To future historians of physics and "metric engineering"

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subject: Who discovered what at

The Birth of Metric Engineering

The Big Picture -- The Context of the Conflict Below:

The one important matter related to national security that Kit Green, Bruce Maccabee, Robert Collins, Eric Davis, Jack Sarfatti, Colonel John Alexander and Hal Puthoff do agree on is the factual reality of flying saucers as a military weapons issue. Note

On Mar 5, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Green, Christopher wrote:

Thanks, Victor.

I am the Chair of the Independent Science Panel for the Undersecretary
of Operations, and the recent (for 12 years membership) Chair of the
Board on Army Science and Technology. I am currently on an Air Force
sponsored National Academy of Sciences Commission to look at emergent
technologies of national security significance. Finally, I was the chair
of the Biotechnology Chapter in the Science and Technology for the Army
National Academy of Sciences Study.

--------------------------------------------------

"There is nothing wrong with what you say.  You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects.  It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard."

Hal Puthoff to Jack Sarfatti, Nov 26, 2003


Thanks to Captain Robert Collins, USAF ret "UFO researcher" whose fatuity and malapropisms inspired this work. ;-)

On Mar 5, 2004, at 9:56 AM, sonata wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Every theoretical physicist who has real standing in the field who has bothered to look at Hal's published papers in PV agrees with me on this.
     There are other Theoretical Physicist that disagree with your's. 

I would like details. Vague rumor mongering went out with Joseph McCarthy. Of course I expect controversy and intelligent disagreement. In fact, unlike Hal it appears, I welcome it.

Hal can name them but they don't want any part of you.  Hal has advised me not even to talk to you......Rmc

Noted for the record. No doubt "they" are part of Hal's group. Of course Hal is shaking in his boots about you talking to me in the public record!
With True Believer UFO Cult groupies like you, Hal does not need enemies! You are a naive bumpkin in this Balzacian Dantesque Shakespearean Comedy of Errors. You are putty in my hands. You are my Golem, who I shape with clay. You are my straight man, my shill. If you did not exist, I would have had to invent you. God works in weird ways Collins. ;-)


On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:57 AM, Leonard Susskind, a leading theoretical physicist and full professor at Stanford, wrote:

What Sarfatti says is correct: the Susskind-Glogower states cited in the
paper should have been called the "Susskind-Glogower-Sarfatti states"

LS

See interview of Susskind at http://edge.org or maybe http://www.edge.org


Citeren Doc Savage :

Thanks Art. Keep up the good work.:-)
On Mar 4, 2004, at 12:43 AM, art wagner wrote:

"On the Cyclotomic Quantum Algebra of Time Perception" by Michel
Planat (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020)

This is a deep difficult paper that requires much study, but is worth
the effort. Note that the Susskind-Glogower states cited in the paper
should have been called the "Susskind-Glogower-Sarfatti states" as
Lenny Susskind will confirm if asked.



Of course this was early work 1963-64 that we all did at Cornell and is not related to the current stuff (at least not that I am presently aware).

It will do Hal no honor for the historical record that he took such an attitude. I have earlier e-mails from him saying we are "all on the same team" and that he basically did not disagree with what I was doing. Indeed here is a representative list of messages from Hal to me for future scholars to evaluate. Hal needs to think of his legacy. The words I write will live in History for a very long time and not only on this planet, indeed not only in this universe. Never underestimate the intellectual and magical power of a Sarfatti. We have been at this for a very long time you know. ;-)

On Dec 11, 2002, at 8:50 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/10/02 9:27:27 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:

Propelling spacecraft with gravity waves? No! You need to use
the /\ field.


Jack, as much as you like to knock the PV (polarizable vacuum) approach to GR phenomena (and its associated metric engineering implications), you might well change your mind when you see the role played by /\ in the PV approach.  (Two papers in preparation, which we will share when completed.)

Cheers,
Hal

Hal never kept his promise here. Had he done so, things might have turned out differently for History. Hal still has a chance to redeem his reputation because I am holding off sending in Super Cosmos to be published for another three weeks. It is already copyrighted at Library of Congress by the publisher. I have been bending over backwards to be fair to Hal who is acting in a very short sighted way. If he has something good I will admit it. But like Michael Wolf Kruvant I have not seen any evidence of that. The evidence I have seen does not pass the test.

On Jan 3, 2003, at 9:48 AM, puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 1/2/03 8:46:11 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

That's the least of the deluge of disinformation and misinformation
from ORMES and other crackpots about you. I sent you the email L.
Gardner sent to Neil Freer saying you endorsed ORMES as the only path
to warp drive - you know the David Hudson goofy dust that Joe gave
Victor from Budapest $650,000 for.

I have corrected the record many times that I do not endorse the Hudson claims because I was never given samples to test, but the Internet keeps the urban myth circulating.

Hal

Hal and I were in agreement on this particular matter.


On Jan 4, 2003, at 8:24 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 1/3/03 8:09:03 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



I retract on the minor factual historical point that I used "seem" on,
Hal does cite Adler,


Thank you for correcting this.


but his papers do not seem to reflect any of
Adler's insights.


Only for those who have eyes to see.  Why do you think I cited it?  Because it was directly relevant to what I was developing in the ZPE model of gravity, H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A, vol. 39, pp. 2333-2342 (1989).

Cheers,
Hal




From my reading of Adler's paper, it is obvious why the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff strategy to connect zero point energy of ONLY the transverse polarized virtual photons to gravity is wrong. To this day Hal, Bernie, Dan Cole, Rueda, Wesson, Marshall et-al do not seem to understand the meaning of w = -1 and the fact that the zero point energy of the EM makes repulsive anti-gravity! No mention of that in any of their publications. No evidence that they understand what Peter Milonni wrote about that in his book "The Quantum Vacuum."

Indeed, they do not understand the qualitative difference between the QED Casimir force and the direct gravity properties of ZPE! The Aviation Week March 1, 2004 article garbles all this. All the money BAE and anyone else in the Pentagon is spending on this ZPE propulsion is a complete waste of money. These Dogs of War are barking up the wrong tree. Hal and his Claque are trying to supress the truth here and trying to fund essentially bogus physics in the context of national defense. That is what this is all about. It is obvious that it is Hal who is attempting to stifle professional peer review of his ideas in this field. In contrast, I welcome the same of my ideas.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler

On Jul 24, 2003, at 8:51 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 7/23/03 10:40:06 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



3. Pointlike parton behavior of lepto-quarks with deep probes.
>>
>> Puthoff's math change to GR gives wrong answer to 3.



My approach does not address 3, so it couldn't give the wrong answer.  Perhaps you attempted to apply my approach with the incorrect metric?  (Did you use our version of the Reissner-Nordstrom metric with hyperbolic metric -> sinusoidal metric?  If not, any comments you make about 3 are by definition false.)

Hal Puthoff

In Hal's SSS theory the local derivative of the area of a sphere relative to the radius is the same as in flat Euclidean geometry. This is the point.
It is not that way in Einstein's theory. That is why Einstein's theory, together with strong short range gravity is able to explain all the key data of elementary particle physics like partons and universal Regge slope as well as cosmology. As Above So Below! Hal has no inkling of this at all.

Note from first page of Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

On the physical principles of consciousness, warp drive and wormhole star gate time travel in the light of the new precision cosmology of dark energy and their relations to the coded knowledge of the once and future techgnostic mystery schools fictionalized in “The Da Vinci Code” and described in fact in “Techgnosis.”

Newton realized that the fall of the apple was the same as the motion of the Earth around the Sun. That was his alchemical techgnostic insight into “As Above So Below.” I have shown that the invisible Galactic Halo holds the stars together in the same way, through negative zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive quantum pressure, that the electron’s distributed repulsive electric charge is held together. It’s “As Above So Below” all over again. Real original physics on the deep structure of the many worlds not found in any other book is weaved together with great literature and my true adventure story. Quantum reality is not only weirder than we have imagined, but may be weirder than we can imagine. We are such dreams that stuff is made from.

Including special reports by U.S. Navy physicist Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D. on the USAF and FBI response to the real flying saucer invasion of 1952 and on the paranormal and spirituality by Russell Targ who worked on the CIA’s investigation of “remote viewing” during the Occult Cold War.

On Jul 24, 2003, at 2:46 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 7/24/03 1:02:45 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



The metric I use here is your SSS metric in your papers - it's a toy
model sure without rotation and charge. Are you saying that you have
done a calculation now in PV with rotation and in that case the surface
area does not go to a minimum and then increase again as your radial
coordinate ri << GM/c^2? If that is the case, I will reconsider.



For a lepto quark, SSS doesn't apply.  Charge makes all the difference.  Metric is entirely different.  This case is mentioned in Section 5.2 of my June 2002 Found. Phys. paper on PV.  (Rotation not yet taken into account.)  Much work done with this (in part because of modeling Shoulders' EVs), but still a work in progress.  Very complex.

Hal

Note Hal admits he cannot solve the problem of a rotating source. This alone shows his theory is no good. It's a done deal in Einstein's theory! Hal has been making extraordinary claims without extraordinary justification and he goes into a state of denial when I call him on the carpet about it. Since national defense is part of this equation I can do no less. "Duty, Honor, Country" General Douglas MacArthur.

On Aug 5, 2003, at 12:14 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 8/5/03 12:15:35 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



Puthoff's theory without an event horizon predicts the electron should
grow larger as the imaging probe scale gets smaller. The opposite is
observed.



Ho hum.  Nonsense as usual.  The PV approach to the Reissner-Nordstrom type solution for charged particles says no such thing.

Hal Puthoff

Show us then what it does say on this matter?

On Nov 25, 2003, at 8:30 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 11/24/03 8:31:12 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



< Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his mathematics.>>



The only thing wrong here is your statement.  Just what do you think a change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means?  K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence.  You've missed the whole point!

Hal

This statement by Hal shows he is completely clueless about what I mean by "vacuum coherence." He obviously has no real understanding of the vast literature in "ODLRO", "Spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry", P.W. Anderson's "More is different", order parameters in Landau-Ginzburg theory, (all topics in background of in my PhD thesis UCR Aug 1969 and my paper 1967 with A. M. Stoneham at UKAERE Harwell on Goldstone Theorem and Jahn-Teller Effect and my Physics Letters 1966 paper on self-trapped laser filaments )and what T.D. Lee really means in his

"Based on either the spontaneous symmetry-breaking mechanism or the quark-confinement phenomena, we believe our vacuum, though Lorentz invariant, to be quite complicated. Like any other physical medium, it can carry long-range-order parameters and it may also undergo phase transitions." T.D. Lee

Hal pays superficial lip service to this. Where does Hal publish on "symmetry-breaking" and "long-range-order parameters" in relation to zero point energy in his papers? That's what "vacuum coherence" means! Hal does not have even a clue here.

On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:


> < > "Vacuum
> Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
> mathematics.>>
>
>
> HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement.  Just what do you think a
> change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means?  K tracks
> degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
> coherence.  You've missed the whole point!
>
> Hal

JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am
talking about?


HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum when we use the word "stiffness."  You use it to characterize how difficult it is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime.  I'm using it to characterize how difficult it is to polarize virtual vacuum electron-positron pairs with an electric field.  When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a mass, it means that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an electric field to separate charge.  It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects in the charge distribution are induced. 


There is nothing wrong with what you say.  You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects.  It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.

BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute replacement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me.  (For example, in PV analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate only 2/3rds of the radiation power calculated from standard GR and inferred from observation of PSR 1913 + 16.)  My interest is PV has to do with exploring certain geometries and consequences from an engineering standpoint.  A corollary of this is that I also do not approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force" stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me.  Rather, I am interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of spacetime that undergird the PV (but not usual GR) approach.

Hal Puthoff   

On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:29 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 11/25/03 8:00:03 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:



IMHO Hal and Mike Ibison are misinterpreting the physics of EEP in
Tables I & II.

Their tables as far as I can tell are based on their SSS metric not on
their Lagrangian,


No, you're wrong here.  The Tables define the fundamental definitions that go into the Lagrangian.  The Tables apply to SSS case, yes, but also to cylindrical Levi-Civita effects, rotating dumbbell case, Krasnikov-tube problem, etc., etc., a well as to various cosmological solutions that have been submitted for publication.

Hal

On Nov 29, 2003, at 8:17 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

This is most interesting!

There is also a published paper (Phys. Essays) by Clark Jeffries who argues that the exponential metric handles the missing mass problem that looks interesting, though I have not really dug into the details.

Hal Puthoff

On Dec 11, 2003, at 3:22 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/11/03 3:46:26 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:


........



