Energy without energy
Eric Davis alludes to Yilmaz's paper in his USAF teleportation report as I recall?
On May 4, 2005, at 5:43 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack wrote earlier
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
[It is] the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
Sorry, I fail to see how this rules out g_uv = g_uv(phi_uv) or tensor vacuum t_uv on the RHS.
The formula is mathematically unsound as it stands without context and explanation. You cannot have double indices like that. What does it mean?
If
guv = (etae^PHI)uv
What does that mean?
e.g.
g00 = (etae^PHI)00
What does that mean?
Does it mean
logg00 = logeta00 + PHI00
Note that
logz = log|z| + iargz
to base e in complex plane
What is eta00, and what is PHI00 PHYSICALLY for example? Why even introduce this exponential notation like polar representation of complex numbers without the i? Obviously the key idea is that you get Minkowski flat space-time when PHI -> 0, but WHY PHI = phi - 2phi~ in

Paul, until you can explain this simple example, what you are doing here is completely bogus. Maybe Yilmaz's theory is bogus I don't know. It's unintelligible. His papers are unreadable for me. You cannot explain them, which means, by Feynman's test, you do not understand them. There may not be anything there to understand? Maybe Mike Ibison can make an adequate defense of Yilmaz's theory, since obviously you are not able to do so.
Yilmaz even talked about the gauge symmetries of phi in his 1958 Phys Rev paper as related to the position
displacements of the observer in the gravitational field. Sound familiar?
Useless without the details.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
But this "energy problem" is a *foundational* issue, not a purely mathematical question.
Indeed, I have outlined what I think may be the ultimate resolution of WHY gravity vacuum energy is nonlocal.
The global DeRham integrals of a local "zero" density need not vanish in a multiply connected region (non-trivial cohomology) of integration because of the "holes" that are singularities in the single-valued Vacuum ODLRO out of which the local GR field equations emerge.
*The nonlocality of the gravity energy is a strong "Cosmic Trigger" signal that Einstein's GR is an emergent c-number IR effective field theory from vacuum ODLRO! Andrei Sakharov did not have the right idea when he thought that GR emerges from RANDOM ZPF. It emerges from the COHERING of the random ZPF in the INFLATION phase transition of false flat to stable curved vacuum. This led Puthoff, Haisch & Rueda & Co off on a doomed wild goose chase for the "origin of inertia" using the wrong SED theory of Trevor Marshall.
The nonlocality of gravity energy is an undecidable Godel question that requires a larger covering theory, i.e. Vacuum ODLRO. My supersolid paper of 1969 was the beginning of this idea as noted by George Chapline Jr.
On Feb 16, 2005, at 3:18 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Jack,
Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! You actually once did something of very great importance - and apparently you didn't realize this. This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me).
george
re: Destruction of superflow in unsaturated 4He films and the prediction of a new crystalline phase of 4He with Bose-Einstein condensation. Physics Letters, Vol 30A, no 5 3 November 1969 pp 300-1
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:46 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Jack,
For the record I strongly encourage you to send a letter to Physics Today pointing out the contributions of yourself and Chester prior to Leggett.
My 1969 He4 ground state ODLRO supersolid prediction actually observed at U Penn only in 2003 is the model of the Diff(4) covariant "world crystal" "aether" of Hagen Kleinert's disclination-dislocation model of curvature and torsion.
In other words, you get a non-zero from "integrating" a "zero".
Remember Wheeler's "Geon" i.e.
"Mass without mass"
Mass is equivalent to energy.
E = Mc^2
The mass M of the Geon is NONLOCAL since Ruv = 0 everywhere locally in the Geon extended structure. It has NO LOCAL MASS DENSITY. The Geon is an extended nonlocal structure getting NOT-ZERO from ZERO from the non-trivial cohomology!
This is what Zielinski & Co fail to understand qualitatively and why the locality of the gravity energy is a BOGUS QUESTION!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Einstein's 1916 vacuum equation (my /\zpf = 0) is simply
Ruv = 0
R = 0
Obviously then, the pure vacuum gravity stress-energy density tensor is trivially
t_uv(vac) = (c^4/8piG)Ruv = 0
Nevertheless, the global integral of the local zero energy density t_00(vac) is generally not zero. The standard method is to stick in an additional non-vanishing pseudo-tensor piece t_uv* that like (LC) vanishes at a point in a LIF.
However, the key theorem is the generalized Stoke's theorem in Cartan form language for the DeRham integrals
|C = ||dC
C is an ANTISYMMETRIC p-form.
| is the DeRham integral over a bounding p-cycle
dC is the ANTISYMMETRIC p + 1 form
|| is the p + 1 co-form with p-holes that has boundary that is the above bounding p-cycle.
Suppose, there is a p-hole. That means there are at least TWO non-bounding p-cycles that make the bounding p-cycle. There is the INNER non-bounding p-cycle that shrinks be as small as possible surrounding the hole. Its value is -Np(p-FLUX QUANTUM) where Np is a WINDING NUMBER. The p-FLUX QUANTUM is from the single-valuedness of the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter that suffers a Goldstone Phase Singularity where the Higgs |Vacuum ODLRO| -> 0 defining the p-hole. See Michael Berry's papers for the general theory of these "topological defects".
Therefore, the value of on the MEASURABLE |C on the OUTER asymptotic "S-Matrix" observer non-bounding p-cycle is + Np(p-FLUX QUANTUM. You generally cannot measure the TWIN inner integral.
*This works even when dC = 0 LOCALLY i.e. C is CLOSED but NOT-EXACT!
Now, the problem is that GR is a SYMMETRIC theory not ANTI-SYMMETRIC. Therefore, the relation is indirect. The ANTISYMMETRIC A&P torsion forms are defined in the fermionic tetradic "square root" substratum of Einstein's SYMMETRIC bosonic curved tensor geometrodynamics.
The boson SYMMETRIC curved tensor Einstein geometrodynamics is a BILINEAR "BCS" non-perturbative PAIRING of the fermionic tetrad square roots Einstein-Cartan TORSION forms.
This is the Einstein Equivalence Principle EEP in its FULLNESS now seen in its full glory for the first time ever!
