On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 03:40 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
andrew laidlaw wrote:
"Gentlemen,
I've assembled here the briefest summary I can of my a
priori perspective on gravity..."
JS: No physicist is interested in your "apriori perspective on gravity."
"Apriori" is not a good word to use with physicists. Physics is not math.
Math is the language of physics, but there is a big difference in the
standards of rigor and justification, I dare not say "proof."
AL: " and how this conforms
with available formalisms. Since I have started from
epr,"
JS: What does quantum EPR have to do with classical Einstein GR?
I mean apart from my vacuum condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs
and the use of a Bogoliubov pair transformation in the Unruh effect as
I vaguely recall.
AL: " a short digression is unavoidable, however I have
limited this to what is strictly necessary to form the
link between epr and my anticipation of finding
distributed source terms in gravity."
JS: Thanks for reinventing a crooked wheel.
AL:"1. The state of the Evidence.
The first question regarding any discussion between
formalisms in gravity concerns the state of the
evidence, and for this let us draw the contrast
between quantum mechanics and gravity.
On the quantum side, although there are diverse,
bizarre and extreme views about interpretation, there
is effectively universal agreement about the basic
formalism."
JS: OK
AL:"This is due primarily to the state of the
evidence supporting ordinary quantum mechanics within
its domain of applicability, but also to many other
factors like ease of use and the particularly clean
implementation of the restriction to observables."
PZ: "This "universal agreement" does not and cannot be taken to
imply that the standard QM formalism is chiseled in stone,
no matter how empirically accurate its predictions may be
so far.
A deeper theory of the quantum vacuum may expose the
limits of QM's domain of validity, and pose fundamental
challenges to interpretive models that are tied to it."
AL:" With respect to gravity, the mere existence of your
discussion testifies to the poor state of the
evidence."
JS: No it does not. There are many good reviews on experimental relativity.
Google "Clifford Will". Note however just received from Cruft:
"There's a paper up on arXiv today:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576
re-analysing Miller's data in the replication of the
Michelson-Morley experiment and concluding that he found
a real effect."
R. Kiehn will be saying "See, I told ya' so!" I have not
yet read beyond the abstract, but I will study it off line.
AL:" Since multiple empirically very distinct
formalisms remain compatible with the evidence, the
state of the evidence is, by definition, inadequate."
PZ:" The state of the evidence is always inadequate in science.
There is always a potentially infinite class of alternative
theories that are consistent with the available evidence.
Usually, only two or perhaps three alternatives are considered
and subjected to comparative evaluation.
So I suppose by the above you mean that the current state
of the evidence is not capable of enforcing a consensus in
gravitational physics as to which theory should be declared
"the winner".
Such consensual decisions are often quite illusory from an
epistemological standpoint, and depend heavily upon which faction
has the most effective propaganda. For example, Lorentz vs.
Einstein (that is, the Machian Einstein of special relativity)."
JS: Perhaps. Let's see if
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576
Is correct or not? Even Yilmaz uses Special Relativity BTW.
Bohm suggests Hubble flow as a preferred frame in which
the quantum potential acts instantly. The alleged anomalous
effect in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311576
is perhaps an integrated GR curvature effect since MM data
is taken over a long period of time as I recall. It is not a
LOCAL measurement in the sense of a single tangent space
fiber. Still it would pull the carpet out of the rug of the
MTW Establishment for sure. Paul would like that. :-)
AL: "We may reflect on the status ordinary quantum
mechanics would have if it had a corresponding level
of experimental support (it would probably not be
taken seriously because of some of the - by assumption
- untestable predictions it makes), however the
experimental art it has given us is so powerful that
any empirically inequivalent alternative is rapidly
tested out of existence."
JS: Huh?
PZ: "As Einstein pointed out to Heisenberg in 1926, it is the *theory*
that tells you what can and cannot be measured."
JS: Yes.
AL: :IMO, when the evidence is weak enough to allow
multiple distinct formalisms to survive at all,"
PZ: :This may not be Kuhnian "normal science", but it may be for the
most part normal science -- at least since ~1900."
AL: "and
the phenomena predicted by extrapolating from the
mundane weak field evidence using the conventional
theory are sufficiently bizarre, as they are, it pays
to keep more than just an open mind."