In fact physically, as any standard text on GR shows

dT = goo^1/2dt

dR = grr^1/2dr

Therefore, when ds^2 = 0 in radial direction in SSS case

Physically measured radial speed of light =  dR/dT =
(grr/goo)^1/2(dr/dt)

In your model

goo = K^-1

grr = K

Therefore,

grr/goo = K^2

Therefore

dR/dT = c

so that n = 1 ALWAYS in this situation!

So what are you talking about?


Your difficulty following the PV approach is because you only think in the usual GR terms, and do not differentiate between the local physical measured speed of light, which is always c; and the coordinate speed of light which varies with the coordinate grid chosen, and whose numerical value is generally not equal to c.  An excellent paper by R. Klauber straightens this all out.  See R. Klauber, "Physical components, coordinate components and the speed of light," see gr-qc/0105071 v1 18 May 2001.  Here he discusses the differences:

dx^1/dt = sqrt (-g_oo/g_11) X c = coordinate speed of light = number of spatial grid lines traversed/number of coordinate time units passed (=c/K in my case,as measured with "super-steel" non-rubber rods and clocks);

sqrt (g_11) dx^1/sqrt (-g_oo) dt = c = measured speed of light = number of standard meter sticks traversed/number of seconds on local standard (in my parlance, "rubber") clocks.

I'm talking about the first, you're talking about the second.

Hal

OK

On Dec 11, 2003, at 10:21 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/11/03 11:01:49 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



OK, but give me an operational way to measure the first.



Can be measured from afar, as in radar delay and observed light bending.  Cannot be measured locally (easily), where one cannot tell that radar is delayed and light rays are bent. 

However, based on the PV model one could in principle lay out a grid and set up slowed-rate clocks, taking the PV aspect into account, and then a "measurement" could be made, as in Klauber's description of the coordinate speed:

dx^1/dt = sqrt (-g_oo/g_11) X c = coordinate speed of light = number
of spatial grid lines traversed/number of coordinate time units passed

Read Klauber, he is very clear about this.  It will give you a new appreciation for what your kind of Einstein GR really says; it is not a defense of my view per se.

You'll like it.

Hal

On Dec 14, 2003, at 2:07 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/14/03 3:05:02 PM, pzielins@ix.netcom.com writes:



That is, in any SSS metric theory look at the relation between
>           isotropic and curvature radial coordinates. You get a polynomial of
>           degree N with the curvature radial coordinate as a control parameter.
>           The N roots for isotropic r, at least when real, each define a
>           coordinate patch. In the exponential case that Hal uses in his PV
>           model, N --> infinity. In Einstein's GR N = 2.
>
>      PZ: OK, this is certainly a legitimate kind of criticism and goes to the technical details,
>      so it cannot be ignored.
>
> JS: Hal has ignored it for more than a year. I published all this in
> Space-Time and Beyond II a year ago.

Hal?




Jack's (mis)interpretation comes from trying to forcefit the PV non-curved-space results into  standard GR curved-space modeling, which takes coordinate-choice pathologies (e.g., "event horizons") as physical.  Ibison went to a great deal of effort to educate Jack on this with a long attachment replete with spacetime graphs, etc., but Jack just blew it off because it didn't agree with his view as "not even wrong."

So what else is new?!  Jack really can quote the dogma (with expertise, I might add, to cut him some slack), but doesn't seem to understand where it comes from, what it represents, how the underlying reality can be modeled from many POVs (as you are showing excellently), etc.

Hal 

On Dec 15, 2003, at 8:26 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/15/03 4:23:36 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



Hal, I ask you, what would prove PV wrong? ;-)


(1) Black holes really exist (instead of only very dark gray holes).

(2) So-called non-black-hole Yilmaz stars (M > 2.8 solar masses) found not to exist.  (Robertson evidence is that they do.)

(3) For dense matter SS distribution observation were found to match Schwarzschild instead of exponential metric.


How do you explain dark energy and dark matter with PV?


Our cosmological modeling under way as we speak.  Stay tuned!

Hal



Well black holes do exist. Also where is this cosmology paper? It's time for Hal to throw in the towel. I mean if he wants to save his reputation for the next million years. Note that Hal cannot honestly claim that whatever he writes about dark energy was not influenced by me.

On Dec 16, 2003, at 8:45 AM, puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/15/03 10:54:15 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:


In a message dated 12/15/03 4:23:36 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:


JS: Hal, I ask you, what would prove PV wrong? ;-)


HP: "(1) Black holes really exist (instead of only very dark gray
holes)."

JS: What kind of observational data needed to make this distinction?


Photon circular orbits are at slightly different radii.


HP: "(2) So-called non-black-hole Yilmaz stars (M > 2.8 solar masses)
found not to exist.  (Robertson evidence is that they do.)"

JS: Please give complete details on this.


See S. L. Robertson, The Astrophys. Jour. 517, L117-L119 (1999); 515, 365-380 (1999).


HP: "(3) For dense matter SS distribution observation were found to
match Schwarzschild instead of exponential metric."

JS: Not enough information in that cryptic sentence. What does it mean?


For a high mass, spherically symmetric density distribution object, the metric in free space surrounding the object would in the PV model be exponential rather than Schwarzschild in form, e.g., no event horizon, etc..


How do you explain dark energy and dark matter with PV?

HP: "Our cosmological modeling under way as we speak.  Stay tuned!"

Hal

JS: Does Planck's h make any appearance in your PV math model?


Not overtly at the macroscopic classical level.  PV, like GR, is a classical theory.  Only covertly at the level of the virtual electron-positron-pairs plasma interactions that form the underlying polarizability of the vacuum.


Again I ask what does PV mean when your GM/c^2r >> 1.


It means the same as when GM/c^2r << 1.  It is not a special coordinate position in PV as it is in GR.  It has no special significance.  As in Yilmaz, there is no event horizon there, it's just another place on a smoothly varying coordinate map.


Do you think "super-steel" rods exist?


Not locally, of course not!  The remote rods as a reference play that role, however.


If they do not exist, what physical meaning does your equation

c' = c/K

really have?


It means that from afar the delay time of a light ray passing by a mass is seen to be delayed by an amount corresponding to this slower speed of light (as in GR, where c' = c[1-2phi/c^2]).


How does a flying saucer fly in your PV model?

How do you metric engineer a Star Gate in your PV model?


Sorry, proprietary trade secrets!    :-) 

Honestly, still exploring various options for manipulating the spacetime metric.


Is time travel to the past thinkable in your PV model?


No, at least at its present level of development. 


Are parallel universes next door thinkable in your PV model?


I don't see any barrier to it, though we have not explored that option to date.


Do you think Jacques Vallee's "Magonia" effects mean parallel universes
next door?


It's a little hard to differentiate between "parallel universes next door" and "spacetime warp regions" right here.  Probably isomorphic descriptions.


What about Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 report of "creature emerging" out of
a kind of sphere of light (Star Gate) in sky
at Robert Bigelow's NIDS Utah Ranch?


Sounds like a wormhole, Krasnikov tube, or some such, doesn't it?


Do you plan to extend PV to include extra space dimensions?


No.  For right now extreme spacetime warps look to give much of what might be bought from extra space dimensions, so we'll stick to that for now.

.......


It is a fiction like
"The Unicorn" and like Hal Puthoff's "super-steel" in his quasi
measurement Tables I & II in his PV model that disintegrates when one
asks what happens when GM/c^2r >> 1?


Not so.  See above.


It is clear to me that Hal is not really thinking about the topology and differential geometry in his naive "engineering approach".


Finally you got something right!  That's the beauty of PV, you don't have to drag that baggage around to answer certain engineering questions.


Hal goes into a state of denial pretending there is no problem. He
tries to solve the cosmological constant problem the same way. It just
will not do IMHO.


Don't know what you mean by this.  We have no problem including a cosmological constant in the cosmological treatments, and have a paper submitted with some nice results (e.g., matching observation without missing matter, acceleration comes out naturally, etc.)

>
All Hal ever write is

K = e^2GM/c^2r


Not so.  That's the solution for one problem only, a spherical distribution of mass.  You know I have published other solutions for charged masses, Levi-Civita effects, rotating dumbbells, etc.  Why do you keep repeating this (false) mantra?


What Hal has is his mythical "super steel" rods which would give NOT c
but c/K! You forgot that!


Surely, you're joking Mr. Sarfatti.  At least I'm joking.  My "super steel" rods are a euphemism for unperturbed measurement instruments far from metric distortion, providing a "virtual" background, as it were.  Were you taking them seriously?  Houston, we have a problem.


> The problem is that Hal is completely obscure to my mind on the
> fundamental world view of his model. He uses metric notation after all?


Not really.  Only to make comparisons with those like you who are addicted to such!

>
> PZ: But it is a physical metric that is simply a mathematical
> description of the physical "deformation" of measuring
> devices and the resulting scaling of the measured intervals. It is not
> a theory about the fundamental chronogeometric
> structure of the world -- any more than is the description of the
> behavior of metal bars on a heated surface (an
> example that Feynman liked to use).


Bravo Paul, bravo!


JS: I think you are missing the point here Paul. Hal seems to think
that there really are "super steel" rods and clocks that would measure
c/K when the Einstein rubber rods and clocks measure c.


Tsk, tsk, Jack.  See above.  There are no "super steel" rods, really.  Don't need them.  If you think that I really think there are, then I'll have to slow up the discussion so you can follow the bouncing ball more easily.


This after all
would be a real "bimetric" world with "super steel" in the globally
flat Yilmaz world parallel to to Einstein's rubbery curved world.  This
Yilmazian split is fiction that Hal thinks is fact IMHO.


Tsk, tsk.


Again I ask. What does Hal's PV mean when his GM/c^2r >> 1?


As I said above, same as when GM/c^2r << 1.  Not a "magic, mystical" coordinate location of an event horizon as in canonical GR.  [BTW, to give some clarification, the event horizon appears in GR in the form of, e.g., a term (1-x) in a metric term denominator.  In the exponential metric this is seen to be simply a truncated form of the correct metric polynomial 1-x+x^2/2! - x^3/3! ..... = exp (-x) .]

Cheers,
Hal


There is no evidence for an exponential metric.

On Dec 17, 2003, at 12:52 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/16/03 10:03:28 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



The name of the game is to control the local
vacuum coherence. I would like to see how Hal Puthoff uses
his PV model for this problem.




You want me to send you the blueprint already?!  (Let's see, where did I put it?)   :-)

Check with Table 2 in my JBIS paper.  (The Table you don't like, that's "not even wrong!")  Time runs very fast for the drivers (i.e., the rest of the universe is in slow motion relative to them) when they fire up to reduce K (i.e., manipulate the vacuum polarizability to make it very stiff, i.e., to resist polarizing).

Ahh, how to do that?  I think you're telling me you already have the knob with <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0> mobilzing /\zpf, right?  So what are you asking me for?

Hal

Yes, I may have the knob. It's the Josephson effect. I could be wrong of course. The point is Hal has nothing at all to say on how to manipulate the metric in a practical way like we see the flying saucers actually doing!


This does not mean that I think everything Hal has done is wrong. Hal's strength is not in theoretical physics but in engineering physics.
     Not true: Hal has allot of experience in Theoretical Physics: Watched him myself while in his Lab, Austin Texas.....Rmc


Note Hal has still not been able to solve the problem of a rotating source in his theory.
     Again for the Nth time:  Those types of things are unpublished and proprietary.  Hal will publish more "peer review" material as he tells me. He has nothing to prove to you or anyone else for that matter. He likes to keep quiet then publish......Rmc

Hal also predicts no black hole event horizons that current observations appear show that there are horizons consistent with Einstein's theory. Similarly BTW with the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff-Cole-Marshall ideas on origin of inertia from semi-classical transverse polarized Lorentz force drag on massless point charges.
   Gray Holes do have event horizons,  there will be radiation leakage. But not the same as with Black Holes.....Rmc


3. Even if we accept Hal's theory for the sake of argument. He has no practical way to apply his theory to the facts of the flying saucer data base that we ALL agree is valid data. I mean for example the data in Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 paper. Hal has never properly defined "metric engineering" mathematically in terms of his published PV papers. He has, for example, never shown how he can get a free-float warp drive like Alcubierre's in terms of his PV math. Hal shows no understanding of the relevance of dark energy to the problem, which has been my main point since 2002 and is in both my books Destiny Matrix and Space-Time and Beyond II (2002). There was no mention of dark energy in the March 1, 2004 Aviation Week article for example. One would think that the discovery that an anti-gravity zero point energy field is 73% of all the stuff in the Universe would be mentioned? But it wasn't. The fact is that I am the first physicist to connect the discovery of dark energy with the zero point propulsion problem and flying saucers - and that is recorded in Library of Congress in 2002 in my two books. Hal is pretending that I have not done so.
     Again for the Nth time how do you know? You don't. You just assume and asume and assume.  And for the Nth time those types of issues are locked away in a safe as Hal tells me and I advised him a year ago because of all the Gov Snooping.....Rmc

   Finally, you say you like & admire Hal but yet you've made endless personal attacks

That is false. In fact it is the other way around. You have inverted the facts as usual.

against him which have nothing to do with the Physics, nothing.  You've made endless personal attacks

Not at all. I have merely stated the obvious in a humorous way.

against me yet you admit you don't understand what's on the Bird Page

You can't take yes for an answer. I never said I could not understand it. I said I have no argument with you about that - at least not at this time as I am busy with more important matters.

and you'll leave it up to people like Bruce M & Stan F to decide.  You judge first but you don't read or investigate except to get someone else's opinion and they don't understand the PV , ZPE or UFO  material either. But, yet, they're judging ......Rmc 

On Mar 3, 2004, at 4:51 PM, sonata AKA Captain Qweeg :-) (Robert Collins USAF ret) wrote:

You don't understand the math. You're in
no position to judge. That was reviewed by
"peers" who know the math. Ranting and
raving jealousy on your part. Prove him
wrong besides lots of you stupid
innuendoes ....Get lost......Rmc


I did not write the stuff below. It's written by a Pundit in relativity as shown in the URL below and he understands the math, which you admitted to Kit Green you did not understand. You are about Hal the way Boylan is about Michael Wolf Kruvant. You are completely incapable of rational thought on the subject. My evaluation of Hal's work is in my book Super Cosmos for the permanent historical record - made more urgent now by the March 1, 2004 Aviation Week and Space Technology article in which Hal makes no reference at all to the anti-gravity dark energy field.

