exists
only as an idea or a useful set of ideas within the world of
experience; i.e., within the mind of the observer.
I say everything is within the mind of the observer, which is the
quantum implicate order, from which all else unfolds. The classical
world, which is the world of the observer, is closer to the mind of the
observer than that which is observed, it is true, but it is in fact the
first negation of the wholeness constituted by the mind of the
observer. The noumenon in nature is of course the more fundamental
negation of the wholeness of the implicate order, since the explicate
order is unfolded in order to know the noumenon, which evades knowledge
through introspection. The character of the classical world is hence
that of an external reality, or the first expression of external
reality - it is distinct from the realm of ideas, which also emanate
from the mind of the observer at an early stage of the unfoldment.
The profound message of modern physics is that neither the world of
experience, nor the classical world of the experiencer, are physical,
but are in fact far removed (many worlds removed) from the physical
world. The first descent from the observer, i.e. the world of
classical attributes, was accomplished by relativity, wherein the
classical attribute of extension is projected as the extensive
spacetime continuum. This first descent reaches as far as the
phenomenal world of experience. The second descent was accomplished by
quantum theory, which reaches all the way down to the atomic realm of
the noumenon in nature."
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
The way Ed Witten might write my basic formulae in terms of the fundamental string parameter alpha' with h = c = 1 so that alpha' is essentially the effective Planck area inside of which we need fancy math like non-commutative "matrix" space-time, i.e. Galois extension of space-time continuum of real numbers to the hypercomplex numbers like the "fermionic" extra space dimensions of supersymmetry. The formulae below are at scales larger than effective Planck area.
Einstein's geometrodynamic field = Minkowski metric + alpha' (Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
,u are ordinary partial derivatives in 4D
Goldstone Phase = arg (Vacuum Coherence)
/\zpf = Exotic Vacuum Unified Dark Energy/Matter Field = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1)
/\zpf > 0 is w = -1 anti-gravity exotic vacuum "dark energy"
/\zpf < 0 is w = -1 gravitating exotic vacuum "dark matter" which mimics w = 0 CDM for us distant observers.
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Field)e^(Goldstone Field)
O(2) symmetry implies 1D string quantized vortex core topological defects like in a Type II superconductor.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look at "Elegant Universe" NOVA tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to EM waves. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
PS
In my theory
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
Einstein's geometrodynamic field = Minkowski metric + alpha' (Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
,u are ordinary partial derivatives in 4D
Goldstone Phase = arg (Vacuum Coherence)
/\zpf = Exotic Vacuum Unified Dark Energy/Matter Field = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1)
/\zpf > 0 is w = -1 anti-gravity exotic vacuum "dark energy"
/\zpf < 0 is w = -1 gravitating exotic vacuum "dark matter" which mimics w = 0 CDM for us distant observers.
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Field)e^(Goldstone Field)
O(2) symmetry implies 1D string quantized vortex core topological defects like in a Type II superconductor.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Look at "Elegant Universe" NOVA tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to EM waves. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
PS
In my theory
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
In my theory
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
Caveat: I have not fully digested the contents of this message from Russia just received.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 12:52 PM, Constantin Ivanenko wrote:
"On p. 220 of 2001 ed. f "The Field" by L. McTaggart it's written: "In his own laboratory, Puthoff had been playing with a method that would involve perturbing ground states of atoms or molecules. According to his own theories, these were simply equilibrium states involving the dynamic radiation/absorption exchange with the Zero Point Field. So if you employed some sort of Casimir cavity, the atoms or molecules might undergo energy shifts that would alter excitations involving the ground states. He'd already begun experiments at a synchrotron facility, a place with a special subatomic accelerator, to try this, but had so far met with failure."
Vigier does have a theory of "tight atomic states" and it is remotely conceivable that tweaking the Casimir effect might induce a quantum ground state phase transition I suppose without thinking seriously about the problem.
"If the above data are true, then I might recommend to Dr Puthoff to try to use experimentally tested alreay about 30 years ago approach of Dr Sergeyev; - who had extensively explored (with the help of such "unorthodox" technique as "psi-microvision" mentioned in S. Phillips' "ESP of Quarks and Superstrings" - but now this can be omitted, as modern technologies allow to use more "kosher" methods) interactions between ZPF & human DNA; - which, according to him, was effectuated via exactly geometrically defined spiral Casimir cavities, formed between complementary DNA threads.
According to experimentally tested theories of Dr Sergeyev (on basis of which there were designed experimental specimens of Soviet psychotronic weapons), rhythmic "breathing" of these cavities - produced by molecular-level "DNA biorhythms" (which can be mathematically approximately described with the help of deduced by Dr Sergeyev stochastic formula of "strange attractor") allowed DNA to extract out of ZPF informaton carried via specific "4-D solitonic fluctuations"; - which might be generated, eg, by similar "breathing" of other "sister DNA molecules" - and/or by specially designed technotronic devices. (In the role of such devices Dr Sergeyev used, for example, barium titanate piezoelectric crystals - very familiar to him as hydroacoustics' expert, as they are widely used in submarine sonars - in which were cut, with the help of sharply focussed particle beams, precisely topologically configurated networks of nanoscale micro-devices; - in which might be induced, with the help of applied to piezocrystal low voltage currents, rhythmic pulsations with precalculated patterns. Here may be remarked also that importance of barium titanate - key component of "psi-genome weapons" - was intuitively foreseen by SF author H. Kuttner; - who wrote in his '54 novel "Mutants" that "destiny of Humankind is contained in the chip of barium titanate crystal".
Devices of such kind may be used both in passive/receiving & active/sending mode; - being thus capable of being employed for "instant non-local communication" with biosystems. It was impossible - with the help of comparatively rude 30 years'old technologies - to sense/influence a single selected DNA molecule (although this was the object of Dr Sergeyev's research); - but advancement of quality of particle beams (generated by devices created for Russian variant of "Space Wars") allowed progressively select finer & finer segments of overall "fractal attractor" generated by colectives of DNA molecules.)
Existence of ZPF-mediated non-local interaction between different cells of one organism (and genetically similar cells of different organisms - that is, telepathy) was postulated as necessary for maintenance of informational integrity of living organisms (whose breakdown causes cancers & other grave systemic disorders) by Acad. Kaznacheyev; - which explored processes of information transfer inside living organisms & between them. (Now - about 20 years later - this understanding begins to be shared also by Western researchers: "(Ian Marshall, SMN) thought that non-locality was required even for integration in the brain and suggested that coherent 40-hz oscillations within the mammalian brain may have an analogue in the coherently oscillating Higgs Field that permeates all space": see on p. 24 of "Scientific and Medical Network Review", No. 74 (Dec 2000); www.scimednet.org )"
The most difficult part of Dr Sergeyev's research was discovering of 4-D "biogravity (Dr Sergeyev's term) carrying frequencies" of DNA messages. Such frequencies were unique (in a healthy organism) for each cell (which as if was obedient to some bioanalog of Pauli Principle) - representing individually unique addresses of "intraorganismic biogravity Internet". However, integrative influence of general organismic fields caused these frequencies to group into close-packed clusters; - forming together more or less well-defined pattern of "fractal strange attractor".