PZ: "OK. Note that Einstein himself did not believe in black holes.
I'm not sure I believe in them either, notwithstanding all the
evidence that has been developed for them."
JS: He would if he were alive today. 1955 was still a very backward time in physics. 1947 even more so.
AL: "It pays to engage with full-on Cartesian doubt."
PZ: "Although a Galilean or Newtonian physicist might disagree."
AL: "Jack would have
all theorists abandon any germ of an idea that doesn't
instantly conform to the EEP,"
JS: Astronauts float in zero g all the way round and round the timelike geodesic passing to different LIFs like Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase" that's EEP and that's good enough IMHO. Sure there may be quantum gravity corrections, torsion field corrections, singularity breakdown ...
PZ: "EEP" under which interpretive model?
JS: Floating Astronauts is the key fact of EEP in any interpretation that is not obviously false. If there are several degenerate interpretations then the issue is undecidable until one breaks the degeneracy at least with a gedankenexperiment. "Interpretations" mean "informal language" with its relative ambiguity and lack of precision or looseness of meaning and context.
PZ: As far as I know, no one is disputing "EEP" as minimally stated by,
e.g., Wheeler et al.
One must IMO be very careful to distinguish "EEP" from Einsteinian
strict gravitational-inertial equivalence, which is an interpretive model
that is attached in canonical GR to the formal-empirical "EEP" principle.
JS: Delete "strict". Paul you have erected a Tempest in a Teapot over this one word "strict." The equivalence of gravity to acceleration is "strict" if you restrict only to the connection field, i.e. g-force level (first derivatives of the metric) at a single IDEALIZED point event P. As soon as you go off that point into its neighborhood you get into tidal force issues and the equivalence is not strict at that level of the second derivatives of the metric.
AL: but Hal's PV theory
shows us the possibility to remain internally
consistent, and consistent with the evidence, whilst
changing the underlying metaphysical rules
sufficiently to transcend the self-evidency of this
kind of equivalence principle.
JS: False. Hal's PV theory i.e. just his SSS toy model is
neither formally nor informally consistent.
There is a formal inconsistency in his use of "r" and there
is complete conceptual murkiness in his informal language
pertaining to his Tables I & II IMHO. Hal does not seem
to understand that Alice on a timelike geodesic at event P
is in "free float" equivalent to Eve at infinite distance at
rest relative to the source M in this special case of an
asymptotically 4D flat geometry in which the Yilmaz
issues of global Flux Integrals for Pu and pseudo local stress-energy tensor densities
arises. Both Alice and Eve have a flat metric nuv to a good degree of approximation.
Bob on a timelike non-geodesic coincident with Alice at the same P
sees the space-time warps given by guv. Hal's error is using Bob and Eve
in his Tables I & II and never even acknowledging Alice's existence!
This leads to his Yilmazian Heresy of "two metrics" one "really flat."
Right now Hal is in a space probe near the SMALL black hole he does not
believe exists feeling the radial stretch and tangential squeeze second derivatives of guv
both on geodesic and non-geodesic paths no matter what he does with
conventional impulse rocket engines. Only by switching on the
Sarfatti Zero Point /\zpf Metric Engineering Drive will he escape! ;-)
That is, Hal must be Thetan Master and Commander on the far side of the Universe,
The Steersman of his own self-generated time-like geodesic overriding the
geometry of the black hole. Metric engineering is beyond the passive
test particle approximation. The flying saucer is NOT a passive test particle
enslaved to the geometry of the large source mass M. No one, other than
me, has made this point explicit in the literature. It is clearly stated in my
book "Destiny Matrix" (2002) with a copyright in the Library of Congress etc.
PZ: "Could you explain what you mean by "metaphysical"? In some
sense, I would argue that all predictive empirical science is
inherenty "metaphysical" in character."
AL: "No matter how well
motivated, the EEP always carries a substantial
metaphysical content, as Hal's PV article (even if it
is wrong) also shows."
PZ: "Meaning that it relies on interpretive models that are not unambiguously
validated by the available empirical evidence?"
JS: Justify with examples.