[astro-ph/0402512] Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 From the Hubble
Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark
Energy Evolution

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512

This is the key to whole puzzle. It's the Baby in the Bathwater that Hal threw out. Fortunately I have the idea recorded in 2002 in both my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" in Library of Congress, so there is little doubt who saw it first.

Hal does say in the article that the Casimir effect is too small to be used for practical propulsion. He has not, however, connected the following dots

1. Dark energy is 73% of the Universe.

2. Dark energy is zero point energy because w = -1

3. Dark energy anti-gravitates in a BIG way.

4. All the traversable wormhole and Alcubierre warp drive solutions of Einstein's theory starting with Paul Hill's "acceleration field" need dark energy.

5. Dark energy used to be called "negative matter" and then "exotic matter."

6. Dark matter that is 23% of the Universe is also probably zero point energy with w = -1 that is only apparently w = 0 CDM - my original idea of course.

7. UFOs are "real" working hypothesis (e.g. Bruce Maccabee's article in Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny

None of these ideas are in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week only the same old same old tired vague speculations that have gotten nowhere in what? -- almost 20 years. Hal has no recognition of the relevance of the the new "precision cosmology" to what he is trying to do. He did not have until I told him of course. He never published anything like that. Never mentioned "vacuum coherence" at all in publications. I just want this all straight for the record. Not everyone is incapable of seeing what is in front of their nose.


On Feb 21, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 2/21/04 5:40:42 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



I have a section in my new book Super
Cosmos under construction
that the oft-cited Forward-Haisch-Puthoff-Cole speculations that the
purely quantum electrodynamic Casimir effect can be used
one day to extract zero point energy in enough quantity to be used

Such misrepresentation, Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself.  Extract ZPE for use?  Possibly.  Via the Casimir Effect?  Hardly, the effect is too small.  All our potential approaches involve interactions other than the Casimir effect, and you know it.  Your continuous red herrings and straw men do a disservice to the field.  What I'm not certain of with regard to your statements is if there's malice of forethought, or if you really don't understand the field.

Hal Puthoff

I am doing a "disservice to the field"? Take the mote out of thine own eye Hal before ye cast stones at Rabbi Sarfatti. ;-)


Jack Sarfatti wrote:
     > Since Chris is naming names so will I: Hal Puthoff (nobody mention cutlery!)
     > http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037
     >
     > Regardless of whether it is wrong or not (hint: it is!), it is actually
     > misleading. The author seems to suggest near the beginning of the paper that
     > his "representation of GR", is equivalent to GR -- but later on he "proves"
     > that they only agree approximately. Given that he seems to be targeting the
     > paper at "beginning students", this seems somewhat worrying. :-/

     yes some of these things are borderline, but the above is not the raving lunacy
     that's rejected outright, actually requires reading more than the abstract to
     conclude one way or another...
     and the philosophy remains to err in the direction of letting slightly too much
     through. ideally there will be future overlays to guide people throught the
     bitstream, and the disconnected component will be less visible.

     more or less equivalent to the following $.05:


http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-10/msg0018600.html

Click on

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Jacksings1.mov

This will open in your web browser in Quick Time player. It's mpeg 4. It streams well on DSL.
It may not play well on 56 K. I have it set for 128 K

This snippet is from the 1964 Oberlin Conservatory High Field Summer Theater near Falmouth Cape Cod
performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers with me in lead tenor role as Marco. I am about 24 years old.
It's a tenor-baritone duet.

More sophisticated editing of parts of Gondoliers and Fledermaus from that 1964 Oberlin season to come. Also Cornell
Savoyard Production of Yeomen of the Guard I think also 1964. The musical quality of the the Cornell production not
as good as Oberlin's, but my singing is quite good anyway. Also scenes with Professor Alfred Kahn the economist
who I think deregulated airlines under Jimmy Carter?


The open directory http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
has a few more musical numbers from Oberlin 1964 uploaded.
Click on the .mov files

e.g. http://qedcorp.com/destiny/sparklingeyes.mov

"Take a pair of sparkling eyes" was allegedly a James Joyce favorite. Slight glitch at beginning.


http://qedcorp.com/destiny/madrigal.mov

quartet "In a contemplative fashion"

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/republicanfallacies.mov

appropriate for Election 2004 :-)

a lively number is

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/royalqueen.mov

Finale Act III Fledermaus will be uploaded shortly - very spritely with the great soprano Kirsten Falke and Tim Jerome. I play Alfred - the more dramatic of the two tenors.

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/bat3.mov

On Mar 2, 2004, at 11:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The paper by Kibble is "Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field" J.Math. Phys. March-April 1961, 212 - 221

"Utiyama's discussion is extended by considering the 10-parameter group of inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations involving variations of the coordinates as well as the field variables."

It is this "variations of the coordinates" that I interpreted as locally gauging the translation group. That is breaking the global symmetry of homogeneity and time translation of non-dynamical global Minkowski space-time only to restore it by the local compensating "world crystal distortion" geometrodynamic field d^u = Lp^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u whose string topological defect densities are both local curvature and local torsion Diff(4) tensor fields of 4th and 3rd rank respectively. The new dynamical degrees of freedom of the warp geometrodynamic field restores local conservation of stress-energy current densities. The geometrodynamic vacuum stress-energy current density is trivially zero for unstable Minkowski space-time, but not so in the presence of matter sources or in presence of net unbalanced quantum zero point vacuum stress-energy current densities. The Bianchi identities in presence of metricity and absence of torsion and absence of unbalanced quantum zero point vacuum stress-energy current densities ensure "separate but equal" local conservation of geometrodynamic and matter currents. That is, in Einstein's 1915 geometrodynamics Guv^;v = 0 (Bianchi identities) hence Tuv(Source Matter)^;v = 0 where

Guv ~ (String Tension)^-1Tuv = (Metric Elasticity)Tuv ~ (Loop Quantum of Area)Tuv = (Witten alpha')Tuv

In this limit /\zpf = 0 and practical "soft ecological" metric engineering of globally superluminal weightless (timelike geodesic) warp drive ("acceleration field propulsion" in Paul Hill's sense) and star gate time travel machines (including to universes next door in hyperspace) is not possible.

"It is then unnecessary to introduce apriori curvilinear coordinates or a Riemann metric."

So you see guv was not at all emergent in Utiyama's paper using only the 6-parameter O(1,3) homogeneous Lorentz subgroup! It was put in by hand ad-hoc. Similarly much of Stephen Adler's paper sticks guv in adhoc, except possibly at the end when he tries a quantum metric and claims that the Einstein-Hilbert action emerges as a more is different low energy effective field theory like the Fermi theory of beta decay emerges from the W boson weak force SU(2) gauge theory. However, I need to study Adler there more closely to see if it is really kosher.

"The new field variables introduced ... include the vierbein components hk^u as well as the local affine connection A^iju. So Utiyama only got the local affine connection from O(1,3) whose symmetry in i,j indices means zero torsion tensor gauge force field. The world crystal elastic distortion field involves the vierbeins or tetrads, i.e.

d^u(x) = hk^udx^k

Therefore, Einstein's local equivalence principle is automatically built into local gauging of the 4-parameter translation subgroup. That is,

guv(Einstein's curved LNIF spacetime at event P) = hu^i(P)hv^j(P)(Minkowski LIF metric)ij

= (Minkowski metric)uv + (1/2)[du(P),v + dv(p),u]

I am not sure if my equations are mathematically consistent. That never stopped physicists since QED renormalization theory including today's M theory I suspect. ;-)

"The extended transformations for which the ten parameters become arbitrary functions of position..."

That is the formal meaning of "local gauging" but you then need to keep the dynamical action invariant and this forces you to bring in the compensating gauge force fields. I mean gauge now in an extended sense not just internal symmetries in perhaps the extra space dimensions of hyperspace.

"... may be interpreted as general coordinate transformations and rotations of the vierbein system."

Therefore, quite obviously, the local passive general coordinate transformations x^u(P) -> x^u'(P) = x^u'(x^u(P)) come from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation subgroup since u = 0,1,2,3. Note I am not considering the active x^u(P) -> x^u'(P') where P =/= P'. One then gets into a can of worms whether full blown Diff(4) in the active sense even allows one to tell the difference between point events P & P'? Save that for another day. This is prior to asking about parallel transport of objects along paths from P to P' that need the affine connection A^iju from O(3,1). Note that i,j are in the locally flat tangent vector space fiber and u,v are in the curved base space-time. "Locally flat" does not demand that the local curvature tensor vanish BTW. This is a subtle point that confused Paul Zielinski.

OK Kibble has locally gauged O(3,1) as well as did Utiyama earlier without locally gauging T4. Because he has done that he says he gets a torsion field but that it only shows itself when Tuv(Matter) =/= 0.

"The free Lagrangian for the new fields is ... a function of two covariant quantities analogous to Fuv for the electromagnetic field, and the simplest possible form is just the usual curvature scalar density expressed in terms of the hk^u (vierbeins AKA tetrads) and A^iju (spin connection). This Lagrangian is first order in derivatives and is the analog for the vierbein formalism of Palatini's Lagrangian. In the absence of matter it yields Ruv = 0 for empty space, but when matter is present there is a difference from the usual theory (first pointed out by Weyl) which arises from the fact that A^iju appears in the matter field Lagrangian, so that the equation of motion relating A^iju to hk^u is changed ... although the covariant derivative of the metric vanishes" i.e. definition of "metricity" "the affine connection {^l,uv} is nonsymmetric". BINGO there is Shipov's torsion tensor field from locally gauging the homogeneous Lorentz group. Why did not Kibble ask what new fields emerge from locally gauging the 4 special conformal boosts to hyperbolic motion in special relativity, which have something to do with Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect - not known in 1961 of course, and locally gauging the single dilation transformation? Kibble points out that the torsion field will couple to quantum spins, also one would think it would couple to gyroscopes, but Kibble thinks the effects are too small to see. Akimov and Shipov think otherwise.

"These terms are almost certainly too small to make any experimentally detectable difference to the predictions of the usual metric theory."

What have we learned here from Kibble?

1. Shipov's torsion field has a solid basis in the local gauge principle applied to the Poincare symmetry group.

2. The only issue is how big is the coupling at what scale? This seems to be an empirical problem?

3. Will the torsion field couple to the exotic vacuum "dark energy" w = -1 where

tuv(Dark Energy) ~ (String Tension)(Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]guv

= (String Tension)/\zpfguv

Where |Vacuum Coherence| ~ nonperturbative BCS-Nambu-Jona Lasino "Energy Gap" for virtual electron-positron pairing inside the 2mc^2 barrier.

That is,

|Vacuum Coherence| ~ (Debye Frequency of World Crystal Lattice)exp[1/(Density of virtual electron states per unit energy at the -mc^2 Dirac-Fermi surface)(effective static potential energy of virtual space-like photon exchange binding together a virtual negative energy electron and its positron hole)]

With an essential nonanalytic singularity when the static potential between the virtual electron and its positron hole vanishes.

e.g. eqs 4.29 & 4.30 p. 741 of Adler's paper below.

