Carlos, I see George Chapline cites you in the excerpts below. You should ask George to help you out with Paul Ginsparg at Cornell.
It's a small world since I knew George well in the mid-1960's.
I am also trying to digest your review paper with Pavsic. It will take awhile. You and Pavsic are definitely on an interesting track IMHO.
Ginsparg and the Coleman et-al establishment are probably unfamiliar with the math of Clifford Algebras in which you seem to get many of the standard results cited by e.g. Brian Greene & Co?
I see you have a rather complete description of the conformal group. Also it appears that your model does not contradict the Stecker data from gamma ray bursts since you do not seem to violate Lorentz invariance?
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
Thanks to Gary Bekkum BTW.
excerpts
hep-th/9802165 25 Feb 1998 1
A Unique Theory of Gravity and Matter
George Chapline
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, Ca 94550
chapline1@llnl. gov
Abstract
The author has previously suggested that the ground state for 4 -
dimensional quantum gravity can be represented as a condensation of nonlinear
gravitons connected by Dirac strings
…
1.Introduction
Although the discovery of superstring models led to great
expectations that a theory unifying general relativity and elementary
particle physics was in hand, it is by now clear that superstring models
can at best be only an approximation to some more fundamental theory.
One problem with superstring models is that they seem to require f o r
their formulation a classical background spacetime whose very existence
is inconsistent with a quantum theory of gravity. This suggests [1] that
direct attempts to quantize gravity might be more fruitful approach to a
fundamental theory than superstring models. However because it has been
generally felt that despite its shortcomings superstring theory i t s e l f
offers the best hope for establishing a finite quantum theory of gravity
little attention has been paid to this idea. On the other hand a f i n i t e
quantum model for the ground state of 4-dimensional quantum gravity
based on a condensate wavefunction for non-linear gravitons [2] provides
an attractive explanation for how a classical spacetime background could
emerge from the spacetime “foam” of quantum gravity. Furthermore
geometric quantization [3] of the self-dual and anti-self-dual non-linear
gravitons in this model induces degrees of freedom that resemble the
light-cone excitations of a relativistic membrane. In fact recently it has
been formally shown [4] that a truncation of the quantized self-dual
gravity theory of ref.3 can be reinterpreted as a quantum theory of s e l f -
dual membranes in the light-cone gauge. Athough the exact nature of the
degrees of freedom in a fundamental theory underlying superstring models
is still rather obscure, there are strong hints [5] that the fundamental
degrees of freedom are related in some way to those of a r e l a t i v i s t i c
membrane. Thus we are led to suspect that the condensate model of ref.2
can perhaps be regarded as not just a model for the ground state o f
quantum gravity but as a stepping stone to a fundamental theory
underlying superstring models.
…
In our picture of the excitations of the condensate vacuum it is the
topological invariance of the effective action (2) that leads to general
covariance with respect to coordinate transformations in four dimensions.
On the other hand according to Einstein’s theory of general r e l a t i v i t y
gravity is a reflection of the actual geometry of spacetime and not j u s t
its topology; therefore in order to explain ordinary gravity in four
dimensions we must spontaneously break the topological invariance of the
8-dimensional action (2). Presumably one signal for this spontaneous
breaking of topological invariance will be that the metric for 4 -
dimensional spacetime is non-vanishing; i.e. gmn ©ˆ 0, which as we have
previously noted can be interpreted as the order parameter for the
condensate vacuum. Whereas we gave a microscopic explanation for the
appearence of this order parameter in ref.2, in the context of our effective
action (1) the explanation for the appearence of this order parameter i s
equivalent to the ambitwister theory of gravity [20], where the f a m i l i a r
four dimensional spacetime of classical physics is interpreted as the
space of null geodesics formed by the intersections of the self-dual and
anti-self-dual null surfaces of non-linear gravitons.
3. Ordinary matter as topological ghosts ?
Even though the action principle introduced in eq. (1) was intended to
describe the low lying excitations of our condensate model for the ground
state for quantum gravity, we will now argue that it may also imply the
existence of matter-like and gauge field-like degrees of freedom. …
4. Gauge symmetries as crystallographic symmetries
As is well known to specialists in group theory there is a close
connection between the periodic arrangements of atoms in crystalline
solids and the root diagrams for certain Lie algebras [24]. For example the
root diagram for SU(4) can be identified with the unit cell for a face-centered
cubic lattice. In this section we will argue that far from being
just an isolated curiosity this connection actually underlies the
appearance of phenomenological gauge symmetries. Our explanation for the
appearance of characteristic gauge symmetries is actually closely
parallel to the putative mechanism for the appearance of quantum Yang-
Mills theories in F-theory. In particular quantum Yang-Mills theories arise
from the geometric arrangement of parallel 7-branes wrapped around
accumulations of vanishing 2-cycles [14]. Just why certain types o f
singularities should predominate has been a mystery; however our picture
of the condensate vacuum state together with an effective action of the
form (1) seems to provide a natural explanation for the appearance o f
certain non-abelian gauge symmetries. Indeed we can immediately see
that phenomenological gauge symmetries may be related to the closest
packing of spheres in four dimensions.
…
Indeed given the important role played by 4-dimensional
spaces in our description of the quantum gravity vacuum it would not be
surprising if the favored gauge group was simply a reflection of the
closest packing of spheres in 4-dimensions.
5. Conclusion
Perhaps the most remarkable immediate consequence of our
approach to understanding the origin of gravity and matter is that, i n
contrast with generic superstring models, we can provide a natural
explanation why a classical spacetime with three space and one time
dimension seems to play a very special role in physics. Indeed, the order
parameter for our condensate vacuum is just the classical metric for 4 -
dimensional spacetime! Classical K3 surfaces apparently do play an
important role in describing the structure of our ground state, but only
insofar as they are useful for describing the degrees of freedom in the
ground state, and not as in compactified superstring models as fibers of a
classical background spacetime. Thus although the action principle (1)
resembles an effective action introduced to describe certain low energy
interactions of superstrings compactified on a Calabi-Yau 3-fold, there i s
a fundamental difference between our point of view concerning the origin
of this action and the point of view of superstring theory. In particular
we regard (1) as an effective action for describing the collective
excitations of the vacuum state and not as a mechanical action. Our view
is that constructs such as quantum Yang-Mills theory are to be regarded as
reflections of the correlations in our condensate ground state.
On the other hand as we have noted several times there are
interesting similarities between our model for the vacuum state o f
quantum gravity, the theory of relativistic membranes, and F-theory. For
example, the special role played by thirteen dimensions in the formulation
of the action (1) suggests that this action must be related in some way t o
F-theory. It is interesting to note in this connection that for a fixed value
of stochastic time the statistical partition function for an ensemble o f
interacting K3 surfaces becomes a Polyakov-like path integral for a 4 -
manifold propagating in a higher dimensional spacetime. Thus low lying
excitations of our vacuum state do have an F-theory-like mechanical
interpretation. Moreover geometric quantization of self-dual Einstein
spaces yields membrane-like dynamics [3], which suggests that at least
the gravitational sector of our theory has some interpretation in terms o f
membranes. This later question is related to the algebraic structure
underlying quantization of our effective action, which is probably related
to the W¥ symmetry, and undoubtedly will prove to be interesting.
The F4 Ù F5 Ù F4 structure of our effective action is intriguingly
reminiscent of the construction of the Golay code from three 8 - b i t
Hamming codes [24] (or equivalently the Leech lattice from three E8 root
lattices [25]). It is also interesting to note in this connection that our
ansatz (4) for the 4-forms F4 , which involved extending an SO(3) gauge
connection in 3+1 dimensions to an SO(8) connection in 7+1 dimensions,
has an intimate connection with octonians, which of course provides a
connection with the E8 root lattice. The author has previously suggested
[26] that a theory unifying the various superstring theories would involve
the Leech lattice, and that the Monster sporadic group would be a
symmetry of this underlying theory. The main motivation for t h i s
conjecture was the observation that in the construction of the lowest
dimensional non-trivial representation of the Monster group spaces o f
dimension 12 x 212 play a crucial role, and these spaces can be interpreted
as combining the massless states of heterotic and Type II superstrings.
All of this suggests that quantization of our effective action may w e l l
reveal not only interesting algebraic structures, but also unsuspected
connections between the topology of 4-manifolds and algebra.
12
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Bernard Grossman and Carlos Castro
for valuable discussions.
References
1. G. Chapline, Mod. Phys. Lett. A5 (1990) 2165.
2. G. Chapline, “Quantum Model for Spacetime”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A7 ,
(1992)1959; “Anyons and Coherent States for Gravitons” in Proceedings
of t h e XXI International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods i n
Theoretical Physics , edited by C. N. Yang, M. L. Ge, and X. W. Zhou (World
Scientific, Singapore,1993).
3. K. Yamagishi and G. Chapline, Class. Quantum Grav. 8 (1991) 427.
4. C. Castro, Phys. Lett. B413 (1997) 53.
5. J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B360 (1995) 13; P. Horava and E. Witten,
Nucl. Phys. B460 (1996) 506.
6. E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, Y. Tanni, and P. K. Townsend, Ann. Phys.
1 9 9 (1990) 340.
7. E. G. Floratos and G. K. Leontaris, Phys. Lett. B223 (1989) 153.
8. C. Castro, Phys. Lett. B28 8 (1992) 291.
9. G. Chapline and K. Yamagishi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6 6 (1991) 3064.
10. C. Castro, J. Math. Phys. 3 4 (1993) 681.
11. C. Castro, Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals 7 (1996) 711.
12. E. G. Floratos et. al. , “On The Instanton Solutions Of The Self-Dual
Membrane In Various Dimensions”, hep-th/9711044.
13. C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996) 403.
14. S. Katz and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B497 (1997)196.
14. A. Kumar and C. Vafa, “U-Manifolds”, hep-th/9611007.
16. S. Ferrara, R. Minasian, and A. Signotti, Nucl. Phys. B474 (1996) 323.
17. E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 77B (1978) 394.
18. S. A. Merkulov, Comm. Math. Phys. 9 3 (1984) 325.
19. R. J. Baston and L. J. Mason, Class. Quantum Grav. 4 (1987) 815.
20. B. Grossman, T. W. Kephart, and J. Stasheff, Comm. Math. Phys. 9 6
(1984) 431; Phys. Lett. B220 (1989) 431.
21. A. Ashtekar, Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 1587.
22. L. Baulieu and I. Singer, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Sup. B15 (1988) 12.
23. G. Chapline and B. Grossman, Phys. Lett. B223 (1989) 336.
24. J. H. Conway and N.J.A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups
(Springer-Verlag 1988).
25. J. Lepowsky and A. Meurman, J. of Algebra 7 7 (1982) 484.
26. G. Chapline, Phys. Lett. B158 (1985).
13
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 03:50 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
He should post it anyway. If Ginsparg does remove it, then it is more evidence for your case. Why does Ginsparg have it in for you? I can understand why he might have it in for me, but not for you. Your stuff is relatively "mainstream" these days and most of the theory on the archive is quite speculative in the area of strings and quantum gravity. I will see you tomorrow in Santa Barbara ...
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 04:46 PM, carlos castro wrote:
Dear Colleagues :
I told Matej Pavsic not to try to post the review on the Extended Relativity in Clifford spaces in the archives because it will be REMOVED by Ginsparg.
ALL of my papers in 2003, whether I am a single author, or I wrote them with OTHER authors,
have been REMOVED by Ginsparg. This is the reason why I sent out the PDF files to some people.
I know this is a hassle because it is a lengthy file and occupies a lot of space. I apologize for that.
Best wishes
Carlos
_
Saturday, January 03, 2004
It looks like George beat me to the essential idea. Mine is simpler, but there is conceptual common ground.
We knew each other in 1966-7 in the UCSD group Greg Benford describes in "Timescape" that included Herbie Bernstein.
George came down from Cal Tech frequently in his black AC Shelby Cobra that I used to ride around in with him when I
was not in Harry Yesian's Red Corvette. This was the era of "American Grafitti".
Indeed it was because of George that I got the job at SDSU and
met Fred Wolf. The story is in my book "Destiny Matrix".
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 02:34 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Chapline on vacuum etc. from 1999:
The Vacuum Energy in a Condensate Model for Spacetime
Author: George Chapline
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9812129
Comments: Postscript, 10 pages
Journal-ref: Mod.Phys.Lett. A14 (1999) 2169-2178
It is shown that a simple model for 4-dimensional quantum gravity based on a
3-dimensional generalization of anyon superconductivity can be regarded as a
discrete form of Polyakov's string theory. This suggests that there is a
universal negative pressure that is on the order of the string tension
divided by the square of the Robertson-Walker scale factor. This is in
accord with recent observations of the brightness of distant supernovae,
which suggest that at the present time there is a vacuum energy whose
magnitude is close to the mass density of an Einstein-de Sitter universe.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9807175
The Black Hole Information Puzzle and Evidence for a Cosmological Constant
Author: George Chapline
Comments: postscipt, 7 pages
Recent hints from observations of distant supernovae of a positive
cosmological constant with magnitude comparable to the average density of
matter seem to point in the direction of
a two fluid model for spacetime;
where the "normal" component consists of ordinary matter, while the
"superfluid" component is a zero entropy condensate.
My idea is not quite the same. The "normal" component consists of "dark energy" and "dark matter" both from residual zero point energy exotic vacua. Ordinary matter is ultimately made from vortex cores of attractive dark matter of strong short range positive quantum pressure where the superfluid component drops to zero.
/\zpf ~ - 1/Lp*^2 when vacuum coherence vanishes inside the stringy vortex core topological defects of the U(1) vacuum coherence order parameter
Lp* ~ 1 fermi
Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G*/c^4 = (lepto-quark string tension )^-1
We knew each other in 1966-7 in the UCSD group Greg Benford describes in "Timescape" that included Herbie Bernstein.
George came down from Cal Tech frequently in his black AC Shelby Cobra that I used to ride around in with him when I
was not in Harry Yesian's Red Corvette. This was the era of "American Grafitti".
Indeed it was because of George that I got the job at SDSU and
met Fred Wolf. The story is in my book "Destiny Matrix".
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 02:34 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Chapline on vacuum etc. from 1999:
The Vacuum Energy in a Condensate Model for Spacetime
Author: George Chapline
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9812129
Comments: Postscript, 10 pages
Journal-ref: Mod.Phys.Lett. A14 (1999) 2169-2178
It is shown that a simple model for 4-dimensional quantum gravity based on a
3-dimensional generalization of anyon superconductivity can be regarded as a
discrete form of Polyakov's string theory. This suggests that there is a
universal negative pressure that is on the order of the string tension
divided by the square of the Robertson-Walker scale factor. This is in
accord with recent observations of the brightness of distant supernovae,
which suggest that at the present time there is a vacuum energy whose
magnitude is close to the mass density of an Einstein-de Sitter universe.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9807175
The Black Hole Information Puzzle and Evidence for a Cosmological Constant
Author: George Chapline
Comments: postscipt, 7 pages
Recent hints from observations of distant supernovae of a positive
cosmological constant with magnitude comparable to the average density of
matter seem to point in the direction of
a two fluid model for spacetime;
where the "normal" component consists of ordinary matter, while the
"superfluid" component is a zero entropy condensate.
My idea is not quite the same. The "normal" component consists of "dark energy" and "dark matter" both from residual zero point energy exotic vacua. Ordinary matter is ultimately made from vortex cores of attractive dark matter of strong short range positive quantum pressure where the superfluid component drops to zero.
/\zpf ~ - 1/Lp*^2 when vacuum coherence vanishes inside the stringy vortex core topological defects of the U(1) vacuum coherence order parameter
Lp* ~ 1 fermi
Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G*/c^4 = (lepto-quark string tension )^-1
The problem is Warwick is that you are clueless and arrogant.
Read Mrs Malaprop in Sheridan's play "The Rivals".
Do not misunderstand me. I am not denying your list
of alleged incidents below. They may or may not be so.
I already understand how they fly. Hal Puthoff does not.
Overheard at Caffe Trieste:
Alice: Do you know the difference between God and Jack Sarfatti?
Bob: No, what is it?
Alice: God does not think he is Jack Sarfatti. ;-)
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 08:20 PM, Christen Warwick wrote:
Sir,
Perhaps your work would be enhanced if you considered the
various exotic craft which are currently operational
in earth's atmosphere.
Someone I personally knew had a friend who worked on
such projects, and claimed that the B-2 has two propulsion
systems: a standard one and an antigravitic system.
You are obviously brilliant with physics, but I'd like
to see your very formidable mindpower (and that of Dr. Puthoff)
advancing what already exists, not working on the theory
of what is possible.
There are currently over 2,200 sightings on file of triangular
craft. I know of two very credible eyewitnesses who saw a HUGE
triangular craft silently hover over their heads in Nevada.
This object was the size of a football field. There are two main
possibilities: 1) the craft is alien, which is a major news story,
confirming that other intelligent life exists in the universe;
or 2) the craft is manufactured by an earthly government, which
means that somebody's ahead of you -- and already has working
anti-gravitic technology.
Not true. Whatever they may allegedly have it's not warp drive - unless they are alien ET.
Skeptical assertions that these sightings are merely
triangular-shaped military blimps are discounted by such
eyewitness reports as:
Occurred : 11/22/2003 09:20
Location: Florence, AL
Shape: Triangle
Duration: 3 or 4 seconds
A fast triangular-shape without any noise
which disapeared seconds after sighting.
Occurred: 10/30/2003
Location: Scappoose, OR
Shape: Triangle
Duration: 5 seconds (x2)
Both craft were fast moving, much faster
than a small prop plane low or a jet plane high,
but much slower than a meteor. No prop or jet sound
was heard.