Transmissions with sufficiently wide "biogravity bandwidth" (eg, generated by technological devices - or by specially synchronized collective of bioemitters) might thus hit some vulnerable bifurcation points of organismic/cellular attractors; - "throwing out of sync" complex sequences of cellular & organismic "psi-Internet exchanges". (An efficient technique might be to try first to tune as perfectly as possible frequency of technotronic generator to natural tune of cell or organism - and then to shift it most drastically. Such approach was used, - as it's well-known, - during building of medieval castles; - where the last upper rung of spiral (like DNA!) stairs was significantly different from preceding ones, - causing attackers - which were accustomed to certain rhythm - to stumble at the most critical moment. Similar technique was also used by Aleister Crowley; - which liked to demonstrate to his friends "an interesting experiment", when he caused on the street to stumble & fall unsuspecting passers-by - by first imitating as closely as possible their gait, and then imitating stumbling & falling at unexpected moment.)
It's known also that in '70s there began to be serially produced in f. USSR pocket-sized "psychotronic generators" of Genotron" model, purported for field use by KGB & GRU operatives. Such devices were able to inflict serious damages to health of their "human targets" (and even bring lethal effects) by disrupting synchronization of biorhythmic systems of these "targets'" organisms; - directing exactly modulated ultrasound impulse at vulnerable bifurcation points of "organismic rhythms' attractors". (General position of these points - in phase space - was precalculated on basis of general model of human biorhythmic system; - which can be compared with general model now used in process of generation of "electronic avatars" for Internet chat rooms. General idea of such vulnerable points was borrowed - well before emergence of Internet - from mathematical exploration of principles of Oriental martial arts, undertaken by Dr N. Abayev: it's known to ractitioners of advanced levels of karate that there exist in human organism such (hyperphysical) points whose hitting causes entire body of opponent "to fall into ten thousands of pieces" - an aesthetically impressive metaphor for total dyssynchronization of biorhythms' system. It's easy to see parallels between "synergetic destruction" of organism & DNA; synergetics' experty M. Bassin wrote even about possibility of "synergetic collapse of Internet" - whose vulnerable bifurcation points he did explore. Non-formal ideological leader of Russian scientific community Prof. Sergey Kapitsa (son of famous Nobelist Pyotr Kapitsa, who could not be intimidated even by Lavrenty Beriya: this much dreaded "Soviet Himmler") wrote in "Synergetics and Forecasts of Future" (1997) that "it might be regarded as a tempting intellectual challenge to organize social revolution using only a computer and phone". (Cf. here widely spread in Russia definition of Stalin as "Genghis-Khan with a telephone" - thus it may be only natural that next more modern incarnation of deeply imprinted in Russian national memory Mongolian (or perhaps Jewish, as propose some researchers - who say that genetically drastically different from black-headed Mongols red-headed green-eyed Genghis-Khan belonged to secret "13th Jewish tribe", which was driven to Mongolia from Babylon by Alexander The Great) tyrant will make as full as possible use of recent achievements of science & technology.)
Here it may be noted that such inclination to making of "maverick social experiments" is possessed not only by Russian scientists (eg, Kropotkin, Lenin & others) - but also (in a lesser degree) by scientists of other nations: recall, eg, pranks of R. Feynman during his stint in Los Alamos; - where his favourite hobby was breaking of codes of secret safes & stronboxes with classified documents!
Here it may be remarked that such significant advance of Russian psi/Leading Edge explorations was caused by absence among this small elite of researchers which established for themselves (with the help of "Masonic machinations" or otherwise) positions of relative intellectual freedom inside tightly oppressed Soviet society of "taboos against esotericism (or even "charlatanism", as label all unorthodox thought "Skeptic Inquirers" & their ilk)". Such people rejected all intellectual taboos - if even as reaction to stupid & oppressive "dialectic materialistic taboos" which made life in f. USSR so unbearable for thinking people. They freely used most "unorthodox" ideas & concepts - but only as working hypotheses: scaffoldings which'll be thrown aside when the edifice of theory will be built. (In fact, such approach is similat to taht used by all really creative scientists: eg, J. Maxwell - which eliminated from his final 1864 variant of EM theory "virtual" hypotheses about "tubes with fluids", "Vortices", etc, - which abounded in his preliminary 1861-2 publications. Also, A. Einstein wrote that it's impossible to create anything new remaining within rigid bounds of "orthodox"theory: cf. famous problem of Zeno concerning flying arrow - it's necessary to make "virtual excursions" into "lawless space" where might be tried any seemingly fanciful propositions (out of which only few will be selected - as in course of synectic "brainstorming seance"). And this approach is excellently compatible with standard quantum mechanical paradigm - according to which no interaction is possible without "lawless" emission of "officially non-existent" virtual particles!)"
Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)
This may correspond to locally gauging the one-parameter dilation subgroup of the 15 parameter conformal "Penrose Massless Twistor" group of space-time. I am not sure of that as yet. It does come from a dynamical instability in the Dirac electron vacuum, i.e. virtual photon exchange between virtual electrons and virtual positron "holes" near the -mc^2 Fermi surface well inside the 2mc^2 gap giving non-perturbative "Bose-Einstein" condensation of bound virtual electron-positron pairs into the complex scalar MACRO-QUANTUM local Vacuum Coherence Field.
Einstein's c-number gravity field for curved space-time is then
guv = (Minkowski metric)u,v + (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)
torsion potential is
suv = (Planck Area*)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]
, is ordinary partial derivative.
/\ zpf = Exotic Vacuum Random Zero Point Fluctuation Field = (Planck Area*)^-1[(Planck Volume*)|Vacuum Coherence Field|^2 - 1)
The strongly attractive dark matter cores of positive pressure inside the vibrating "strings" have |Vacuum Coherence Field| = 0.
*Note change of sign from my earlier formulae to make the sign conventions internally consistent where, in the weak field limit
Laplacian of w = -1 Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential per unit test particle = c^2/\zpf
where a negative RHS is attractive gravity of positive pressure in the more general and a positive RHS is repulsive anti-gravity of negative pressure equal but opposite in sign to the zero point fluctuation energy density,
Laplacian of Gravity Potential of any "stuff" = G(Mass Density)(1 + 3w)
w = Pressure/Energy Density
The Vacuum Coherence Field is a function of 4 local space-time coordinates + bosonic coordinates of extra space-dimensions + fermionic matrix dimensions). Therefore the 1-dim strings vibrate in the Calabi-Yau fiber space to make the lepto-quarks and gauge force bosons.
All topological defects of the complex scalar Vacuum Coherence Field with local O(2) symmetry in ordinary space time must be 1-dim strings. "Branes" mean order parameters with local symmetry larger than O(2). That is, the Vacuum Coherence Field becomes a hyper-complex number or matrix function of matrix space-time coordinates on the short scale inside the effective Planck scale Lp* ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm. My toy model here is for large macro-scale primarily > 10^-13 cm.
The basic universal Regge slope is Ed Witten's "alpha' where
Spin of hadronic resonance = alpha' (Energy)^2 + constant
alpha' = G*/hc^5
Where Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
alpha' = (Lp*/hc)^2
Note that the center of the quantized vibrating Type II "superconductor" string in hyperspace has Vacuum Coherence Field = 0, therefore
/\zpf(string core) = - 1/Lp*^2 = - (hc)^2alpha'
This, in the case of the electron, solves the problem of the Abraham-Lorentz-Becker stresses that prevent the spatially extended electron from exploding due to its self-charge internal + centrifugal repulsion. The classical space-time singularity seems to be removed as well as the need for renormalization infinities - the latter for reasons pointed out by Ed Witten & Co (e.g. April 1996 Physics Today "Reflections on the Fate of Space-Time"
You can picture a bare electron either as string e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (with ends glued to 3 dim brane world) or, via complementarity, as a tiny quasi rotating charged black hole. This bare electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual electron-positron plasma reaching out to a Compton distance ~ 137(e^2/mc^2) = h/mc. That is for low energy imaging. For high energy imaging with deep small scale probes the same electron shrinks in apparent size to ~ 10^-18 cm for current technology because of the huge micro-gravity space warping.