Behold EEP, post-INFLATION
guv(curved boson torsion-free tensor)
= eu^a(flat fermion torsion)(False Minkowski Vacuum)abev^b(flat fermion torsion)
You derive connection (LC)uvw and tidal curvature Ruvwl in the usual way from guv.
Meantime in the substratum
e = I + B
B ~ dx^uBu
B is the local compensating potential from locally gauging RIGID GLOBAL T4 to RUBBERY LOCAL Diff(4) with Xu'^u transformation functions on the local coordinate x^u & x^u' charts in open set topology of events P.
*Note that P is the QUOTIENT STRUCTURE MOD equivalence class of manifold points p connected by ACTIVE Diff(4)p _. p'.
Bu ~ Bu^a(Xa/Lp)argVacuumODLRO
Bu^a ~ Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO
In operator language using the commutator [ , ]
Bu^a = Bu^a[(Xa/Lp),(LpP^a/ih)]
[(Xa/Lp),(LpP^a/ih)] = 1
* That is, the Heisenberg algebra is the required consistency condition!
The A&P substratum torsion is
F = dB
dF = 0
d*F = *J
if U(1) Abelian
Or, if Yang-Mills SU(2), SU(3) ...
D = d + B/
DF = 0 Bianchi identity
D*F = *J
* = Hodge Dual
See Baez's book on Knots, Gauge & Gravity.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Is the integral of zero always zero?
On May 4, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
On May 3, 2005, at 10:14 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You are beating a dead horse. They haven't done it because they don't know how. That is good enough. It's a solved problem in GR.
So it's a solved problem in GR but it is not yet solved in Yilmaz? Fine.
Which means that Yilmaz has a lousy theory.
It may simply mean that the problem is not yet solved in Yilmaz.
They have had since 1958 to do it, or at least since 1974. It's a dead subject. Let sleeping dogs lie.
It clearly means that and that clearly implies that orthodox GR is the superior theory - that works.
Or merely that GR is currently in a superior state of formal and computational development, which I think may be true.
"May"? "may"? Oh, you are too precious with your dainty hesitant "may". It's OBVIOUSLY true!
I don't think anyone is claiming that GR doesn't "work". I fully realize that leading theoreticians who use it to solve real problems insist that it now works really well for them, both heuristically and computationally
At the same time, there is nothing wrong with comparing orthodox GR to alternatives -- as Clifford Will, for example, did very systematically in his PhD thesis and in various published works.
Of course, there is nothing wrong when it is done well with precision as opposed to dainty dancing around the topic without actually solving anything.
The interesting thing about Yilmaz is that it is basically a conventional field theory against a flat kinematic background, in which respect it has certain similarities to spin-2 graviton models of the Gupta-Feynman type, and also to Rosen's bimetric model.
All the more reason to reject it! GR is a NON-PERTURBATIVE emergent c-number vacuum ODLRO effective field theory. So if what you say is true Yilmaz theory has no chance of being useful. It's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. It's like trying to explain superconductivity with the normal Fermi surface ground state x = 0 as the starting point for a perturbation theory.
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
Is the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
I think it also has a close relationship to the tetrad/gauge field model for standard GR, which it has been shown by B&G and Hestenes) can be interpreted as a bimetric theory.
Too vague. Does not convey useful information. Justify with an example.
The key here of course is the final resolution of the energy problem, which many outside the orthodox establishment (particularly in the Russian school) still consider to be an important internal conceptual problem of GR. BTW, can you give me a citation for an accurate *fully interactive* computational GR solution of the two-body problem *without constraints*?
I am not a librarian. Do Google.
The fact is that none of the top drawer people in that field bother with it - and for good reason.
Well, first off they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR, as if the question was finally settled by Einstein's 1918 papers on the subject.
I suspect Penrose is correct in this view.
Sorry, but, for whatever it's worth, I for one don't buy it.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
Hawking agrees with him on this. So does Martin Rees. So does Kip Thorne, John Wheeler .... What is the betting odds that these chaps are wrong and an amateur with a Masters in Chemistry has seen deeper into this question than they have? What are the odds? Of course, if you had a real argument that would be different. But you don't.
One famous attempt to paper over this "non-problem" was the specious table-pounding argument found in MTW Chapter 20, which I understand even you have now abandoned.
No, I have not abandoned it. It's on the back burner until I have the time to ponder the issue afresh. I think the nonlocality of the gravity energy is simply from the multiply connected topology of closed non-exact forms! That is, the idea of "flux without flux" in which you get a non-vanishing flux integral of dB on the outer closed surface even though technically dB = 0 between the inner and outer non-bounding cycles that only together form a boundary for Stoke's theorem
||*C over boundary = |||d*C over interior of boundary
I suspect that is the essence of the gravity nonlocal energy problem.
i.e. ||d*C in interior of non-bounding OUTER cycle for ||*C =/= 0 even though d*C = 0 in that interior
where d*C = pure local vacuum gravity energy density
i.e. 3-form?
d*C ~ (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
= 0 in ordinary non-exotic classical vacuum where /\zpf = 0, which is the case in MTW.
C = 1-form
and we ignore the inner non-bounding cycle isolating a topological defect in the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter Psi where |Psi| -> 0 at the Goldstone argPsi phase singularity (e.g. Sir Michael Berry's papers)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih) operating on argPsi = substratum non-trivial part of Einstein-Cartan DYNAMICAL tetrad
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)operating on argPsi = substratum torsion potential from locally gauging T4 -> Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u
This is not Shipov's torsion from locally gauging O(1,3) to ...?
i.e. locally gauging T4xO(1,3) to Diff(10)? or Diff(4)x?(6)
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
guv(curved space-time) = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(flat space-time)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Forget about Yilmaz's field potential. Forget about the Freud identity. Just look at Yilmaz's field equations:
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv)
which differ from the Einstein-Hilbert equations only by the addition of a small tensor vacuum term t_uv to the RHS.
That's meaningless until t_uv is DEFINED.
It is DEFINED in Yilmaz's papers. He gives an explicit expression for it, based on his tensor potential and based on the exponential definition of the physical metric.
Prove it. Your words are too vague. Show the math. Remember what Ibison said last night about the inadequacy of the exponential metric.