PZ: "If so, you are invoking a troglodyte positivist definition of "metaphysical"
that is no longer tenable IMO."
AL: "This metaphysical content may
or may not be "TRUE", however, even if it were, we
should never treat it so, but retain multiple
perspectives as far as possible."
JS: Cliche. Of course. You are wandering off the point beating around the bush.
PZ: "Should?
Sounds very Popperian. "All is conjecture".
Understandable, in view of the wildly conjectural nature of many of
Einstein's insights."
JS: "Snooze ... wake me up when you get relevant again. Snooooore ...
AL: "So when Jack argues (somewhat unscientifically) that
the EEP has been experimentally validated, my reaction
is twofold: First, whilst one can experimentally
validate a prediction, and in doing so gain confidence
in a corresponding theory, one can never in principle
verify metaphysical propositions. Second, even the
general sense of the remark is unsustainable since the
evidence allows for Yilmaz and PV (and others), which
are empirically distinct, and not necessarily faithful
to EEP."
JS: More Laputanisms.
PZ: "OK. I basically agree with this -- the formal statement of "EEP" is open
to multiple mutually incompatible physical interpretations (which you
seem to call "metaphysics"), regardless of how consistent the known
facts are with the canonical model."
But it looks like Jack actually agrees with this also."
JS: No, I do not agree that any good physics model can violate the key fact of EEP, i.e. Astronauts free float, in its proper domain.
AL: "2. A priori considerations for gravity.
I shall now outline an avowedly narrow perspective on
gravity which has evolved by considering the EPR
paradox as THE outstanding issue to resolve in
Physics. Though several loopholes, especially the
detection loophole, do render the evidence less than
perfect, it is strong enough that I shall, for the
purposes of argument here, consider epr to be a valid
counterfactual: On at least some occasions the
measurement result obtained by Alice would have been
different had space-like separated Bob measured on a
different axis, or failed to perform any measurement
at all."
PZ: "But there is no reason to suppose that certain phenomena cannot
propagate at FTL speeds -- other than that this is inconsistent with
an Einsteinian *conjecture* that was in part motivated by a simplistic
Machian empiricism later repudiated by Einstein himself."
AL: "Given epr, and noting that there is no evidence for
signalling, the question whether local realism is, or
is not, violated is obviously of principle interest."
JS: Micro-quantum theory has signal locality. However, I think macro-quantum theory allows
"signal nonlocality" because the local macro-quantum wave equation is nonlinear and, more
importantly, is non-unitary and the Born probability intepretation breaks down for the macro-quantum
wave. There is no linear Hermitian Hamiltonian operator in the Landau-Ginzburg equation for the
non-unitary time evolution of the macro-quantum order parameter.
Furthermore, there exists empirical evidence for "signal nonlocality" in Puthoff's RV data from the 70's
at SRI and also more recently in Dick Bierman's "presponse" data, which supports my idea that the
human mind as a physical field is a local macro-quantum field.
Micro-quantum theory demands a nonlocal "projective ray", the local macro-quantum order parameter is
NOT a projective ray. Just like GR has a mass scale so that one cannot renormalize zero point energy
away, so too does the amplitude of the local macro-quantum "superfluid" with coherent hologram phase-rigidity (the
origin of Witten's alpha' = (string tension)^-1) have a measurable meaning of local condensate density.
PZ: The question is, is this a form of action at a distance? If no signal
can be propagated at FTL speeds, then the answer is no.
JS: No, it simply means the action at a distance is uncontrollably random.
One needs oil to calm the turbulent waters. This is part of the the decoding
of the Cabalist's "Cipher of Genesis" of Carlo Suares in Paris 1973 for the
Priory Sion perhaps? ;-)
PZ: But this is all really an empirical question. There is no deep theoretical
reason for ruling it out -- since the original deep thinking behind SR has
been abandoned even by its author.
AL: "After decades of investigation and many thousands of
articles on the subject, there is finally a set of
propositions in the literature which offers the
possibility to satisfy the paradox"
PZ: What "paradox"?
JS: "A most unusual paradox"
http://www.broadwaymidi.com/operamidi/PiratesOfPenzance-whenyouhadleft.mid
PZ: "You mean an effect predicted by QM that if confirmed may shake up our
pre-conceived ideas?"