Here are some interesting comments by Dr. Boylan,
IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE IMHO
who wrote the following:
My ex-NSA informant, "Z", also confirmed what black-projects
defense industry-insider Edgar Rothschild Fouche wrote about
in his recent book, ALIEN RAPTURE: the existence of... the
TR3-B, a large triangular antigravity craft within the U.S.
antigravity fleet.
This fleet also includes: the B-2 Stealth bomber, made by
Northrop, the Lockheed X-22A two-man antigravity disc, the
large space-faring Nautilus, manufactured by Boeing and
EU's Airbus Industries, Northrop's discoid craft,
(designation unknown, which I have dubbed the Christmas Tree
Ornament from its brilliant golden-orange glow), and the
XH-75D or XH Shark antigravity helicopter, made by Teledyne
Ryan Aeronautical Corporation of San Diego.
Here is what "Z" had to say about the TR3-B triangular
antigravity craft.
"TR3-B. This is the code name for what everyone on Earth has
seen. It is a very large triangular-shaped re-entry vehicle
with anti-gravity. It is what the November issue of Popular
Mechanics identified as the Lenticular Reentry Vehicle, a
nuclear-powered flying saucer, the first version of which
went operational in 1962..."
It was used in Gulf War's early hours with
electromagnetic-pulse/laser cannons. It literally sat
mid-air, firing long-, medium-, short-range to take out
antennas, towers, communications, air traffic control
towers, TV dishes and centers, etc. For three hours, these
three triangles [TR3-Bs] just sat there blowing up
everything in sight. Then the Stealth fighters had fun for
the rest of the day into the early evening next night.
Colonel Donald Ware, USAF (Ret.) told me that he recently
learned from a three-star General that the X-33 has
an electrogravitics (antigravity) system on board...
This antigravity electrogravitics system has already been
operationally proven on the B-2 Stealth bomber, which
Colonel Ware has revealed also has an electrogravitics system
on board. As for the "large base in the West" which your
Mach 50 airplane operates from, that leaves several
possibilities.
Boylan continued:
Recently I also heard from an Army engineer, formerly TDY'ed
to NASA, who confirmed that Lockheed had made the X-22A, the
two-man antigravity fighter disc, which I had seen
test-flown in a canyon adjacent to the main Area 51
operations zone. He explained why I had seen the X-22A so
nervously flown during that test flight. He said that the
original X-22A had a standard altimeter hard-wired into
it, but that such an instrument would give faulty readings
in the antigravity field which bends space-time. He had
recommended that they instead use a gradiometer, which would
function better. Apparently his suggestion was finally taken
up, since in more recent years I have seen the X-22As flying
more smoothly and confidently at high altitude over and near
Area 51.
It has been said that if the American people knew what the
military had in their arsenal today, they wouldn't believe
it, and would think someone was fantasizing about a Lucas
Star Wars movie episode.
The future _is_ here.
Dr. Boylan asked an NSA contact:
"You're saying that the Lockheed X-22A antigravity
fighter disc fleet, equipped with Neutral Particle Beam
directed-energy weapons, and capable of effecting optical as
well as radar invisibility, is deployed for worldwide
military operations from the new U.S. Space Warfare
Headquarters, located in hardened underground facilities
beneath 13,528' King's Peak in the High Uintas Primitive
(Wilderness) Area of the Wasatch Mountains, 80 miles east of
Salt Lake City?"
NSA: "Yeah, man!"
Read Mrs Malaprop in Sheridan's play "The Rivals".
Do not misunderstand me. I am not denying your list
of alleged incidents below. They may or may not be so.
I already understand how they fly. Hal Puthoff does not.
Overheard at Caffe Trieste:
Alice: Do you know the difference between God and Jack Sarfatti?
Bob: No, what is it?
Alice: God does not think he is Jack Sarfatti. ;-)
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 08:20 PM, Christen Warwick wrote:
Sir,
Perhaps your work would be enhanced if you considered the
various exotic craft which are currently operational
in earth's atmosphere.
Someone I personally knew had a friend who worked on
such projects, and claimed that the B-2 has two propulsion
systems: a standard one and an antigravitic system.
You are obviously brilliant with physics, but I'd like
to see your very formidable mindpower (and that of Dr. Puthoff)
advancing what already exists, not working on the theory
of what is possible.
There are currently over 2,200 sightings on file of triangular
craft. I know of two very credible eyewitnesses who saw a HUGE
triangular craft silently hover over their heads in Nevada.
This object was the size of a football field. There are two main
possibilities: 1) the craft is alien, which is a major news story,
confirming that other intelligent life exists in the universe;
or 2) the craft is manufactured by an earthly government, which
means that somebody's ahead of you -- and already has working
anti-gravitic technology.
Not true. Whatever they may allegedly have it's not warp drive - unless they are alien ET.
Skeptical assertions that these sightings are merely
triangular-shaped military blimps are discounted by such
eyewitness reports as:
Occurred : 11/22/2003 09:20
Location: Florence, AL
Shape: Triangle
Duration: 3 or 4 seconds
A fast triangular-shape without any noise
which disapeared seconds after sighting.
Occurred: 10/30/2003
Location: Scappoose, OR
Shape: Triangle
Duration: 5 seconds (x2)
Both craft were fast moving, much faster
than a small prop plane low or a jet plane high,
but much slower than a meteor. No prop or jet sound
was heard.
Here are some interesting comments by Dr. Boylan,
IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE IMHO
who wrote the following:
My ex-NSA informant, "Z", also confirmed what black-projects
defense industry-insider Edgar Rothschild Fouche wrote about
in his recent book, ALIEN RAPTURE: the existence of... the
TR3-B, a large triangular antigravity craft within the U.S.
antigravity fleet.
This fleet also includes: the B-2 Stealth bomber, made by
Northrop, the Lockheed X-22A two-man antigravity disc, the
large space-faring Nautilus, manufactured by Boeing and
EU's Airbus Industries, Northrop's discoid craft,
(designation unknown, which I have dubbed the Christmas Tree
Ornament from its brilliant golden-orange glow), and the
XH-75D or XH Shark antigravity helicopter, made by Teledyne
Ryan Aeronautical Corporation of San Diego.
Here is what "Z" had to say about the TR3-B triangular
antigravity craft.
"TR3-B. This is the code name for what everyone on Earth has
seen. It is a very large triangular-shaped re-entry vehicle
with anti-gravity. It is what the November issue of Popular
Mechanics identified as the Lenticular Reentry Vehicle, a
nuclear-powered flying saucer, the first version of which
went operational in 1962..."
It was used in Gulf War's early hours with
electromagnetic-pulse/laser cannons. It literally sat
mid-air, firing long-, medium-, short-range to take out
antennas, towers, communications, air traffic control
towers, TV dishes and centers, etc. For three hours, these
three triangles [TR3-Bs] just sat there blowing up
everything in sight. Then the Stealth fighters had fun for
the rest of the day into the early evening next night.
Colonel Donald Ware, USAF (Ret.) told me that he recently
learned from a three-star General that the X-33 has
an electrogravitics (antigravity) system on board...
This antigravity electrogravitics system has already been
operationally proven on the B-2 Stealth bomber, which
Colonel Ware has revealed also has an electrogravitics system
on board. As for the "large base in the West" which your
Mach 50 airplane operates from, that leaves several
possibilities.
Boylan continued:
Recently I also heard from an Army engineer, formerly TDY'ed
to NASA, who confirmed that Lockheed had made the X-22A, the
two-man antigravity fighter disc, which I had seen
test-flown in a canyon adjacent to the main Area 51
operations zone. He explained why I had seen the X-22A so
nervously flown during that test flight. He said that the
original X-22A had a standard altimeter hard-wired into
it, but that such an instrument would give faulty readings
in the antigravity field which bends space-time. He had
recommended that they instead use a gradiometer, which would
function better. Apparently his suggestion was finally taken
up, since in more recent years I have seen the X-22As flying
more smoothly and confidently at high altitude over and near
Area 51.
It has been said that if the American people knew what the
military had in their arsenal today, they wouldn't believe
it, and would think someone was fantasizing about a Lucas
Star Wars movie episode.
The future _is_ here.
Dr. Boylan asked an NSA contact:
"You're saying that the Lockheed X-22A antigravity
fighter disc fleet, equipped with Neutral Particle Beam
directed-energy weapons, and capable of effecting optical as
well as radar invisibility, is deployed for worldwide
military operations from the new U.S. Space Warfare
Headquarters, located in hardened underground facilities
beneath 13,528' King's Peak in the High Uintas Primitive
(Wilderness) Area of the Wasatch Mountains, 80 miles east of
Salt Lake City?"
NSA: "Yeah, man!"
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
JS: Yes and he is correct.
PZ: Einstein's stated position was that gravitation and frame acceleration are
"completely physically equivalent".
How can you now say this is correct? Even Wheeler doesn't believe this.
JS: Show me quote from Wheeler that leads you to say that.
I gave you complete argument based on geodesic deviation equation and the complementarity
of g-force vs tidal measurements! That's it.
You need, in addition, curved geometry to make LOCAL EEP consistent GLOBALLY
this is the point of Hawking's example where two oppositely accelerating observers are at
fixed spatial separation. This is not possible in flat Minkowski space-time only in non-Euclidean
curved space-time. This is why Yilmaz and PV are complete nonsense IMHO.
PZ: For some reason it seems you just can't bring yourself to admit that Einstein
could be wrong about this fundamental issue, regardless of all the obvious
objections.
JS: Einstein is not wrong. He is wonderfully consistent. The idea here is subtle.
PZ: Is Einstein infallible?
JS: On this, yes.
Overheard at Caffe Trieste:
Alice: Do you know the difference between God and Jack Sarfatti?
Bob: No, what is it?
Alice: God does not think he is Jack Sarfatti. ;-)
JS: Yes and he is correct.
PZ: Einstein's stated position was that gravitation and frame acceleration are
"completely physically equivalent".
How can you now say this is correct? Even Wheeler doesn't believe this.
JS: Show me quote from Wheeler that leads you to say that.
I gave you complete argument based on geodesic deviation equation and the complementarity
of g-force vs tidal measurements! That's it.
You need, in addition, curved geometry to make LOCAL EEP consistent GLOBALLY
this is the point of Hawking's example where two oppositely accelerating observers are at
fixed spatial separation. This is not possible in flat Minkowski space-time only in non-Euclidean
curved space-time. This is why Yilmaz and PV are complete nonsense IMHO.
PZ: For some reason it seems you just can't bring yourself to admit that Einstein
could be wrong about this fundamental issue, regardless of all the obvious
objections.
JS: Einstein is not wrong. He is wonderfully consistent. The idea here is subtle.
PZ: Is Einstein infallible?
JS: On this, yes.
Overheard at Caffe Trieste:
Alice: Do you know the difference between God and Jack Sarfatti?
Bob: No, what is it?
Alice: God does not think he is Jack Sarfatti. ;-)
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 11:23 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:
Dear Jack,
If I may insert a comment here ... Fotini Pallikari and I discovered the same possibility independently at the same time and published the idea in Foundations of Physics, though admittedly V. developed the ideas, which were the main content of his thesis, much further. Incidentally, V. was a Cambridge graduate who apparently attended my superconductivity course, before going off to Trieste to do a Ph.D. under Dennis Sciama, a past Fellow of Trinity. Anyway, your 'cutting edge ideas' are nice and to the point.
Brian
Thanks Brian. Can you give me relevant quotes I can include from your work. All of this is preparatory for a book I am working on "Super Cosmos". I will send you rough draft when done and if you would like to contribute to it later on that would be good. We can discuss this further in March in London. I would also like Basil Hiley to contribute. I am not looking for agreement but for intelligent constructive "creative tension" (Ray Chiao) of alternative approaches.
BTW, in the 2003 quantum-mind conference, which I think you may have been at also,
No I was not there.
I developed the idea that strings play the role of data structures, their raison d'etre maybe.
Yes, this is an exciting idea that dawned on me only recently from reading Lee Smolin I think?
I guess I ought to write this up some time (or put it on the preprint server :-) ).
Definitely. Did you think of the duality between spin networks and strings? I mean a node on a spin network is a volume and an edge on a spin network is an area. Therefore, quantized links on the stringy edge lead naturally to quantized areas. Is this well known I wonder? Did I simply see the obvious that everyone takes for granted? I also was thinking of reciprocal lattices in solid state physics because of Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal" elastic model of General Relativity.
It interfaces nicely with my present ideas on the brain which I'm hoping to present at ICCS 2004 in May if there is still such a thing as transatlantic air travel by that date (see www.necsi.org for details of the conference).
...
--On Saturday, January 3, 2004 9:29 am -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yet, the Bohmian analysis of Antony Valentini suggests otherwise.
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson ::::::::
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
PS I am meeting with Carlos Castro tomorrow in Santa Barbara.
Dear Jack,
If I may insert a comment here ... Fotini Pallikari and I discovered the same possibility independently at the same time and published the idea in Foundations of Physics, though admittedly V. developed the ideas, which were the main content of his thesis, much further. Incidentally, V. was a Cambridge graduate who apparently attended my superconductivity course, before going off to Trieste to do a Ph.D. under Dennis Sciama, a past Fellow of Trinity. Anyway, your 'cutting edge ideas' are nice and to the point.
Brian
Thanks Brian. Can you give me relevant quotes I can include from your work. All of this is preparatory for a book I am working on "Super Cosmos". I will send you rough draft when done and if you would like to contribute to it later on that would be good. We can discuss this further in March in London. I would also like Basil Hiley to contribute. I am not looking for agreement but for intelligent constructive "creative tension" (Ray Chiao) of alternative approaches.
BTW, in the 2003 quantum-mind conference, which I think you may have been at also,
No I was not there.
I developed the idea that strings play the role of data structures, their raison d'etre maybe.
Yes, this is an exciting idea that dawned on me only recently from reading Lee Smolin I think?
I guess I ought to write this up some time (or put it on the preprint server :-) ).
Definitely. Did you think of the duality between spin networks and strings? I mean a node on a spin network is a volume and an edge on a spin network is an area. Therefore, quantized links on the stringy edge lead naturally to quantized areas. Is this well known I wonder? Did I simply see the obvious that everyone takes for granted? I also was thinking of reciprocal lattices in solid state physics because of Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal" elastic model of General Relativity.
It interfaces nicely with my present ideas on the brain which I'm hoping to present at ICCS 2004 in May if there is still such a thing as transatlantic air travel by that date (see www.necsi.org for details of the conference).
...
--On Saturday, January 3, 2004 9:29 am -0800 Jack Sarfatti
Yet, the Bohmian analysis of Antony Valentini suggests otherwise.
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson ::::::::
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
PS I am meeting with Carlos Castro tomorrow in Santa Barbara.
Thanks :-)
The professional Skeptics are quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions when it fits their preconceived agenda.
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 09:29 PM, newsome ...wrote:
You wrote:
Great. I have gotten into a minor row with Robert Sheaffer columnist at
Skeptical Inquirer over Walter Breen and MENSA.
I remember you telling me years ago that Breen was involved in creating
MENSA in Manhattan in the 50's. Please correct me if I misremember in a
statement from you I can make public.
"This is a bit obscure and complicated. Breen was out of town on the
West Coast when the first chapter meetings were held. He didn't hold
any official post in the chapter. But I nonetheless believe that he
was an important behind the scenes figure. Early in the history of
American MENSA a split developed in the organization and Walter Breen
was one of the people on the losing side who left. The organization
subsequently evolved away from the tendencies Breen represented, and
developed a certain degree of organizational amnesia about its own
early history.
I've never seen any official history of MENSA that even mentions
him. There's no question that he was there, at a time when the
organization was still very small. I've been told the editor of
the first newsletter they put out was his young protege Leslie
Gerber. If you are able to contact Gerber (he is the guy who lives
up in Woodstock who does classical record reviews on National
Public Radio) he might be able to confirm this.
I've also been told that Breen was the first American to be
accepted as a member of MENSA -- candidates had to be approved
by the International headquarters in London, through the mail
since there was no functioning US organization at the time
(circa 1958?). This may be a bit of an Urban Legend, or the
tale may have grown in the telling. Presumably MENSA HQ
in London could check their records. John Bear told me this."
Yes, I think I remember that directly.
"Breen was the link between the New York chapter -- at the time
the only functioning chapter in the country -- and the embryonic
high-IQ group in the San Francisco Bay Area that eventually
evolved into the first West Coast chapter of MENSA. These people
ran a newspaper ad in 1960 (IIRC) and Breen was one of the first
people to respond. He had a young protege in this group, Kevin
Langdon, who later created a breakaway high-IQ group that split
from MENSA -- the Four Sigma Society. This was the same group
that caused an embarrassing flap in the high-IQ club community
by running a mail-in high-IQ test in OMNI magazine in the late 1970s
and then failing to grade the thousands of tests that were mailed
in. A couple more new high-IQ groups hived off from Four-Sigma
eventually. Langdon is still around in the SF Bay Area; he's involved
with Sufism these days.
The early meetings of Mensa in the US were held at the apartment
of Peter Sturgeon here in Brooklyn. Ted White, who was not a member,
describes being taken to gatherings at Sturgeon's apartment by
Breen and Gerber. This was probably about a year or two after the
first meeting. Sturgeon was the brother of science fiction writer
Ted Sturgeon, one of a number of early Mensans who, like Breen
himself, had some tie to the science fiction community. I recall
looking at an early Mensa membership roster and recognizing about
10 names (out of 100 or so on the list) as science fiction people,
including Marian Zimmer Bradley. The US organization was quite
small in the early days. Without looking it up I believe about
7 people attended the first meeting. I've been told (I don't
know how to verify this) that Breen was on the contact list for
the first meeting and the only reason he didn't make it is
that he was in Berkeley and didn't make it back to NYC until months
later.
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Peter Sturgeon and
the other leaders in the early group regarded Breen as a gadfly.