Actually t_uv is determined by
1) the Bianchi identities;
2) the Freud identity; and
3) Newtonian correspondence (in the slow motion limit).
Prove this. Show the math.
If you cannot create it, you do not understand it. Write it down explicitly! It's a complicated expression in the derivatives of the potential phi:
What is "phi"? Who ordered that?
Where is the physical definition of phi? This formula is unintelligible as it stands out of context. There is no "phi" in 1916 GR. You are not allowed to stick it in without explanation and justification. That is not how to do theoretical physics. Also there are TWO phis here, one with indices the other without. This is completely unacceptable balderdash as it stands.
For the slow motion limit, phi --> phi_0^0 (all other terms vanish) and this becomes
Aside from the fact that we have no idea what these "phis" mean. Your math here is completely unintelligible.
What's 0 alpha & beta? Why does first term on RHS of first equation vanish. Think what you are saying here. It's total nonsense.
SLOW MOTION LIMIT in GR means u = v = 0 that's not what you wrote at all! Paul this is hardly competent. Really!
The point is that his t_uv is *unambiguously determined* in terms of phi, and vice versa,
based on the two "marble" identities and Newtonian correspondence conditions, contrary to
what you suggest.
Meaningless. Unacceptable.
"Tensor potential" of what? The words are meaningless.
It's like a classical field potential, except that it's a second-rank tensor quantity.
What is "It's like"? Meaningless. Unacceptable. This is BAD PHYSICS! At least the way you present it.
Do you have a problem with that? If so, what exactly is your problem?
Paul, having studied with Hans Bethe as my a one-on-one tutor at Cornell 1960, I would be embarrassed to bring such a goofy lame incoherent not-even-wrong argument to him, were he still alive. This is not acceptable.
In 1958 Yilmaz was talking about a *scalar potential*. Is that the latest Yilmaz paper anyone at
GR-17 knows about?
In "Towards a Field Theory of Gravitation" (Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992)), he is talking
about a tensor potential phi_u^v that reduces to 1 x phi_0^0 in the Newtonian slow-motion limit.
If you wrote down the actual math it might be obvious why g0i is not possible in that model.
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
Meaningless. Not acceptable. Why not stick in green cheese and the kitchen sink?
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
This is also meaningless under the quantities on the RHS are physically defined, explained and justified.
Rotation terms would be g0i, i = 1,2,3
logguv = lognuv + 2(phi - 2phi~)uv ?
Meaning what exactly?
There is no motivation for this goofy formal trick. This is BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Yilmaz throws in THREE UNDEFINED FUDGE-FACTORS!
I have some business to attend to.
On May 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
gives the required form for t_uv consistent with the Bianchi and Freud identities together with
Newtonian correspondence conditions.
Why? How? Prove it.
Is the eta factor supposed to be the flat Minkowski metric?
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv is that the idea?
It requires justification
guv = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^v
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^be^PHIuv
e^PHIuv = 1uv + Yuv
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^bYuv
{Minkowski(e^PHI - 1)}uv = Bu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b + Bu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b
So I see no advantage here. This is very clumsy, unwieldy. It's not even a conformal dilation.
*When PHIuv = 0, then Bu^a = 0. But there is NO PHYSICAL MEANING to PHIuv in contrast to Bu^a!
This exponential form of the metric as an expression in the potential phi is supposed to be exact for a
broad class of problems in the tensor version of the theory.
Meaningless.
For example, PROVE the equation
And define the several kinds of "phi" before you do. Note that this is not an SBS Landau-Ginzburg Vacuum ODLRO type expression that one might expect here.
He does not get this by direct solution of what he calls a "complicated set of non-linear differential
equations". He gets this from what he considers an analog for the matter tensor tau_uv
Meaningless.
What Top Hat did this White Rabbit pop out of? -- In what parallel universe of the multiverse?
What is the relation of the phi with indices to the phi without indices.
This is totally gobbledygook. I have no idea what it means? I see no motivation. No necessity for this obscure excess baggage, which is less with more.
... adhoc obscurities deleted
Here's an excerpt from the 1992 Nuovo Cimento paper (p 948):
Gibberish. Adding obscurity to turgidity.
What you cannot create you do not understand.
Just throwing this Laputonian scribble at me is worthless. Obviously you do not understand it. You cannot explain what it means in your own words. You cannot pass Feynman's litmus test here.
The burden of proof is on you to show the bottom line. When I looked at the Yilmaz papers some time ago they were unintelligible, obscure and badly written in contrast to MTW - a paragon of clarity.
I agree that they could be better written, and some of the arguments presented by Yilmaz definitely need to be rationalized and reformulated. Some are even confused and defective (e.g. his confused argument about free fall in Section 3.2 of the 1992 paper).
If he can't get free fall right - then the whole thing is obviously worthless.
But I still think Yilmaz's overall take on the energy problem -- referring back to the classic debates between Einstein and Lorentz, Levi-Civita, Schroedinger, Bauer, and Laue -- is essentially correct: there really is a vacuum energy conundrum in Einstein GR,
There really isn't. You are wrong. When /\zpf = 0 then tuv(vacuum) = 0 even though the total energy seen asymptotically is not zero. That is, a "zero local energy density" required by EEP integrates to a non-zero total energy integrated "Poynting Flux" through the outer NON-BOUNDING closed surface in a multiply-connected Vacuum ODLRO space, i.e. Berry's "phase singularities" where |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in ordinary space like in a quantized vortex in superfluid helium.
Total vacuum gravity energy detected asymptotically with zero interior local energy density in the interior that has "holes" in it.
which I agree with Yilmaz was not satisfactorily resolved by Einstein's final definitive 1918 paper on the topic, notwithstanding all the bold dogmatic pronouncements of orthodoxy.
So you have a hopeless cause charging windmills.
Now we have a paper by Hestenes, referring back to papers by Moller, Rosen, and Babak & Grishchuk, which nowhere even mentions Yilmaz (although it does directly cite Freud's 1939 paper), which seems to support Yilmaz's position.
"Seems"? Not good enough. All this suggests is that there are a lot of confused theorists writing papers that no one will remember.
For the present purposes all that matters mathematically is that this represents a small tensor adjustment to the total stress-energy tensor on the RHS of the field equations.