AL:" without violating
local realism, which is to say to render epr
consistent with the notion that no part of the
ontology shall exceed the characteristic velocity."
JS: Snoooooooooooooooooooooore....
PZ: "So we can retain local action and the necessity for contiguous propagation.
However, since we do not yet understand the physical vacuum and its
mysterious exotic properties, except in the most superficial terms, this really
should all be considered up for grabs in any case."
AL: "It is early days there, but a pair of quotations
introduces the line of argument:
"Quantum systems are not localized, they are
pervasive." - Asher Peres.
"Of course, if we make some excitation for field at
the point O, then a propagation of this
excitation from this point will have a finite speed.
But in the scope of the unified field model we do not
be able to make this excitation or modify arbitrarily
the world solution. Any excitations of the field at
the point O belong to the world solution which is a
single whole" - A.A. Chernitski
JS: Duh....
PZ: "This does seem to apply to known *physical* fields. In Copenhagen QM,
the wave function is not considered a physical field.
How we can make such a categorical distinction when we don't even
understand what a "physical field" actually is, physically speaking, is
beyond my comprehension."
JS: See Bohm & Hiley "The Undivided Universe."
PZ: "All we know is that the conventional fields that physicists are familiar with
propagate at a speed c -- although even this depends in GR among other things
on the distribution of matter. Also, as I pointed out previously, in canonical
GR a gravitational pulse doesn't even have a determinate frame-independent
speed of propagation.
And let us not forget the impenetrable mystery of non-local g-field energy."
JS: Not a real problem.
The local tidal force stress-energy density tensor is simply
Tuv(Geometry) = (string tension)Guv(Geometry)
In NON-exotic vacuum
Tuv(Geometry) = 0
But gravity gravitates and this equation has guv =/ = nuv(flat) vacuum solutions.
The problem you confound this with is that of defining global flux integrals for
Pu and Muv in asymptotically flat spacetimes where the pseudo-tensor method is
used.
AL: Which I would paraphrase as follows "Changes
introduced into a field model propagate away from
their sources at (or below) the characteristic
velocity, but, in such a model, there are no point
sources, only distributed excitations which belong to
the whole".
JS: William Walker in several Vigier conferences shows that there is superluminal
propagation in the near EM field which drops to c about 1 wavelength from the source
and is, of course, c in the far field. Near field is big for radio & ELF remember.
PZ: "And remember that in classic SR, the gravitational "field" and the EM "field"
were completely autonomous physical entities that were supposed to propagate
independently through nothing at the very same invariant speed -- which value
was supposed to be built into the fundamental physical geometry of the world.
If such "fields" are re-interpreted as various disturbances of a single physical
medium (as per the later Einstein), then the question arises, What is it about this
physical medium that determines the common speed of propagation of light and
gravity?
That's a very different ball game. To answer this in terms of variable world
geometry is a bit like saying "because that's the way it is".
Until we have satisfactory answers to questions like this, I don't see how one can
take any dogmatic position on the EPR question."
AL: "It appears to me that statements like these represent
the one open line for an investigation into the epr
paradox that can offer the prospect of respecting both
causality and objective local realism (i.e. no
Backward in Time, no superluminality, no many worlds)."
JS: False IMHO.
PZ: "Again, IMO the question of superluminal propagation should at this point be properly
regarded as an *empirical matter*. The Einsteinian universal limitation to (now matter-
dependent) c in the vacuum is properly regarded as tentative and conjectural."
AL: "The form of interaction we find in epr is consistent
with a "kinematical" conception of nonlocality wherein
the matter is itself thought of as pervasively
distributed (consistent, BTW, with the holographic
paradigm)."
JS: Gibberish. I have yet to see AL make even ONE plausible and or formally argued justification for any of his
"apriori" pontifications.
PZ: "The fact is that we don't yet have any viable deep physical model for the QM
formalism -- other than the rather amateurish pseudo-positivist epistemological
contentions (some would say pretensions) of the Copenhagen school, and
the Bohmian neo-realist alternative (which has its own problems and was not
taken too seriously by Bohm himself)."