His influence would have been outside the inner circle, as the
center of his own cliquish network of people like Gerber and
Langdon, and others whose names I don't know. Eventually both
Sturgeon and his friends and Breen and his friends were driven
out of Mensa by a big wave of new arrivals as the US organization
expanded dramatically around 1964 or so, and the Old Guard was pushed
out. Few of the old timers stuck around to write the history of
their era in Mensa, so not much is known about the first couple
of years.
All this is just off the top of my head. Gerber would probably
be the best source.
Here's some stuff from a Mensa web page, below.
___________________________________
American Mensa, Ltd.
By 1959, Mensa had crossed the Atlantic. Peter Sturgeon, a
New York resident, became a member of Mensa in 1960, and in August of
that year, got a list of 22 American members and become "Provisional
Secretary." The first meeting of what would become American Mensa,
Limited was held in September 1960, in Sturgeon's Brooklyn apartment,
with five members present.
The American members moved forward, publishing local newsletters,
establishing approved testing in sites throughout the US and Canada,
and developing an organizational infrastructure. In November 1964,
the first bylaws were adopted, and in 1965, the first elected North
American Mensa Committee took office. 1967 saw the establishment of
Canadian Mensa, and in 1971, American Mensa, ltd. was registered as a
corporate entity under the laws of the State of New York.
It was in NOvember 1961, following a publicity campaign arranged by
John Codella (who later became the first elected Chairman of the
American Mensa Committee), that Margot Seitelman was hired to deal
with the flood of responses from interested would-be members. She
held the post of Executive Secretary until her death in 1989. She was
lovingly referred to as the Mother of American Mensa. Elected
officers came and went, but Margot Seitelman was always there, a
living archive of fact and legend, the one who knew what was needed
and knew how to make it happen. Although never a member, Margot
represented Mensa to many over the years.
___________________________________
Also did you know something about Breen's alleged connection either
with Ayn Rand or people close to her.
I first heard about this from you and I've never been able to
come up with anything. If I recall correctly, you remembered
seeing a man in a wheelchair at Breen's apartment who was a
Randian. I've never been able to figure out who this might be,
and I'm still curious."
I am too since the guy reminds me of "Einhorn" in Saul Bellow's
"Adventures of Augie March". I only made that connection recently.
Do you know anything of Breen's connection with people at the
University of Chicago. He really wanted me to go there and not
to Cornell. Breen gave me "The Fountainhead" to read when I
was about 15 or 16. The balding guy in the wheelchair I am pretty sure
knew Ayn Rand well.
I am in touch with Breen's daughter Moira Stern. Her brother has all of
Breen's papers that have survived.
I have heard before that her brother has Walter Breen's papers. A small
cache of them relating to numismatic matters went to the American
Numismatic Society, and I read them there.
I've never been in contact with Moira Stern but I'd be interested in
being in touch with her if she'd be willing.
My book "Destiny Matrix" (2002) has my memories of Breen.
I am interested in whatever you have written about him.
I haven't published anything yet, but I continue to accumulate
material. Certain areas are still not in focus after all these
years -- the circumstances of his birth and adoption, for example.
Or was he adopted? I've seen a record stating he wasn't, but
perhaps it was a forgery he used to join the Air Force. Or
perhaps there were two Walter Breens -- maybe the first one died
in infancy and they adopted another boy to replace him and gave him
the same name. Or maybe the whole thing was just a twin
study, and WB was placed in a foster home to see how he would
grow up separated from his birth family, thus explaining the
hoky-poky with his birth and adoption records. I found the
woman I believe to be Breen's mother, in the records of the 1930
census, but she was in an institution and there was no baby with her.
It's tempting to diagnose Walter Breen's periodic bouts of mental
instability as a hereditary genetic disorder acquired from his
mother, who was in and out of mental institutions -- except that
if he was actually adopted as he said then he wouldn't have
had her genes -- unless, like at least one Hollywood actress of
that period, she was concealing the fact that he was illegitimate
by pretending he was adopted. If I had the money to pursue this
I'd go down to Texas and dig into the records there. I believe Moira
Stern had some genealogical research done some years ago so she
may know a good deal more than I do; or else know with a good deal
more certainty than I do that nothing is known.
Richard Newsome
The professional Skeptics are quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions when it fits their preconceived agenda.
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 09:29 PM, newsome ...wrote:
You wrote:
Great. I have gotten into a minor row with Robert Sheaffer columnist at
Skeptical Inquirer over Walter Breen and MENSA.
I remember you telling me years ago that Breen was involved in creating
MENSA in Manhattan in the 50's. Please correct me if I misremember in a
statement from you I can make public.
"This is a bit obscure and complicated. Breen was out of town on the
West Coast when the first chapter meetings were held. He didn't hold
any official post in the chapter. But I nonetheless believe that he
was an important behind the scenes figure. Early in the history of
American MENSA a split developed in the organization and Walter Breen
was one of the people on the losing side who left. The organization
subsequently evolved away from the tendencies Breen represented, and
developed a certain degree of organizational amnesia about its own
early history.
I've never seen any official history of MENSA that even mentions
him. There's no question that he was there, at a time when the
organization was still very small. I've been told the editor of
the first newsletter they put out was his young protege Leslie
Gerber. If you are able to contact Gerber (he is the guy who lives
up in Woodstock who does classical record reviews on National
Public Radio) he might be able to confirm this.
I've also been told that Breen was the first American to be
accepted as a member of MENSA -- candidates had to be approved
by the International headquarters in London, through the mail
since there was no functioning US organization at the time
(circa 1958?). This may be a bit of an Urban Legend, or the
tale may have grown in the telling. Presumably MENSA HQ
in London could check their records. John Bear told me this."
Yes, I think I remember that directly.
"Breen was the link between the New York chapter -- at the time
the only functioning chapter in the country -- and the embryonic
high-IQ group in the San Francisco Bay Area that eventually
evolved into the first West Coast chapter of MENSA. These people
ran a newspaper ad in 1960 (IIRC) and Breen was one of the first
people to respond. He had a young protege in this group, Kevin
Langdon, who later created a breakaway high-IQ group that split
from MENSA -- the Four Sigma Society. This was the same group
that caused an embarrassing flap in the high-IQ club community
by running a mail-in high-IQ test in OMNI magazine in the late 1970s
and then failing to grade the thousands of tests that were mailed
in. A couple more new high-IQ groups hived off from Four-Sigma
eventually. Langdon is still around in the SF Bay Area; he's involved
with Sufism these days.
The early meetings of Mensa in the US were held at the apartment
of Peter Sturgeon here in Brooklyn. Ted White, who was not a member,
describes being taken to gatherings at Sturgeon's apartment by
Breen and Gerber. This was probably about a year or two after the
first meeting. Sturgeon was the brother of science fiction writer
Ted Sturgeon, one of a number of early Mensans who, like Breen
himself, had some tie to the science fiction community. I recall
looking at an early Mensa membership roster and recognizing about
10 names (out of 100 or so on the list) as science fiction people,
including Marian Zimmer Bradley. The US organization was quite
small in the early days. Without looking it up I believe about
7 people attended the first meeting. I've been told (I don't
know how to verify this) that Breen was on the contact list for
the first meeting and the only reason he didn't make it is
that he was in Berkeley and didn't make it back to NYC until months
later.
My guess, and it is just a guess, is that Peter Sturgeon and
the other leaders in the early group regarded Breen as a gadfly.
His influence would have been outside the inner circle, as the
center of his own cliquish network of people like Gerber and
Langdon, and others whose names I don't know. Eventually both
Sturgeon and his friends and Breen and his friends were driven
out of Mensa by a big wave of new arrivals as the US organization
expanded dramatically around 1964 or so, and the Old Guard was pushed
out. Few of the old timers stuck around to write the history of
their era in Mensa, so not much is known about the first couple
of years.
All this is just off the top of my head. Gerber would probably
be the best source.
Here's some stuff from a Mensa web page, below.
___________________________________
American Mensa, Ltd.
By 1959, Mensa had crossed the Atlantic. Peter Sturgeon, a
New York resident, became a member of Mensa in 1960, and in August of
that year, got a list of 22 American members and become "Provisional
Secretary." The first meeting of what would become American Mensa,
Limited was held in September 1960, in Sturgeon's Brooklyn apartment,
with five members present.
The American members moved forward, publishing local newsletters,
establishing approved testing in sites throughout the US and Canada,
and developing an organizational infrastructure. In November 1964,
the first bylaws were adopted, and in 1965, the first elected North
American Mensa Committee took office. 1967 saw the establishment of
Canadian Mensa, and in 1971, American Mensa, ltd. was registered as a
corporate entity under the laws of the State of New York.
It was in NOvember 1961, following a publicity campaign arranged by
John Codella (who later became the first elected Chairman of the
American Mensa Committee), that Margot Seitelman was hired to deal
with the flood of responses from interested would-be members. She
held the post of Executive Secretary until her death in 1989. She was
lovingly referred to as the Mother of American Mensa. Elected
officers came and went, but Margot Seitelman was always there, a
living archive of fact and legend, the one who knew what was needed
and knew how to make it happen. Although never a member, Margot
represented Mensa to many over the years.
___________________________________
Also did you know something about Breen's alleged connection either
with Ayn Rand or people close to her.
I first heard about this from you and I've never been able to
come up with anything. If I recall correctly, you remembered
seeing a man in a wheelchair at Breen's apartment who was a
Randian. I've never been able to figure out who this might be,
and I'm still curious."
I am too since the guy reminds me of "Einhorn" in Saul Bellow's
"Adventures of Augie March". I only made that connection recently.
Do you know anything of Breen's connection with people at the
University of Chicago. He really wanted me to go there and not
to Cornell. Breen gave me "The Fountainhead" to read when I
was about 15 or 16. The balding guy in the wheelchair I am pretty sure
knew Ayn Rand well.
I am in touch with Breen's daughter Moira Stern. Her brother has all of
Breen's papers that have survived.
I have heard before that her brother has Walter Breen's papers. A small
cache of them relating to numismatic matters went to the American
Numismatic Society, and I read them there.
I've never been in contact with Moira Stern but I'd be interested in
being in touch with her if she'd be willing.
My book "Destiny Matrix" (2002) has my memories of Breen.
I am interested in whatever you have written about him.
I haven't published anything yet, but I continue to accumulate
material. Certain areas are still not in focus after all these
years -- the circumstances of his birth and adoption, for example.
Or was he adopted? I've seen a record stating he wasn't, but
perhaps it was a forgery he used to join the Air Force. Or
perhaps there were two Walter Breens -- maybe the first one died
in infancy and they adopted another boy to replace him and gave him
the same name. Or maybe the whole thing was just a twin
study, and WB was placed in a foster home to see how he would
grow up separated from his birth family, thus explaining the
hoky-poky with his birth and adoption records. I found the
woman I believe to be Breen's mother, in the records of the 1930
census, but she was in an institution and there was no baby with her.
It's tempting to diagnose Walter Breen's periodic bouts of mental
instability as a hereditary genetic disorder acquired from his
mother, who was in and out of mental institutions -- except that
if he was actually adopted as he said then he wouldn't have
had her genes -- unless, like at least one Hollywood actress of
that period, she was concealing the fact that he was illegitimate
by pretending he was adopted. If I had the money to pursue this
I'd go down to Texas and dig into the records there. I believe Moira
Stern had some genealogical research done some years ago so she
may know a good deal more than I do; or else know with a good deal
more certainty than I do that nothing is known.
Richard Newsome
Cutting Edge New Physics Ideas
1. “Dark energy” is almost 2/3 of the Universe and is a repelling anti-gravity field.
2. “Dark matter is almost 1/3 of the Universe and is an attractive gravity field that is not made of the elementary particles the stars and us are made of.
3. Ordinary matter and light is only a very tiny part of the Universe.
4. Put a chunk of dark energy near a chunk of dark matter and you basically have a weightless warp drive. This means you feel weightless and the Universe passes by you seemingly faster than the speed of light. You can time travel to your past and to your future and beyond under certain conditions.
5. Einstein’s theory of special relativity from 1905 is the unification of space with time into a rigid “space-time” and the unification of matter and energy.
6. Einstein’s general theory of relativity shows that space-time is not rigid but is warped not only by energy but also even by itself in a self-organizing way.
7. Quantum theory is about the informational relationship between the observer and the observed. Some important physicists like John Von Neumann, Eugene Wigner and Roger Penrose thought that our inner consciousness plays a key role in quantum physics. Other important physicists violently disagree. It depends what you mean by “quantum theory”. There are many different ways of interpreting it and its boundary of validity is not yet understood especially in the strong gravity field of a black hole. A key issue is "signal nonlocality", i.e. the use of entanglement as a direct communication channel without an auxiliary light speed limited classical channel as in quantum teleportation and cryptography where Eve cannot tap the channel between Alice and Bob without them knowing it. These applications require irreducible quantum randomness that is thought to forbid "signal nonlocality", i.e. to enforce "signal locality" or "passion at a distance" (Abner Shimony). On the other hand see http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf The analysis of Lenny Susskind, for example, of information loss behind the event horizon of a black hole, depends on "signal locality" as does the non-Boolean "topos""quantum logic" of cosmology mentioned by Lee Smolin. Yet, the Bohmian analysis of Antony Valentini suggests otherwise. The idea here is that orthodox nonlocal micro-quantum theory with irreducible randomness and consequent signal locality is only the sub-quantal thermal equilibrium limit of a more general non-equilibrium local MACRO-QUANTUM theory for cosmology and the emergence of "classical curved space-time" with signal nonlocality.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
8. The cutting edge of physics today in 2004 is “quantum gravity” which has two main schools of thought, string theory and loop theory. The two theories may simply be dual dimensional images of each other. The basic object of loop theory is a two-dimensional undivided quantum of “area” and the basic object of string theory is a one-dimensional undivided quantum of “length”, which together make a three-dimensional “space”. Loop theory describes three-dimensional “space” as zero-dimensional “point” on a kind of quantum computing “spin network”. When you add a kind of proto “time” to it you get a “spin foam”. Two-dimensional area is described by a 1-dimensional stringy “edge” on the spin network. The duality is intuitively obvious. The 1-dimensional physical string is really like a linked chain with each link as a “bit” of information not unlike the purely mathematical “strings” of computer theory. No matter that the string is embedded in a higher dimensional “hyperspace” since all but three of those extra “spacelike” dimensions are curled up into tiny circles with radii called “moduli” forming what the mathematicians like to call a “Calabi-Yau space”. Brian Greene calls this an “Elegant Universe” in which the spin foam is “weaved” into the fabric of reality. God is seen by Brian as a kind of tailor or fashion designer reminding me of the Vatican scene in Fellini’s “Roma”.
9. Both the string and the loop theorists think that the quanta of length and area respectively are always very tiny. They may be mistaken in this belief. Then again, I may be mistaken.
1. “Dark energy” is almost 2/3 of the Universe and is a repelling anti-gravity field.
2. “Dark matter is almost 1/3 of the Universe and is an attractive gravity field that is not made of the elementary particles the stars and us are made of.
3. Ordinary matter and light is only a very tiny part of the Universe.
4. Put a chunk of dark energy near a chunk of dark matter and you basically have a weightless warp drive. This means you feel weightless and the Universe passes by you seemingly faster than the speed of light. You can time travel to your past and to your future and beyond under certain conditions.
5. Einstein’s theory of special relativity from 1905 is the unification of space with time into a rigid “space-time” and the unification of matter and energy.
6. Einstein’s general theory of relativity shows that space-time is not rigid but is warped not only by energy but also even by itself in a self-organizing way.
7. Quantum theory is about the informational relationship between the observer and the observed. Some important physicists like John Von Neumann, Eugene Wigner and Roger Penrose thought that our inner consciousness plays a key role in quantum physics. Other important physicists violently disagree. It depends what you mean by “quantum theory”. There are many different ways of interpreting it and its boundary of validity is not yet understood especially in the strong gravity field of a black hole. A key issue is "signal nonlocality", i.e. the use of entanglement as a direct communication channel without an auxiliary light speed limited classical channel as in quantum teleportation and cryptography where Eve cannot tap the channel between Alice and Bob without them knowing it. These applications require irreducible quantum randomness that is thought to forbid "signal nonlocality", i.e. to enforce "signal locality" or "passion at a distance" (Abner Shimony). On the other hand see http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf The analysis of Lenny Susskind, for example, of information loss behind the event horizon of a black hole, depends on "signal locality" as does the non-Boolean "topos""quantum logic" of cosmology mentioned by Lee Smolin. Yet, the Bohmian analysis of Antony Valentini suggests otherwise. The idea here is that orthodox nonlocal micro-quantum theory with irreducible randomness and consequent signal locality is only the sub-quantal thermal equilibrium limit of a more general non-equilibrium local MACRO-QUANTUM theory for cosmology and the emergence of "classical curved space-time" with signal nonlocality.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
8. The cutting edge of physics today in 2004 is “quantum gravity” which has two main schools of thought, string theory and loop theory. The two theories may simply be dual dimensional images of each other. The basic object of loop theory is a two-dimensional undivided quantum of “area” and the basic object of string theory is a one-dimensional undivided quantum of “length”, which together make a three-dimensional “space”. Loop theory describes three-dimensional “space” as zero-dimensional “point” on a kind of quantum computing “spin network”. When you add a kind of proto “time” to it you get a “spin foam”. Two-dimensional area is described by a 1-dimensional stringy “edge” on the spin network. The duality is intuitively obvious. The 1-dimensional physical string is really like a linked chain with each link as a “bit” of information not unlike the purely mathematical “strings” of computer theory. No matter that the string is embedded in a higher dimensional “hyperspace” since all but three of those extra “spacelike” dimensions are curled up into tiny circles with radii called “moduli” forming what the mathematicians like to call a “Calabi-Yau space”. Brian Greene calls this an “Elegant Universe” in which the spin foam is “weaved” into the fabric of reality. God is seen by Brian as a kind of tailor or fashion designer reminding me of the Vatican scene in Fellini’s “Roma”.