On Mar 2, 2004, at 4:59 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The key paper is Stephen Adler's "Einstein Gravity as a Symmetry Breaking Effect in Quantum Field Theory."
It's a lengthy deep paper that covers a lot of concepts in point particle quantum field theory including renormalization in U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), renormalization group methods, functional integrals (Fadeev-Popov ghosts), method of background curved metric that corresponds roughly to my ODLRO, spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry condensates including fermion pairs with "energy gap" as what I call amplitude of vacuum coherence, vanishing of cosmological constant in "equilibrium" but not in non-equilibrium, discussion of the stability of globally flat vacuum and the necessity to have what I call "normal fluid" ZPE "gravitons" around the c-number dynamical "superfluid" curved space-time background in order that the coupling to lepto-quark/gauge force fields be consistent with Diff(4). It is obvious from this paper why a simple model based only on the SED idea as in HRP cannot be correct.

Adler talks about computing both G(Newton) and cosmological constant from breaking conformal scale invariance.

Kibble et-al get the guv field, without computing G & /\ from locally gauging Poincare group. I need to check details of what exactly needs to be locally gauged to get what. It is obvious that the world crystal distortion field is the compensating field from locally gauging translation subgroup, but one also needs the Lie algebra of O(3,1) for the spin connection although O(3,1) I think in itself is not locally gauged unless you also want the torsion field? Again I need to recheck the Utiyama-Kibble papers. More anon.

On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I now seem to recall that Hal maybe in late 80's did attempt a Mickey Mouse version of Sakharov's idea done better
by Adler in Rev Mod Phys 1982 prior to Hal where

G(Newton) is written down in terms of a cut off frequency for EM ZPF? There are no virtual electron positron pairs in his model if I remember correctly? So there is no vacuum polarization in the rigorous sense?

However, that model has no vacuum coherence the way I mean it.

Also none of Hal's recent papers specifically dealing with "metric engineering" like the Mitre Conference on BPP have any reference to h etc in his PV papers which are only classical models with K and which never make clear how the path of the UFO is controlled via K. Hal keeps the Lorentz force term in his equation of motion for the test particle .... That shows that Hal still does not understand what "acceleration field" propulsion means in terms of his own model.

The key paper is Stephen Adler's "Einstein Gravity as a Symmetry
Breaking Effect in Quantum Field Theory."
It's a lengthy deep paper that covers a lot of concepts in point
particle quantum field theory including renormalization in
U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), renormalization group methods, functional integrals
(Fadeev-Popov ghosts), method of background curved metric that
corresponds roughly to my ODLRO, spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry
condensates including fermion pairs with "energy gap" as what I call
amplitude of vacuum coherence, vanishing of cosmological constant in
"equilibrium" but not in non-equilibrium, discussion of the stability
of globally flat vacuum and the necessity to have what I call "normal
fluid" ZPE "gravitons" around the c-number dynamical "superfluid"
curved space-time background in order that the coupling to
lepto-quark/gauge force fields be consistent with Diff(4). It is
obvious from this paper why a simple model based only on the SED idea
as in HRP cannot be correct.

Adler talks about computing both G(Newton) and cosmological constant
from breaking conformal scale invariance.

Kibble et-al get the guv field, without computing G & /\ from locally
gauging Poincare group. I need to check details of what exactly needs
to be locally gauged to get what. It is obvious that the world crystal
distortion field is the compensating field from locally gauging
translation subgroup, but one also needs the Lie algebra of O(3,1) for
the spin connection although O(3,1) I think in itself is not locally
gauged unless you also want the torsion field? Again I need to recheck
the Utiyama-Kibble papers. More anon.

On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I now seem to recall that Hal maybe in late 80's did attempt a Mickey
Mouse version of Sakharov's idea done better
by Adler in Rev Mod Phys 1982 prior to Hal where

G(Newton) is written down in terms of a cut off frequency for EM ZPF?
There are no virtual electron positron pairs in his model if I
remember correctly? So there is no vacuum polarization in the rigorous
sense?

However, that model has no vacuum coherence the way I mean it.

Also none of Hal's recent papers specifically dealing with "metric
engineering" like the Mitre Conference on BPP have any reference to h
etc in his PV papers which are only classical models with K and which
never make clear how the path of the UFO is controlled via K. Hal
keeps the Lorentz force term in his equation of motion for the test
particle .... That shows that Hal still does not understand what
"acceleration field" propulsion means in terms of his own model.

re: The Boylan who cried Wolf

Colin & Victor please pass on my comments to the lists at large if you like. :-)
Oh what a joy to wake up to Colin's delicious prose in the morning to replace my morning bun that I ate last night - naughty boy. :-)
Irrespective of the issues I enjoy the aesthetics. :-)

I really must get out into the sunny streets to vote to vote to vote - it's Super Tuesday here in Toon Town, Baghdad by the Bay! Will be boarding for London Town in a few days to see you. I think I should include this repartee in Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ like the comedic scenes with Falstaff & Co in Henry IV & V.

On Mar 2, 2004, at 2:44 AM, Colin Bennett wrote:


"Sir,

You have a habit Stanton, of knocking corpses round the ring and calling
yourself a champion. Well in name of the poor devils of the world who can'’t
cope with you, I thought I would step through the ropes and make your day,
sir.

Amazing. You sound as if you have written this “reply” in a tantrum. Most of
your amusing complaints about the CIA, autographs, black budgets etc.,
hardly apply to the matter in hand at all. Frankly, you sound confused and
tired, and somewhat unfocused. Do you think that anyone is impressed with
this old soldier length-of service cant? 37 years of lecturing, in 50 states
9 provinces, and 13 other countries sounds like self-pity and a plea for
brownie points to me. As for your claim to have taken part in the building
of a nuclear power station I think as a claim for fame, it rivals that of
Ted Bundy, and should be kept a family secret, locked in the west wing.
You really have no need to feel so vulnerable, self-protective, and paranoid
about criticism. Most (including myself) regard you as one of our great
ufologists, even if you are somewhat out of date. But all this nervous
self-justification stuff about your TV appearances (the ultimate in naff
non-impressive things!) and all the huff-puffing about the important
meetings you attend does you no good at all. For a moment, in all this
wallowing self-pity, I expected a mention of the Christmas cheques you sent
to the local orphanage and dog'’s home.

You sound sir, like a petulant teenager pop star under pressure, you really
do. I expect soon the scream that you want to be left alone. If I hear you
petulant poor thing throwing punches in a nightclub I will know the End is
Nigh. You poor tired star, my heart bleeds for you. I do hope that the last
flash bulbs won’t catch you in a forecourt asking for a celeb discount for a
cut-price Ford."

What's that about a "celeb discount"? :-)

"I don’t want to be too hard on you Stanton but your Wolf questionnaire is
highly dangerous, and let’s hope the likes of it don'’t breed. If you had
lived in Germany in 1939, and you were asked if you were homosexual, you
would know what question was coming next.

No one quarrels with your unique ability to obtain information of all kinds,
such as the material you include here about Wolf. But sheer quantity is
secondary. What you do not do is fit all this info into the wider
theoretical constructions of the psycho-cultural context. If you do not do
this, you will be left, like most “factual researchers” with whole bags of
nuts and bolts not knowing who or what agendas (or conspiracies)
manufactured them. Go from nuts and bolts to something far more important
and more complicated, and this can cause disastrous blindness as regards the
wider schemes that the “fact” was generated by in the first place. A “fact”
is after all a very potent and complex symbol. A “fact” has roots like a
plant consisting of all kinds of deep structure. An array of facts can be
analysed like a play or a poem. A fact is a text. It can be deconstructed,
and its multifaceted history traced and demonstrated in terms of language,
concept, and function.

But I will leave you now, because we are past Mr Maccabee’'s bedtime a long
time ago, and he is dying to be out of the way of all this pseud and phoney
and lengthy and difficult nonsense spouted by Colin Bennett. (there Bruce, I
have just written it for you, don'’t bother repeating it). The trouble is Mr.
Maccabee and Mr. Friedman, as horse-generals of old ufology, there are
concepts swirling like a tide around Old East Germany (the common name for
the UFO Updates List) that will turn it into an area of the rusted factories
of a ufological age past.

Finally sir, you mention your 9000-word review of Kevin Randle'’s book Case
MJ12. Like Randle’'s book, this is an excellent piece of work, but it is not
in question here.

It is in the situationist “holistic” view of human beings where you fall
short. You simply cannot deal with people good or bad like wriggling worms
on the end of a stick. Human beings are vast symbiotic agendas programming
and reprogramming constantly. You should really absorb more art and
literature to convince you that people are much more than the sum of their
parts. Being also moral creatures of sort or another, this often makes
things extremely difficult as far as analysing finite actions, beliefs and
motivations are concerned.

The difference between fact and fiction is nowhere near as simple to define
as you make it out to be. You should really read more Borges than Agatha
Christy.

Our emails crossed, and so I include here the extended reply that I sent to
the Jack Sarfatti Science Group, which you may or may not have seen. I am
preparing a MUFON paper on this “Kill the Deviant” matter (stop him! stop
him! I hear the horse-generals cry)."

SARFATTI wrote:

While I do not want to argue the humanistic points you raise, the
simple fact is that I have not seen one iota, one shred of evidence,
that Wolf Kruvant had even one interesting original idea about anything
of importance in general and about UFOs in particular. I find it
exceedingly odd that none of his champions are able to produce any
evidence other than gossip and hearsay of the most trite kind that is
rampant in urban legends on the WEB. So why should I be interested in Michael
Wolf-Kruvant anymore than in, say, Louis Dinardi, a colorful drunk with a trust fund who
chooses to live homeless on the Streets of North Beach? At least local North Beach Citizen Phil
Kaufman is thinking of making a film about Louis. Perhaps Wolf's life
has interest as drama, but I see no scientific interest at all. If you
have any relevant evidence please share it.

BENNETT:

"Thank you sir, I now share my relevant evidence with thee.

The intrinsic claims of Wolf may or may not be of scientific interest. But
that he made such claims at all IS of scientific interest. The psychology
behind the deviant claim lends itself certainly to scientific evaluation,
and does the anger of Stanton Friedman towards people who do not behave
themselves."

Yes, OK as a matter of social psychology and the mass hysteria of crowds OK.
Look at all the millions and millions of people who believe in UFOs and the
scores who have suicided over bogus beliefs. Look at Captain Collins'
True Believer irrationality over Puthoff's bogus model for UFO metric engineering.
Is there no physical reality to the flying saucer? Do they have as much reality as
WMD in Iraq since 1994? Do they have as much reality as the paranormal? And to
really get into over-hyped idle speculations, do they have as much reality as M-Theory's
"vibrating strings of pure energy" as told on Brian Greene's NOVA "Elegant Universe" and
in his two new books? When fancy is paraded as fact on National Public Television, are
we not at The End Time, the Final Days in The Decline and Fall of The Empire?
Did it not all start with that Copenhagen Fairy Tale from that Great Dane, no not Hans Christian Anderson,
but Niels Bohr? Did I not help by catalyzing Capra's "Tao of Physics" at Esalen with Werner Erhard's money at a crucial moment, and by writing much of Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters"? Mea Culpa. Shall I not fiddle as Rome burns?


"Certainly deviant claims within the scientific community have significance
in that they show exclusivity sets that form the boundary of the general
paradigm. Such claims gives us the morphology of the no-go areas, and are
pointers not so much to truth and falsehood, but to what, within the cut-off
boundaries of cultural group is allowed or not allowed. From the Fortean
point of view, the claims of Wolf and many like him are part of cultural
wonder-management rather than being “wrong” answers in the old deterministic
mechanical sense.

In a Fortean sense again any culture (and science is a culture despite the
protests of scientists) must automatically manufacture the false claim as a
functional entity within the culture set. Both myself in Politics of the
Imagination and George Hansen in The Trickster and the Paranormal have
argued that the deviant (Fort’s daemon, Hanson’s Trickster) and his implicit
denials must appear at some time within this set, meme, gene, quanta, or
whatever is the current fashionable metaphor for information transfer within
the cultural cell as it develops in cultural time. The functional of the
anomaly is the same as it always was: its “function” is to help the gaming
agendas of a particular set of cultural affairs get into the next stage of
development.

In this process, the deviant is the vital covert subtext of all cultural
life. Entertainment alone, for example (absolutely vital for mental health)
consists of almost nothing but deviants of one sort or another. The average
straight persona (bless him!) is of almost no psychological interest. Almost
without exception, the great geniuses of history were Michael Wolf Kruvant
in embryo. Destroy the likes of him and you destroy the rain forest of the
mind in the sense that possibilities are destroyed rather than facts or
fictions.