Caveat: I have not fully digested the contents of this message from Russia just received.
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 12:52 PM, Constantin Ivanenko wrote:
"On p. 220 of 2001 ed. f "The Field" by L. McTaggart it's written: "In his own laboratory, Puthoff had been playing with a method that would involve perturbing ground states of atoms or molecules. According to his own theories, these were simply equilibrium states involving the dynamic radiation/absorption exchange with the Zero Point Field. So if you employed some sort of Casimir cavity, the atoms or molecules might undergo energy shifts that would alter excitations involving the ground states. He'd already begun experiments at a synchrotron facility, a place with a special subatomic accelerator, to try this, but had so far met with failure."
Vigier does have a theory of "tight atomic states" and it is remotely conceivable that tweaking the Casimir effect might induce a quantum ground state phase transition I suppose without thinking seriously about the problem.
"If the above data are true, then I might recommend to Dr Puthoff to try to use experimentally tested alreay about 30 years ago approach of Dr Sergeyev; - who had extensively explored (with the help of such "unorthodox" technique as "psi-microvision" mentioned in S. Phillips' "ESP of Quarks and Superstrings" - but now this can be omitted, as modern technologies allow to use more "kosher" methods) interactions between ZPF & human DNA; - which, according to him, was effectuated via exactly geometrically defined spiral Casimir cavities, formed between complementary DNA threads.
According to experimentally tested theories of Dr Sergeyev (on basis of which there were designed experimental specimens of Soviet psychotronic weapons), rhythmic "breathing" of these cavities - produced by molecular-level "DNA biorhythms" (which can be mathematically approximately described with the help of deduced by Dr Sergeyev stochastic formula of "strange attractor") allowed DNA to extract out of ZPF informaton carried via specific "4-D solitonic fluctuations"; - which might be generated, eg, by similar "breathing" of other "sister DNA molecules" - and/or by specially designed technotronic devices. (In the role of such devices Dr Sergeyev used, for example, barium titanate piezoelectric crystals - very familiar to him as hydroacoustics' expert, as they are widely used in submarine sonars - in which were cut, with the help of sharply focussed particle beams, precisely topologically configurated networks of nanoscale micro-devices; - in which might be induced, with the help of applied to piezocrystal low voltage currents, rhythmic pulsations with precalculated patterns. Here may be remarked also that importance of barium titanate - key component of "psi-genome weapons" - was intuitively foreseen by SF author H. Kuttner; - who wrote in his '54 novel "Mutants" that "destiny of Humankind is contained in the chip of barium titanate crystal".
Devices of such kind may be used both in passive/receiving & active/sending mode; - being thus capable of being employed for "instant non-local communication" with biosystems. It was impossible - with the help of comparatively rude 30 years'old technologies - to sense/influence a single selected DNA molecule (although this was the object of Dr Sergeyev's research); - but advancement of quality of particle beams (generated by devices created for Russian variant of "Space Wars") allowed progressively select finer & finer segments of overall "fractal attractor" generated by colectives of DNA molecules.)
Existence of ZPF-mediated non-local interaction between different cells of one organism (and genetically similar cells of different organisms - that is, telepathy) was postulated as necessary for maintenance of informational integrity of living organisms (whose breakdown causes cancers & other grave systemic disorders) by Acad. Kaznacheyev; - which explored processes of information transfer inside living organisms & between them. (Now - about 20 years later - this understanding begins to be shared also by Western researchers: "(Ian Marshall, SMN) thought that non-locality was required even for integration in the brain and suggested that coherent 40-hz oscillations within the mammalian brain may have an analogue in the coherently oscillating Higgs Field that permeates all space": see on p. 24 of "Scientific and Medical Network Review", No. 74 (Dec 2000); www.scimednet.org )"
The most difficult part of Dr Sergeyev's research was discovering of 4-D "biogravity (Dr Sergeyev's term) carrying frequencies" of DNA messages. Such frequencies were unique (in a healthy organism) for each cell (which as if was obedient to some bioanalog of Pauli Principle) - representing individually unique addresses of "intraorganismic biogravity Internet". However, integrative influence of general organismic fields caused these frequencies to group into close-packed clusters; - forming together more or less well-defined pattern of "fractal strange attractor".
Transmissions with sufficiently wide "biogravity bandwidth" (eg, generated by technological devices - or by specially synchronized collective of bioemitters) might thus hit some vulnerable bifurcation points of organismic/cellular attractors; - "throwing out of sync" complex sequences of cellular & organismic "psi-Internet exchanges". (An efficient technique might be to try first to tune as perfectly as possible frequency of technotronic generator to natural tune of cell or organism - and then to shift it most drastically. Such approach was used, - as it's well-known, - during building of medieval castles; - where the last upper rung of spiral (like DNA!) stairs was significantly different from preceding ones, - causing attackers - which were accustomed to certain rhythm - to stumble at the most critical moment. Similar technique was also used by Aleister Crowley; - which liked to demonstrate to his friends "an interesting experiment", when he caused on the street to stumble & fall unsuspecting passers-by - by first imitating as closely as possible their gait, and then imitating stumbling & falling at unexpected moment.)
It's known also that in '70s there began to be serially produced in f. USSR pocket-sized "psychotronic generators" of Genotron" model, purported for field use by KGB & GRU operatives. Such devices were able to inflict serious damages to health of their "human targets" (and even bring lethal effects) by disrupting synchronization of biorhythmic systems of these "targets'" organisms; - directing exactly modulated ultrasound impulse at vulnerable bifurcation points of "organismic rhythms' attractors". (General position of these points - in phase space - was precalculated on basis of general model of human biorhythmic system; - which can be compared with general model now used in process of generation of "electronic avatars" for Internet chat rooms. General idea of such vulnerable points was borrowed - well before emergence of Internet - from mathematical exploration of principles of Oriental martial arts, undertaken by Dr N. Abayev: it's known to ractitioners of advanced levels of karate that there exist in human organism such (hyperphysical) points whose hitting causes entire body of opponent "to fall into ten thousands of pieces" - an aesthetically impressive metaphor for total dyssynchronization of biorhythms' system. It's easy to see parallels between "synergetic destruction" of organism & DNA; synergetics' experty M. Bassin wrote even about possibility of "synergetic collapse of Internet" - whose vulnerable bifurcation points he did explore. Non-formal ideological leader of Russian scientific community Prof. Sergey Kapitsa (son of famous Nobelist Pyotr Kapitsa, who could not be intimidated even by Lavrenty Beriya: this much dreaded "Soviet Himmler") wrote in "Synergetics and Forecasts of Future" (1997) that "it might be regarded as a tempting intellectual challenge to organize social revolution using only a computer and phone". (Cf. here widely spread in Russia definition of Stalin as "Genghis-Khan with a telephone" - thus it may be only natural that next more modern incarnation of deeply imprinted in Russian national memory Mongolian (or perhaps Jewish, as propose some researchers - who say that genetically drastically different from black-headed Mongols red-headed green-eyed Genghis-Khan belonged to secret "13th Jewish tribe", which was driven to Mongolia from Babylon by Alexander The Great) tyrant will make as full as possible use of recent achievements of science & technology.)