9. Both the string and the loop theorists think that the quanta of length and area respectively are always very tiny. They may be mistaken in this belief. Then again, I may be mistaken.
Friday, January 02, 2004
On Friday, January 2, 2004, at 03:44 PM, Bill Hamilton wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "Bill Hamilton" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: UFO musings....
Am I an abductee or only a contactee ,or neither? The objective
evidence is in both my
books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II". Free review
copies are available
from the publisher PR Dept at http://www.1stbooks.com
BH: The description of your experience on the phone likely places you
as in the contactee category.
JS: At least that. You should read my "Destiny Matrix" carefully especially the footnote for first-hand clues real evidence much of it
corroborates by witnesses who were also there for some of the uncanny events that need to be seen over a 50 year timeline.
Knee-jerk Skeptics with very fragmented short-range minds live in terror of the possible reality of these things. This is quite understandable.
Sometimes even I tremble. ;-)
The real issues for me are
1. The physics culminating in the totally unanticipated astonishing
discovery of anti-gravity "dark energy" in 1999
as the major component of the entire universe - barring a possible fly
in the ointment from the EINSTEIN NASA probe.
But I do not think a minority interpretation of that recent data will
hold up.
BH: Dark matter and dark energy both are in question, but then these
questions have seldom been answered quickly.
JS: In fact the evidence is very strongly in favor of their reality.
If you look at
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
you will see why. The point is that there is converging evidence from not one
but more than three independent experimental methods all giving the same
answer!
The objections raised so far will not survive IMHO.
Also from your POV if there ain't dark energy there ain't any real UFOs.
It's that simple.
2. The set of uncanny coincidences in my world line shown in "Destiny
Matrix" along with corroboration by first hand witnesses
who wrote parts of the book especially Saul-Paul Sirag - both of us in
Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger".
BH: I will have to re-read "Cosmic Trigger". I have had a couple of periods
in my life where the frequency of synchronicities rose to levels well beyond
average.
-Bill H.
JS: In North Beach we call them "Synchronicity Storms".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "Bill Hamilton" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: UFO musings....
Am I an abductee or only a contactee ,or neither? The objective
evidence is in both my
books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II". Free review
copies are available
from the publisher PR Dept at http://www.1stbooks.com
BH: The description of your experience on the phone likely places you
as in the contactee category.
JS: At least that. You should read my "Destiny Matrix" carefully especially the footnote for first-hand clues real evidence much of it
corroborates by witnesses who were also there for some of the uncanny events that need to be seen over a 50 year timeline.
Knee-jerk Skeptics with very fragmented short-range minds live in terror of the possible reality of these things. This is quite understandable.
Sometimes even I tremble. ;-)
The real issues for me are
1. The physics culminating in the totally unanticipated astonishing
discovery of anti-gravity "dark energy" in 1999
as the major component of the entire universe - barring a possible fly
in the ointment from the EINSTEIN NASA probe.
But I do not think a minority interpretation of that recent data will
hold up.
BH: Dark matter and dark energy both are in question, but then these
questions have seldom been answered quickly.
JS: In fact the evidence is very strongly in favor of their reality.
If you look at
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
you will see why. The point is that there is converging evidence from not one
but more than three independent experimental methods all giving the same
answer!
The objections raised so far will not survive IMHO.
Also from your POV if there ain't dark energy there ain't any real UFOs.
It's that simple.
2. The set of uncanny coincidences in my world line shown in "Destiny
Matrix" along with corroboration by first hand witnesses
who wrote parts of the book especially Saul-Paul Sirag - both of us in
Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger".
BH: I will have to re-read "Cosmic Trigger". I have had a couple of periods
in my life where the frequency of synchronicities rose to levels well beyond
average.
-Bill H.
JS: In North Beach we call them "Synchronicity Storms".
Paul Zielinski has attempted a defense of the Yilmaz-Puthoff type challenge to
Einstein's gravity theory on the basis that there should be a LOCAL stress-energy
density tensor of the pure gravity field in vacuum far from normal mass-energy
sources i.e. Tuv(Matter) = 0.
In fact such a tensor exists trivially ~ Guv(Einstein) which is exactly zero
in ordinary non-exotic vacuum without any w = -1 zero point "dark energy"
of negative pressure or "dark matter" of positive pressure. This conclusion
is consistent with MTW(1973) before exotic vacua were conceived and
discovered experimentally as we now know in 2004.
Paul then worries about the need for a "pseudo-tensor" and the fact
that TOTAL energy, momentum and angular momentum of the
pure gravity field are not simple integrals of LOCAL OBSERVABLES.
Smolin below addresses this issue at least obliquely:
arXiv:hep-th/0003056 v1 8 Mar 2000
"The strong and weak holographic principles
Lee Smolin_
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry
Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA, USA 16802 and
The Blackett Laboratory,Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
South Kensington, London SW7 2BZ, UK
March 1, 2000
ABSTRACT
We review the different proposals which have so far been made for the
holographic principle and the related entropy bounds and classify them into
the strong, null and weak forms. These are analyzed, with the aim of discovering
which may hold at the level of the full quantum theory of gravity.
We find that only the weak forms, which constrain the information available
to observers on boundaries, are implied by arguments using the generalized
second law. The strong forms, which go further and posit a bound on the
entropy in spacelike regions bounded by surfaces, are found to su_er from
serious problems, which give rise to counterexamples already at the semiclassical
level. The null form, proposed by Fischler, Susskind, Bousso and
others, in which the bound is on the entropy of certain null surfaces, appears
adequate at the level of a bound on the entropy of matter in a single
background spacetime, but attempts to include the gravitational degrees of
freedom encounter serious difficulties. Only the weak form seems capable of
holding in the full quantum theory.
The conclusion is that the holographic principle is not a relationship
between two independent sets of concepts: bulk theories and measures of
geometry vrs boundary theories and measures of information. Instead, it is
the assertion that in a fundamental theory the first set of concepts must be
completely reduced to the second.
_ smolin@phys.psu.edu
.....
Quasi-local quantities in classical general relativity
Even in classical general relativity, it is well understood that diffeomorphism
invariance and the equivalence principle forbid the possibility of local definitions
of the basic dynamical quantities such as energy, momentum and
angular momentum. These kinds of quantities can only be defined in terms
of integrals over two dimensional surfaces in the spacetime. When those
surfaces are taken to the boundary, in non-cosmological spacetimes, these
become the well known asymptotic definitions of energy, momentum and angular
momentum. However, even in cosmological spacetimes where there are
no boundaries one may define what are called quasi-local observables[45, 46],
in which the energy, momentum and angular momentum of an arbitrary
region are defined in terms of certain integrals over its boundary. Since
Penrose's original suggestion[45] many different proposals have been made
for such quasi-local observables[46].
If there are to be non-trivial notions of energy, momentum and angular
momentum in a quantum theory of cosmology then, these must be defined
so that their classical limits are these quasi-local quantities. The simplest
possibility is that the hamiltonian in quantum gravity should itself be quasilocal,
that is defined on two dimensional surfaces, which in the classical limit
will become spacelike surface embedded in spacetime. This implies some
form of the holographic principle, for if the Hamiltonian is associated with
surfaces there must be many hamiltonians, each associated with a different
choice of surfaces, and the same must be true of the algebra of observables
and the hilbert spaces on which they are represented.
Relational approaches to quantum cosmology
Another kind of argument for the importance of surface observables in a
quantum theory of cosmology was given by Crane[3], even before the holographic
hypothesis of `t Hooft and Susskind was proposed. Crane noted the
diffculties of defining a coherent measurement theory for a quantum state
of the whole universe" and proposed instead that the division of the universe
into two parts-system and observer-that is basic to Bohr and Heisenberg's
measurement theory might be relativised, so that there would be not
one quantum state of the universe, but a system of observable algebras and
hilbert spaces, one associated with every possible splitting of the universe
into two parts[3].
To realize this idea, Crane proposed a categorical framework to describe
the association of Hilbert spaces with boundaries. This was based on positing
functorial relationships between the category of cobordisms of manifolds
and the category of Hilbert spaces[3]. These structures are closely related
to topological quantum field theory, as those theories can be formulated in
such categorical terms. As topological quantum field theories are the only
class of field theories that naturally yield finite dimensional Hilbert spaces,
one may try to use them to construct examples of holographic theories[13].
Furthermore, as Crane pointed out, it may be possible to extend these structures
to quantum theories of gravity because it is a fact that at both the
classical and quantum mechanical level, and for any dimension[47], general
relativity and supergravity can be understood as deformed or constrained
topological quantum field theories[49, 23, 13, 19, 51, 50, 14, 15].
Crane's proposal has been an inspiration for the development of what
have been called relational[48, 42, 43, 44] or pluralistic [19, 5] approaches to
quantum cosmology. Using the fact that general relativity and supergravity
are constrained topological field theories, it has been possible to realize this
idea in the context of full formulations of quantum gravity and M theory
[33, 34, 54].
An even stronger version of Crane's argument was proposed recently by
Markopoulou[42, 43, 44], who noted that even in classical general relativity
the logic of propositions which can be given truth values by observers
in a closed universe is non-boolean, because each observer can only assert
the truth of falsity of propositions about their past."
Jack interjects: Of course "quantum logic" is a partially ordered non-boolean lattice of "yes-no" answers
to simple quantum measurements in Von Neumann's sense. Smolin's remark only works if there is
"signal locality." So this is an alleged curious connection between Einstein's gravity and orthodox micro-quantum theory.
LS: Rather than being
a boolean algebra, the algebra of propositions relevant for a classical cosmological
theory is a multivalued Heyting algebra[42]. When quantized, the
resulting algebra of projection-like operators cannot be represented on a single
Hilbert space, instead, it requires a collection of Hilbert spaces, one for
every possible event at which observations are made[43]. As each observer
receives information from a distinct past, the algebra of observables they
can measure, and hence the Hilbert spaces on which they represent what
they observe, must vary10. Given the conclusions reached in the preceding
sections of this paper, this is framework is then appropriate for a formulation
of the weak holographic principle[10].
13 Conclusions
The conclusion of the arguments we have given here is that the holographic
bound and holographic principle can only survive in a quantum theory of
cosmology in their weak forms, proposed in [10]. While logically weaker,
this form is more radical than the strong forms, in its implications for how
10 Related structures have been studied also by Isham and collaborators [55], who note
that structures built of many Hilbert spaces can be used to formulate the consistent
histories proposal[56] precisely. a measurement theory of quantum cosmology must be constructed. First,
the weak forms require that causal structure exist even at the Planck scale.
This most likely cannot be realized in a conventional formulation of quantum
cosmology in which the observables of the theory act on a single Hilbert space
containing the physically allowed "wavefunctions of the universe." Instead,
such a description may have to be formulated along the lines proposed in
[42, 43, 44] in which there is a network of Hilbert spaces, each providing
a representation for an algebra of observables accessible to a single local
observer at an event or a local region of a spacetime history. These will be
related to each other by maps which reflect the quantum causal structure.
In such a spacetime, evolution becomes closely intertwined with the
flow of quantum information which also defines the causal structure at the Planck
scale. Interactions have to do with the processing of the information at
events; as noted in [43, 44] a quantum spacetime then becomes very like a
quantum computer that can dynamically evolve its circuitry."
Jack: I note key role of "signal locality" in Smolin's analysis.
LS: "It is then difficult to escape the conclusion that the holographic principle,
in its weak form, is telling us that nature is fundamentally discrete. "
JS: Is this hitting a flea with a sledgehammer? ;-)
LS: "The finiteness of the information available per unit area of a surface is to be taken
simply as an indication that fundamentally, geometry must turn out to reduce
to counting. Of course this conclusion has been reached independently
through other arguments coming from quantum gravity[1, 23, 24, 25, 5] and
string theory[52, 2]. But, as can be seen most clearly from the argument of
Jacobson[53], the entropy bounds and holographic principle tell us that the
description of nature in terms of classical spacetime geometry is not only
analogous to the laws of thermodynamics, it must be exactly the thermodynamics
of the fundamental discrete theory of spacetime."
JS: I do not like the implicit assumption of thermal equilibrium at the sub-quantal
"spin network" level of "extra variables" that ensures "signal locality" as shown by
Antony Valentini.
LS: "What we learn from the analysis of this paper is that in such a theory
there is no room for the notion of a bulk theory, and hence no fundamental
role for a bulk-boundary correspondence. There is instead a network of
screen histories, which describe what possible observers might be able to
observe from particular events in their spacetime. By averaging over histories
a bulk description may emerge at the semiclassical level, but only as an
approximation in which the past of a particular observer can be described to
first order in a perturbation expansion in terms of a particular _xed classical
history. Thus the proper role of a bulk-to-boundary map may be to serve as
a correspondence principle to constrain the classical limit of a background
independent quantum theory of gravity.
To put it most simply: the holographic principle is not about a relationship
between two sets of concepts, bulk and screen and geometry and
information flow. It is the statement that the former reduce entirely to the
latter in exactly the same sense that thermodynamic quantities reduce to
atomic physics. The familiar picture of bulk spacetimes with fields and geometry
must emerge in the semiclassical limit, but these concepts can play
no role in the fundamental theory.
Can this picture be used to construct a realistic quantum theory of gravity
which addresses also the other problems in the subject? As mentioned
in [10] an example of such a theory is provided by a class of background independent
membrane theories proposed in [33]. These extend the formalism
of loop quantum gravity in a way as to provide a possible background independent
form of string theory[34, 54]. So the answer is a very provisional,
yes. Much work remains to be done, but the moral is that the holographic
principle, in at least its weak form, is likely to feature significantly in both
the mathematical language and the measurement theory of the future background
Einstein's gravity theory on the basis that there should be a LOCAL stress-energy
density tensor of the pure gravity field in vacuum far from normal mass-energy
sources i.e. Tuv(Matter) = 0.
In fact such a tensor exists trivially ~ Guv(Einstein) which is exactly zero
in ordinary non-exotic vacuum without any w = -1 zero point "dark energy"
of negative pressure or "dark matter" of positive pressure. This conclusion
is consistent with MTW(1973) before exotic vacua were conceived and
discovered experimentally as we now know in 2004.
Paul then worries about the need for a "pseudo-tensor" and the fact
that TOTAL energy, momentum and angular momentum of the
pure gravity field are not simple integrals of LOCAL OBSERVABLES.
Smolin below addresses this issue at least obliquely:
arXiv:hep-th/0003056 v1 8 Mar 2000
"The strong and weak holographic principles
Lee Smolin_
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry
Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA, USA 16802 and
The Blackett Laboratory,Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
South Kensington, London SW7 2BZ, UK
March 1, 2000
ABSTRACT
We review the different proposals which have so far been made for the
holographic principle and the related entropy bounds and classify them into
the strong, null and weak forms. These are analyzed, with the aim of discovering
which may hold at the level of the full quantum theory of gravity.
We find that only the weak forms, which constrain the information available
to observers on boundaries, are implied by arguments using the generalized
second law. The strong forms, which go further and posit a bound on the
entropy in spacelike regions bounded by surfaces, are found to su_er from
serious problems, which give rise to counterexamples already at the semiclassical
level. The null form, proposed by Fischler, Susskind, Bousso and
others, in which the bound is on the entropy of certain null surfaces, appears
adequate at the level of a bound on the entropy of matter in a single
background spacetime, but attempts to include the gravitational degrees of
freedom encounter serious difficulties. Only the weak form seems capable of
holding in the full quantum theory.
The conclusion is that the holographic principle is not a relationship
between two independent sets of concepts: bulk theories and measures of
geometry vrs boundary theories and measures of information. Instead, it is
the assertion that in a fundamental theory the first set of concepts must be
completely reduced to the second.
_ smolin@phys.psu.edu
.....
Quasi-local quantities in classical general relativity
Even in classical general relativity, it is well understood that diffeomorphism
invariance and the equivalence principle forbid the possibility of local definitions
of the basic dynamical quantities such as energy, momentum and
angular momentum. These kinds of quantities can only be defined in terms
of integrals over two dimensional surfaces in the spacetime. When those
surfaces are taken to the boundary, in non-cosmological spacetimes, these
become the well known asymptotic definitions of energy, momentum and angular
momentum. However, even in cosmological spacetimes where there are
no boundaries one may define what are called quasi-local observables[45, 46],
in which the energy, momentum and angular momentum of an arbitrary
region are defined in terms of certain integrals over its boundary. Since
Penrose's original suggestion[45] many different proposals have been made
for such quasi-local observables[46].
If there are to be non-trivial notions of energy, momentum and angular
momentum in a quantum theory of cosmology then, these must be defined
so that their classical limits are these quasi-local quantities. The simplest
possibility is that the hamiltonian in quantum gravity should itself be quasilocal,
that is defined on two dimensional surfaces, which in the classical limit
will become spacelike surface embedded in spacetime. This implies some
form of the holographic principle, for if the Hamiltonian is associated with
surfaces there must be many hamiltonians, each associated with a different
choice of surfaces, and the same must be true of the algebra of observables
and the hilbert spaces on which they are represented.
Relational approaches to quantum cosmology
Another kind of argument for the importance of surface observables in a
quantum theory of cosmology was given by Crane[3], even before the holographic
hypothesis of `t Hooft and Susskind was proposed. Crane noted the
diffculties of defining a coherent measurement theory for a quantum state
of the whole universe" and proposed instead that the division of the universe
into two parts-system and observer-that is basic to Bohr and Heisenberg's
measurement theory might be relativised, so that there would be not
one quantum state of the universe, but a system of observable algebras and
hilbert spaces, one associated with every possible splitting of the universe
into two parts[3].