Hogwash. Why SMALL? It's not always small. In my theory it's HUGE.We're not talking here about *your* theory. We are talking about Yilmaz vs. GR.
For the non-rotating SSS problem, the empirical predictions of Yilmaz's theory (with the added vacuum t_uv) hardly differ from those of the Einstein theory. This has been shown in mathematical detail in various published papers, and this as far as I know has not been refuted *or even disputed* by the likes of Misner et al.
Hogwash. When there is dark energy, you can forget Tuv (ordinary matter) completely. It is the perturbation! What you say here is completely false!
Most of precision cosmology anomalies are easily explained by the exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
You are dead wrong here.
Even in the strong field regime, I understand the deviations are not that great. However, in Yilmaz's model there are *no curvature singularities* that constitute hard "event horizons", as there are in the corresponding GR solutions for strongly gravitating SSS sources -- at least certainly not in the quasi-static regime.
Nonsense.
Also I have an independent dynamics for t_uv(zpf) which Yilmaz/PV does not have!
OK.
OK? If you admit that, then you must reject Yilmaz's Ansatz as worthless.
It's as if Newton published
F = ma
without the independent law
F = GMm/r^2
Remember, I'm not insisting that Yilmaz's theory is actually correct. I'm simply questioning some of the arguments that have been been deployed to summarily throw it out of court -- which I consider to be logically defective if not entirely specious.
So far, from the evidence you have given, Yilmaz's theory is WORSE than even I expected. Maybe Mike Ibison can do a better job explaining what the physical motivation is, and what the set of phi mean? The cure is worse than the disease.
So given Yilmaz's equations,
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv),
I think the burden is on you and the GR-17 guys to show that the condition g_0i = 0 for all i ("no gravimagnetic terms") is a mathematical consequence of these equations, as applied to any rotating strongly gravitating object.
The burden is on you since you profess it.
But I don't really "profess it".
Then stop writing about it, since you cannot explain it in your own words showing that you do not understand it. I never claim to understand it.
The point is that if you are trying to claim that Yilmaz theory cannot handle rotating sources, or even that it can but it cannot consistently give you g_0i =/= 0 for such sources, then you need to show how this is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the *most current version* of his theory. It is not enough simply to point out that so far no such solutions of Yilmaz's equations seem to be available.
Nonsense. As far as I am concerned Yilmaz does not have a coherent theory that is any challenge to orthodox plain vanilla 1916 GR. It is completely worthless unless Mike Ibison can show otherwise in a more competent way than you have done thus far.
But I agree that this strongly suggests at the very least some kind of difficulty with the application of Yilmaz's theory to rotating sources, which does raise interesting questions regarding Yilmaz vs.GR.
George Chapline's theory is the only contender I know of. Yilmaz's model was trashed long ago by the top people in the field.
No one of first rank in that field cares about the Yilmaz deviation.Exactly. So no one of "first rank" is going to support any investigations of the Yilmaz deviations. They may not even have read past the 1958 scalar potential version of his theory.
Too bad you cannot understand what Yilmaz did in 1974. It seems worthless to me at this point.
So what's your point? This seems completely circular to me. Why not stack up Yilmaz 1958 against Einstein 1907?
Because, there is Einstein 1916. That's why.
I say that orthodox GR is like the Titanic -- and you want to nail your colors to its mast.
That's extreme crack pottery. You are not helping your cause.
Orthodox 1916 GR is the most beautiful theory in physics and it is battle-tested.
They obviously all have looked at it and rejected it. MTW allude to it semi-politely.
Jack, they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR. Like Penrose, they simply insist on the Einsteinian dogma that the energy-momentum of the gravitational vacuum is "non-localizable" because such energy-momentum can be produced or destroyed in any finite region by a *mere change of spacetime coordinates*.
I think I may have the beginning of the proper explanation for the nonlocality of gravity energy in terms of non-trivial cohomology/homology of the DeRahm integrals that requires Vacuum ODLRO inflation.
But even then there is a problem. Hence, for example, the sly and sneaky *ad hoc* imposition of "Galilean coordinates"(all g_uv, w = 0; the "line element of special relativity" (Pauli)) in the asymptotic region in order to fake sensible *global* conservation laws in GR!
That is simply a special case of
||C =/= 0 on outer non-bounding tetradic substratum 2-cycle even though the substratum 3-form dC ~ t_uv(vac)
The Cartan form structure must be in the antisymmetric tetradic substratum not in the symmetric geometrodynamic tensors.
Obviously, guv is bilinear in B = Budx^u = torsion potential connection in the tetradic substratum
(LC) involves first order partials of B i.e.
dB = Bu,vdx^u/\dx^v ~ (LC) geometrodynamic connection in curved space-time.
d^2B = Bu,v,w dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w is the substratum torsion 3-form that corresponds to tidal curvature Ruvwl in the geometrodynamic picture and to Ruv, R & Tuv.
So this seems to work.
d^2 = 0 of course, but we really have
D = d + B
Yang-Mills covariant substratum exterior derivative and also "curvature without curvature" from non-trivial cohomology/homology groups in the Vacuum ODLRO order parameter space of emergent 1916 GR c-number effective field theory in the low-energy IR limit.
Of course, if you insist against all logic and common physical sense that there is no problem here, then you will also believe there is no need for a solution.
I am saying you are not equipped with the mathematical machinery to even ask the right question here.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
* Your naive notion that a zero local energy density cannot give a non-zero global integral is what is mathematically wrong! That is, the integral of a local zero need not be zero in a non-trivial topology. So that's your basic error in approaching the nonlocality of gravity energy problem.
On May 4, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
On May 3, 2005, at 10:14 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You are beating a dead horse. They haven't done it because they don't know how. That is good enough. It's a solved problem in GR.
So it's a solved problem in GR but it is not yet solved in Yilmaz? Fine.
Which means that Yilmaz has a lousy theory.
It may simply mean that the problem is not yet solved in Yilmaz.
They have had since 1958 to do it, or at least since 1974. It's a dead subject. Let sleeping dogs lie.
It clearly means that and that clearly implies that orthodox GR is the superior theory - that works.
Or merely that GR is currently in a superior state of formal and computational development, which I think may be true.
"May"? "may"? Oh, you are too precious with your dainty hesitant "may". It's OBVIOUSLY true!