Here it may be noted that such inclination to making of "maverick social experiments" is possessed not only by Russian scientists (eg, Kropotkin, Lenin & others) - but also (in a lesser degree) by scientists of other nations: recall, eg, pranks of R. Feynman during his stint in Los Alamos; - where his favourite hobby was breaking of codes of secret safes & stronboxes with classified documents!
Here it may be remarked that such significant advance of Russian psi/Leading Edge explorations was caused by absence among this small elite of researchers which established for themselves (with the help of "Masonic machinations" or otherwise) positions of relative intellectual freedom inside tightly oppressed Soviet society of "taboos against esotericism (or even "charlatanism", as label all unorthodox thought "Skeptic Inquirers" & their ilk)". Such people rejected all intellectual taboos - if even as reaction to stupid & oppressive "dialectic materialistic taboos" which made life in f. USSR so unbearable for thinking people. They freely used most "unorthodox" ideas & concepts - but only as working hypotheses: scaffoldings which'll be thrown aside when the edifice of theory will be built. (In fact, such approach is similat to taht used by all really creative scientists: eg, J. Maxwell - which eliminated from his final 1864 variant of EM theory "virtual" hypotheses about "tubes with fluids", "Vortices", etc, - which abounded in his preliminary 1861-2 publications. Also, A. Einstein wrote that it's impossible to create anything new remaining within rigid bounds of "orthodox"theory: cf. famous problem of Zeno concerning flying arrow - it's necessary to make "virtual excursions" into "lawless space" where might be tried any seemingly fanciful propositions (out of which only few will be selected - as in course of synectic "brainstorming seance"). And this approach is excellently compatible with standard quantum mechanical paradigm - according to which no interaction is possible without "lawless" emission of "officially non-existent" virtual particles!)"
On Wednesday, November 5, 2003, at 09:13 AM, eric wrote:
you are absolutely right that there is a cult that has grown up around
various FE claims. They fit into 3 general classifications: kooks, cons
and idiots. The people in the Bearden cult have tried legal threats to
shut down email lists that challenge their claims. they won't respond
to errors in their instrumentation - like at:
www.phact.org/e/z/beardenreview.htm
New free energy people spring up all the time. There is a lot of cross
pollenation between FE people and UFO nuts - they both expect
undeniable vindicating evidence to arrive "very soon" - they both think
that a lot of poor evidence adds up to good evidence, and they will
report glowingly on a claimant with out mention things like a prior
history of frauds.
Eric Krieg
www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html
Yes, I also know what you say to be true from first-hand experience.
This is what makes legitimate work so difficult. The Skeptical Inquirer lobby
does not help by garbling important differences. Perhaps 90% of the
FE claims are nonsense, perhaps 99% or even more. In fact so far
I am confident that 100% of over-unity FE claims are bogus.
That
The UFO data is another matter
although there too the noise swamps the signal and one must be
very careful. It is obvious from NOVA's "Elegant Universe" last
night that the Universe is a lot stranger than anyone imagined.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
My main themes in my two books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time
and Beyond II" published in 2002 were there last night in NOVA i.e.
Star Gate space and time travel, contact with UFO alien intelligence in
the "Universe Next Door." Yes they were done in a humorous way, but the
main point of the NOVA was that such "science fiction" may not be
totally "fiction."
Just in:
From:
"Sorry Jack it is not nonsense. Hal knows dam well who I am speaking of and it is time he comes clean. Again are you part of the solution or part of the cover up and censorship. Z Energy was involved in this as well. Puthoff has to search his own soul on this one, regain his own integrity. My integrity and the scientist are not in question. I find it interesting how quick you dismiss all of this without any investigation not even asking who the scientist is. All it takes is Puthoff to say this is nonsense and you drop everything. Do you have a mind of your own? Or do you just ask the government boys what is the truth. Don't you find it hard to consider yourself an authority in these matters when all you know is what you are told by those with a track record of not telling the truth. Sorry Jack you and Puthoff seem to be bedfellows and he has already established his character."
Sarfatti's reply: Hal and I have our specific disagreements on matters of zero point energy induced gravity metric engineering theory, which is part of normal scientific method. Hal tells me my refutations of his theory is "nonsense" all the time. I do not believe him. However, I do believe him on this because that is one of his fields of expertise. However, I do not rely only on Hal in these matters. Hal worked with Creon Levit at ISSO on many of these bogus free energy claims in our ISSO laboratory. Creon did his work with complete integrity and an open mind. There is no coverup, there is no censorship. The fact is that ALL the current over-unity free energy claims that are for example described by Nick Cook are bogus or bad physics and engineering, I asked you what your scientific credentials were and you have not answered. The "government boys" sometimes ask me what is "the truth" in these matters. You got it wrong way round. :-)
I suggest you carefully study http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
What were the specific technical details in the case you described? Whose lab was blown up BTW?
From: Hal Puthoff
In a message dated 11/4/03 8:56:10 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net quotes a statement by:
>Statement: It was so far over unity it scared them. He (Puthoff) refused to come up with
> the money they boast to have for anyone who demonstrates such a
> device. Several other top scientists were there. This same device was
> demonstrated to other top scientists in the field. Shortly afterwards
> demands were made for the device, threats to family etc. His lab was
> blown up and these idiots keep saying no such device exists.
Jack: This sounds like fiction to me. ;-)
Puthoff: Definitely fiction!
Hal Puthoff
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:55:37 -0800, Jack Sarfatti
wrote :
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 06:31 PM, James Gilliland wrote:
This is nonsense. Putoff had a demonstration of a zero point free
energy device that put out phenomenal energy.
Oh really? What are your credentials in physics?
It was so far over unity it scared them. He refused to come up
with
the money they boast to have for anyone who demonstrates such
a
device. Several other top scientists were there. This same device
was
demonstrated to other top scientists in the field. Shortly
afterwards
demands were made for the device, threats to family etc. His lab
was
blown up and these idiots keep saying no such device exists.
This sounds like fiction to me. ;-)
With friends like you, Hal does not need enemies. :-)
I have told Hal of my concern that a cult has grown up around these
mindless free energy claims using his name in the most outlandish
fabrications like yours here.
The next thing you will ask is prove it. Show us the device or it
does
not exist. Been there done that, will not expose the scientist
again
to the so called free energy zero point community. Most are there
to
suppress it, some are there to control and capitalize on it, most
want
to steal it. When the integrity returns, the devices will come. not
before. Do you really think the US government the top of which is
now
governed by the oil companies want such a device to get out?
Then why
does everyone look to government officials as an authority on
whether
or not zero point devices exist. It is like asking the wolf to guard
your chickens and trusting him to give you an accurate head count.
Might want to ask these retired government officials if they are
afraid of loosing their pensions, doing a little jail time, maybe
loosing their lives or the lives of their families. Might want to ask
them if they would stand up for the truth, the right of the
American
public which they were sworn to serve to know the truth? Ask them
if
they new any of the people on the shuttles that died needlessly to
keep a lie going?Might want to ask them how it feels in their soul
to
lie? Sending people up on giant firecrackers hoping they can drop
like
a rock and land is ridiculous with the hidden technologies at area
52
etc. Hey ask them about the other areas from 1 to 52 and
beyond. What
is being done there?
How about hunt for integrity as a new book?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Nazi Saucers?
re: Nick Cook's "Hunt for the Zero Point"
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 03:12 PM, wigstonmagna
wrote:
--- In ItalianPhysicsCenter@yahoogroups.com, Jack Sarfatti
wrote:
How about this from a PhD physicist, in the minority, who has
studied the UFO subject:
"I did some investigating and interviewed retired senior USG
executives
who laid the Nazi flying saucer (disguised as UFOs) claim (a la
Cook's book) to rest - it didn't exist and it didn't fly."