To realize this idea, Crane proposed a categorical framework to describe
the association of Hilbert spaces with boundaries. This was based on positing
functorial relationships between the category of cobordisms of manifolds
and the category of Hilbert spaces[3]. These structures are closely related
to topological quantum field theory, as those theories can be formulated in
such categorical terms. As topological quantum field theories are the only
class of field theories that naturally yield finite dimensional Hilbert spaces,
one may try to use them to construct examples of holographic theories[13].
Furthermore, as Crane pointed out, it may be possible to extend these structures
to quantum theories of gravity because it is a fact that at both the
classical and quantum mechanical level, and for any dimension[47], general
relativity and supergravity can be understood as deformed or constrained
topological quantum field theories[49, 23, 13, 19, 51, 50, 14, 15].
Crane's proposal has been an inspiration for the development of what
have been called relational[48, 42, 43, 44] or pluralistic [19, 5] approaches to
quantum cosmology. Using the fact that general relativity and supergravity
are constrained topological field theories, it has been possible to realize this
idea in the context of full formulations of quantum gravity and M theory
[33, 34, 54].
An even stronger version of Crane's argument was proposed recently by
Markopoulou[42, 43, 44], who noted that even in classical general relativity
the logic of propositions which can be given truth values by observers
in a closed universe is non-boolean, because each observer can only assert
the truth of falsity of propositions about their past."
Jack interjects: Of course "quantum logic" is a partially ordered non-boolean lattice of "yes-no" answers
to simple quantum measurements in Von Neumann's sense. Smolin's remark only works if there is
"signal locality." So this is an alleged curious connection between Einstein's gravity and orthodox micro-quantum theory.
LS: Rather than being
a boolean algebra, the algebra of propositions relevant for a classical cosmological
theory is a multivalued Heyting algebra[42]. When quantized, the
resulting algebra of projection-like operators cannot be represented on a single
Hilbert space, instead, it requires a collection of Hilbert spaces, one for
every possible event at which observations are made[43]. As each observer
receives information from a distinct past, the algebra of observables they
can measure, and hence the Hilbert spaces on which they represent what
they observe, must vary10. Given the conclusions reached in the preceding
sections of this paper, this is framework is then appropriate for a formulation
of the weak holographic principle[10].
13 Conclusions
The conclusion of the arguments we have given here is that the holographic
bound and holographic principle can only survive in a quantum theory of
cosmology in their weak forms, proposed in [10]. While logically weaker,
this form is more radical than the strong forms, in its implications for how
10 Related structures have been studied also by Isham and collaborators [55], who note
that structures built of many Hilbert spaces can be used to formulate the consistent
histories proposal[56] precisely. a measurement theory of quantum cosmology must be constructed. First,
the weak forms require that causal structure exist even at the Planck scale.
This most likely cannot be realized in a conventional formulation of quantum
cosmology in which the observables of the theory act on a single Hilbert space
containing the physically allowed "wavefunctions of the universe." Instead,
such a description may have to be formulated along the lines proposed in
[42, 43, 44] in which there is a network of Hilbert spaces, each providing
a representation for an algebra of observables accessible to a single local
observer at an event or a local region of a spacetime history. These will be
related to each other by maps which reflect the quantum causal structure.
In such a spacetime, evolution becomes closely intertwined with the
flow of quantum information which also defines the causal structure at the Planck
scale. Interactions have to do with the processing of the information at
events; as noted in [43, 44] a quantum spacetime then becomes very like a
quantum computer that can dynamically evolve its circuitry."
Jack: I note key role of "signal locality" in Smolin's analysis.
LS: "It is then difficult to escape the conclusion that the holographic principle,
in its weak form, is telling us that nature is fundamentally discrete. "
JS: Is this hitting a flea with a sledgehammer? ;-)
LS: "The finiteness of the information available per unit area of a surface is to be taken
simply as an indication that fundamentally, geometry must turn out to reduce
to counting. Of course this conclusion has been reached independently
through other arguments coming from quantum gravity[1, 23, 24, 25, 5] and
string theory[52, 2]. But, as can be seen most clearly from the argument of
Jacobson[53], the entropy bounds and holographic principle tell us that the
description of nature in terms of classical spacetime geometry is not only
analogous to the laws of thermodynamics, it must be exactly the thermodynamics
of the fundamental discrete theory of spacetime."
JS: I do not like the implicit assumption of thermal equilibrium at the sub-quantal
"spin network" level of "extra variables" that ensures "signal locality" as shown by
Antony Valentini.
LS: "What we learn from the analysis of this paper is that in such a theory
there is no room for the notion of a bulk theory, and hence no fundamental
role for a bulk-boundary correspondence. There is instead a network of
screen histories, which describe what possible observers might be able to
observe from particular events in their spacetime. By averaging over histories
a bulk description may emerge at the semiclassical level, but only as an
approximation in which the past of a particular observer can be described to
first order in a perturbation expansion in terms of a particular _xed classical
history. Thus the proper role of a bulk-to-boundary map may be to serve as
a correspondence principle to constrain the classical limit of a background
independent quantum theory of gravity.
To put it most simply: the holographic principle is not about a relationship
between two sets of concepts, bulk and screen and geometry and
information flow. It is the statement that the former reduce entirely to the
latter in exactly the same sense that thermodynamic quantities reduce to
atomic physics. The familiar picture of bulk spacetimes with fields and geometry
must emerge in the semiclassical limit, but these concepts can play
no role in the fundamental theory.
Can this picture be used to construct a realistic quantum theory of gravity
which addresses also the other problems in the subject? As mentioned
in [10] an example of such a theory is provided by a class of background independent
membrane theories proposed in [33]. These extend the formalism
of loop quantum gravity in a way as to provide a possible background independent
form of string theory[34, 54]. So the answer is a very provisional,
yes. Much work remains to be done, but the moral is that the holographic
principle, in at least its weak form, is likely to feature significantly in both
the mathematical language and the measurement theory of the future background
Preview
PZ: Who says otherwise?
JS: Hal Puthoff's supporters some in "Black Ops" inside USG interested in the UFO phenomenon - despite what is fed to the public. Remember Hal held, and maybe even today still holds, the highest US Security Clearances. The dominating interest in his whole career is UFOs probably first and the paranormal remote viewing probably second. Now, let's be clear I support Puthoff's preoccupation with these two areas of "fringe" stuff. I am only objecting to his particular theory of "metric engineering" based on "PV" and also to his work with Haisch et-al on zero point energy. Hal's access to secret information over more than 30 years and his continued very intense interest tell me more than all the silly debunking by Robert Sheaffer, Ken Frazier and the rest of the Official Skeptical Inquirer Motley Crew. ;-)
Hal and I see eye to eye strategically, we only differ on the tactics of how to achieve the common objective.
Indeed, the 1999 discovery of anti-gravity dark energy as most of the "stuff" of Super Cosmos adds fuel to the UFO fire - barring a recent objection to dark energy from EINSTEIN data that I suspect will not hold up in the long run.
This lesson has yet to seep in because the BIG MEDIA rely on Brian Greene (NY TIMES yesterday) and the John Brockman group as the Official Pundits for all this stuff keeping us "fringe loonies" below the radar. Freedom of the Press? Look at Ginsparg on the Cornell Archive with Carlos Castro. ;-) Physics is The New Religion launched by "Tao of Physics" and the "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" both from Brockman, but then co-opted by Sydney Coleman's mainstream group via Werner Erhard and David Finkelstein, Murray Gell-Mann et-al once they realized the economics of what what happening back in the mid-70's out of Esalen. Lenny Susskind actually talks about this explicitly on the Brockman Edge Website.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 07:27 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
Paul you should come to London March 8 - 13 to iron this out.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 01:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
You cannot reduce the gravitational field to "g-forces", as Einstein
once thought.
JS; Why do you think that? Quote Einstein on that.
PZ: I mean as to the essential nature of the phenomenon.
JS: Justify your conclusion with evidence from Einstein's writing -
date important of course.
PZ: I have all the quotes: 1907, 1911, 1916, 1921, 1949.
This is one point on which Einstein was remarkably consistent.
JS: Reproduce them for the record if they are digital?
I have already argued that Einstein is correct on this because of the
geodesic deviation equation for the detection of local tidal curvature.
d^2(X1-X2)^u/ds^2 ~ R^uvwl(X1-X2)^v(dX1^w/ds)(dX^l/ds)
where g-Force = 0 for both test particles 1 & 2.
That is, the experimental techniques to measure LOCAL non-geodesic g-force on the one hand, and LOCAL tidal curvature, on the other, are orthogonal, mutually exclusive, complementary. The local equivalence principle only applies to the former not the latter. Einstein's theory is wonderfully self-consistent conceptually IMHO.
Einstein WAS "remarkably consistent" because he was right!
I was not clear in my own mind about this until this debate of almost what 2 years?
Wheeler is correct, Einstein's GR is "battle-tested" both philosophically and experimentally.
So is orthodox quantum theory.
Simplistic frontal assaults on their well-established foundations will never succeed. One must
simply find the boundaries of their domains of validity and "analytically continue" them like
in the beautifully elegant theory of complex functions of a complex variable.
It seems like Stecker's paper
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
may refute loop theory in favor of string theory?
Also the theory with
E^2 = [(pc)^2 + mc^2](1 + (pc/Mpc^2)^2)^-1
seems to be refuted by the NASA EINSTEIN gamma ray data?
Note as (pc/Mpc^2) --- infinity
E ---> Mpc^2
In any case, M theory (superstrings) and QM Gravity loop theory (spin foams) are now
experimental physics. Saul-Paul Sirag says that the quantum gravity foam in string theory
is not random but is coherently "harmonic". This seems to be consistent with my Vacuum Coherence Field model.
In my theory all the random zero point vacuum fluctuations are suppressed
PZ: I am not suggesting that Einstein thought that Riemann curvature
could be ignored.
Of course the metric description of "permanent" physical fields
entails non-vanishing
curvature.
I think you're missing the point. I don't agree with Einstein's view,
but I think I
at least understand his idea.
JS: Yes, I do miss your point.
PZ: It's *Einstein's* point.
JS: Which now, as above, I think I agree with 100%.
I cannot find it as I try to pin it
down. Your point then continues to elude me as I try to get you to pin
it down in a clear enough way for me to understand. Look, take a
globally flat space-time. An arbitrary curvilinear coordinate
transformation corresponds physically, in principle, to a non-rigid
lattice of generically accelerating LNIF tiny observer-detectors.
PZ: I guess you can look at it this way.
JS: How else? I mean beyond the purely "formal" writing of this or that ARBITRARY
x^u -->.x^u'(x^u)
I am an unabashed "operationalist" "gedanken-experimenter"
though not an unrepentant "positivist" like Hawking. ;-)
You
can never in that situation get Hawking's nice example of Alice and Bob
both LNIF on timelike non-geodesics accelerating away from each other
BUT at a FIXED unchanging spatial separation.
PZ: Who said you could?
JS: If you cannot, then the challenge to Einstein by Yilmaz, Puthoff & Co seems clearly unsupportable IMHO.
PZ: This simply underscores the striking difference between an inertial field,
which always has zero Ruvwl everywhere, and a permanent field, which
typically has Ruvwl=/=0.
JS: I suppose I should separate Puthoff's PV from Yilmaz. Puthoff seems to think curvature tensors are not physically fundamental
and that REAL SPACE-TIME is FLAT (not just SPACE on large scale as in inflation cosmology)?
PZ: My position is that Riemann curvature represents or is associated with an
*essential distinction* between gravitational and inertial fields
JS: I think I showed above why and how that is true as part of Einstein's theory.
PZ: -- contrary
to what Einstein taught. Hence, no strict equivalence; no "general relativity".
JS: Here I think you are reading into Einstein's statements what he did not intend.
I think you are seeing a mirage. But if you reproduce the "smoking gun" we will
see.
PZ: Sounds like you actually now agree with me on this.
JS: Partially as above.
JS: Also you need overlapping coordinate patches in really curved
spacetime, you cannot use a single global curvilinear coordinate
transformation.
PZ: Right. Everybody knows this.
JS: Not Hal Puthoff, he said it is irrelevant in his PV challenge to Einstein's GR and you did seem to agree with him?
JS: Look at the Penrose diagram for the SSS Ruv = 0
non-exotic vacuum Einstein-Bridge non-traversable "Mass without mass"
Wheeler geon for example. See Matt Visser's "Lorentzian Wormholes". Of
course Puthoff ignores all that in his PV model. Puthoff says no event
horizons which completely throws away all the Hawking-Penrose theorems
on singularities, the Bekenstein bound from black hole thermodynamics,
the Hawking radiation, Unruh's work, the t'Hooft-Susskind holographic
principle, the computation of black hole entropy from string theory. No
wonder the Pundits dismiss Puthoff's suggestion. He does not justify
his "engineering" approach adequately.
PZ: Who says otherwise?
JS: Hal Puthoff's supporters some in "Black Ops" inside USG interested in the UFO phenomenon - despite what is fed to the public. Remember Hal held, and maybe even today still holds, the highest US Security Clearances. The dominating interest in his whole career is UFOs probably first and the paranormal remote viewing probably second. Now, let's be clear I support Puthoff's preoccupation with these two areas of "fringe" stuff. I am only objecting to his particular theory of "metric engineering" based on "PV" and also to his work with Haisch et-al on zero point energy. Hal's access to secret information over more than 30 years and his continued very intense interest tell me more than all the silly debunking by Robert Sheaffer, Ken Frazier and the rest of the Official Skeptical Inquirer Motley Crew. ;-)
Hal and I see eye to eye strategically, we only differ on the tactics of how to achieve the common objective.
Indeed, the 1999 discovery of anti-gravity dark energy as most of the "stuff" of Super Cosmos adds fuel to the UFO fire - barring a recent objection to dark energy from EINSTEIN data that I suspect will not hold up in the long run.
This lesson has yet to seep in because the BIG MEDIA rely on Brian Greene (NY TIMES yesterday) and the John Brockman group as the Official Pundits for all this stuff keeping us "fringe loonies" below the radar. Freedom of the Press? Look at Ginsparg on the Cornell Archive with Carlos Castro. ;-) Physics is The New Religion launched by "Tao of Physics" and the "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" both from Brockman, but then co-opted by Sydney Coleman's mainstream group via Werner Erhard and David Finkelstein, Murray Gell-Mann et-al once they realized the economics of what what happening back in the mid-70's out of Esalen. Lenny Susskind actually talks about this explicitly on the Brockman Edge Website.
PZ: Who says otherwise?
JS: Hal Puthoff's supporters some in "Black Ops" inside USG interested in the UFO phenomenon - despite what is fed to the public. Remember Hal held, and maybe even today still holds, the highest US Security Clearances. The dominating interest in his whole career is UFOs probably first and the paranormal remote viewing probably second. Now, let's be clear I support Puthoff's preoccupation with these two areas of "fringe" stuff. I am only objecting to his particular theory of "metric engineering" based on "PV" and also to his work with Haisch et-al on zero point energy. Hal's access to secret information over more than 30 years and his continued very intense interest tell me more than all the silly debunking by Robert Sheaffer, Ken Frazier and the rest of the Official Skeptical Inquirer Motley Crew. ;-)
Hal and I see eye to eye strategically, we only differ on the tactics of how to achieve the common objective.
Indeed, the 1999 discovery of anti-gravity dark energy as most of the "stuff" of Super Cosmos adds fuel to the UFO fire - barring a recent objection to dark energy from EINSTEIN data that I suspect will not hold up in the long run.
This lesson has yet to seep in because the BIG MEDIA rely on Brian Greene (NY TIMES yesterday) and the John Brockman group as the Official Pundits for all this stuff keeping us "fringe loonies" below the radar. Freedom of the Press? Look at Ginsparg on the Cornell Archive with Carlos Castro. ;-) Physics is The New Religion launched by "Tao of Physics" and the "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" both from Brockman, but then co-opted by Sydney Coleman's mainstream group via Werner Erhard and David Finkelstein, Murray Gell-Mann et-al once they realized the economics of what what happening back in the mid-70's out of Esalen. Lenny Susskind actually talks about this explicitly on the Brockman Edge Website.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 07:27 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
Paul you should come to London March 8 - 13 to iron this out.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 01:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
You cannot reduce the gravitational field to "g-forces", as Einstein
once thought.
JS; Why do you think that? Quote Einstein on that.
PZ: I mean as to the essential nature of the phenomenon.
JS: Justify your conclusion with evidence from Einstein's writing -
date important of course.
PZ: I have all the quotes: 1907, 1911, 1916, 1921, 1949.
This is one point on which Einstein was remarkably consistent.
JS: Reproduce them for the record if they are digital?
I have already argued that Einstein is correct on this because of the
geodesic deviation equation for the detection of local tidal curvature.
d^2(X1-X2)^u/ds^2 ~ R^uvwl(X1-X2)^v(dX1^w/ds)(dX^l/ds)
where g-Force = 0 for both test particles 1 & 2.
That is, the experimental techniques to measure LOCAL non-geodesic g-force on the one hand, and LOCAL tidal curvature, on the other, are orthogonal, mutually exclusive, complementary. The local equivalence principle only applies to the former not the latter. Einstein's theory is wonderfully self-consistent conceptually IMHO.
Einstein WAS "remarkably consistent" because he was right!
I was not clear in my own mind about this until this debate of almost what 2 years?
Wheeler is correct, Einstein's GR is "battle-tested" both philosophically and experimentally.
So is orthodox quantum theory.
Simplistic frontal assaults on their well-established foundations will never succeed. One must
simply find the boundaries of their domains of validity and "analytically continue" them like
in the beautifully elegant theory of complex functions of a complex variable.
It seems like Stecker's paper
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
may refute loop theory in favor of string theory?
Also the theory with
E^2 = [(pc)^2 + mc^2](1 + (pc/Mpc^2)^2)^-1
seems to be refuted by the NASA EINSTEIN gamma ray data?