JS: "Not true. Bohm took it very seriously and get depressed when it was ignored."
AL: "Kinematic nonlocality does not predict nonlocal
signalling,"
JS: Correct. This is the first non-trivial correct statement you have made so far.
AL: "whereas within the usual "dynamical"
conception of nonlocal interactions (with
well-localised sources), we should indeed anticipate
non-local signaling. Although I came across the
concept independently, the term "kinematic
nonlocality" was first coined in the epr literature."
PZ: "This all arises because many-particle product wave functions are superposable."
JS: But macro-quantum local waves are not linearly superposable in the same sense as above.
It's a different ball game at the emergent level.
PZ: "We know this works at small distances (e.g. all quantum chemistry depends on this),
but whether this many-particle superposition principle is good over *unlimited*
distances is really an empirical question."
AL: "The fundamental (metaphysical) question these ideas
raise is: Are fields caused by particles, or are
particles caused by fields?"
JS: Depends what you mean by "caused"? I don't know what you mean.
PZ: But "particles" involve "fields" (de Broglie waves, wave functions).
"Fields" involve particles (quanta of the field).
JS: This is solved in second-quantization.
PZ: But we don't really know what "fields" and "particles" are. They may largely be figments
of our overtaxed physical imagination -- even though gamma rays do sometimes behave
very much like like pool balls.
JS: So do photons of visible light in a photographic emulsion, or also in the Young double slit one photon at a time. It's not
only gamma rays. Have you forgotten the photo-electric effect?
PZ: "I suspect that the renormalization problems of QFT may arise from the fundamental
inadequacy of this dualistic Lorentzian model."
Huh? It comes from point particle idea. String theory solves that OK, but it does not solve the cosmological constant problem as Ed Witten admitted in a very admirable display of intellectual honesty and integrity that I applaud.
AL: "On the former,
conventional view we must necessarily see the field
system as propagating away from a primary ontological
structure contained within a small volume near the
centre of the field, at which point epr becomes
impossible within local realism (LHV models being
excluded)."
JS: You are confusing apples with oranges.
PZ: "But "matter waves" may be fundamentally different from EM waves.
For example, they have no unique speed of phase propagation."
JS: Your first sentence is correct, but your second sentence is a false justification.
Matter waves have dispersion. You have EM waves in media with dispersion also.
So dispersion is not the criterion of significant difference between matter waves
and EM waves.
EM waves are LOCAL MACRO-QUANTUM COHERENT STATES of real photons in the far field and of
virtual photons in the near field. I mean in the sense of Glauber's 1960's "quantum optics" now
extended to "squeezed states".
The micro-quantum matter wave of a single electron is a pilot wave of nonclassical "active information" so are many-electron entangled matter waves in configuration space or, alternatively, the pre-wavelet Wigner phase space density with information on incompatible observables consistent with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of a discrete "lattice" phase space of area h per pair of conjugate observables. Blackhole thermodynamics that S/k ~ Area of Event Horizon/Lp^2 is an example leading to the idea of the World Hologram that our 3 + 1 classical spacetime is really a holographic projection of a 2 + 1 quantum field theory. It needs to be a MACRO-QUANTUM projection. More on that later.
AL: "However, it is by virtue of the remote interaction
fields that we usually infer the presence of an
electron, and we definitely have better evidence for
the reality of these remote fields than we do for the
particles that are supposed to emit them."
PZ: "The entire QM theory of electrons as as "fermions" depends on an
invariant (i.e. completely fixed) permutational symmetry of the system
consisting of *all electrons in the universe* -- regardless of spatial
separation. Such many-particle systems are always in a QM state of
many-particle superposition which entails distance-insensitive EPR-like
correlation effects."
JS: Actually all quantum chemical bonding effects and magnetism effects only work when there is spatial overlap of the single electron wavefunctions in the many-particle superposition where the exchange integral of the Coulomb potential comes into play like in the
Hartree-Fock mean field approximation.
PZ: "The classic textbook arguments that this somehow goes away when
the particles are sufficiently separated are *sheer pseudo-positivist
garbage* (based on an erroneous Copenhagenist model of intertheoretic
"correspondence"). That is inconsistent with QM and the "empirical
fact" that electrons are always fermionic."