I don't think anyone is claiming that GR doesn't "work". I fully realize that leading theoreticians who use it to solve real problems insist that it now works really well for them, both heuristically and computationally
At the same time, there is nothing wrong with comparing orthodox GR to alternatives -- as Clifford Will, for example, did very systematically in his PhD thesis and in various published works.
Of course, there is nothing wrong when it is done well with precision as opposed to dainty dancing around the topic without actually solving anything.
The interesting thing about Yilmaz is that it is basically a conventional field theory against a flat kinematic background, in which respect it has certain similarities to spin-2 graviton models of the Gupta-Feynman type, and also to Rosen's bimetric model.
All the more reason to reject it! GR is a NON-PERTURBATIVE emergent c-number vacuum ODLRO effective field theory. So if what you say is true Yilmaz theory has no chance of being useful. It's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. It's like trying to explain superconductivity with the normal Fermi surface ground state x = 0 as the starting point for a perturbation theory.
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
Is the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
I think it also has a close relationship to the tetrad/gauge field model for standard GR, which it has been shown by B&G and Hestenes) can be interpreted as a bimetric theory.
Too vague. Does not convey useful information. Justify with an example.
The key here of course is the final resolution of the energy problem, which many outside the orthodox establishment (particularly in the Russian school) still consider to be an important internal conceptual problem of GR. BTW, can you give me a citation for an accurate *fully interactive* computational GR solution of the two-body problem *without constraints*?
I am not a librarian. Do Google.
The fact is that none of the top drawer people in that field bother with it - and for good reason.
Well, first off they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR, as if the question was finally settled by Einstein's 1918 papers on the subject.
I suspect Penrose is correct in this view.
Sorry, but, for whatever it's worth, I for one don't buy it.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
Hawking agrees with him on this. So does Martin Rees. So does Kip Thorne, John Wheeler .... What is the betting odds that these chaps are wrong and an amateur with a Masters in Chemistry has seen deeper into this question than they have? What are the odds? Of course, if you had a real argument that would be different. But you don't.
One famous attempt to paper over this "non-problem" was the specious table-pounding argument found in MTW Chapter 20, which I understand even you have now abandoned.
No, I have not abandoned it. It's on the back burner until I have the time to ponder the issue afresh. I think the nonlocality of the gravity energy is simply from the multiply connected topology of closed non-exact forms! That is, the idea of "flux without flux" in which you get a non-vanishing flux integral of dB on the outer closed surface even though technically dB = 0 between the inner and outer non-bounding cycles that only together form a boundary for Stoke's theorem
||*C over boundary = |||d*C over interior of boundary
I suspect that is the essence of the gravity nonlocal energy problem.
i.e. ||d*C in interior of non-bounding OUTER cycle for ||*C =/= 0 even though d*C = 0 in that interior
where d*C = pure local vacuum gravity energy density
i.e. 3-form?
d*C ~ (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
= 0 in ordinary non-exotic classical vacuum where /\zpf = 0, which is the case in MTW.
C = 1-form
and we ignore the inner non-bounding cycle isolating a topological defect in the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter Psi where |Psi| -> 0 at the Goldstone argPsi phase singularity (e.g. Sir Michael Berry's papers)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih) operating on argPsi = substratum non-trivial part of Einstein-Cartan DYNAMICAL tetrad
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)operating on argPsi = substratum torsion potential from locally gauging T4 -> Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u
This is not Shipov's torsion from locally gauging O(1,3) to ...?
i.e. locally gauging T4xO(1,3) to Diff(10)? or Diff(4)x?(6)
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
guv(curved space-time) = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(flat space-time)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Forget about Yilmaz's field potential. Forget about the Freud identity. Just look at Yilmaz's field equations:
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv)
which differ from the Einstein-Hilbert equations only by the addition of a small tensor vacuum term t_uv to the RHS.
That's meaningless until t_uv is DEFINED.
It is DEFINED in Yilmaz's papers. He gives an explicit expression for it, based on his tensor potential and based on the exponential definition of the physical metric.
Prove it. Your words are too vague. Show the math. Remember what Ibison said last night about the inadequacy of the exponential metric.
Actually t_uv is determined by
1) the Bianchi identities;
2) the Freud identity; and
3) Newtonian correspondence (in the slow motion limit).
Prove this. Show the math.
If you cannot create it, you do not understand it. Write it down explicitly! It's a complicated expression in the derivatives of the potential phi:
What is "phi"? Who ordered that?
Where is the physical definition of phi? This formula is unintelligible as it stands out of context. There is no "phi" in 1916 GR. You are not allowed to stick it in without explanation and justification. That is not how to do theoretical physics. Also there are TWO phis here, one with indices the other without. This is completely unacceptable balderdash as it stands.
For the slow motion limit, phi --> phi_0^0 (all other terms vanish) and this becomes
Aside from the fact that we have no idea what these "phis" mean. Your math here is completely unintelligible.
What's 0 alpha & beta? Why does first term on RHS of first equation vanish. Think what you are saying here. It's total nonsense.
SLOW MOTION LIMIT in GR means u = v = 0 that's not what you wrote at all! Paul this is hardly competent. Really!
The point is that his t_uv is *unambiguously determined* in terms of phi, and vice versa,
based on the two "marble" identities and Newtonian correspondence conditions, contrary to
what you suggest.
Meaningless. Unacceptable.
"Tensor potential" of what? The words are meaningless.
It's like a classical field potential, except that it's a second-rank tensor quantity.
What is "It's like"? Meaningless. Unacceptable. This is BAD PHYSICS! At least the way you present it.
Do you have a problem with that? If so, what exactly is your problem?
Paul, having studied with Hans Bethe as my a one-on-one tutor at Cornell 1960, I would be embarrassed to bring such a goofy lame incoherent not-even-wrong argument to him, were he still alive. This is not acceptable.
In 1958 Yilmaz was talking about a *scalar potential*. Is that the latest Yilmaz paper anyone at
GR-17 knows about?
In "Towards a Field Theory of Gravitation" (Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992)), he is talking
about a tensor potential phi_u^v that reduces to 1 x phi_0^0 in the Newtonian slow-motion limit.