Note as (pc/Mpc^2) --- infinity
E ---> Mpc^2
In any case, M theory (superstrings) and QM Gravity loop theory (spin foams) are now
experimental physics. Saul-Paul Sirag says that the quantum gravity foam in string theory
is not random but is coherently "harmonic". This seems to be consistent with my Vacuum Coherence Field model.
In my theory all the random zero point vacuum fluctuations are suppressed
PZ: I am not suggesting that Einstein thought that Riemann curvature
could be ignored.
Of course the metric description of "permanent" physical fields
entails non-vanishing
curvature.
I think you're missing the point. I don't agree with Einstein's view,
but I think I
at least understand his idea.
JS: Yes, I do miss your point.
PZ: It's *Einstein's* point.
JS: Which now, as above, I think I agree with 100%.
I cannot find it as I try to pin it
down. Your point then continues to elude me as I try to get you to pin
it down in a clear enough way for me to understand. Look, take a
globally flat space-time. An arbitrary curvilinear coordinate
transformation corresponds physically, in principle, to a non-rigid
lattice of generically accelerating LNIF tiny observer-detectors.
PZ: I guess you can look at it this way.
JS: How else? I mean beyond the purely "formal" writing of this or that ARBITRARY
x^u -->.x^u'(x^u)
I am an unabashed "operationalist" "gedanken-experimenter"
though not an unrepentant "positivist" like Hawking. ;-)
You
can never in that situation get Hawking's nice example of Alice and Bob
both LNIF on timelike non-geodesics accelerating away from each other
BUT at a FIXED unchanging spatial separation.
PZ: Who said you could?
JS: If you cannot, then the challenge to Einstein by Yilmaz, Puthoff & Co seems clearly unsupportable IMHO.
PZ: This simply underscores the striking difference between an inertial field,
which always has zero Ruvwl everywhere, and a permanent field, which
typically has Ruvwl=/=0.
JS: I suppose I should separate Puthoff's PV from Yilmaz. Puthoff seems to think curvature tensors are not physically fundamental
and that REAL SPACE-TIME is FLAT (not just SPACE on large scale as in inflation cosmology)?
PZ: My position is that Riemann curvature represents or is associated with an
*essential distinction* between gravitational and inertial fields
JS: I think I showed above why and how that is true as part of Einstein's theory.
PZ: -- contrary
to what Einstein taught. Hence, no strict equivalence; no "general relativity".
JS: Here I think you are reading into Einstein's statements what he did not intend.
I think you are seeing a mirage. But if you reproduce the "smoking gun" we will
see.
PZ: Sounds like you actually now agree with me on this.
JS: Partially as above.
JS: Also you need overlapping coordinate patches in really curved
spacetime, you cannot use a single global curvilinear coordinate
transformation.
PZ: Right. Everybody knows this.
JS: Not Hal Puthoff, he said it is irrelevant in his PV challenge to Einstein's GR and you did seem to agree with him?
JS: Look at the Penrose diagram for the SSS Ruv = 0
non-exotic vacuum Einstein-Bridge non-traversable "Mass without mass"
Wheeler geon for example. See Matt Visser's "Lorentzian Wormholes". Of
course Puthoff ignores all that in his PV model. Puthoff says no event
horizons which completely throws away all the Hawking-Penrose theorems
on singularities, the Bekenstein bound from black hole thermodynamics,
the Hawking radiation, Unruh's work, the t'Hooft-Susskind holographic
principle, the computation of black hole entropy from string theory. No
wonder the Pundits dismiss Puthoff's suggestion. He does not justify
his "engineering" approach adequately.
PZ: Who says otherwise?
JS: Hal Puthoff's supporters some in "Black Ops" inside USG interested in the UFO phenomenon - despite what is fed to the public. Remember Hal held, and maybe even today still holds, the highest US Security Clearances. The dominating interest in his whole career is UFOs probably first and the paranormal remote viewing probably second. Now, let's be clear I support Puthoff's preoccupation with these two areas of "fringe" stuff. I am only objecting to his particular theory of "metric engineering" based on "PV" and also to his work with Haisch et-al on zero point energy. Hal's access to secret information over more than 30 years and his continued very intense interest tell me more than all the silly debunking by Robert Sheaffer, Ken Frazier and the rest of the Official Skeptical Inquirer Motley Crew. ;-)
Hal and I see eye to eye strategically, we only differ on the tactics of how to achieve the common objective.
Indeed, the 1999 discovery of anti-gravity dark energy as most of the "stuff" of Super Cosmos adds fuel to the UFO fire - barring a recent objection to dark energy from EINSTEIN data that I suspect will not hold up in the long run.
This lesson has yet to seep in because the BIG MEDIA rely on Brian Greene (NY TIMES yesterday) and the John Brockman group as the Official Pundits for all this stuff keeping us "fringe loonies" below the radar. Freedom of the Press? Look at Ginsparg on the Cornell Archive with Carlos Castro. ;-) Physics is The New Religion launched by "Tao of Physics" and the "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" both from Brockman, but then co-opted by Sydney Coleman's mainstream group via Werner Erhard and David Finkelstein, Murray Gell-Mann et-al once they realized the economics of what what happening back in the mid-70's out of Esalen. Lenny Susskind actually talks about this explicitly on the Brockman Edge Website.
Thursday, January 01, 2004
Reading Ch 12 of Lee Smolin's "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" shows that Lenny's World Hologram is Virtual Reality Max in sense of
Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" of Omega with a Tech-Gnostic Demented God reminding one of Bill Gates as His Vicar? :-)
There is an inversion of Plato's Allegory of The Cave with "The Screen" (a quantum gravity computer) as the reality. There is no Light at the End of the Tunnel in this version of "The Thirteenth Floor".
I mean the WHP "Weak Holographic Principle".
It is interesting that in my theory the Planck area Lp^2 is the connection between IT guv and BIT the MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE FIELD that I replace Hawking's "Wave Function of the Universe" with.
guv(Einstein) = Minkowski + Lp^2(Coherent Phase of LOCAL Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)
Lp^2 is like h/m in a quantized circulation vortex where
v = (h/m)Grad(Coherent Phase of the LOCAL order parameter)
i.e. 4D World Crystal Lattice distortion field is
du(x) = Lp^2 (Coherent Phase of LOCAL Vacuum Coherence),u
Einstein's Cosmological Constant at FRW scale vanishes for a critical Vacuum Coherence intensity
|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = (Planck Volume)^-3 "critical"
Planck Volume = (String Bit Link)(Planck Area)
Quantizing string links implies quantizing dual Bekenstein areas.
Going off critical gives either repulsive dark energy of negative zero point pressure or attractive dark matter of positive zero point pressure, both merely different "densities", or "intensities", of the w = -1 Vacuum Coherence Field.
Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" of Omega with a Tech-Gnostic Demented God reminding one of Bill Gates as His Vicar? :-)
There is an inversion of Plato's Allegory of The Cave with "The Screen" (a quantum gravity computer) as the reality. There is no Light at the End of the Tunnel in this version of "The Thirteenth Floor".
I mean the WHP "Weak Holographic Principle".
It is interesting that in my theory the Planck area Lp^2 is the connection between IT guv and BIT the MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE FIELD that I replace Hawking's "Wave Function of the Universe" with.
guv(Einstein) = Minkowski + Lp^2(Coherent Phase of LOCAL Vacuum Coherence)(,u,v)
Lp^2 is like h/m in a quantized circulation vortex where
v = (h/m)Grad(Coherent Phase of the LOCAL order parameter)
i.e. 4D World Crystal Lattice distortion field is
du(x) = Lp^2 (Coherent Phase of LOCAL Vacuum Coherence),u
Einstein's Cosmological Constant at FRW scale vanishes for a critical Vacuum Coherence intensity
|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = (Planck Volume)^-3 "critical"
Planck Volume = (String Bit Link)(Planck Area)
Quantizing string links implies quantizing dual Bekenstein areas.
Going off critical gives either repulsive dark energy of negative zero point pressure or attractive dark matter of positive zero point pressure, both merely different "densities", or "intensities", of the w = -1 Vacuum Coherence Field.
bcc
Creon is this NIAC at NASA?
http://www.niac.usra.edu/
You will recall I suggested that protective measurements might be important to the problem.
They do not seem to be aware of Antony Valentini's papers on "signal nonlocality" beyond
orthodox QM as a sub-quantal equilibrium limit. They are still trying to find a way inside
ordinary orthodox QM bypassing the "collapse" entanglement-destroying von-Neumann "measurement"
with some kind of soft nonlocal modulation method that somehow evades the no-go argument from
unitary time evolution. There basic strategic C^3 concept motivating the work is identical to what
I proposed in the Chickering letter to DOD more than 20 years ago. Chickering's ICS with
Ed Meese and Caspar Weinberger on the Board and Don Rumsfeld directing it for awhile had
influence.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Creon Levit wrote:
http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf
Yes, this goes back to the Chickering letter to Richard De Lauer
reproduced in my book "Destiny Matrix" and also to Harold Chipman's
efforts in the 80's also shown in the book.
Curious it is Sandia isn't it? ;-)
Nothing much new in what they say. Interesting that they are interested,
Chickering's letter is alluded to in
The Quark and The Jaguar by Murry Gell-Mann
The Quantum Engineers in New Yorker and a book by Jeremy Bernstein on JS Bell,
In a Physics Today Op Ed by N.D. Mermin
Antony Valentini's work gives new life to this issue in that orthodox quantum theory
with signal locality is to a more general quantum theory with signal nonlocality as special relativity is to
general relativity IMHO. The latter may go against Lenny Susskind's idea, but I am not sure yet.
I have basically finished "Physics Meets Philosophy at The Planck Scale" - a good book.
I am now reading "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin - also a good book.
The key is Lenny Susskind's "Holographic Principle" which I think is essentially correct.
It is clear that no one yet really understands why.
Curious confluence in Universe as BIT in that the "dual" stringy uncertainty principle with a minimum length fuses the two meanings of "string" both as a "vibrating string of pure energy" (Brian Greene on NOVA) and as a BIT-string of pure information.
Note that the discrete BIT linked 1-dim string is dual to 2-dim area in the 3D uncompactified spacelike surfaces. So this seems to suggest the Hologram Principle as well?
The affair with Ginsparg on the Cornell archive re Carlos Castro's work, which is good IMHO, plus all the
speculative hype in NOVA's "The Elegant Universe", not clearly labeled as speculation, plus Brian Greene in
NY Times today (not that he says anything objectionable there) all suggest that physics today has sold out to
Big Money - not that that is not understandable of course. John Brockman, the literary agent in New York,
has gotten very rich in making this a veritable cottage industry launched by "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
I do not begrudge him. At least it gets the public interested.
On the other hand Carlos Castro and Pavsic may have a powerful formalism that explains M theory in a relatively simply way and for Ginsparg to
suppress open debate on that is a very bad sign. Castro is not a "crackpot" in any sense as spelled out in John Baez's set of criteria. I am not saying Castro and Pavsic have it right. Maybe not, but their ideas should not be censored out of the Cornell e-print archive.
Creon is this NIAC at NASA?
http://www.niac.usra.edu/
You will recall I suggested that protective measurements might be important to the problem.
They do not seem to be aware of Antony Valentini's papers on "signal nonlocality" beyond
orthodox QM as a sub-quantal equilibrium limit. They are still trying to find a way inside
ordinary orthodox QM bypassing the "collapse" entanglement-destroying von-Neumann "measurement"
with some kind of soft nonlocal modulation method that somehow evades the no-go argument from
unitary time evolution. There basic strategic C^3 concept motivating the work is identical to what
I proposed in the Chickering letter to DOD more than 20 years ago. Chickering's ICS with
Ed Meese and Caspar Weinberger on the Board and Don Rumsfeld directing it for awhile had
influence.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Creon Levit wrote:
http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf
Yes, this goes back to the Chickering letter to Richard De Lauer
reproduced in my book "Destiny Matrix" and also to Harold Chipman's
efforts in the 80's also shown in the book.
Curious it is Sandia isn't it? ;-)
Nothing much new in what they say. Interesting that they are interested,
Chickering's letter is alluded to in
The Quark and The Jaguar by Murry Gell-Mann
The Quantum Engineers in New Yorker and a book by Jeremy Bernstein on JS Bell,
In a Physics Today Op Ed by N.D. Mermin
Antony Valentini's work gives new life to this issue in that orthodox quantum theory
with signal locality is to a more general quantum theory with signal nonlocality as special relativity is to
general relativity IMHO. The latter may go against Lenny Susskind's idea, but I am not sure yet.
I have basically finished "Physics Meets Philosophy at The Planck Scale" - a good book.
I am now reading "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin - also a good book.
The key is Lenny Susskind's "Holographic Principle" which I think is essentially correct.
It is clear that no one yet really understands why.
Curious confluence in Universe as BIT in that the "dual" stringy uncertainty principle with a minimum length fuses the two meanings of "string" both as a "vibrating string of pure energy" (Brian Greene on NOVA) and as a BIT-string of pure information.
Note that the discrete BIT linked 1-dim string is dual to 2-dim area in the 3D uncompactified spacelike surfaces. So this seems to suggest the Hologram Principle as well?
The affair with Ginsparg on the Cornell archive re Carlos Castro's work, which is good IMHO, plus all the
speculative hype in NOVA's "The Elegant Universe", not clearly labeled as speculation, plus Brian Greene in
NY Times today (not that he says anything objectionable there) all suggest that physics today has sold out to
Big Money - not that that is not understandable of course. John Brockman, the literary agent in New York,
has gotten very rich in making this a veritable cottage industry launched by "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
I do not begrudge him. At least it gets the public interested.
On the other hand Carlos Castro and Pavsic may have a powerful formalism that explains M theory in a relatively simply way and for Ginsparg to
suppress open debate on that is a very bad sign. Castro is not a "crackpot" in any sense as spelled out in John Baez's set of criteria. I am not saying Castro and Pavsic have it right. Maybe not, but their ideas should not be censored out of the Cornell e-print archive.
Paul you should come to London March 8 - 13 to iron this out.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 01:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
You cannot reduce the gravitational field to "g-forces", as Einstein
once thought.
JS; Why do you think that? Quote Einstein on that.
PZ: I mean as to the essential nature of the phenomenon.
JS: Justify your conclusion with evidence from Einstein's writing - date important of course.
PZ: I am not suggesting that Einstein thought that Riemann curvature could be ignored.
Of course the metric description of "permanent" physical fields entails non-vanishing
curvature.
I think you're missing the point. I don't agree with Einstein's view, but I think I
at least understand his idea.
JS: Yes, I do miss your point. I cannot find it as I try to pin it down. Your point then continues to elude me as I try to get you to pin it down in a clear enough way for me to understand. Look, take a globally flat space-time. An arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformation corresponds physically, in principle, to a non-rigid lattice of generically accelerating LNIF tiny observer-detectors. You can never in that situation get Hawking's nice example of Alice and Bob both LNIF on timelike non-geodesics accelerating away from each other BUT at a FIXED unchanging spatial separation.
Also you need overlapping coordinate patches in really curved spacetime, you cannot use a single global curvilinear coordinate transformation. Look at the Penrose diagram for the SSS Ruv = 0 non-exotic vacuum Einstein-Bridge non-traversable "Mass without mass" Wheeler geon for example. See Matt Visser's "Lorentzian Wormholes". Of course Puthoff ignores all that in his PV model. Puthoff says no event horizons which completely throws away all the Hawking-Penrose theorems on singularities, the Bekenstein bound from black hole thermodynamics, the Hawking radiation, Unruh's work, the t'Hooft-Susskind holographic principle, the computation of black hole entropy from string theory. No wonder the Pundits dismiss Puthoff's suggestion. He does not justify his "engineering" approach adequately.
PZ: This is an example of where a naive "Machian" empiricism leaves you
barking up
the wrong tree -- the wrong tree in this case being strict equivalence.
Of course Einstein knew about Riemann curvature and tidal effects, but
then tacked
on a doctrine that "all physics is local", insisting that *only* the
translational g-forces
observed at each point are fundamentally definitive of the
gravitational field.
JS; Why do you think that? Quote Einstein on that.
PZ: Jack, that doesn't mean you can *ignore* Riemann curvature.
JS: Good, but your essential point still eludes me.
BTW see Hawking's nice example I mentioned earlier today of 2 observers
accelerating AWAY from each other at opposite podes of Earth's surface
yet staying FIXED distance from each other. This demands non-Euclidean
SPACE-TIME CURVATURE!
PZ: I agree this is a nice example, but *of course* you need Riemann curvature
in GR to describe such a field.
JS: Then what is it you object to? Some early remark Einstein may have made before he understood completely what he was doing?
PZ:: In my POV this was simply an *ad hoc* stratagem for protecting
his equivalence
hobbyhorse from legitimate criticism. There is nothing deep here.
JS: Hawking gives a counter-example to what you just said IMHO.
PZ: A counterexample to what?
JS: To what I thought was your thesis, but apparently is not. :-)
PZ: Jack, I don't think you have understood what I've been saying. You certainly
haven't understood Einstein. Einstein's thinking was very subtle.
I am NOT suggesting that Einstein thought that Riemann curvature did not exist,
or that non-vanishing Riemann curvature was not *technically necessary* for describing
particular permanent gravitational fields in terms of the metric g_uv. Obviously it is --
and of course Einstein was fully aware of that.
JS: Good. So what is your point?
PZ: I am saying that he regarded only the *pointwise local equivalence* of the inertial
and gravitational field to be of fundamental importance: he did not regard non-vanishing
Riemann curvature as *definitive* of the essential nature of the gravitational field. The
question of vanishing vs. non-vanishing Riemann curvature was viewed as merely
accidental to this fundamental nature.