Which is pretty much what I have also been saying about Cook's
book BTW.
I'm interested in any debunkery of Cook's book. What did this
Ph.D.
fellow discover precisely?
You need to ask him. I have bcc'd him on this. He can reveal his
ID if
he wishes. He has USG Intelligence connections for information.
The point is that we at ISSO 1999-2000 checked out many of the
bogus
claims on zero point energy by fringe people and found them to
be
essentially worthless.
Creon Levit on leave from NASA Ames did a very thorough job on
several
of the claims. More information on this is in my two books from
2002
"Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" and in my semi-
popular
Oct 24, 2003 Austin Texas talk "What Is The Universe Made Of?"
to the
Society for Literature and Science online at
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
Note of clarification I do not include the Haisch-Puthoff zero point
energy program nor Puthoff's PV gravity program in the same
crackpot
category as ALL the other work mentioned by Nick Cook in his
book. My
objections to the HRP program are that they do not ask the right
questions, are basically superficial in their formulations, make
some
errors of interpretation of their formalisms and most importantly
have
not led to any testable predictions nor any clarifying explanations
of
significant problems and mysteries, e.g the UFO. They are
not "bogus"
physics simply "wrong" physics in my humble opinion.
A few specifics:
1. On the zero point origin of inertia - it is a mistake to look only
at the virtual photons. It is the virtual electron-positrons that is
most important.
2. There is no "vacuum coherence" in their idea set. That throws
the
baby out with the bathwater because guv Einstein's metric field for
curved spacetime emerges from that non-perturbative vacuum
coherence
of the virtual electron-positron pairs primarily. So does the dark
energy/matter that is 96% of the universe that does not appear
anywhere in their models. They have been working on this for
almost 20
years with little to show really.
3. There is no PV (i.e. no quantum polarized fluctuations) in
Puthoff's PV math.
4. Puthoff and Ibison mis-interpret the physical meaning of their
isotropic radial r coordinate in their toy model K = e^2GM/c^r
Puthoff is very interested in UFOs and that is a primary motivation
for this zero point gravity work. Nowhere do Puthoff and Haisch et-
al
squarely face the number
String Tension = c^4/8piG = 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm which
prevents any
plausible explanation of UFO "metric engineering" with their brute
force approach. Space-time geometry is simply too stiff to bend
with
the energy schemes they have in their paradigm. They are
missing some
very essential new concepts.
Cook is a very approachable fellow; have
you cross-checked with him also?
-Andrew
Cook contacted me before he wrote the book. He did not like what
I
told him about the flaky stuff he was pushing so he erased me
from his
book. That told me he was not intellectually honest, but had
some
hidden non-scientific agenda. I find this disturbing since he is
associated with Jane's Defence Weekly in UK.
-------------------------
Caveat from Jack Sarfatti
Torsion fields may well exist. Orthodox studies suggest that the coupling of electron spins to hypothetical torsion fields are too weak to be of biological importance. However, not enough work has really been done. It is remotely conceivable that there could be bio-torsion effects. However, the theory of the Russian claims below is not at all clear to me nor how torsion waves would be generated and in what strength.
Brief explanation of torsion field.
Physics today is based on invariants of groups of symmetry transformations.
The invariant is what does not change when the perspective or frame of reference of the detectors changes.
Symmetries are first introduced "globally" i.e. same everywhere-when then they are made "local". This localization of symmetry explains ALL the well-established fundamental forces of nature i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, weak radio-active and strong sub-nuclear.
The global symmetry group of flat-torsionless 4Dim space-time is the 15 parameter "conformal group" of massless "null geodesics" or "light rays".
The conformal group splits into 4 pieces or subgroups.
1 parameter dilation group.
4 parameter nonlinear special conformal translations
4 parameter linear translations
6 parameter space-time rotations i.e. O(1,3) Lorentz group.
Rest masses of electrons etc. require a breaking of symmetry of the dilation group at least.
Utiyama showed how to derive Einstein's gravity that is torsion free from locally gauging the 4-parameter linear translation group which, in turn, is locally generated by the special relativity total four-momentum Pu.
Einstein's curved space-time gravity metric field guv is the compensating field whose new dynamical degrees of freedom restore the translational invariance.
Similarly, the torsion field would be the compensating gauge force field from locally gauging the 6-parameter space-time rotation group.
There are then also compensating gauge force fields from the one-parameter dilation group and the 4-parameter special conformal transformations.
The compensating field for the 1-parameter dilatation group seems to be the inflation complex scalar field in the large-scale limit.
i.e. spin 0 Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field) from locally gauging the dilation subgroup.
The compensating field for the 4-parameter nonlinear special conformal group seems to be the exotic vacuum unified dark energy/matter w = -1 field
modulations around /\ = 0 where /\zpf > 0 is negative zero point pressure anti-gravity dark energy and /\zpf < 0 is gravitating positive zero point pressure "dark matter". Lepto-quarks are quantized gauge force flux "vibrating strings" like "vortex strings" in Type II superconductors where in the "core" the Vacuum Coherence Field = 0. The ends of the spin 1/2 lepto-quark vortex core strings and spin 1 strings may be stuck to the 3D branes as shown last night on NOVA with off-brane spin 2 gravitons as closed vibrating strings. However these strings are ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm which is why the hadronic alpha' Regge slope is (1 Gev)^-2 i.e.
hadronic gravity G* ~ 10^40G(Newton).
Einstein's gravity is from modulating the Goldstone phase of the Vacuum Coherence Field in the local gauging of the linear 4-parameter translation group. When there is local restoration of translational invariance is simply Einstein's field equation for the total local stress-energy density Diff(4) tensor
tuv(geometry) + Tuv(matter) = 0
where trivially there is local total current conservation
tuv(geometry)^;v + Tuv(matter)^;v = 0
where
tuv(geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
When there is NO TORSION we also have
tuv(geometry)^;v = 0
All of the above is for non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf = 0.
In the exotic vacuum dark energy/matter case we have local stress-energy density current conservation
tuv(exotic vacuum)^;v + tuv(geometry)^;v + Tuv(matter)^;v = 0
where
tuv(exotic vacuum) = (c^4/8piG*)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = Lp*&-2[1 - Lp*^3(Higgs Field)^2]
In Taylor series to first order
Higgs field ~ (Non Exotic Vacuum Higgs Field) + Pudx^u/h(Non Exotic Vacuum Higgs Field)
Note that the EM-weak-strong forces are from locally gauging the symmetry groups of the extra bosonic space dimensions of hyperspace not from the torsion fields as G. Shipov claims - at least in mainstream physics. The extra fermionic dimensions of hyperspace give supersymmetry transformations between lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons.
you are absolutely right that there is a cult that has grown up around
various FE claims. They fit into 3 general classifications: kooks, cons
and idiots. The people in the Bearden cult have tried legal threats to
shut down email lists that challenge their claims. they won't respond
to errors in their instrumentation - like at:
www.phact.org/e/z/beardenreview.htm
New free energy people spring up all the time. There is a lot of cross
pollenation between FE people and UFO nuts - they both expect
undeniable vindicating evidence to arrive "very soon" - they both think
that a lot of poor evidence adds up to good evidence, and they will
report glowingly on a claimant with out mention things like a prior
history of frauds.
Eric Krieg
www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html
Yes, I also know what you say to be true from first-hand experience.