We don'’t know what the universe is about, but we do know that it isn'’t about
good behaviour, if only because the well-balanced conformist gets nowhere.
The deviant has that higher disturbance called the imagination. That means
that he is involved in play and deceptive experimentation of all kinds. The
psychological tricks practiced to form the Calculus (particularly with
regard to dealing with the idea of infinity and limits) were downright
criminal as far as respectable rational standards of Newton'’s time were
concerned, most of Newton'’s inspirations being rooted in alchemical
mysticism. To say that such things are right or wrong or false or true is a
thought not worthy of Stanton’'s fine brain. He is simply not catching
complexity theory here, but then ufology at the moment is in intellectual
stasis. Trying to change the 1914 pre-Planck horse generals of mainstream
ufology into quantum tankmen is not going to be easy!"

I certainly agree with this. The only issue here was whether or not Wolf was an interesting deviant?
After all, it takes one to know one. So far I do not find him interesting, I mean in terms of any real legacy of ideas.

With regard to how established cultures treat deviants, at the moment I am
preparing a study of C.G. Barkla for Philosophy Now magazine, and will make
it available to the Sarfatti Science Group by attached document when it is
ready. Barkla was a physicist and a Nobel Prize winner. After studying under
J.J. Thomson and Oliver Lodge, he became a leading expert on X-ray
scattering and polarisation. Briefly, he showed that the atom was composed
of concentric electron shells around the central high density nucleus.
However, he stuck to using multi-chromatic beams of X rays for scattering
and absorption experiments at a time when people such as Bragg and his son
were using monochromatic X ray beams.

Bragg'’s much more effective method was ignored by Barkla, who was pushed out
slowly on a limb of non-acceptance. But such was Barkla's’ prestige and
power that he was kept on in his position for many years, though his studies
were regarded as complete relics. He continued to supervise groups of PhDs,
who for years were obliged to go through the motions concerning a theory
that most knew was regarded as completely false."

Sounds like M Theory which may not be even wrong? Too soon to tell.

"Yours in hope and anticipation!

Colin (Bad Man) Bennett"

Note CAPS below put in by Martinez not by me.


-------Original Message-------

From: Victor Martinez
Date: 01 March 2004 21:44:45
To: sharkley1@panzerben1.fsworld.co.uk
Subject: Stan Friedman responds to Colin Bennett's defense of Michael Wolf

www.stantonfriedman.com

www.geocities.com/dreamingbones/wolf.html

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html
------------------------------------------
COLIN BENNETT:

Dedicated researcher, author and personal friend Stan Friedman has been
indisposed recently having worked a number of TV shows in Chicago and
was UNable to respond to your criticism of his fine work on the
seemingly, never-ending Michael Wolf saga,.... er,.... uh fairy tale.

On his behalf, he asked me to forward his personal message from him to
you. Before reading his response, a few things worth noting:

1) Irrespective of the "offensive questions" Stan asked on his 16-item
questionnaire, I thought Dr Jack Sarfatti made one of the strongest
arguments in this powerful stated semantic prose:

"It's real simple,... THE HARD CURRENCY IS IDEAS. Show us ONE of his
original ideas. I have NOT even seen ONE. [While] I agree absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence, but [it is] Boylan who makes these
wild claims, has NOT produced [even] ONE IOTA of REAL EVIDENCE,
[instead] only easily fabricated trivia with no intellectual value to my
mind." (2-28-04, 3:55 p.m.)

"What is of interest is whether he was a serious scientific player in
UFOs as Boylan represents him to be. There is NO evidence in ANY
writings by Wolf that he was any more than say Bob Lazar whose
information is worthless to me. (2-29-04, 12:26 p.m.)

"Irrespective of the issues of psychology and ethics that Colin
eloquently raises below, I have NOT seen,... any coherent and cogent
ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTION TO PHYSICS, and/or culture that the
Wolf in question below has made. I am NOT saying he did not make any,
only that I have NOT seen it."
(2-28-04, 8:21 a.m.)

NOTE: Dr Sarfatti, made an important caveat here: He's NOT denying
that Wolf made any contributions in physics, only that he has NOT seen
any evidence of it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." – the late Dr
Carl Sagan

2) One would think that with two (2) PhDs in theoretical physics from
MIT and Cal Tech that SOMEthing would have been left behind for us to
examine and evaluate. Nothing....

3) By his continued stubborn insistence that Wolf was Chairman of
MJ-12's SSG team, Richard Boylan has seriously impugned and cast the
entire UFO scene in an UNfavorable public light. The logical extension
of his support of the Wolf fairy tale extends to larger matters: If
Boylan is wrong about Wolf -- and clearly, he is -- then WHAT ELSE is he
wrong about, too?!

I agree w/ Dr Bruce Maccabee here when he says that outrageous claims
like this only serve to make all of us look bad in the public arena and
in fact hurts the movement for disclosure of government-held UFO
information.

4) Boylan has also oft times repeated one of Wolf's claims that Dr Jack
Sarfatti worked on the reverse engineering of a recovered alien craft in
1973 thereby further eroding the public's confidence in the UFO research
field.

Here is what Dr Jack Sarfatti has said about that claim:

"Boylan has seriously LIED about me and has NOT changed his tune [even]
after I pointed out the ERROR in his story about me,...It's OK to make
an HONEST ERROR, but to PERSIST it it is NOT OK."
(2-28-04), 3:55 p.m.)

NOTE: Dr Sarfatti wishes it were TRUE, but it ISN'T.

5) Here is what Dr Hal Puthoff had to say in a private e-mail to me
about this very subject:

"He [Boylan] supports a number of questionable reports,... Also claims
that physicist Jack Sarfatti was involved in the 'back-reverse
engineering program,' which Jack claims not to be the case, and I
BELIEVE Jack.

Thanks, Hal"
(10-27-03, 12:12 a.m.)

6) Colin, it's important to keep in mind that a lot of good, solid
research has been done on Wolf, most of which is just too lengthy to
list here and again. Besides claiming associations with Drs Sarfatti
and Puthoff -- both of whom deny working or meeting him -- he also
claimed association with Harvard University professor Dr Jessica Stern,
author of the bestseller, TERROR IN THE NAME OF GOD.

I personally called AND e-mailed her [ jessica_stern@harvard.edu ]
about Michael Wolf and whether she in fact had ever worked w/ him in the
Clinton White House from 1992-2000 and she had her personal assistant
Michael Johnson both CALL and e-mail me back firmly stating "NO" that
she had never worked with him at the NSC nor had ever even heard of him!

7) I was criticized by one of Wolf's few supporters for being an
"armchair researcher," so I drove out to Cal Tech (15 min from my home)
where Wolf claimed to have obtained one of his two PhDs in physics. I
made a extensive, solid search leaving no stone unturned to find
evidence that he attended there. NO such luck.

This brings to mind an e-mail John Alexander had written regarding this
aspect of the Wolf saga stating:

"Well, I guess they [the 'Cabal'] recalled all the yearbooks and shot
all the students and teachers" suggesting this is why I couldn't find --
nor anyone else -- any evidence of Wolf's attendance and degrees
obtained at ANY schools.

John Alexander continues:
"Source credibility is important. In this case, Boylan, et al, place
great emphasis on the credibility of Wolf's background to support his
claims. Therefore Stan has done us an EXCELLENT SERVICE by putting the
issue to bed once and for all. Remember, Boylan, not Friedman, raised
the issue to begin with."
(2-28-04, 12:02 p.m.)

8) Even one of Stan's detractors, researcher-author Kal K Korff, who
went head-to-head with him over the Roswell incident, had this to say
about Stan's work:

"Concerning Friedman, well, he and I go way back to when he was one of
my mentors. I think some of Stan's BEST WORK on Roswell has been via
his private papers, and not his book."
(2-22-04, 6:26 p.m.)

9) A few people found some of the questions Stan asked offensive, e.g.,
Wolf's sexual orientation, but Stan asked those within the scope,
context and breadth of his investigation. If Wolf lied about that, what
else did he lie about?

Wolf claimed he had a wife, a daughter and that they were killed in a
plane crash (?), but again, the "secret government's Cabal" cleaned up
the accident with no evidence left behind, newspaper articles/media
reports of the crash and death certificates,... all cleaned up by the
"Cabal!"

The irony is, of course, is that the Cabal was sloppy because they
forgot to "clean up" Wolf's DEATH CERTIFICATE which Stan obtained a copy
of! Oops! The "Cabal" screwed up!

And now, without further ado here is Stan Friedman's response to you,
Colin.
--------------------------------------------
From: fsphys@rogers.com (Stanton Friedman)
Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004, 8:46 p.m.

To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez) Subject: MY RESPONSE TO COLIN
BENNETT's AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON ME REGARDING MICHAEL WOLF

Vic: Too many recipients... can you help me distribute this? – Stan
Friedman

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanton Friedman"
To: "Colin Bennett"
; ; Cc:


February 29, 2004 5:29 PM
Subject: MY RESPONSE TO COLIN BENNETT's AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON ME
REGARDING MICHAEL WOLF

COLIN:

Frankly I am at a loss to understand your comments. I have been self
employed for 34 years except for 5 months spent working on commissioning
The Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Generating station. Corporate? Who said
anything about deviant besides you? I certainly don't consider anybody
as deviant because he or she is homosexual.

Michael Wolf Kruvant was a mentally ill, quite bright person, who
CREATED A TOTAL FAIRY TALE ABOUT HIMSELF, his background and his
activities. I had many conversations with him a decade ago.

For reasons known only to themselves, he was believed by Richard Boylan
and Paola Harris.

He claimed six (6) degrees including an MD, JD, 2 PhDs in Theoretical
Physics and 2 others. My research showed he had NONE. He FLUNKED OUT of
Upsala. He was supposedly an AF Colonel and a pilot. The Military
personnel records Office in St. Louis has NO RECORD of him. He claimed
he was Chairman Emeritus of an advanced research institute employing 75+
people....

It existed ONLY in his head. Dunn and Bradstreet couldn't find it nor
could any of the state offices I called. He claimed that he had been
married and his wife and son were tragically killed. NO evidence for
the marriage, or the child, or the deaths. His foundation in
Indianapolis also had NO SUCH EVIDENCE.

Yes, I am concerned about hardware, but I have also dealt with thousands
and thousands of people over the past 37 years of lecturing in 50
states, 9 provinces, and 13 other countries. I have answered more than
35,000 questions. I am the one who coined the phrase "gray basket" to
indicate that I wait to make judgments about a whole host of questions,
such as the legitimacy of the claims of Lazar and Kruvant, or of the Tim
Cooper MJ-12 documents, until I DO MY HOMEWORK.

With that said, would you and others do yours?! Yes, Richard Boylan,
Paola Harris, and right wing zealot Milton William Cooper have made such
ridiculous charges about me as that I am a:

– CIA disinformation agent

– that I worked on Black Budget Programs

– that I charge for all autographs.

THESE ARE FALSE. If you or they don't believe me, provide some EVIDENCE
THEY ARE TRUE, or SHUT [the "F"] UP.

The questions I asked Ron Kruvant dealt directly with the false claims
made by and about his brother; they weren't pulled out of the air. In
addtion, I managed to obtain a copy of his death certificate from the
State of Connecticut and spoke with the funeral director responsible for
his cremation. Michael was very poor, had arranged the details in
advance during a home visit by the director. Michael had made a down
payment, but wasn't able to cover the rest of the fees in the year prior
to his death.

IF he had HELD all the EXALTED POSITIONS HE CLAIMED, he would have been
able to afford to both LIVE AND DIE BETTER.

I know you don't approve of the word FACT, but isn't it about time you
paid some attention to the FACTS?!

Regarding Kevin Randle's book "Case MJ-12," may I suggest that anybody
who is interested in the facts please read my 9,000 word review of the
book at my Web site:

www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html

Even Kevin has finally admitted that Frank Kaufmann was a fraud. New
evidence from the Eisenhower Library shows that his strongest argument..
Hillenkoetter referring to himself as Admiral though he was only a rear
admiral, crashes once one notes that Brigadier General Andrew Goodpaster
refers to himself as General Goodpaster when listing attendees at White
House meetings for which he wrote memos and which he signed as Brigadier
General.. He used generic ranks for all the military attendees including
himself. Copies are available.

Sworn and subscribed on this day of:
February 29, 2004,
STANTON T. FRIEDMAN
-------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Bennett"
To: ; ;
Cc: ;

Hello Savants all:
I protest at Stanton's interrogation (see below).Here is yet another
Maoist interrogation of almost Marxist-Leninist severity from a mechanic
of the nut and bolts brigade whose HQ appears to be the UFO Updates List
and its steam-age engineers. Hard "objective" intellectual Stalinists
such as Stanton (and I include in this category Hall, Aldrich and
Maccabee) should really leave the subtleties of human relations and
character alone.

As history shows, practical scientists and engineers are absolutely
hopeless at human analysis which in no lends itself to neo-Victorian
deterministic assumptions. With regard to this astonishing
questionnaire, any social worker or law student in training would laugh
out loud at Stanton's amateur psychology, his simplistic assumptions,
his leading questions, and his almost fascist assumptions worthy of
Condon's old East German mentality.