JS: Justify what you just said with relevant quotes from Einstein and the dates he made them.
From an operational POV there is such point-wise local equivalence in the approximation that
the idea of the "point" represents. This is obviously an approximate macro idea. It breaks down
for quantum gravity and also even above that if you include very sensitive tidal curvature detectors.
This is not news and no one thinks that that refutes Einstein's fundamental idea of general relativity.
I think ALL key ideas in theoretical physics are "metaphors" and "correspondence" approximations
that have mathematical formulation with operational meanings at least at the gedanken level, which
"explain" according to our subjective standards and which also must be in accord with, and better yet
predict, real measurement numbers. Does the physics in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" meet these standards?
Does it have a chance of doing so? Actually, I am optimistic on that.
PZ: That's is how he hung on to his equivalence hobby horse. His concept of "equivalence"
was about "doing justice" (Einstein 1921, 1949) to the weak equivalence principle by
identifying the essential natures of the two classes of phenomena, and the fundamental
physical nature of the two kinds of field. Riemann curvature may or may not vanish for
particular "real" gravitational fields -- but this is *accidental*, not essential, in the Einsteinian
view.
JS: What exactly is wrong with that? It is defensible operationally. Physics is essentially operational in its basic nature.
If you take the "connection field" as being the "gravity field" then with that definition everything is fine. The gravity field
is eliminated in the LIF. Fine. One can also see if there is local curvature using a pair of test particles on LIF timelike geodesics. The
gravity field vanishes for BOTH of them, nevertheless, there is a tidal effect, there is local curvature at the next deeper "gradient" level.
So I see no conceptual conflict here?
PZ: (Here "essential" does not mean or imply "technically necessary"; it means essential to
the definition of the fundamental nature of the gravitational field -- which is consistent
with philosophical usage )
I am not saying I *agree* with this Einsteinian view. In fact, it's quite the opposite: I don't.
The point I am trying to drive home with the covariant metric description of inertial forces in
"flat" spacetime is not that Riemann curvature is irrelevant to Einstein's theory of gravitation;
but Kretschman's point that general covariance in itself does not amount to general relativity.
JS: Is this news? Who rejects that? Again look at Hawking's key example.
PZ: This should be now quite obvious, since you can apply a general covariant kinematical metric
description to *fictitious* forces, in terms of connection fields, *entirely within Newtonian
theory*. Yet this is hardly "general relativistic".
JS: The dynamical equations are "the
same" in the sense of being covariant equations. It is true that the
tidal curvature tensor is not zero in an LIF if it is not zero in a
COINCIDENT LNIF at same "point event" P.
PZ: Yes, of course. Everyone knows this technical fact, but few seem
willing to draw the
obvious conclusions. There is no deep thinking behind the
*pseudo-operationalist*
principle "all physics is local". The gravitational field is not
"local"; and no actual
measurements at all can be performed inside an "infinitesimal
neighborhood".
JS: All that EEP, yes only a
correspondence principle, asserts, is that under most conditions, one
can manage to make the relative tidal acceleration between two
timelike geodesic test particles quite small. This approximation
breaks down on the approach to a space-time singularity or if one is
probing the Planck scale Lp. For practical problems here on Earth the
tidal effects are very tiny because, as I recall, radius of curvature
of the Earth at its surface is ~ 1 AU ~ 10^13 cm. I need to compute
it for Sun at Earth as well.
PZ: But that is a sleight of hand, which works by tacitly assuming
that the only way
to measure tidal curvature is using a pair of test particles. Not so.
There are
other measurement devices that are not scale-sensitive in the manner
of "EEP".
So this is yet another MTW red herring.
JS: Huh? Show me.
PZ: Read Ohanian & Ruffini Chapter 1, Section 1.9.
Here's their conclusion:
"From this survey of actual experiments and *Gedanken*-experiments
we see that there exist several methods for measuring the tidal field *locally*,
in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of a given point."
JS: Good.
PZ: "The limitations on the minimum size of the neighborhood that is needed
to perform measurements of a given precision do not arise from any intrinsic
properties of the gravitational field; rather, these limitations arise from the
quantum nature of matter, which prevents us from constructing an apparatus
of arbitrarily small size."
JS: Fine, I agree, always did.
PZ: "The tidal field is no less a local quantity than, say, the electric field."
-- "Gravitation and Spacetime", p 53.
JS: Of course. That is what I have been saying. So?
JS: All "EEP" says is that in the presence of gravitational fields, SR
works as an
approximate model if we ignore all but a restricted class of
measurements --
measurements of translational g-forces on single test particles.
PZ: Of course here I meant it "works in free float".
JS: This is too vague.
PZ: But this "principle" is in truth inherently vague, since it doesn't, and cannot, specify
which measurements are to be excluded (ignored).
JS: It does not. SR has the local curvature tensor as well!
For example
Ruv(LNIF) = eu^a(P)e^vb(P)Rab(LIF)
where the e's are the tetrad components. So what is the problem?
Einstein's field equation in the SR LIF is simply, for /\zpf = 0 non-exotic vacuum limit
Gab(Einstein) = -[(QED dimensionless coupling)/(Witten's String Tension)]Tab(Matter)
How do you like my cool Post-Modern deconstructing of Einstein's GR showing its deeper meaning? ;-)
Similarly for ALL the local differential equations for standard physics.
This even works for local quantum field theory using second-quantization.
Carlos Castro & Pavsic have a Clifford Algebra generalization of all this, which naturally includes extended "strings" and "branes" with the "points" as "centers" of the extended geometrodynamical objects.
PZ: Or perhaps you like "random precision"?
The whole scale-dependence aspect of "EEP" is a red herring IMO. Of course if
you ignore all local signs of roundness, then things locally *look* flat.
JS: Yes, but I think I showed you the essential point above i.e.
Gab(Einstein) = -[(QED dimensionless coupling)/(Witten's String Tension)]Tab(Matter)
in the LIF
also its Penrose "spinor" form deeper than "tensor" and perhaps generalized to Castro-Pavsic "poly-vectors" in Clifford Space (like Grassmann's algebra and Cartan's exterior forms?). "Spinors" as "ideals" of Clifford Algebras etc.
PZ: All "EEP" really says is that if you look only at translational effects, then (using
SR) in free fall you can model spacetime as "flat", since in that case gravitational
and inertial translational effects cancel, giving zero resultant "g-forces".
JS: Thanks for quoting me. :-)
PZ: In order to do this locally you have to ignore the locally detectable effects of
Riemann curvature.
JS: Not really, i.e.
Gab(Einstein) = -[(QED dimensionless coupling)/(Witten's String Tension)]Tab(Matter)
in the LIF
PZ: Yes, with *some* tidal measuring devices this becomes easier (you get a better
approximation) as the volume of spacetime in which measurements are
performed shrinks. But with alternative devices this is not necessarily the case
(Ohanian & Ruffini 1.9)
JS: I would like the details of these "alternative devices". Is this ET technology from Colonel Corso? ;-)
PZ: So this epsilon-delta aspect of "EEP" is a red herring IMO. You might as well say:
"If you ignore evidence of curvature, then you will notice no evidence of curvature".
Vacuous, really. The *appearance* of epsilon-delta precision is, well -- just that.
Cardboard-cutout.
"...like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
JS: The translational g-force vanishes in an LIF -
astronauts free float in space with rockets off.
PZ: As they do in Newtonian physics. So what? Where is the "general relativity" here?
There *is* none -- unless you add it. Einstein added it by pretending inertial fields
were, fundamentally, "real gravitational fields" (Einstein 1907, 1911, 1916, 1921, 1949).
JS: No, I think the basic idea is adding non-Euclidean geometry as in Hawking's nice example.
PZ: I believe that is why he erroneously implicitly concluded that the inertial field makes a
contribution to the gravitational vacuum energy -- yielding the Einstein conservation law,
the Einstein field equations, and the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor. This is all
built into his gravitational conservation law, based on the unified connection field taken
seriously.
JS: I do not understand what you are saying. It's too compressed. Flesh it out with equations.
Are you saying that
Guv + 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv = 0
is wrong?
Why?
What do you replace it with?
I see no need for the pseudo-tensor locally. You only need it to get global Pu integrals in
asymptotically flat space-time as in MTW(ch 19-20?) asking tricky questions on gravity waves.
The problem there is to separate near and far field dynamical degrees of freedom of the guv field.
BTW Wheeler-Feynman/Hoyle-Narklikar type elimination of field dynamical degrees of freedom
ONLY applies to FAR FIELD, i.e. real quanta not to NEAR FIELD, i.e. virtual quanta.
The NEAR FIELD is always the relative BACKGROUND reference for the "waves".
For example in SSS solution of Ruv = 0
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 - r^2(dpolar)^2
r > 2GM/c^2
this is all NEAR guv field not guv(gravity waves) for which Pu with pseudo-tensor is relevant -- if I recall correctly from fuzzy memory. ;-)
Do you object to
Guv^;u = 0 ?
That is an approximation also IMHO that is violated in real practical "metric engineering" by advanced super-technological life forms of the Q-class in sense of "Star Trek". That's what the real UFO stuff is about IMHO and that why Hal Puthoff does what he does, mistakenly IMHO. :-)
May the best idea win. That ain't always necessarily so as we see recently with the Castro-Ginsparg Case.
PZ: And this conservation principle figured large in Einstein's heuristic derivation of the
standard GR field equations. So if this is questionable, then so are the field equations
in their classic form, for deep physical reasons.
JS: You need to be more specific for this to be more than couch potato idle speculation.
So how
Guv^;v = 0
can fail? Then I AM INTERESTED because that IS IMHO
THE METRIC ENGINEERING PROBLEM
that Hal Puthoff has never properly posed in his publications with his group ever IMHO.
PZ: It just superficially seems to preserve the physical content of
Einstein equivalence
-- but in fact it doesn't. That's why I say "EEP" is a grossly
misleading acronym.
It should be called "WCP" -- for "Wheeler Correspondence Principle".
PZ: This is Einstein's basic extension of the restricted physical
principle of relativity to mutually
accelerating frames.
My point here is that the whole "general covariant" formal apparatus
of metric tensors,
connection fields, etc. based on
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v
can be applied just as well under the Newtonian or the Einsteinian
inertial models: so far, this general
covariant formulation is completely neutral as to Newton v.
Einstein.
The difference here is rather
in the *interpretation* of the inertial metric tensor g_uv --
whether
it is to be understood as a purely
kinematical quantity (Newtonian), or as an integral aspect of a
dynamic unified gravitational-inertial
field (Einsteinian).
JS: Since Newton's gravity is the slow speed weak curvature limit of
Einstein's GR
For example in SSS where r > 2GM/c^2
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/rc^2)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/rc^2)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 +
sin^2theta dphi^2)
U(Newton) = -GM/r per unit test particle
Therefore, one CAN seamlessly interpret Newton's gravity in exactly
the same geometrodynamic way that Einstein does.
PZ: Yes, you can get to this by correspondence -- but you can also do
it *ab initio*
within a purely Newtonian theory, and without any reference to
gravity. This
follows directly from the definition of the invariant interval on a
smooth manifold.
JS: But you get no post-Newtonian effects like gravi-magnetism.
PZ: Sure, but this is not relevant to my argument.
JS: This part of your argument was done years ago I think by Cartan and is not really new.
PZ: I am not suggesting that we go back to the Newtonian theory -- just to the Newtonian
model of inertial compensation (by analogy with inertial compensation of electrostatic
forces in GR, as in my example) applied within the GR framework -- subject to
certain modifications as to the definition of gravitational vacuum stress-energy and
the formulation of the matter-field conservation principle.
JS: You lost me again. "Inertial compensation" the way I understand the words mean setting the torsion-free connection field = 0 defining the LIFs on timelike geodesics. It says nothing about local curvature.
JS: Therefore, there is
no necessary difference of interpretation since Einstein's theory
eliminating "gravity force" is the covering theory of Newton's using
"force acting at a distance". Newton's intepretation is clearly less
fundamental and is superceded by Einstein's even in Newton's original
domain of relevance.
PZ: This is really beside the point, which is that there is nothing
specifically Einsteinian
about covariantly associating inertial forces with a space-time
connection field, since
you can also do this in a purely Newtonian theory (of course, you can
also do it in SR).
JS: OK explain Hawking's above example then. I am waiting.
PZ: See above. Of course you need 4D Riemann curvature to describe a spherically
symmetric field in GR. I never suggested otherwise. I don't know of anyone
who has. Einstein certainly didn't, and I am not saying he did.
Einstein wanted to identify the *fundamental natures* of inertial and gravitational
phenomena, and conceive of the inertial field as a "real gravitational field" (Einstein 1949).
He did not consider non-vanishing Riemann curvature to be *essential* to the nature of
the "real gravitational field".
JS: I think I showed above that Einstein is correct about this. Indeed the geodesic deviation equation for the
stretch-squeeze tidal effect on timelike GEODESIC test particles completely IMHO justifies what Einstein said in 1949
according to your above description.
PZ: That most physical g-fields exhibit such curvature was not
fundamentally significant in Einstein's definition of the gravitational field.
JS. Correct, with GOOD REASON! I think I now see your point and the error in your thinking. You have simply not really understood the meaning of the geodesic deviation equation! IMHO.
PZ: That does NOT imply that you don't technically need Riemann curvature to describe a
particular permanent field, as in Hawking's example. Obviously you do.
JS: Well then you have answered your own question about Kretschmann may He Rest In Peace and not roll over in his grave - at least not until Halloween when all the Dead Physicists return.
Hey that's a name for a Rock Band "Dead Physicists".
Looks like Usama Bin Laden was thwarted at the pass - no New Years attacks on scale he allegedly boasted of. Rumor is that he is cornered.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 01:16 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
You cannot reduce the gravitational field to "g-forces", as Einstein
once thought.
JS; Why do you think that? Quote Einstein on that.
PZ: I mean as to the essential nature of the phenomenon.
JS: Justify your conclusion with evidence from Einstein's writing - date important of course.
PZ: I am not suggesting that Einstein thought that Riemann curvature could be ignored.
Of course the metric description of "permanent" physical fields entails non-vanishing
curvature.
I think you're missing the point. I don't agree with Einstein's view, but I think I
at least understand his idea.
JS: Yes, I do miss your point. I cannot find it as I try to pin it down. Your point then continues to elude me as I try to get you to pin it down in a clear enough way for me to understand. Look, take a globally flat space-time. An arbitrary curvilinear coordinate transformation corresponds physically, in principle, to a non-rigid lattice of generically accelerating LNIF tiny observer-detectors. You can never in that situation get Hawking's nice example of Alice and Bob both LNIF on timelike non-geodesics accelerating away from each other BUT at a FIXED unchanging spatial separation.
Also you need overlapping coordinate patches in really curved spacetime, you cannot use a single global curvilinear coordinate transformation. Look at the Penrose diagram for the SSS Ruv = 0 non-exotic vacuum Einstein-Bridge non-traversable "Mass without mass" Wheeler geon for example. See Matt Visser's "Lorentzian Wormholes". Of course Puthoff ignores all that in his PV model. Puthoff says no event horizons which completely throws away all the Hawking-Penrose theorems on singularities, the Bekenstein bound from black hole thermodynamics, the Hawking radiation, Unruh's work, the t'Hooft-Susskind holographic principle, the computation of black hole entropy from string theory. No wonder the Pundits dismiss Puthoff's suggestion. He does not justify his "engineering" approach adequately.
PZ: This is an example of where a naive "Machian" empiricism leaves you
barking up
the wrong tree -- the wrong tree in this case being strict equivalence.
Of course Einstein knew about Riemann curvature and tidal effects, but
then tacked
on a doctrine that "all physics is local", insisting that *only* the
translational g-forces
observed at each point are fundamentally definitive of the
gravitational field.
JS; Why do you think that? Quote Einstein on that.
PZ: Jack, that doesn't mean you can *ignore* Riemann curvature.
JS: Good, but your essential point still eludes me.
BTW see Hawking's nice example I mentioned earlier today of 2 observers
accelerating AWAY from each other at opposite podes of Earth's surface
yet staying FIXED distance from each other. This demands non-Euclidean
SPACE-TIME CURVATURE!
PZ: I agree this is a nice example, but *of course* you need Riemann curvature
in GR to describe such a field.
JS: Then what is it you object to? Some early remark Einstein may have made before he understood completely what he was doing?
PZ:: In my POV this was simply an *ad hoc* stratagem for protecting
his equivalence
hobbyhorse from legitimate criticism. There is nothing deep here.
JS: Hawking gives a counter-example to what you just said IMHO.
PZ: A counterexample to what?
JS: To what I thought was your thesis, but apparently is not. :-)
PZ: Jack, I don't think you have understood what I've been saying. You certainly
haven't understood Einstein. Einstein's thinking was very subtle.
I am NOT suggesting that Einstein thought that Riemann curvature did not exist,
or that non-vanishing Riemann curvature was not *technically necessary* for describing
particular permanent gravitational fields in terms of the metric g_uv. Obviously it is --
and of course Einstein was fully aware of that.
JS: Good. So what is your point?
PZ: I am saying that he regarded only the *pointwise local equivalence* of the inertial
and gravitational field to be of fundamental importance: he did not regard non-vanishing
Riemann curvature as *definitive* of the essential nature of the gravitational field. The
question of vanishing vs. non-vanishing Riemann curvature was viewed as merely
accidental to this fundamental nature.
JS: Justify what you just said with relevant quotes from Einstein and the dates he made them.
From an operational POV there is such point-wise local equivalence in the approximation that
the idea of the "point" represents. This is obviously an approximate macro idea. It breaks down
for quantum gravity and also even above that if you include very sensitive tidal curvature detectors.
This is not news and no one thinks that that refutes Einstein's fundamental idea of general relativity.