This is what makes legitimate work so difficult. The Skeptical Inquirer lobby
does not help by garbling important differences. Perhaps 90% of the
FE claims are nonsense, perhaps 99% or even more. In fact so far
I am confident that 100% of over-unity FE claims are bogus.
That
The UFO data is another matter
although there too the noise swamps the signal and one must be
very careful. It is obvious from NOVA's "Elegant Universe" last
night that the Universe is a lot stranger than anyone imagined.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
My main themes in my two books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time
and Beyond II" published in 2002 were there last night in NOVA i.e.
Star Gate space and time travel, contact with UFO alien intelligence in
the "Universe Next Door." Yes they were done in a humorous way, but the
main point of the NOVA was that such "science fiction" may not be
totally "fiction."
Just in:
From:
"Sorry Jack it is not nonsense. Hal knows dam well who I am speaking of and it is time he comes clean. Again are you part of the solution or part of the cover up and censorship. Z Energy was involved in this as well. Puthoff has to search his own soul on this one, regain his own integrity. My integrity and the scientist are not in question. I find it interesting how quick you dismiss all of this without any investigation not even asking who the scientist is. All it takes is Puthoff to say this is nonsense and you drop everything. Do you have a mind of your own? Or do you just ask the government boys what is the truth. Don't you find it hard to consider yourself an authority in these matters when all you know is what you are told by those with a track record of not telling the truth. Sorry Jack you and Puthoff seem to be bedfellows and he has already established his character."
Sarfatti's reply: Hal and I have our specific disagreements on matters of zero point energy induced gravity metric engineering theory, which is part of normal scientific method. Hal tells me my refutations of his theory is "nonsense" all the time. I do not believe him. However, I do believe him on this because that is one of his fields of expertise. However, I do not rely only on Hal in these matters. Hal worked with Creon Levit at ISSO on many of these bogus free energy claims in our ISSO laboratory. Creon did his work with complete integrity and an open mind. There is no coverup, there is no censorship. The fact is that ALL the current over-unity free energy claims that are for example described by Nick Cook are bogus or bad physics and engineering, I asked you what your scientific credentials were and you have not answered. The "government boys" sometimes ask me what is "the truth" in these matters. You got it wrong way round. :-)
I suggest you carefully study http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
What were the specific technical details in the case you described? Whose lab was blown up BTW?
From: Hal Puthoff
In a message dated 11/4/03 8:56:10 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net quotes a statement by:
>Statement: It was so far over unity it scared them. He (Puthoff) refused to come up with
> the money they boast to have for anyone who demonstrates such a
> device. Several other top scientists were there. This same device was
> demonstrated to other top scientists in the field. Shortly afterwards
> demands were made for the device, threats to family etc. His lab was
> blown up and these idiots keep saying no such device exists.
Jack: This sounds like fiction to me. ;-)
Puthoff: Definitely fiction!
Hal Puthoff
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:55:37 -0800, Jack Sarfatti
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 06:31 PM, James Gilliland wrote:
This is nonsense. Putoff had a demonstration of a zero point free
energy device that put out phenomenal energy.
Oh really? What are your credentials in physics?
It was so far over unity it scared them. He refused to come up
with
the money they boast to have for anyone who demonstrates such
a
device. Several other top scientists were there. This same device
was
demonstrated to other top scientists in the field. Shortly
afterwards
demands were made for the device, threats to family etc. His lab
was
blown up and these idiots keep saying no such device exists.
This sounds like fiction to me. ;-)
With friends like you, Hal does not need enemies. :-)
I have told Hal of my concern that a cult has grown up around these
mindless free energy claims using his name in the most outlandish
fabrications like yours here.
The next thing you will ask is prove it. Show us the device or it
does
not exist. Been there done that, will not expose the scientist
again
to the so called free energy zero point community. Most are there
to
suppress it, some are there to control and capitalize on it, most
want
to steal it. When the integrity returns, the devices will come. not
before. Do you really think the US government the top of which is
now
governed by the oil companies want such a device to get out?
Then why
does everyone look to government officials as an authority on
whether
or not zero point devices exist. It is like asking the wolf to guard
your chickens and trusting him to give you an accurate head count.
Might want to ask these retired government officials if they are
afraid of loosing their pensions, doing a little jail time, maybe
loosing their lives or the lives of their families. Might want to ask
them if they would stand up for the truth, the right of the
American
public which they were sworn to serve to know the truth? Ask them
if
they new any of the people on the shuttles that died needlessly to
keep a lie going?Might want to ask them how it feels in their soul
to
lie? Sending people up on giant firecrackers hoping they can drop
like
a rock and land is ridiculous with the hidden technologies at area
52
etc. Hey ask them about the other areas from 1 to 52 and
beyond. What
is being done there?
How about hunt for integrity as a new book?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Nazi Saucers?
re: Nick Cook's "Hunt for the Zero Point"
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 03:12 PM, wigstonmagna
wrote:
--- In ItalianPhysicsCenter@yahoogroups.com, Jack Sarfatti
How about this from a PhD physicist, in the minority, who has
studied the UFO subject:
"I did some investigating and interviewed retired senior USG
executives
who laid the Nazi flying saucer (disguised as UFOs) claim (a la
Cook's book) to rest - it didn't exist and it didn't fly."
Which is pretty much what I have also been saying about Cook's
book BTW.
I'm interested in any debunkery of Cook's book. What did this
Ph.D.
fellow discover precisely?
You need to ask him. I have bcc'd him on this. He can reveal his
ID if
he wishes. He has USG Intelligence connections for information.
The point is that we at ISSO 1999-2000 checked out many of the
bogus
claims on zero point energy by fringe people and found them to
be
essentially worthless.
Creon Levit on leave from NASA Ames did a very thorough job on
several
of the claims. More information on this is in my two books from
2002
"Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" and in my semi-
popular
Oct 24, 2003 Austin Texas talk "What Is The Universe Made Of?"
to the
Society for Literature and Science online at
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
Note of clarification I do not include the Haisch-Puthoff zero point
energy program nor Puthoff's PV gravity program in the same
crackpot
category as ALL the other work mentioned by Nick Cook in his
book. My
objections to the HRP program are that they do not ask the right
questions, are basically superficial in their formulations, make
some
errors of interpretation of their formalisms and most importantly
have
not led to any testable predictions nor any clarifying explanations
of
significant problems and mysteries, e.g the UFO. They are
not "bogus"
physics simply "wrong" physics in my humble opinion.
A few specifics:
1. On the zero point origin of inertia - it is a mistake to look only
at the virtual photons. It is the virtual electron-positrons that is
most important.
2. There is no "vacuum coherence" in their idea set. That throws
the
baby out with the bathwater because guv Einstein's metric field for
curved spacetime emerges from that non-perturbative vacuum
coherence
of the virtual electron-positron pairs primarily. So does the dark
energy/matter that is 96% of the universe that does not appear
anywhere in their models. They have been working on this for
almost 20
years with little to show really.
3. There is no PV (i.e. no quantum polarized fluctuations) in
Puthoff's PV math.
4. Puthoff and Ibison mis-interpret the physical meaning of their
isotropic radial r coordinate in their toy model K = e^2GM/c^r
Puthoff is very interested in UFOs and that is a primary motivation
for this zero point gravity work. Nowhere do Puthoff and Haisch et-
al
squarely face the number
String Tension = c^4/8piG = 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm which
prevents any
plausible explanation of UFO "metric engineering" with their brute
force approach. Space-time geometry is simply too stiff to bend
with
the energy schemes they have in their paradigm. They are
missing some
very essential new concepts.