This is naked ufological McCarthyism. Stanton sounds like an ancient
Pavlovian behaviourist gone mad. How dare he have the cheek to ask about
Wolf's homosexuality, his possible marriage, and about any children he
may or may not have? We know what he wants to do - he wants to show that
Wolf was a failure, a disreputable scoundrel and a dropout. Whilst this
may or may not be true, if Stanton had the slightest knowledge of the
history of science and mathematics he would know that such a description
as this fits many significant scientists and mathematicians of the past
800 years.

What would he make for example of Newton's pathological preoccupation
with alchemy? What would he make of Kepler's fantasy-prone intellect, or
Turing's almost insane preoccupation with homosexuality?

Who does Stanton think he is?

Many leading intellects have been in and out of mental homes, and
countless scientific and technological advances have emerged from
fantasy processes implicit in the very nature of human consciousness.
According to Kevin Randles' book on MJ-12. Our moral commissar Stanton
has more devastating accusations around his head than poor Wolf ever
had. As regards the statement that "Michael had a need to FABRICATE his
entire life" there are many people (including Kevin Randle) who regard
the entire MJ12 business as a complete fabrication from beginning to
end.

If he is going to continue his pathetic "research" into the human
condition, I advise him to go to any local court first thing on a Monday
morning and he will see his beloved facts and fictions change place so
rapidly he will become quite dizzy. Such a court is not a place for
scientists who want to test and judge humanity in terms of
circuit-probes. In vein would Stanton like the universe to stand still
whilst it is being measured, just like the engineer he was trained as
originally.

I would advise Stanton to stick to what he knows and is good at. He
should leave human relations alone because its software is quite beyond
him and the rest of the rationalist/behaviourists that he represents. As
Weizenbaum observes in Computer Power and Human Reason, in human nature
there are far too many anomalies for any hard-wired approach.
Consciousness (and hence behaviour) involves concepts of language and
information that Commissar Stanton knows nothing about.

Colin Bennett
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
During late January 2004, UFO researcher and nuclear physicist Stan
Friedman mailed off a 1-page, 16-item questionnaire (prepared 1-26-04)
to Ron Kruvant, brother of the late "Dr" Michael Wolf Kruvant, about his
late brother. His brother dutifully completed the questionnaire on
2-4-04.

Stan received the questionnaire back in the SASE he had provided on
2-12-04 and then provided me a copy which he mailed to me from the
Houlton, ME post office on 2-14-04. Stan has signed off (see attached)
on my posting the stinging results of that very revealing questionnaire.

Without further ado, here is the questionnaire reproduced VERBATIM with
NO alterations and/or editorial comments:
----------------------------------------
QUESTIONNAIRE Re: MICHAEL WOLF KRUVANT, January 26, 2004, prepared by
Stanton T Friedman (Please answer to the best of your knowledge):

1. Was Michael Wolf Kruvant your brother?

YES.

2) How much younger are you than Michael?

TWO YEARS.

3) Were you in contact with Michael during most of his life?

YES.

4) Did Michael flunk out of Upsala College?

YES.

5) Did Michael ever receive a diploma from ANY college or university?

NO.

6) Did Michael ever serve in the military?

NO.

7) Did Michael ever work for the U.S. government?

NO.

8) Did Michael ever have a security clearance?

NO.

9) Was Michael ever married?

NEVER.

10) Did Michael ever father a child?

NEVER.

11) Was Michael a homosexual?

YES.

12) Did Michael ever have a major full-time job for more than a week
making more than $8,000/year?

HE WORKED A TOTAL OF TWO (2) DAYS IN HIS LIFETIME.

13) Did Michael ever spend time in various mental hospitals?

YES, SEVERAL.

14) Did you inform Dr Richard Boylan of the answers to most of the above
questions?

YES, AND BOYLAN SAID I WAS LYING.

15) Was Michael's only income in the last years of his life from Social
Security and your mother's payment of $300/month to help him out?

YES.

16) Do you know of ANY meetings between Michael and U.S presidents?

NO.

OTHER COMMENTS: "Michael had a need to FABRICATE his ENTIRE life. I
watched his life destroyed by FEAR, parental abuse -- both
psychologically and physically -- and through the use of alcohol and
drugs. He became incapable of human emotion."

Signature: Ron Kruvant (signed) 2/4/04

ADDENDUM: "He was intelligent and at an early age, he became adept at
LYING. This continued THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE. He was subject to
schizophrenia and delusions of GRANDEUR."

– Ron Kruvant
------------------------------------------
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net (Jack Sarfatti) Date: Fri, Feb 20, 2004,
10:34am To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)

Subject: "THE BOY(LAN) WHO CRIED WOLF!"

On Feb 20, 2004, at 8:00 AM,
Victor Martinez wrote:

Hey DOC:

Q: Is the attached e-mail from Boylan 'cargo cult' pseudo-science in
your opinion?

A: Hard to say since I was one of them in Walter Breen's group in the
early to mid-50's. I mean we were weird precocious kids whether from ETs
who knows?

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.pdf

The phone call happened, but it could have been faked to get us to think
we were contacted by ETs. BTW I did not know Breen until months after
the call(s).
I no longer hold court in Caffe Trieste – not for 10 years now. I am
too busy obviously. Whatever really happened it's strange. Perhaps
stranger than we CAN imagine.

The point is that BOYLAN has so BESMIRCHED HIMSELF with the MICHAEL WOLF
FAIRY TALE and his DISTORTIONS OF MY STORY that he is literally,... The
Boylan who cried Wolf! :-)

The next time you "hold court" at the Caffe Trieste aka "Sarfatti's
Cave," issue a "court" ruling and stream it to all of us!

www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id773/pg1/

.

Can you flesh that out with an example? The Landau-Ginzburg potential I am familiar with is the "Mexican Hat"

az*z + b(z*z)2

z is a complex number order parameter (actually a local function of space-time)

spontaneous broken symmetry is when a < 0 and b > 0

Now are you saying this is some kind catastrophe potential?

Note only this particular one seems to be compatible with renormalizable quantum field theories.

Note also, adding random “normal fluid” zero point vacuum fluctuations to the ODLRO c-number “superfluid” means replacing z by z + c where c is a second quantized destruction field operator of a zero point vacuum fluctuation “virtual quantum.”

On Mar 1, 2004, at 8:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


"The aspect of T-duality that is most relevant in Mirror Symmetry is the
duality between R and 1/R" Sirag

Me earlier: Which can be partially understood intuitively by very elementary considerations starting with the observation that

(Gm/c^2) x (h/mc) = Lp^2

Of course here R is a compactification scale of an extra space-dimension so that it is related to say the "electric charge" in Kaluza-Klein theory?

I meant to include:


Of course here R is a compactification scale of an extra space-dimension so that it is related to say the "electric charge" in Kaluza-Klein theory? Indeed Saul-Paul using your Blackett relation, but I use G* ~ 1040G(Newton)

e = G*1/2m

R = h/mc

e = G*1/2h/cR

G*h/c^3 = /\zpf^-2

In the dark matter vortex cores of the lepto-quark "micro-geons" where vacuum coherence --> 0

On Mar 1, 2004, at 4:36 PM, S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:

Jack,

Mirror symmetry is duality between two geometries which describes the same
physics.

Brian Greene's Grand Inquisitor "Doctor Faustus" says that the problem with string theory is that it makes no hard predictions about real physics phenomena. Ed Witten has written that he is not able to explain the dark energy for example. I think Faustus might say that the existence of spin 2 quanta on a non-dynamical flat Minkowski space-time is not enough to make the claim that string theory explains gravity.

One would need a real argument starting from a string theory model and getting Diff(4) and Einstein's field equations in some limit. Has such an argument been written down? Also it's not enough to say there is no renormalization problem.

So my question is what does "physics" refer to in the above remark? What physics problems are solved?

Also, another question is whether there is a mathematical argument starting from string theory and ending with the standard U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) model with parity violation, Higgs mechanism etc?

One hears remarks from string pundits that there is no definite "string theory"? That there is no organizing idea like the equivalence principle for Einstein's gravity or the uncertainty principle for quantum theory?


In 1990 Brian Greene & Ronen Plesser published the paper showing that two
different Calabi-Yau manifolds were dual in the sense that the number
odd-dimensional holes in one C-Y space matched the number of
even-dimensional holes in the other C-Y space (and vice versa). Thus the
total number of holes would remain invariant for this dual pair of C-Y
spaces. This is important for string theory since the 6 hidden dimensions
can be modeled by a 6-d C-Y space such that the number of Fermion families
of particles depends on the genus (i.e., the number of holes) in the C-Y
space.

Is there any compelling explanation for why only 3 fermion generations are observed? I mean in string theory.


The big advantage here is that calculations on one C-Y space may be very
difficult, whereas calculations on the dual C-Y space may be very easy.

I have no doubt that the math is beautiful. But where is the physics? What real physics problems are addressed? OK Susskind claims that string theory give the correct entropy for black holes, but even the latter is still a conjecture for which, if I am not mistaken, there is no data or any prospect of getting data? Is that wrong?


This idea has been greatly generalized and elaborated, so that Mirror
Symmetry is now a major approach to the study of string theory & membrane
theory.

And what physics does membrane theory explain? Does Greene address this issue squarely in his new book?


The aspect of T-duality that is most relevant in Mirror Symmetry is the
duality between R and 1/R.

Which can be partially understood intuitively by very elementary considerations starting with the observation that

(Gm/c^2 ) x (h/mc) = Lp^2

Of course here R is a compactification scale of an extra space-dimension so that it is related to say the "electric charge" in Kaluza-Klein theory?


In the C-Y case this entails a duality between
frequency modes and winding number. Greene describes this duality as well
as Mirror Symmetry in the "Quantum Geometry" chapter of *The Elegant
Universe* (1999).

Fine, but what is the physics in "frequency modes" and "winding numbers"?

How do those concepts link to concepts in the electro-weak-strong gauge force/lepto-quark model which does have contact with data even though it needs what 17 or 23 fudge-factors, i.e. parameters fit to data without explanation other than WAP in an infinity of universes.


You asked "What do those 'superpotentials' look like"? So you want the Whole
Monty [Python ;-)], huh? OK, here it is:

I wrote them out in my appendix paper, "Consciousness: a Hyperspace View* in
Jeffrey Mishlove's book *Roots of Consciousness* 2nd edition, published in
1993. I knew that they were related to superstring theory (and said so), but
I didn't know that they were Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials. They are the
germs of the A-D-E catastrophe potentials.

Can you flesh that out with an example? The Landau-Ginzburg potential I am familiar with is the "Mexican Hat"

az*z + b(z*z)^2

z is a complex number order parameter (actually a local function of space-time)

spontaneous broken symmetry is when a < 0 and b > 0

Now are you saying this is some kind catastrophe potential?

Note only this particular one seems to be compatible with renormalizable quantum field theories.


[BTW I left a copy of the Mishlove book in your North Beach apartment.]

On page 338 of *Mirror Symmetry* (by Kentaro Hori et al., 2003), the list of
Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials W are listed as:

W = x^n + y^2 + z^2 An-1, n > 1

W = x^n + xy^2 + z^2 Dn+1, n > 2

W = x^3 + y^4 + z^2 E6

W = x^3 + xy^3 + z^2 E7

W = x^3 + y^5 + z^2 E8

The relation to the ADE singularities is that they correspond to the W = 0
hypersurface in C^3.

[end of quote from *Mirror Symmetry*]

OK but what are x, y, z? What is their physical meaning in addition to the formal structure?


In other words if we regard x, y, and z as complex variables generating C^3,
the solution set of W = O is a hypersurface embedded in C^3 with a
singularity of type A-D-E. In fact this space is equivalent to the orbit
space C^2/g, where g is a finite subgroup of SU(2), which I call a McKay
group, for John McKay's deep correspondence between these finite groups and
the A-D-E Lie algebras.

Great math, but again where is the physics? Specifically how does string theory use this math and what kinds of new physical insights are obtained?
What is the advantage to this in terms of physics? I understand this stuff is used in EM wave theory caustics and all that? But what about string theory and how it connects to high energy physics, cosmology and black holes?

BTW, as I have mentioned before, Kronheimer's proof (1989) of the A-D-E
classification of a class of gravitational instantons is relevant here,
because these instantons are simply the resolutions (desingularizations) of
C^2/g, for g a McKay group.

OK, but how are gravitational instantons used in what quantum cosmology by Hawking? Going from Euclidean to Lorentzian signatures in a model of the Big Bang - his no boundary thing? Is that important in explaining any of the observations in precision cosmology?