JS: Yes as shown in Aspect's experiment Paris 1982.
PZ: "Agreed that this kind of constraint may be violated in a supersymmetric
theory, but that is another issue."
JS: Huh?
AL: "If we consider for a moment the equally reasonable in
logic alternative that the particles we find are the
result of widely distributed fields rather than their
cause, then we have identified a significant
unjustified assumption in the epr sufficiency
condition, namely that we cannot assume all the
(ontological) "elements of reality" corresponding to a
given (epistemological) observation are located at, or
even nearby, the site of the observation."
JS: Snoooore...
PZ: :But there is no single consistent physical model in QM. this is
called "wave-particle duality"."
JS: False, Bohm and Hiley's "The Undivided Universe" supplies
many counter-examples to what you just said.
PZ: "So why *would* we take the existing QM models seriously?
The development of the quantum field concept was in part an attempt
to get over this ontological dualism"
AL: "The Tornado (wherein a widely distributed system of
correlated movements establishes a persistent
topological feature that serves as a location property
for the whole indivisible system), is a mundane
example clearly illustrating the alternative
metaphysical possibility. Upon examining the key
relativistic wave equations (HH, KG and Dirac), all of
which involve the characteristic velocity, one is
rapidly brought to the "small" hypothesis that energy
is a distributed, propagative phenomenon with a
characteristic velocity."
JS: Snooooooooooooooooooooooooore....
PZ: "Isn't that the classic field model?"
JS: No, it's Professor Irwin Corey's model
http://www.irwincorey.org/
He is a professor at Laputa University.
AL: "Small? It's hardly radical
to suggest that such a form of energy exists, since
the radiative form is routinely observed. If it seems
radical to deny the existence of other,
non-propagating forms,"
JS: Get this Fruit Cake off my bridge!
PZ: "Of course it is the "collapse" of the matter-wave that is non-propagating,
and not the matter-wave itself."
JS: "Collapse" of sanity yes.
AL: "then let it at least be
acknowledged that the present de facto affirmation of
such forms is equally metaphysical (if not more so)."
PZ: "I see that like all good generals you're still fighting the last epistemological
war."
JS: Huh? Good General? Not in this man's army. He's not even out of Boot Camp!
AL: "Given the relativistic wave equations, one might
anticipate that the Special Theory would emerge from
physical systems in which all movement is constrained
to the characteristic velocity (i.e. wave systems)."
JS: Ugggghhhh....
http://www.animationartgallery.com/DDC513.html
PZ: "Right. This is called the "Lorentzian model" of SR."
AL: "I've been fortunate enough to have published a paper
which develops the special theory from this
perspective, but without reference to any wave
equation, whilst reinterpreting it as much as is
required to allow for epr without violating local
realism, and no more. Which is to say that the
Special Theory is interpretable (without modification)
as a wave theory (please note that this is not a new
idea)."
JS: Reference?
PZ: "Noted above."
AL" 3 How is this relevant to gravity?
Those interested are encouraged to read the article
(quant-ph0110160) (which constrains the metaphysic
for, but does not actually touch upon, gravity)."
PZ: OK.
AL: "In essence, we must anticipate that whatever causes
the gravity effect is distributed throughout the
observable field rather than gathered together at a
singularity."
JS: This got into archive?
PZ: "In GR it is both.
In some of Einstein's later attempts at unified field theory, all
was supposed to be made of a neo-Cartesian physical vacuum.
Is that the kind of thing you have in mind here?"
AL: "Without going into further details here,
I am led to approach the gravity literature with three
main questions in mind, the first two of which seem at
least tangentially relevant to the present discussion
around PV, Yilmaz and Einstein.
Q1: Are there tenable refractive medium
interpretations (RMIs)?"
PZ" The modern GR physical vacuum *is* a refractive medium. That's
why light rays bend near gravitating masses.
So how can there be *any question* that metric distortions are associated
with refractive EM effects in standard GR?
The real question here -- as I see it -- is: Is this reducible to a purely
geometric model? Does such a model give us satisfactory answers to
all the questions we want to ask of it?"
JS: http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
At this point I am out of patience. This is wasting my time.