If you wrote down the actual math it might be obvious why g0i is not possible in that model.
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
Meaningless. Not acceptable. Why not stick in green cheese and the kitchen sink?
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
This is also meaningless under the quantities on the RHS are physically defined, explained and justified.
Rotation terms would be g0i, i = 1,2,3
logguv = lognuv + 2(phi - 2phi~)uv ?
Meaning what exactly?
There is no motivation for this goofy formal trick. This is BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Yilmaz throws in THREE UNDEFINED FUDGE-FACTORS!
I have some business to attend to.
On May 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
gives the required form for t_uv consistent with the Bianchi and Freud identities together with
Newtonian correspondence conditions.
Why? How? Prove it.
Is the eta factor supposed to be the flat Minkowski metric?
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv is that the idea?
It requires justification
guv = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^v
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^be^PHIuv
e^PHIuv = 1uv + Yuv
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^bYuv
{Minkowski(e^PHI - 1)}uv = Bu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b + Bu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b
So I see no advantage here. This is very clumsy, unwieldy. It's not even a conformal dilation.
*When PHIuv = 0, then Bu^a = 0. But there is NO PHYSICAL MEANING to PHIuv in contrast to Bu^a!
This exponential form of the metric as an expression in the potential phi is supposed to be exact for a
broad class of problems in the tensor version of the theory.
Meaningless.
For example, PROVE the equation
And define the several kinds of "phi" before you do. Note that this is not an SBS Landau-Ginzburg Vacuum ODLRO type expression that one might expect here.
He does not get this by direct solution of what he calls a "complicated set of non-linear differential
equations". He gets this from what he considers an analog for the matter tensor tau_uv
Meaningless.
What Top Hat did this White Rabbit pop out of? -- In what parallel universe of the multiverse?
What is the relation of the phi with indices to the phi without indices.
This is totally gobbledygook. I have no idea what it means? I see no motivation. No necessity for this obscure excess baggage, which is less with more.
... adhoc obscurities deleted
Here's an excerpt from the 1992 Nuovo Cimento paper (p 948):
Gibberish. Adding obscurity to turgidity.
What you cannot create you do not understand.
Just throwing this Laputonian scribble at me is worthless. Obviously you do not understand it. You cannot explain what it means in your own words. You cannot pass Feynman's litmus test here.
The burden of proof is on you to show the bottom line. When I looked at the Yilmaz papers some time ago they were unintelligible, obscure and badly written in contrast to MTW - a paragon of clarity.
I agree that they could be better written, and some of the arguments presented by Yilmaz definitely need to be rationalized and reformulated. Some are even confused and defective (e.g. his confused argument about free fall in Section 3.2 of the 1992 paper).
If he can't get free fall right - then the whole thing is obviously worthless.
But I still think Yilmaz's overall take on the energy problem -- referring back to the classic debates between Einstein and Lorentz, Levi-Civita, Schroedinger, Bauer, and Laue -- is essentially correct: there really is a vacuum energy conundrum in Einstein GR,
There really isn't. You are wrong. When /\zpf = 0 then tuv(vacuum) = 0 even though the total energy seen asymptotically is not zero. That is, a "zero local energy density" required by EEP integrates to a non-zero total energy integrated "Poynting Flux" through the outer NON-BOUNDING closed surface in a multiply-connected Vacuum ODLRO space, i.e. Berry's "phase singularities" where |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in ordinary space like in a quantized vortex in superfluid helium.
Total vacuum gravity energy detected asymptotically with zero interior local energy density in the interior that has "holes" in it.
which I agree with Yilmaz was not satisfactorily resolved by Einstein's final definitive 1918 paper on the topic, notwithstanding all the bold dogmatic pronouncements of orthodoxy.
So you have a hopeless cause charging windmills.
Now we have a paper by Hestenes, referring back to papers by Moller, Rosen, and Babak & Grishchuk, which nowhere even mentions Yilmaz (although it does directly cite Freud's 1939 paper), which seems to support Yilmaz's position.
"Seems"? Not good enough. All this suggests is that there are a lot of confused theorists writing papers that no one will remember.
For the present purposes all that matters mathematically is that this represents a small tensor adjustment to the total stress-energy tensor on the RHS of the field equations.
Hogwash. Why SMALL? It's not always small. In my theory it's HUGE.We're not talking here about *your* theory. We are talking about Yilmaz vs. GR.
For the non-rotating SSS problem, the empirical predictions of Yilmaz's theory (with the added vacuum t_uv) hardly differ from those of the Einstein theory. This has been shown in mathematical detail in various published papers, and this as far as I know has not been refuted *or even disputed* by the likes of Misner et al.
Hogwash. When there is dark energy, you can forget Tuv (ordinary matter) completely. It is the perturbation! What you say here is completely false!
Most of precision cosmology anomalies are easily explained by the exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
You are dead wrong here.
Even in the strong field regime, I understand the deviations are not that great. However, in Yilmaz's model there are *no curvature singularities* that constitute hard "event horizons", as there are in the corresponding GR solutions for strongly gravitating SSS sources -- at least certainly not in the quasi-static regime.
Nonsense.
Also I have an independent dynamics for t_uv(zpf) which Yilmaz/PV does not have!
OK.
OK? If you admit that, then you must reject Yilmaz's Ansatz as worthless.
It's as if Newton published
F = ma
without the independent law
F = GMm/r^2
Remember, I'm not insisting that Yilmaz's theory is actually correct. I'm simply questioning some of the arguments that have been been deployed to summarily throw it out of court -- which I consider to be logically defective if not entirely specious.
So far, from the evidence you have given, Yilmaz's theory is WORSE than even I expected. Maybe Mike Ibison can do a better job explaining what the physical motivation is, and what the set of phi mean? The cure is worse than the disease.
So given Yilmaz's equations,
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv),
I think the burden is on you and the GR-17 guys to show that the condition g_0i = 0 for all i ("no gravimagnetic terms") is a mathematical consequence of these equations, as applied to any rotating strongly gravitating object.
The burden is on you since you profess it.
But I don't really "profess it".
Then stop writing about it, since you cannot explain it in your own words showing that you do not understand it. I never claim to understand it.