There is no mention of this is the *Mirror
Symmetry* book. Nor are the many other ADE classified mathematical objects
mentioned. I believe that the study of all these classifications, which I
call ADEX-theory is the path (at least for me) to follow.

It is quite interesting that the ADE singularities play a big role in the
section "Geometric Engineeering of [ADE-type] Gauge Theories" in chapter 36
of *Mirror Symmetry*. Could this be the true "vacuum engeneering" proposed
by T.D. Lee in *Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory* (1981)
where he writes (p. 826): "Based on either the spontaneous symmetry-breaking
mechanism or the quark-confinement phenomena, we believe our vacuum, though
Lorentz invariant, to be quite complicated. Like any other physical medium,
it can carry long-range-order parameters and it may also undergo phase
transitions."

OK - that's interesting, but I would like to understand how the formalism you cite connects in detail with quark confinement and long-range-order parameters. My model of course starts with a vacuum long-range-order parameter whose phase variation is Einstein's GR and whose amplitude variation is both dark energy and dark matter as w = -1 zero point energy densities where the dark matter phase of positive pressure acts like w = 0 CDM in terms of distant measurements.

[Here I thank Hal Puthoff calling attention to this T.D. Lee passage on
"Possibility of vacuum engineering."]

You lost me here. I cannot connect the dots. How does the "dot" of T.D. Lee's remark connect to the "dot" of the math you cite above?


In the context of Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials, the order parameters
would the basis vectors of the control space of an ADE-type catastrophe
bundle. This is also a topic not covered in *Mirror Symmetry* but it should
be pursued.

Nuff said ;-)

To the contrary, not ENuff said. :-)

Let's suppose we have a single complex function z(x) where x is a point in 4D space-time.

Let us also suppose that z(x) obeys a c-number partial differential equation of the Landau-Ginzburg type

(Wave Operator)z + az + b|z|^2z = 0

Note if we are in curved space-time guv, the Wave Operator is, generally, a complicated second order differential operator which need not be linear depending on the metric guv and covariant derivatives relative to the connection. z is a Diff(4) scalar in this simplest toy model. Its first derivatives are ordinary partials but not its second dervatives that are covariant derivatives of a first rank tensor field. So we only have a 1 complex dimensional control space here. What is it controlling? Is it controlling guv for example, which is what we want in metric engineering the vacuum for example?


Saul-Paul

----------
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brian Greene, Mirror Symmetry & ADEX-theory
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2004, 7:25 PM


Thanks Saul-Paul. You know more about this than me. :-)

On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:09 PM, S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:

On Brian Greene & Mirror Symmetry:

In defense of Brian Greene's work in string theory I note the
following.

Brian Greene and Ronen Plesser discovered a duality that became known
as
mirror symmetry.

In the book *Mirror Symmetry and Algebraic Geometry* by David A. Cox
and
Sheldon Katz (American Mathematical Society, 1999) we read:

"Early evidence for mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau threefolds was
given
by lists of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in weighted projective spaces (or
their
quotients by finite groups). The Hodge numbers of these hypersurfaces,
mirror symmetry was demonstrated in [GPl] by first showing mirror
symmetry
for certain Landau-Ginzburg theories ... and then relating these
theories to
the sigma models of the [Calabi-Yau] hypersurfaces."

I am interested of course in the macro-quantum Landau-Ginzburg
application.

Is there any physical picture of this mirror symmetry? Presumably some
parameter

x -> -x

and some action is invariant?

Is the mirror symmetry broken in a vacuum?

One needs some kind of intuitive picture here to supplement the formal
transformations.



[GPl] is the reference: B. Greene and M.R. Plesser, Duality in
Calabi-Yau
moduli space, Nucl. Phys. B 338 (1990), 15-37.

There are two other Greene references in the bibliography:

B.R. Green, C. Vafa & N.P. Warner, Calabi-Yau manifold and
renormalization
group flows, Nucl. Phys. B 324 (1989), 371-390.

B.R. Green, M.R. Plesser & S.S. Roan, New constructions of mirror
manifolds:
Probing moduli space far from Fermat points, in *Essays on mirror
manifolds*
(S.-T. Yau, ed.), Internat. Press, Hong Kong, 1992, pp. 347-389.

Mirror Symmetry has become a hot topic in string theory. A recent
tutorial
book on the this topic is"

*Mirror Symmetry* by Kentaro Hori, Sheldon Katz, Albrecht Klemm, Rahul
Pandharipande, Richard Thomas Cumrun VAfa, Ravi Vakil, and Eric Zaslow,
published by the American Mathematical Society and the Clay Mathematics
Institute (2003).

This book cites in addition to the Greene Plesser paper of 1990 two
more
Greene coauthored papers:

B. Greene, D. Morrison, & A. Strominger, Black hole condensation and
the
unification of string Vacua, Nucl. Phys. B451 (1995) 109,
hep-th/9504145.

B. Greene & H. Ooguri, Geometry & quantum field theory: A brief
introduction, in *Mirror Symmetry II (B. Greene & S.-T. Yau, eds.),
AMS/IP
Stud. Adv. Math. 1, AMS, Providence, RI, 1997, 3-27.

Although I have only recently started reading the two Mirror Symmetry
books
(of 1999 & 2003), I am intrigued by the fact that the A-D-E
classifications
(via the A-D-E Coxeter-Dynkin graphs) plays a big role in this topic. I
already knew that the 2-d superconformal field theories are A-D-E
classified. But it was news to me that the these theories correspond to
certain Landau-Ginzburg theories, and the correspondence is via the
A-D-E
Thom-Arnold catastrophe germs. On page 337 of the *Mirror Symmetry*
(2003)
book we read:

"It turns out that (2,2) superconformal theories with c < 3, or
equivalently D < 1, can be classified and all correspond to
Landau-Ginzburg
theories with quasi-homogeneous superpotential. Moreover they are in
1-1
correspondence with ADE singularities of C^2/Gamma where Gamma is a
discrete
subgroup of SU(2)."

What do those "superpotentials" look like?

So the McKay correspondence of the subgroups of SU(2) with the ADE
Kac-Moody Lie algebras is also entailed in the subject of Mirror
Symmetry.

I have long conjectured that the the A-D-E classifications will
provide
the underlying mathematical structure for string theory and its later
development into M-theory, Mirror Symmetry (which is a kind of
T-duality)
and so on.

Oh.

There are 20 some mathematical objects already A-D-E classified
(including now a potent kind of Landau-Ginzburg superpotential). I
call the
study of all the A-D-E classifications and their applications to
mathematics
and physics by the name ADEX-theory.

I will attach a paper I wrote for ISSO and ISEP in 2000. I see that it
needs
some updating after I have absorbed this (new to me) Mirror Symmetry
stuff.

Let me know if you find any URLs that are tutorials.

Apparently Brian Greene's peers consider him to be an important early
developer of the Mirror Symmetry. Perhaps his next book will be a
popular
description of these ideas.

Does he explain it in his new book? Since macro-quantum theory is
based on the generalized local Landau-Ginzburg equation (for the
appropriate "wave operator" expressing quantized phase rigidity or
metric elasticity, or string tension, or quantum of area - a kind of
quantized geometrodynamic flux in a Josephson interference) that
connection interests me.

Nuff said ;-)

Saul-Paul

On Mar 1, 2004, at 4:36 PM, S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:

Jack,

Mirror symmetry is duality between two geometries which describes the same
physics.

Brian Greene's Grand Inquisitor "Doctor Faustus" says that the problem with string theory is that it makes no hard predictions about real physics phenomena. Ed Witten has written that he is not able to explain the dark energy for example. I think Faustus might say that the existence of spin 2 quanta on a non-dynamical flat Minkowski space-time is not enough to make the claim that string theory explains gravity.

One would need a real argument starting from a string theory model and getting Diff(4) and Einstein's field equations in some limit. Has such an argument been written down? Also it's not enough to say there is no renormalization problem.

So my question is what does "physics" refer to in the above remark? What physics problems are solved?

Also, another question is whether there is a mathematical argument starting from string theory and ending with the standard U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) model with parity violation, Higgs mechanism etc?

One hears remarks from string pundits that there is no definite "string theory"? That there is no organizing idea like the equivalence principle for Einstein's gravity or the uncertainty principle for quantum theory?


In 1990 Brian Greene & Ronen Plesser published the paper showing that two
different Calabi-Yau manifolds were dual in the sense that the number
odd-dimensional holes in one C-Y space matched the number of
even-dimensional holes in the other C-Y space (and vice versa). Thus the
total number of holes would remain invariant for this dual pair of C-Y
spaces. This is important for string theory since the 6 hidden dimensions
can be modeled by a 6-d C-Y space such that the number of Fermion families
of particles depends on the genus (i.e., the number of holes) in the C-Y
space.

Is there any compelling explanation for why only 3 fermion generations are observed? I mean in string theory.


The big advantage here is that calculations on one C-Y space may be very
difficult, whereas calculations on the dual C-Y space may be very easy.

I have no doubt that the math is beautiful. But where is the physics? What real physics problems are addressed? OK Susskind claims that string theory give the correct entropy for black holes, but even the latter is still a conjecture for which, if I am not mistaken, there is no data or any prospect of getting data? Is that wrong?


This idea has been greatly generalized and elaborated, so that Mirror
Symmetry is now a major approach to the study of string theory & membrane
theory.

And what physics does membrane theory explain? Does Greene address this issue squarely in his new book?


The aspect of T-duality that is most relevant in Mirror Symmetry is the
duality between R and 1/R.

Which can be partially understood intuitively by very elementary considerations starting with the observation that

(Gm/c^2 ) x (h/mc) = Lp^2

Of course here R is a compactification scale of an extra space-dimension so that it is related to say the "electric charge" in Kaluza-Klein theory?


In the C-Y case this entails a duality between
frequency modes and winding number. Greene describes this duality as well
as Mirror Symmetry in the "Quantum Geometry" chapter of *The Elegant
Universe* (1999).

Fine, but what is the physics in "frequency modes" and "winding numbers"?

How do those concepts link to concepts in the electro-weak-strong gauge force/lepto-quark model which does have contact with data even though it needs what 17 or 23 fudge-factors, i.e. parameters fit to data without explanation other than WAP in an infinity of universes.


You asked "What do those 'superpotentials' look like"? So you want the Whole
Monty [Python ;-)], huh? OK, here it is:

I wrote them out in my appendix paper, "Consciousness: a Hyperspace View* in
Jeffrey Mishlove's book *Roots of Consciousness* 2nd edition, published in
1993. I knew that they were related to superstring theory (and said so), but
I didn't know that they were Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials. They are the
germs of the A-D-E catastrophe potentials.

Can you flesh that out with an example? The Landau-Ginzburg potential I am familiar with is the "Mexican Hat"

az*z + b(z*z)^2

z is a complex number order parameter (actually a local function of space-time)

spontaneous broken symmetry is when a < 0 and b > 0

Now are you saying this is some kind catastrophe potential?

Note only this particular one seems to be compatible with renormalizable quantum field theories.


[BTW I left a copy of the Mishlove book in your North Beach apartment.]

On page 338 of *Mirror Symmetry* (by Kentaro Hori et al., 2003), the list of
Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials W are listed as:

W = x^n + y^2 + z^2 An-1, n > 1

W = x^n + xy^2 + z^2 Dn+1, n > 2

W = x^3 + y^4 + z^2 E6

W = x^3 + xy^3 + z^2 E7

W = x^3 + y^5 + z^2 E8

The relation to the ADE singularities is that they correspond to the W = 0
hypersurface in C^3.

[end of quote from *Mirror Symmetry*]

OK but what are x, y, z? What is their physical meaning in addition to the formal structure?


In other words if we regard x, y, and z as complex variables generating C^3,
the solution set of W = O is a hypersurface embedded in C^3 with a
singularity of type A-D-E. In fact this space is equivalent to the orbit
space C^2/g, where g is a finite subgroup of SU(2), which I call a McKay
group, for John McKay's deep correspondence between these finite groups and
the A-D-E Lie algebras.

Great math, but again where is the physics? Specifically how does string theory use this math and what kinds of new physical insights are obtained?
What is the advantage to this in terms of physics? I understand this stuff is used in EM wave theory caustics and all that? But what about string theory and how it connects to high energy physics, cosmology and black holes?

BTW, as I have mentioned before, Kronheimer's proof (1989) of the A-D-E
classification of a class of gravitational instantons is relevant here,
because these instantons are simply the resolutions (desingularizations) of
C^2/g, for g a McKay group.

OK, but how are gravitational instantons used in what quantum cosmology by Hawking? Going from Euclidean to Lorentzian signatures in a model of the Big Bang - his no boundary thing? Is that important in explaining any of the observations in precision cosmology?

There is no mention of this is the *Mirror
Symmetry* book. Nor are the many other ADE classified mathematical objects
mentioned. I believe that the study of all these classifications, which I
call ADEX-theory is the path (at least for me) to follow.