I think ALL key ideas in theoretical physics are "metaphors" and "correspondence" approximations
that have mathematical formulation with operational meanings at least at the gedanken level, which
"explain" according to our subjective standards and which also must be in accord with, and better yet
predict, real measurement numbers. Does the physics in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" meet these standards?
Does it have a chance of doing so? Actually, I am optimistic on that.
PZ: That's is how he hung on to his equivalence hobby horse. His concept of "equivalence"
was about "doing justice" (Einstein 1921, 1949) to the weak equivalence principle by
identifying the essential natures of the two classes of phenomena, and the fundamental
physical nature of the two kinds of field. Riemann curvature may or may not vanish for
particular "real" gravitational fields -- but this is *accidental*, not essential, in the Einsteinian
view.
JS: What exactly is wrong with that? It is defensible operationally. Physics is essentially operational in its basic nature.
If you take the "connection field" as being the "gravity field" then with that definition everything is fine. The gravity field
is eliminated in the LIF. Fine. One can also see if there is local curvature using a pair of test particles on LIF timelike geodesics. The
gravity field vanishes for BOTH of them, nevertheless, there is a tidal effect, there is local curvature at the next deeper "gradient" level.
So I see no conceptual conflict here?
PZ: (Here "essential" does not mean or imply "technically necessary"; it means essential to
the definition of the fundamental nature of the gravitational field -- which is consistent
with philosophical usage )
I am not saying I *agree* with this Einsteinian view. In fact, it's quite the opposite: I don't.
The point I am trying to drive home with the covariant metric description of inertial forces in
"flat" spacetime is not that Riemann curvature is irrelevant to Einstein's theory of gravitation;
but Kretschman's point that general covariance in itself does not amount to general relativity.
JS: Is this news? Who rejects that? Again look at Hawking's key example.
PZ: This should be now quite obvious, since you can apply a general covariant kinematical metric
description to *fictitious* forces, in terms of connection fields, *entirely within Newtonian
theory*. Yet this is hardly "general relativistic".
JS: The dynamical equations are "the
same" in the sense of being covariant equations. It is true that the
tidal curvature tensor is not zero in an LIF if it is not zero in a
COINCIDENT LNIF at same "point event" P.
PZ: Yes, of course. Everyone knows this technical fact, but few seem
willing to draw the
obvious conclusions. There is no deep thinking behind the
*pseudo-operationalist*
principle "all physics is local". The gravitational field is not
"local"; and no actual
measurements at all can be performed inside an "infinitesimal
neighborhood".
JS: All that EEP, yes only a
correspondence principle, asserts, is that under most conditions, one
can manage to make the relative tidal acceleration between two
timelike geodesic test particles quite small. This approximation
breaks down on the approach to a space-time singularity or if one is
probing the Planck scale Lp. For practical problems here on Earth the
tidal effects are very tiny because, as I recall, radius of curvature
of the Earth at its surface is ~ 1 AU ~ 10^13 cm. I need to compute
it for Sun at Earth as well.
PZ: But that is a sleight of hand, which works by tacitly assuming
that the only way
to measure tidal curvature is using a pair of test particles. Not so.
There are
other measurement devices that are not scale-sensitive in the manner
of "EEP".
So this is yet another MTW red herring.
JS: Huh? Show me.
PZ: Read Ohanian & Ruffini Chapter 1, Section 1.9.
Here's their conclusion:
"From this survey of actual experiments and *Gedanken*-experiments
we see that there exist several methods for measuring the tidal field *locally*,
in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of a given point."
JS: Good.
PZ: "The limitations on the minimum size of the neighborhood that is needed
to perform measurements of a given precision do not arise from any intrinsic
properties of the gravitational field; rather, these limitations arise from the
quantum nature of matter, which prevents us from constructing an apparatus
of arbitrarily small size."
JS: Fine, I agree, always did.
PZ: "The tidal field is no less a local quantity than, say, the electric field."
-- "Gravitation and Spacetime", p 53.
JS: Of course. That is what I have been saying. So?
JS: All "EEP" says is that in the presence of gravitational fields, SR
works as an
approximate model if we ignore all but a restricted class of
measurements --
measurements of translational g-forces on single test particles.
PZ: Of course here I meant it "works in free float".
JS: This is too vague.
PZ: But this "principle" is in truth inherently vague, since it doesn't, and cannot, specify
which measurements are to be excluded (ignored).
JS: It does not. SR has the local curvature tensor as well!
For example
Ruv(LNIF) = eu^a(P)e^vb(P)Rab(LIF)
where the e's are the tetrad components. So what is the problem?
Einstein's field equation in the SR LIF is simply, for /\zpf = 0 non-exotic vacuum limit
Gab(Einstein) = -[(QED dimensionless coupling)/(Witten's String Tension)]Tab(Matter)
How do you like my cool Post-Modern deconstructing of Einstein's GR showing its deeper meaning? ;-)
Similarly for ALL the local differential equations for standard physics.
This even works for local quantum field theory using second-quantization.
Carlos Castro & Pavsic have a Clifford Algebra generalization of all this, which naturally includes extended "strings" and "branes" with the "points" as "centers" of the extended geometrodynamical objects.
PZ: Or perhaps you like "random precision"?
The whole scale-dependence aspect of "EEP" is a red herring IMO. Of course if
you ignore all local signs of roundness, then things locally *look* flat.
JS: Yes, but I think I showed you the essential point above i.e.
Gab(Einstein) = -[(QED dimensionless coupling)/(Witten's String Tension)]Tab(Matter)
in the LIF
also its Penrose "spinor" form deeper than "tensor" and perhaps generalized to Castro-Pavsic "poly-vectors" in Clifford Space (like Grassmann's algebra and Cartan's exterior forms?). "Spinors" as "ideals" of Clifford Algebras etc.
PZ: All "EEP" really says is that if you look only at translational effects, then (using
SR) in free fall you can model spacetime as "flat", since in that case gravitational
and inertial translational effects cancel, giving zero resultant "g-forces".
JS: Thanks for quoting me. :-)
PZ: In order to do this locally you have to ignore the locally detectable effects of
Riemann curvature.
JS: Not really, i.e.
Gab(Einstein) = -[(QED dimensionless coupling)/(Witten's String Tension)]Tab(Matter)
in the LIF
PZ: Yes, with *some* tidal measuring devices this becomes easier (you get a better
approximation) as the volume of spacetime in which measurements are
performed shrinks. But with alternative devices this is not necessarily the case
(Ohanian & Ruffini 1.9)
JS: I would like the details of these "alternative devices". Is this ET technology from Colonel Corso? ;-)
PZ: So this epsilon-delta aspect of "EEP" is a red herring IMO. You might as well say:
"If you ignore evidence of curvature, then you will notice no evidence of curvature".
Vacuous, really. The *appearance* of epsilon-delta precision is, well -- just that.
Cardboard-cutout.
"...like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
JS: The translational g-force vanishes in an LIF -
astronauts free float in space with rockets off.
PZ: As they do in Newtonian physics. So what? Where is the "general relativity" here?
There *is* none -- unless you add it. Einstein added it by pretending inertial fields
were, fundamentally, "real gravitational fields" (Einstein 1907, 1911, 1916, 1921, 1949).
JS: No, I think the basic idea is adding non-Euclidean geometry as in Hawking's nice example.
PZ: I believe that is why he erroneously implicitly concluded that the inertial field makes a
contribution to the gravitational vacuum energy -- yielding the Einstein conservation law,
the Einstein field equations, and the Einstein stress-energy pseudotensor. This is all
built into his gravitational conservation law, based on the unified connection field taken
seriously.
JS: I do not understand what you are saying. It's too compressed. Flesh it out with equations.
Are you saying that
Guv + 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv = 0
is wrong?
Why?
What do you replace it with?
I see no need for the pseudo-tensor locally. You only need it to get global Pu integrals in
asymptotically flat space-time as in MTW(ch 19-20?) asking tricky questions on gravity waves.
The problem there is to separate near and far field dynamical degrees of freedom of the guv field.
BTW Wheeler-Feynman/Hoyle-Narklikar type elimination of field dynamical degrees of freedom
ONLY applies to FAR FIELD, i.e. real quanta not to NEAR FIELD, i.e. virtual quanta.
The NEAR FIELD is always the relative BACKGROUND reference for the "waves".
For example in SSS solution of Ruv = 0
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 - r^2(dpolar)^2
r > 2GM/c^2
this is all NEAR guv field not guv(gravity waves) for which Pu with pseudo-tensor is relevant -- if I recall correctly from fuzzy memory. ;-)
Do you object to
Guv^;u = 0 ?
That is an approximation also IMHO that is violated in real practical "metric engineering" by advanced super-technological life forms of the Q-class in sense of "Star Trek". That's what the real UFO stuff is about IMHO and that why Hal Puthoff does what he does, mistakenly IMHO. :-)
May the best idea win. That ain't always necessarily so as we see recently with the Castro-Ginsparg Case.
PZ: And this conservation principle figured large in Einstein's heuristic derivation of the
standard GR field equations. So if this is questionable, then so are the field equations
in their classic form, for deep physical reasons.
JS: You need to be more specific for this to be more than couch potato idle speculation.
So how
Guv^;v = 0
can fail? Then I AM INTERESTED because that IS IMHO
THE METRIC ENGINEERING PROBLEM
that Hal Puthoff has never properly posed in his publications with his group ever IMHO.
PZ: It just superficially seems to preserve the physical content of
Einstein equivalence
-- but in fact it doesn't. That's why I say "EEP" is a grossly
misleading acronym.
It should be called "WCP" -- for "Wheeler Correspondence Principle".
PZ: This is Einstein's basic extension of the restricted physical
principle of relativity to mutually
accelerating frames.
My point here is that the whole "general covariant" formal apparatus
of metric tensors,
connection fields, etc. based on
ds^2 = g_uv dx^u dx^v
can be applied just as well under the Newtonian or the Einsteinian
inertial models: so far, this general
covariant formulation is completely neutral as to Newton v.
Einstein.
The difference here is rather
in the *interpretation* of the inertial metric tensor g_uv --
whether
it is to be understood as a purely
kinematical quantity (Newtonian), or as an integral aspect of a
dynamic unified gravitational-inertial
field (Einsteinian).
JS: Since Newton's gravity is the slow speed weak curvature limit of
Einstein's GR
For example in SSS where r > 2GM/c^2
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/rc^2)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/rc^2)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 +
sin^2theta dphi^2)
U(Newton) = -GM/r per unit test particle
Therefore, one CAN seamlessly interpret Newton's gravity in exactly
the same geometrodynamic way that Einstein does.
PZ: Yes, you can get to this by correspondence -- but you can also do
it *ab initio*
within a purely Newtonian theory, and without any reference to
gravity. This
follows directly from the definition of the invariant interval on a
smooth manifold.
JS: But you get no post-Newtonian effects like gravi-magnetism.
PZ: Sure, but this is not relevant to my argument.
JS: This part of your argument was done years ago I think by Cartan and is not really new.
PZ: I am not suggesting that we go back to the Newtonian theory -- just to the Newtonian
model of inertial compensation (by analogy with inertial compensation of electrostatic
forces in GR, as in my example) applied within the GR framework -- subject to
certain modifications as to the definition of gravitational vacuum stress-energy and
the formulation of the matter-field conservation principle.
JS: You lost me again. "Inertial compensation" the way I understand the words mean setting the torsion-free connection field = 0 defining the LIFs on timelike geodesics. It says nothing about local curvature.
JS: Therefore, there is
no necessary difference of interpretation since Einstein's theory
eliminating "gravity force" is the covering theory of Newton's using
"force acting at a distance". Newton's intepretation is clearly less
fundamental and is superceded by Einstein's even in Newton's original
domain of relevance.
PZ: This is really beside the point, which is that there is nothing
specifically Einsteinian
about covariantly associating inertial forces with a space-time
connection field, since
you can also do this in a purely Newtonian theory (of course, you can
also do it in SR).
JS: OK explain Hawking's above example then. I am waiting.
PZ: See above. Of course you need 4D Riemann curvature to describe a spherically
symmetric field in GR. I never suggested otherwise. I don't know of anyone
who has. Einstein certainly didn't, and I am not saying he did.
Einstein wanted to identify the *fundamental natures* of inertial and gravitational
phenomena, and conceive of the inertial field as a "real gravitational field" (Einstein 1949).
He did not consider non-vanishing Riemann curvature to be *essential* to the nature of
the "real gravitational field".
JS: I think I showed above that Einstein is correct about this. Indeed the geodesic deviation equation for the
stretch-squeeze tidal effect on timelike GEODESIC test particles completely IMHO justifies what Einstein said in 1949
according to your above description.
PZ: That most physical g-fields exhibit such curvature was not
fundamentally significant in Einstein's definition of the gravitational field.
JS. Correct, with GOOD REASON! I think I now see your point and the error in your thinking. You have simply not really understood the meaning of the geodesic deviation equation! IMHO.
PZ: That does NOT imply that you don't technically need Riemann curvature to describe a
particular permanent field, as in Hawking's example. Obviously you do.
JS: Well then you have answered your own question about Kretschmann may He Rest In Peace and not roll over in his grave - at least not until Halloween when all the Dead Physicists return.
Hey that's a name for a Rock Band "Dead Physicists".
Looks like Usama Bin Laden was thwarted at the pass - no New Years attacks on scale he allegedly boasted of. Rumor is that he is cornered.
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Creon Levit wrote:
http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf
Yes, this goes back to the Chickering letter to Richard De Lauer
reproduced in my book "Destiny Matrix" and also to Harold Chipman's
efforts in the 80's also shown in the book.
Curious it is Sandia isn't it? ;-)
Nothing much new in what they say. Interesting that they are interested,
Chickering's letter is alluded to in
The Quark and The Jaguar by Murry Gell-Mann
The Quantum Engineers in New Yorker and a book by Jeremy Bernstein on JS Bell,
In a Physics Today Op Ed by N.D. Mermin
Antony Valentini's work gives new life to this issue in that orthodox quantum theory
with signal locality is to a more general quantum theory with signal nonlocality as special relativity is to
general relativity IMHO. The latter may go against Lenny Susskind's idea, but I am not sure yet.
I have basically finished "Physics Meets Philosophy at The Planck Scale" - a good book.
I am now reading "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin - also a good book.
The key is Lenny Susskind's "Holographic Principle" which I think is essentially correct.
It is clear that no one yet really understands why.
Curious confluence in Universe as BIT in that the "dual" stringy uncertainty principle with a minimum length fuses the two meanings of "string" both as a "vibrating string of pure energy" (Brian Greene on NOVA) and as a BIT-string of pure information.
Note that the discrete BIT linked 1-dim string is dual to 2-dim area in the 3D uncompactified spacelike surfaces. So this seems to suggest the Hologram Principle as well?
The affair with Ginsparg on the Cornell archive re Carlos Castro's work, which is good IMHO, plus all the
speculative hype in NOVA's "The Elegant Universe", not clearly labeled as speculation, plus Brian Greene in
NY Times today (not that he says anything objectionable there) all suggest that physics today has sold out to
Big Money - not that that is not understandable of course. John Brockman, the literary agent in New York,
has gotten very rich in making this a veritable cottage industry launched by "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
I do not begrudge him. At least it gets the public interested.
On the other hand Carlos Castro and Pavsic may have a powerful formalism that explains M theory in a relatively simply way and for Ginsparg to
suppress open debate on that is a very bad sign. Castro is not a "crackpot" in any sense as spelled out in John Baez's set of criteria. I am not saying Castro and Pavsic have it right. Maybe not, but their ideas should not be censored out of the Cornell e-print archive.
http://www.quantumfields.com/469Maclay.pdf
Yes, this goes back to the Chickering letter to Richard De Lauer
reproduced in my book "Destiny Matrix" and also to Harold Chipman's
efforts in the 80's also shown in the book.
Curious it is Sandia isn't it? ;-)
Nothing much new in what they say. Interesting that they are interested,
Chickering's letter is alluded to in
The Quark and The Jaguar by Murry Gell-Mann
The Quantum Engineers in New Yorker and a book by Jeremy Bernstein on JS Bell,
In a Physics Today Op Ed by N.D. Mermin
Antony Valentini's work gives new life to this issue in that orthodox quantum theory
with signal locality is to a more general quantum theory with signal nonlocality as special relativity is to
general relativity IMHO. The latter may go against Lenny Susskind's idea, but I am not sure yet.
I have basically finished "Physics Meets Philosophy at The Planck Scale" - a good book.
I am now reading "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin - also a good book.
The key is Lenny Susskind's "Holographic Principle" which I think is essentially correct.
It is clear that no one yet really understands why.
Curious confluence in Universe as BIT in that the "dual" stringy uncertainty principle with a minimum length fuses the two meanings of "string" both as a "vibrating string of pure energy" (Brian Greene on NOVA) and as a BIT-string of pure information.
Note that the discrete BIT linked 1-dim string is dual to 2-dim area in the 3D uncompactified spacelike surfaces. So this seems to suggest the Hologram Principle as well?
The affair with Ginsparg on the Cornell archive re Carlos Castro's work, which is good IMHO, plus all the
speculative hype in NOVA's "The Elegant Universe", not clearly labeled as speculation, plus Brian Greene in
NY Times today (not that he says anything objectionable there) all suggest that physics today has sold out to
Big Money - not that that is not understandable of course. John Brockman, the literary agent in New York,
has gotten very rich in making this a veritable cottage industry launched by "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
I do not begrudge him. At least it gets the public interested.
On the other hand Carlos Castro and Pavsic may have a powerful formalism that explains M theory in a relatively simply way and for Ginsparg to
suppress open debate on that is a very bad sign. Castro is not a "crackpot" in any sense as spelled out in John Baez's set of criteria. I am not saying Castro and Pavsic have it right. Maybe not, but their ideas should not be censored out of the Cornell e-print archive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