Cook is a very approachable fellow; have
you cross-checked with him also?
-Andrew
Cook contacted me before he wrote the book. He did not like what
I
told him about the flaky stuff he was pushing so he erased me
from his
book. That told me he was not intellectually honest, but had
some
hidden non-scientific agenda. I find this disturbing since he is
associated with Jane's Defence Weekly in UK.
-------------------------
Caveat from Jack Sarfatti
Torsion fields may well exist. Orthodox studies suggest that the coupling of electron spins to hypothetical torsion fields are too weak to be of biological importance. However, not enough work has really been done. It is remotely conceivable that there could be bio-torsion effects. However, the theory of the Russian claims below is not at all clear to me nor how torsion waves would be generated and in what strength.
Brief explanation of torsion field.
Physics today is based on invariants of groups of symmetry transformations.
The invariant is what does not change when the perspective or frame of reference of the detectors changes.
Symmetries are first introduced "globally" i.e. same everywhere-when then they are made "local". This localization of symmetry explains ALL the well-established fundamental forces of nature i.e. gravity, electromagnetism, weak radio-active and strong sub-nuclear.
The global symmetry group of flat-torsionless 4Dim space-time is the 15 parameter "conformal group" of massless "null geodesics" or "light rays".
The conformal group splits into 4 pieces or subgroups.
1 parameter dilation group.
4 parameter nonlinear special conformal translations
4 parameter linear translations
6 parameter space-time rotations i.e. O(1,3) Lorentz group.
Rest masses of electrons etc. require a breaking of symmetry of the dilation group at least.
Utiyama showed how to derive Einstein's gravity that is torsion free from locally gauging the 4-parameter linear translation group which, in turn, is locally generated by the special relativity total four-momentum Pu.
Einstein's curved space-time gravity metric field guv is the compensating field whose new dynamical degrees of freedom restore the translational invariance.
Similarly, the torsion field would be the compensating gauge force field from locally gauging the 6-parameter space-time rotation group.
There are then also compensating gauge force fields from the one-parameter dilation group and the 4-parameter special conformal transformations.
The compensating field for the 1-parameter dilatation group seems to be the inflation complex scalar field in the large-scale limit.
i.e. spin 0 Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field) from locally gauging the dilation subgroup.
The compensating field for the 4-parameter nonlinear special conformal group seems to be the exotic vacuum unified dark energy/matter w = -1 field
modulations around /\ = 0 where /\zpf > 0 is negative zero point pressure anti-gravity dark energy and /\zpf < 0 is gravitating positive zero point pressure "dark matter". Lepto-quarks are quantized gauge force flux "vibrating strings" like "vortex strings" in Type II superconductors where in the "core" the Vacuum Coherence Field = 0. The ends of the spin 1/2 lepto-quark vortex core strings and spin 1 strings may be stuck to the 3D branes as shown last night on NOVA with off-brane spin 2 gravitons as closed vibrating strings. However these strings are ~ 1 fermi not 10^-33 cm which is why the hadronic alpha' Regge slope is (1 Gev)^-2 i.e.
hadronic gravity G* ~ 10^40G(Newton).
Einstein's gravity is from modulating the Goldstone phase of the Vacuum Coherence Field in the local gauging of the linear 4-parameter translation group. When there is local restoration of translational invariance is simply Einstein's field equation for the total local stress-energy density Diff(4) tensor
tuv(geometry) + Tuv(matter) = 0
where trivially there is local total current conservation
tuv(geometry)^;v + Tuv(matter)^;v = 0
where
tuv(geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
When there is NO TORSION we also have
tuv(geometry)^;v = 0
All of the above is for non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf = 0.
In the exotic vacuum dark energy/matter case we have local stress-energy density current conservation
tuv(exotic vacuum)^;v + tuv(geometry)^;v + Tuv(matter)^;v = 0
where
tuv(exotic vacuum) = (c^4/8piG*)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = Lp*&-2[1 - Lp*^3(Higgs Field)^2]
In Taylor series to first order
Higgs field ~ (Non Exotic Vacuum Higgs Field) + Pudx^u/h(Non Exotic Vacuum Higgs Field)
Note that the EM-weak-strong forces are from locally gauging the symmetry groups of the extra bosonic space dimensions of hyperspace not from the torsion fields as G. Shipov claims - at least in mainstream physics. The extra fermionic dimensions of hyperspace give supersymmetry transformations between lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Look at "Elegant Universe" NOVA tonight.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to EM waves. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
For the record, I do not think that the intelligence agencies of the the major powers, US in particular, have the ET UFO anti-gravity technology on the shelf and are hiding it. In other words I disagree with Nick Cook's book "Hunt for the Zero Point" and with Stephen Greer's thesis in the "Disclosure Project." It is quite obvious that no human physicist today understands how such stuff would work. We are only now beginning to get to that level of understanding of how "metric engineering" would work by manipulating "dark energy." It may be possible that USG et-al has retrieved damaged craft and alien creatures from the Universe Next Door perhaps only a millimeter away across the extra bosonic space dimensions like Robert Bigelow's NIDS people reported on his Utah Ranch, or that may have happened at Roswell in 1947 etc. Even if that were true, and I am not saying it is true, the fact is that none of the intelligence people who might have that stuff have the slightest understanding how that hypothetical and/or alleged alien technology actually works. It's "The Sorceror's Apprentice."
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Scott Littleton wrote:
Hi Jim,
OK, I believe you. But I do suspect that you may have been subtly conditioned by your NASA(?) experience to accept uncritically (despite your overt commitment to "critical thinking") the Government's long-standing public position re the phenomenon in question, that is, that UFOs (and aliens) are all either misidentifications of natural phenomena, hoaxes, or hallucinations, mass and otherwise. This, I suspect-taking you at your word that you're not cynically mouthing a "party line" that you know to be false-is reinforced by the logically flawed assumption that they shouldn't exist, therefore they don't exist. Clearly, it's very difficult for most mainstream members of the scientific and engineering establishment-that is, those not privy to (or part of) any Government-sponsored disinformation campaign-to accept even the remote possibility that we human beings are, in effect, "Wogs" vis-a-vis what I've come to think of as an "Alien Raj," an extraterrestrial (or possibly extra-dimensional) colonial establishment that has maintained clandestine hegemony over this planet for at least the last eleven or twelve millennia, if I read the late Upper Paleolithic evidence correctly.
No, of course I can't as yet prove any of this definitively. But the vast amount of observational evidence, as gathered by people like Richard Dolan, et al., is extremely persuasive, as is the comparative mythological and folkloric evidence, which you may not be aware of (this is my anthropological specialty), and which, after stripping away the pre-modern glosses and metaphors, closely resembles what has been reported by contemporary abductees and other "experiencers." And now that physicists like Jack Sarfatti are beginning to give us a handle on these remarkable craft appear to work, the probability of their presence, both today and in the past, is significantly reinforced.
Again, once we get over the ego problem, and can accept-and live with-at least the possibility that we've long since been trumped by "others" when it comes to the technology of space exploration, we can begin to approach this supremely important phenomenon objectively, and from a variety of perspectives, including that of the cultural anthropologist, free from the hysterical sneering, ridicule, and marginalizing that all too frequently tarnishes the discussion of UFOs, whether by "mainstream" scientists or by the media. (That much of this sneering and ridicule is the result of a conscious policy on the part of the Government, or some elements thereof, to discredit anyone who takes the subject seriously so as to keep the truth from becoming general knowledge-perhaps due to a legitimate fear of massive and socially disruptive nativistic movements that would put the New Guinean "Cargo Cults" to shame-is a can of peas which I won't re-open any further in this message.)