It is quite interesting that the ADE singularities play a big role in the
section "Geometric Engineeering of [ADE-type] Gauge Theories" in chapter 36
of *Mirror Symmetry*. Could this be the true "vacuum engeneering" proposed
by T.D. Lee in *Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory* (1981)
where he writes (p. 826): "Based on either the spontaneous symmetry-breaking
mechanism or the quark-confinement phenomena, we believe our vacuum, though
Lorentz invariant, to be quite complicated. Like any other physical medium,
it can carry long-range-order parameters and it may also undergo phase
transitions."

OK - that's interesting, but I would like to understand how the formalism you cite connects in detail with quark confinement and long-range-order parameters. My model of course starts with a vacuum long-range-order parameter whose phase variation is Einstein's GR and whose amplitude variation is both dark energy and dark matter as w = -1 zero point energy densities where the dark matter phase of positive pressure acts like w = 0 CDM in terms of distant measurements.

[Here I thank Hal Puthoff calling attention to this T.D. Lee passage on
"Possibility of vacuum engineering."]

You lost me here. I cannot connect the dots. How does the "dot" of T.D. Lee's remark connect to the "dot" of the math you cite above?


In the context of Landau-Ginzburg superpotentials, the order parameters
would the basis vectors of the control space of an ADE-type catastrophe
bundle. This is also a topic not covered in *Mirror Symmetry* but it should
be pursued.

Nuff said ;-)

To the contrary, not ENuff said. :-)

Let's suppose we have a single complex function z(x) where x is a point in 4D space-time.

Let us also suppose that z(x) obeys a c-number partial differential equation of the Landau-Ginzburg type

(Wave Operator)z + az + b|z|^2z = 0

Note if we are in curved space-time guv, the Wave Operator is, generally, a complicated second order differential operator which need not be linear depending on the metric guv and covariant derivatives relative to the connection. z is a Diff(4) scalar in this simplest toy model. Its first derivatives are ordinary partials but not its second dervatives that are covariant derivatives of a first rank tensor field. So we only have a 1 complex dimensional control space here. What is it controlling? Is it controlling guv for example, which is what we want in metric engineering the vacuum for example?


Saul-Paul

----------
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Brian Greene, Mirror Symmetry & ADEX-theory
Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2004, 7:25 PM


Thanks Saul-Paul. You know more about this than me. :-)

On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:09 PM, S-P & M-M Sirag wrote:

On Brian Greene & Mirror Symmetry:

In defense of Brian Greene's work in string theory I note the
following.

Brian Greene and Ronen Plesser discovered a duality that became known
as
mirror symmetry.

In the book *Mirror Symmetry and Algebraic Geometry* by David A. Cox
and
Sheldon Katz (American Mathematical Society, 1999) we read:

"Early evidence for mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau threefolds was
given
by lists of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in weighted projective spaces (or
their
quotients by finite groups). The Hodge numbers of these hypersurfaces,
mirror symmetry was demonstrated in [GPl] by first showing mirror
symmetry
for certain Landau-Ginzburg theories ... and then relating these
theories to
the sigma models of the [Calabi-Yau] hypersurfaces."

I am interested of course in the macro-quantum Landau-Ginzburg
application.

Is there any physical picture of this mirror symmetry? Presumably some
parameter

x -> -x

and some action is invariant?

Is the mirror symmetry broken in a vacuum?

One needs some kind of intuitive picture here to supplement the formal
transformations.



[GPl] is the reference: B. Greene and M.R. Plesser, Duality in
Calabi-Yau
moduli space, Nucl. Phys. B 338 (1990), 15-37.

There are two other Greene references in the bibliography:

B.R. Green, C. Vafa & N.P. Warner, Calabi-Yau manifold and
renormalization
group flows, Nucl. Phys. B 324 (1989), 371-390.

B.R. Green, M.R. Plesser & S.S. Roan, New constructions of mirror
manifolds:
Probing moduli space far from Fermat points, in *Essays on mirror
manifolds*
(S.-T. Yau, ed.), Internat. Press, Hong Kong, 1992, pp. 347-389.

Mirror Symmetry has become a hot topic in string theory. A recent
tutorial
book on the this topic is"

*Mirror Symmetry* by Kentaro Hori, Sheldon Katz, Albrecht Klemm, Rahul
Pandharipande, Richard Thomas Cumrun VAfa, Ravi Vakil, and Eric Zaslow,
published by the American Mathematical Society and the Clay Mathematics
Institute (2003).

This book cites in addition to the Greene Plesser paper of 1990 two
more
Greene coauthored papers:

B. Greene, D. Morrison, & A. Strominger, Black hole condensation and
the
unification of string Vacua, Nucl. Phys. B451 (1995) 109,
hep-th/9504145.

B. Greene & H. Ooguri, Geometry & quantum field theory: A brief
introduction, in *Mirror Symmetry II (B. Greene & S.-T. Yau, eds.),
AMS/IP
Stud. Adv. Math. 1, AMS, Providence, RI, 1997, 3-27.

Although I have only recently started reading the two Mirror Symmetry
books
(of 1999 & 2003), I am intrigued by the fact that the A-D-E
classifications
(via the A-D-E Coxeter-Dynkin graphs) plays a big role in this topic. I
already knew that the 2-d superconformal field theories are A-D-E
classified. But it was news to me that the these theories correspond to
certain Landau-Ginzburg theories, and the correspondence is via the
A-D-E
Thom-Arnold catastrophe germs. On page 337 of the *Mirror Symmetry*
(2003)
book we read:

"It turns out that (2,2) superconformal theories with c < 3, or
equivalently D < 1, can be classified and all correspond to
Landau-Ginzburg
theories with quasi-homogeneous superpotential. Moreover they are in
1-1
correspondence with ADE singularities of C^2/Gamma where Gamma is a
discrete
subgroup of SU(2)."

What do those "superpotentials" look like?

So the McKay correspondence of the subgroups of SU(2) with the ADE
Kac-Moody Lie algebras is also entailed in the subject of Mirror
Symmetry.

I have long conjectured that the the A-D-E classifications will
provide
the underlying mathematical structure for string theory and its later
development into M-theory, Mirror Symmetry (which is a kind of
T-duality)
and so on.

Oh.

There are 20 some mathematical objects already A-D-E classified
(including now a potent kind of Landau-Ginzburg superpotential). I
call the
study of all the A-D-E classifications and their applications to
mathematics
and physics by the name ADEX-theory.

I will attach a paper I wrote for ISSO and ISEP in 2000. I see that it
needs
some updating after I have absorbed this (new to me) Mirror Symmetry
stuff.

Let me know if you find any URLs that are tutorials.

Apparently Brian Greene's peers consider him to be an important early
developer of the Mirror Symmetry. Perhaps his next book will be a
popular
description of these ideas.

Does he explain it in his new book? Since macro-quantum theory is
based on the generalized local Landau-Ginzburg equation (for the
appropriate "wave operator" expressing quantized phase rigidity or
metric elasticity, or string tension, or quantum of area - a kind of
quantized geometrodynamic flux in a Josephson interference) that
connection interests me.

Nuff said ;-)

Saul-Paul

Newton realized that the fall of the apple was the same as the motion
of the Earth around the Sun.  That was his Alchemical “As Above So
Below.” I have shown that the Galactic Halo holds the stars together in
the same way, through negative zero point energy density with equal and
opposite positive quantum pressure, that the electron’s distributed
repulsive electric charge is held together.  As Above So Below again.

from Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/


On Feb 29, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Gary, Jack and Tony :

Thank you very much Tony for those references.

The variable fine structure constant story in my paper
is based on maximal-acceleration relativistic effects,
assuming that this maximal-acceleration relativity
theory in phases spaces is truly a NEW phenomenon
which occurs in Nature.

I used the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric plus
conformal scaling corrections stemming from the
maximal-acceleration condition which is

Maximal acceleration = c^2 / L_p

L_p = Planck scale.

You also have a maximal-angular velocity in Nature
like in the rotation of spiral galaxies, etc given by


omega = c/L_p.


Of course it may be that the effective Lp* >> Lp as it is in my theory. So this notion of maximal acceleration might be directly testable. For example, I propose Lp* ~ 1 fermi inside the spatially extended electron as the "dark matter" random zero point energy positive pressure "vortex core" where "vacuum coherence" drops to zero in the "coherence length". The zero point energy induced strong short range attractive gravity then stabilizes the self-electric charge and spin-rotation of the electron as a kind of quasi-Kerr-Newman quantum "micro-geon" (A. Burinskii) with the zero point energy induced electron rest mass m of the order

m ~ (e/c)^2Lp*^-1 = (e/c)^2/\zpf|^1/2 ~ 1 Mev/c^2

where vacuum coherence -> 0 inside the electron vortex ring core.

This is a pure Wheeler geometrodynamic exotic vacuum "Mass without mass" "Charge without charge" picture with an effective short- range Sakharov zero point energy induced G* ~ 10^40G(Newton) inside the lepto-quarks.

The problem of the stability of the repulsive self-charge of the electron of 100 years ago is solved. There are no longer infinite renormalizations of QED needed. Feynman first got me thinking about all this in his office at Cal Tech in 1968 when he helped on my PhD ideas. He first tried to solve this problem as an undergrad at MIT. Also Herbert Frohlich told me in 1967 at UCSD around same time that PW Anderson came there to give his "More is different talk" (I was back from Harwell then where I did the Goldstone/Jahn-Teller broken symmetry paper with Stoneham in Proc Phys Soc London) that THE BIG ERROR in physics was thinking of the electron as a point particle.

This picture fits "Einstein's Vision" as described by Wheeler in his book "Geometrodynamics" and in his UCSD visits and his talks at Heisenberg's Munich Institute I attended in Summer 1966. I also fits Bohm's hidden variable intepretation and J.P. Vigier's theory of "tight atomic states" leading perhaps to the larger atomic energy release that Maric et-al were looking for in Beograd although I do not think they found it.

My idea is also consistent with the point-like Feynman "parton" picture of lepto-quark imaging at high magnification (deep inelastic electron scattering) because of well known GR property that the interior volume is larger than the surface area would lead one to expect using flat Euclidean geometry. For example in the SSS vacuum solution

dC/dR = 2pi(1 - 2G*mp/hc^2)^1/2

p = scattering momentum transfer between probe and target m

where h/p > 2G*m/c^2

G* ~ 10^40 G(Newton)

replace m by (e/c)^2|/\zpf|^1/2 for example.

The effective SHRINKING size of the real lepto-quark target inside the hadron bag of "QCD Lite" (F. Wilczek) is of order

(h/mc)[1 - 2|/\zpf|^1/2(p/h)]^1/2

where h/p > |/\zpf|^-1/2


Max Born many years ago also suggested the Dual
Relativity Principle applied to phase spaces. So if
there is an upper bound on velocities, there should be
a bound of momentum, forces in Nature. Later on this
lead to the Born-Infeld description of
Electrodynamics. QM involves phase spaces.

I believe we must look at new physics and entirely
new ideas to figure out all this stuff about
variations of the constants in Nature, dark matter,
etc.... As I've said, the conformal-boosts are linked
to accelerated hyperbolic trajectories.

Yes, I also sense that is important but I am not clear how.
I think we need to locally gauge ALL 15 generators of the Lie Algebra of
the Conformal group.


My gut feeling is that all matter in the Universe may
have been created out of the vaccum due to
cosmological acceleration effects ( Unruh-Rindler
effect ). I discuss this in the IJMPA paper.

Thank you once again

Best wishes

Carlos

On Feb 29, 2004, at 7:20 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you ask
"... can we get a consistent solution where H(t) is
constant to a good approximation so that

a(t) ~ a(0)e^Hot

without violating all the precision cosmology "concordance"
observations? ...".


According to one of the illustrations from the web page at
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/farthest_supernova_010402.html
a copy of which is attached to this message
"... This diagram reveals changes in the rate of expansion
since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago.
The more shallow the curve, the faster the rate of expansion.
The curve changes noticeably about 7.5 billion years ago ...".

As you can see, the curve is not a cone (rotated line)
but is convex/concave (rotated curve with inflection point),
due to the facts that
just before about 7.5 billion years ago the expansion was decelerating
while
ever since that inflection point about 7.5 billion years ago the
expansion has been (and still is) accelerating.

Doesn't that rule out the linear (in log time) equation
about which you ask?

Tony

Yes, I think it does. I did not think that was a correct idea to begin with.
I am struggling with apparently wrong requirement that things like mass of lepto-quarks
and Regge slope may be cosmic time dependent if we use ideas suggested
by the holographic universe conjecture. But my thinking here may well be muddled
like Hal's is on metric engineering. None of us are immune. :-)