The point is that if you are trying to claim that Yilmaz theory cannot handle rotating sources, or even that it can but it cannot consistently give you g_0i =/= 0 for such sources, then you need to show how this is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the *most current version* of his theory. It is not enough simply to point out that so far no such solutions of Yilmaz's equations seem to be available.
Nonsense. As far as I am concerned Yilmaz does not have a coherent theory that is any challenge to orthodox plain vanilla 1916 GR. It is completely worthless unless Mike Ibison can show otherwise in a more competent way than you have done thus far.
But I agree that this strongly suggests at the very least some kind of difficulty with the application of Yilmaz's theory to rotating sources, which does raise interesting questions regarding Yilmaz vs.GR.
George Chapline's theory is the only contender I know of. Yilmaz's model was trashed long ago by the top people in the field.
No one of first rank in that field cares about the Yilmaz deviation.Exactly. So no one of "first rank" is going to support any investigations of the Yilmaz deviations. They may not even have read past the 1958 scalar potential version of his theory.
Too bad you cannot understand what Yilmaz did in 1974. It seems worthless to me at this point.
So what's your point? This seems completely circular to me. Why not stack up Yilmaz 1958 against Einstein 1907?
Because, there is Einstein 1916. That's why.
I say that orthodox GR is like the Titanic -- and you want to nail your colors to its mast.
That's extreme crack pottery. You are not helping your cause.
Orthodox 1916 GR is the most beautiful theory in physics and it is battle-tested.
They obviously all have looked at it and rejected it. MTW allude to it semi-politely.
Jack, they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR. Like Penrose, they simply insist on the Einsteinian dogma that the energy-momentum of the gravitational vacuum is "non-localizable" because such energy-momentum can be produced or destroyed in any finite region by a *mere change of spacetime coordinates*.
I think I may have the beginning of the proper explanation for the nonlocality of gravity energy in terms of non-trivial cohomology/homology of the DeRahm integrals that requires Vacuum ODLRO inflation.
But even then there is a problem. Hence, for example, the sly and sneaky *ad hoc* imposition of "Galilean coordinates"(all g_uv, w = 0; the "line element of special relativity" (Pauli)) in the asymptotic region in order to fake sensible *global* conservation laws in GR!
That is simply a special case of
||C =/= 0 on outer non-bounding tetradic substratum 2-cycle even though the substratum 3-form dC ~ t_uv(vac)
The Cartan form structure must be in the antisymmetric tetradic substratum not in the symmetric geometrodynamic tensors.
Obviously, guv is bilinear in B = Budx^u = torsion potential connection in the tetradic substratum
(LC) involves first order partials of B i.e.
dB = Bu,vdx^u/\dx^v ~ (LC) geometrodynamic connection in curved space-time.
d^2B = Bu,v,w dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w is the substratum torsion 3-form that corresponds to tidal curvature Ruvwl in the geometrodynamic picture and to Ruv, R & Tuv.
So this seems to work.
d^2 = 0 of course, but we really have
D = d + B
Yang-Mills covariant substratum exterior derivative and also "curvature without curvature" from non-trivial cohomology/homology groups in the Vacuum ODLRO order parameter space of emergent 1916 GR c-number effective field theory in the low-energy IR limit.
Of course, if you insist against all logic and common physical sense that there is no problem here, then you will also believe there is no need for a solution.
I am saying you are not equipped with the mathematical machinery to even ask the right question here.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
* Your naive notion that a zero local energy density cannot give a non-zero global integral is what is mathematically wrong! That is, the integral of a local zero need not be zero in a non-trivial topology. So that's your basic error in approaching the nonlocality of gravity energy problem.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Curvature, Torsion & Hyperspace
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
In general
Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of Connection + (Connection)^2
In particular
Riemann Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of (LC) + (LC)^2
EEP says that in LIF
Riemann Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of (LC)
since (LC) = 0 in LIF ALWAYS
Affine Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of Affine Connection + (Affine Connection)^2
= 4D Flat Curl of (LC) Connection + 4D Flat Curl of Torsion Connection +4D Flat Curl of Nonmetricity Connection
+ [(LC) + (Torsion) + (Nonmetricity)]^2
EEP simply tells us that in LIF, (LC) = 0
But in an LNIF clearly there are cross terms and, therefore, the curvature tensor is not a simple sum of its parts. There are interference cross-terms in the LNIF. No way to escape that assuming local gauge principle to get Shipov torsion & Hyperspace non-metricity as DYNAMICAL connection fields. There are also the conformal boosts and dilations waiting to be locally gauged for even MORE dynamical connection fields!
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
OK...
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
In general
Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of Connection + (Connection)^2
In particular
Riemann Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of (LC) + (LC)^2
EEP says that in LIF
Riemann Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of (LC)
since (LC) = 0 in LIF ALWAYS
Affine Curvature = 4D Flat Curl of Affine Connection + (Affine Connection)^2
= 4D Flat Curl of (LC) Connection + 4D Flat Curl of Torsion Connection +4D Flat Curl of Nonmetricity Connection
+ [(LC) + (Torsion) + (Nonmetricity)]^2
EEP simply tells us that in LIF, (LC) = 0
But in an LNIF clearly there are cross terms and, therefore, the curvature tensor is not a simple sum of its parts. There are interference cross-terms in the LNIF. No way to escape that assuming local gauge principle to get Shipov torsion & Hyperspace non-metricity as DYNAMICAL connection fields. There are also the conformal boosts and dilations waiting to be locally gauged for even MORE dynamical connection fields!
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
OK...
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Feynman
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
On May 3, 2005, at 7:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)?
I think he means what we mean -- roughly, a co-moving array of detectors AKA "moving observer" -- but he doesn't tie this definition *a priori* to spacetime coordinate systems as in Einstein's approach, for reasons I've partly explained.
I do not understand what he means until I see a detailed explanation. I find the following sentences he wrote puzzling:
"the use of the Levi-Civita connection in lieu of the gravitational field in GR leads to a loss of general covariance"
Huh?
Does he simply mean for the GCT X
(LC) -> (LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
i.e. when Y =/= 0?
"We show that in the presence of an arbitrary affine connection, the gravitational field in GR may be described as nonmetricity of the affine connection." Huh?
The connections come from the principle of local gauge invariance relative to definite groups!