Cheers,
Scott
C. SCOTT LITTLETON
President, Phi Beta Kappa Alumni in Southern California
Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
TEL (323) 255-5477
FAX (323) 982-0264
http://www.oxy.edu/~yokatta/home.htm
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic"
--Sir Arthur C. Clarke
"I think we're property. . ."
--Charles Fort
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Oberg [mailto:jameseoberg@houston.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Scott Littleton
Subject: Fw: Skeptical Inquirer UFO
fyi
----- Original Message -----
From: "JimO"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.math
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer UFO
I can solve this one.
The answer, for me at least, is 'No'. My agenda is to find out about
mysterious aerospace reports and events (see www.jamesoberg.com) and share
what I've found, for discussion, with no directives, constraints, or other
external controls over my activities whatsover.
You may stop wondering, and start thinking, now.
Jim Oberg
Phi Beta Kappa, Ohio Wesleyan University, 1966
Or do debunkers like Sheaffer, Oberg, Klass, and the rest have another,
more devious agenda,
that is, to further the Government's long-standing policy of keeping the
lid
on by systematically ridiculing those of us who suspect the truth about
this
phenomenon, all the while being privy to above-top-secret knowledge that
would prove us right? One wonders....
C. SCOTT LITTLETON
President, Phi Beta Kappa Alumni in Southern California
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Brian Greene telephoned an ET Gray on brane universe next door a millimeter away using presumably Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" transducer of off-brane world gravity waves to EM waves. ;-) Also long part on Star Gate time and space-travel. Ed Witten & Co http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html would be considered real kooks by the SI CSICOPS if their actual words were given to the CSICOPS without identifying who they were in a blind fold "Turing Test." The tidy classical universe of James Oberg & Co is not the Universe of Ed Witten & Co.
BTW
Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is."
My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
For the record, I do not think that the intelligence agencies of the the major powers, US in particular, have the ET UFO anti-gravity technology on the shelf and are hiding it. In other words I disagree with Nick Cook's book "Hunt for the Zero Point" and with Stephen Greer's thesis in the "Disclosure Project." It is quite obvious that no human physicist today understands how such stuff would work. We are only now beginning to get to that level of understanding of how "metric engineering" would work by manipulating "dark energy." It may be possible that USG et-al has retrieved damaged craft and alien creatures from the Universe Next Door perhaps only a millimeter away across the extra bosonic space dimensions like Robert Bigelow's NIDS people reported on his Utah Ranch, or that may have happened at Roswell in 1947 etc. Even if that were true, and I am not saying it is true, the fact is that none of the intelligence people who might have that stuff have the slightest understanding how that hypothetical and/or alleged alien technology actually works. It's "The Sorceror's Apprentice."
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Scott Littleton wrote:
Hi Jim,
OK, I believe you. But I do suspect that you may have been subtly conditioned by your NASA(?) experience to accept uncritically (despite your overt commitment to "critical thinking") the Government's long-standing public position re the phenomenon in question, that is, that UFOs (and aliens) are all either misidentifications of natural phenomena, hoaxes, or hallucinations, mass and otherwise. This, I suspect-taking you at your word that you're not cynically mouthing a "party line" that you know to be false-is reinforced by the logically flawed assumption that they shouldn't exist, therefore they don't exist. Clearly, it's very difficult for most mainstream members of the scientific and engineering establishment-that is, those not privy to (or part of) any Government-sponsored disinformation campaign-to accept even the remote possibility that we human beings are, in effect, "Wogs" vis-a-vis what I've come to think of as an "Alien Raj," an extraterrestrial (or possibly extra-dimensional) colonial establishment that has maintained clandestine hegemony over this planet for at least the last eleven or twelve millennia, if I read the late Upper Paleolithic evidence correctly.
No, of course I can't as yet prove any of this definitively. But the vast amount of observational evidence, as gathered by people like Richard Dolan, et al., is extremely persuasive, as is the comparative mythological and folkloric evidence, which you may not be aware of (this is my anthropological specialty), and which, after stripping away the pre-modern glosses and metaphors, closely resembles what has been reported by contemporary abductees and other "experiencers." And now that physicists like Jack Sarfatti are beginning to give us a handle on these remarkable craft appear to work, the probability of their presence, both today and in the past, is significantly reinforced.
Again, once we get over the ego problem, and can accept-and live with-at least the possibility that we've long since been trumped by "others" when it comes to the technology of space exploration, we can begin to approach this supremely important phenomenon objectively, and from a variety of perspectives, including that of the cultural anthropologist, free from the hysterical sneering, ridicule, and marginalizing that all too frequently tarnishes the discussion of UFOs, whether by "mainstream" scientists or by the media. (That much of this sneering and ridicule is the result of a conscious policy on the part of the Government, or some elements thereof, to discredit anyone who takes the subject seriously so as to keep the truth from becoming general knowledge-perhaps due to a legitimate fear of massive and socially disruptive nativistic movements that would put the New Guinean "Cargo Cults" to shame-is a can of peas which I won't re-open any further in this message.)
Cheers,
Scott
C. SCOTT LITTLETON
President, Phi Beta Kappa Alumni in Southern California
Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus
Occidental College
Los Angeles, CA 90041
TEL (323) 255-5477
FAX (323) 982-0264
http://www.oxy.edu/~yokatta/home.htm
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic"
--Sir Arthur C. Clarke
"I think we're property. . ."
--Charles Fort
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Oberg [mailto:jameseoberg@houston.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Scott Littleton
Subject: Fw: Skeptical Inquirer UFO
fyi
----- Original Message -----
From: "JimO"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.math
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer UFO
I can solve this one.
The answer, for me at least, is 'No'. My agenda is to find out about
mysterious aerospace reports and events (see www.jamesoberg.com) and share
what I've found, for discussion, with no directives, constraints, or other
external controls over my activities whatsover.
You may stop wondering, and start thinking, now.
Jim Oberg
Phi Beta Kappa, Ohio Wesleyan University, 1966
Or do debunkers like Sheaffer, Oberg, Klass, and the rest have another,
more devious agenda,
that is, to further the Government's long-standing policy of keeping the
lid
on by systematically ridiculing those of us who suspect the truth about
this
phenomenon, all the while being privy to above-top-secret knowledge that
would prove us right? One wonders....
C. SCOTT LITTLETON
President, Phi Beta Kappa Alumni in Southern California
2nd draft
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 07:14 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Since James makes money lecturing on the UFO debunking circuit his motives are clearly compromised. James may be a perfectly good engineer in his field, but his obvious training and education, like all most knee jerk debunkers (true believers are even worse of course), is in classical physics a half century out of date. He is not at all up on what has been happening in physics for these past few decades especially the new discoveries in "precision cosmology." He has no conception of what the discovery of "dark energy" does to the whole UFO controversy -- none of the Pundits do as yet. They will.
James should study my http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov ASAP
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 07:14 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Since James makes money lecturing on the UFO debunking circuit his motives are clearly compromised. James may be a perfectly good engineer in his field, but his obvious training and education, like all most knee jerk debunkers (true believers are even worse of course), is in classical physics a half century out of date. He is not at all up on what has been happening in physics for these past few decades especially the new discoveries in "precision cosmology." He has no conception of what the discovery of "dark energy" does to the whole UFO controversy -- none of the Pundits do as yet. They will.
James should study my http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov ASAP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