1916 GR is from locally gauging RIGID GLOBAL T4 down to local GCT Diff(4) with elements Xu'^u to get
Bu^a as the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad eu^a where
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
Where EEP is
guv(Curved) = eu^a(Flat)abev^b
guv,w (Curved) = (LC)uvw + (LC)vuw
,w = ordinary partial derivative
guv,w = Bu^a,w(Flat)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b) + (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Flat)abBv^b,w
Therefore, obviously
(LC)uvw = Bu^a,w(Flat)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
(LC)vuw = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Flat)abBv^b,w
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)
Under GCT's Xu'^u
Bu -> Bu' = Xu'^uBu
Under O(1,3)'s /\a^a' in tangent space
Bu^a -> Bu^a' = /\a^a'Bu^a
EEP implies
ea^ueb^vec^wguv,w = 0
Note that this constraint is a Galois solvable polynomial of 4th order in the B-field and is linear in B's first-order partial derivatives.
Metricity is
guv;w = 0
i.e.
;w = ,w + (LC)^a^bw
That is, we are not free to impose connection fields willy-nilly & higgledy-piggledy & topsy-turvy. They are DYNAMICAL FIELDS! They must come from the principle of local gauge invariance!
Therefore, I do not understand Alex's
"An affine connection can be interpreted as induced by a frame of reference (FR), in which the gravitational field is considered ..."
Many other sentences in Alex's paper I simply do not understand. More on that anon.
I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
I think the key here is to understand that "locality" of coordinate frames arises at a different stage of analysis and interpretation in Alex's model.
Unintelligible.
In the orthodox theory this has everything to do with the localized nature of coordinate patches on curved manifolds
Of course.
(there is no such restriction on a flat manifold), and this has to do with the mathematical technicalities of homeomorphisms from opens sets on the manifold to R^4.
Unintelligible. Physical space-time is not flat. It is curved. That is directly observed LOCALLY as geodesic deviation for a pair of test particles at neighboring positions X & X'! Tidal distortion is
D^2(X^u - X'^u)/ds^2 = R^uvwl(Xl - X'l)(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds)
Physics is more constrained than pure math. What you write is unintelligible.
Alex's model of observer reference frames -- as I understand it -- comes before all this.
Unintelligible.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
OK...
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
I'm not sure this argument is correct. Obviously LC can be a zero matrix at some point in an "LIF" without
ceasing to be defined there.
Unintelligible.
That it is zero in a particular system of coordinates doesn't change the algebraic
relationship of (LC) with A, S, and Q.
So what?
A = (LC) + Q + S
Is this an empty definition of A like
F = ma
is an empty definition by itself? You need more information like
F = GMm/r^2 to break out of the empty definition.
Similarly, t_uv(vacuum) in Yilmaz is an empty definition.
(LC) = 0 in ALL LIF's at P means a critical point for guv,w as a functional of worldlines through intermediate event P. Those world lines for the LOCUS of critical points connecting P(initial) to P(final) are the "straightest" timelike geodesics of MAXIMAL proper time in the curved space-time. This is essentially the action principle for a neutral point test particle applied to geometrodynamics. It is the path of constructive interference of the complex quantum Feynman amplitudes e^iClassical Action/h for the point test particle.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
For simplicity Alex actually sets torsion to zero for his development in the GR-17 paper -- although he says this is not necessary.
So what? You evade the point.
My analogy with the A&P Weitzenboeck connection has nothing to do with torsion. It has only to do with defining alternate connections over a raw manifold and then writing algebraic relations between them -- which is exactly what Alex and also A&P do in their respective papers.
Unintelligible.
Look torsion is from locally gauging O(1,3).
Nonmetricity is from locally gauging GL(n) where n = number of extra bosonic space dimensions of hyperspace.
Otherwise, what Alex is doing is empty definitions with no physical meaning.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that.
It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
Are you saying you can't define a metric-free connection (with a non-zero tensor of non-metricity) on a differentiable manifold?
You can define anything you like, but it has nothing to do with the physics of gravity! You do not seem to understand the difference between theoretical physics and purely formal games.
And, alternately, the metric-compatible LC connection (with a zero non-metricity tensor) on same? Or that you can but you cannot formulate algebraic relationships between them?
Unintelligible.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
I have no interest in purely mathematical models if they have no connection to physics.
My interest is VERY NARROW and FOCUSED i.e.
practical low power metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon
as seen in the flying saucer evidence!
That is reverse engineering the Kaku Type IV Superior Military Super-Technology of the alleged time travelers - the "Masters of Hyperspaced" visiting Earth for at least the past 10,000 years according to Professor Scott Littleton (Anthropologist) from Claremont Colleges - not a Diploma Mill BTW!
BTW
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw
manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel
Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
On May 3, 2005, at 7:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)?
I think he means what we mean -- roughly, a co-moving array of detectors AKA "moving observer" -- but he doesn't tie this definition *a priori* to spacetime coordinate systems as in Einstein's approach, for reasons I've partly explained.
I do not understand what he means until I see a detailed explanation. I find the following sentences he wrote puzzling:
"the use of the Levi-Civita connection in lieu of the gravitational field in GR leads to a loss of general covariance"
Huh?
Does he simply mean for the GCT X
(LC) -> (LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
i.e. when Y =/= 0?
"We show that in the presence of an arbitrary affine connection, the gravitational field in GR may be described as nonmetricity of the affine connection." Huh?
The connections come from the principle of local gauge invariance relative to definite groups!
1916 GR is from locally gauging RIGID GLOBAL T4 down to local GCT Diff(4) with elements Xu'^u to get
Bu^a as the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad eu^a where
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
Where EEP is
guv(Curved) = eu^a(Flat)abev^b
guv,w (Curved) = (LC)uvw + (LC)vuw
,w = ordinary partial derivative
guv,w = Bu^a,w(Flat)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b) + (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Flat)abBv^b,w
Therefore, obviously
(LC)uvw = Bu^a,w(Flat)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
(LC)vuw = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Flat)abBv^b,w
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)
Under GCT's Xu'^u
Bu -> Bu' = Xu'^uBu
Under O(1,3)'s /\a^a' in tangent space
Bu^a -> Bu^a' = /\a^a'Bu^a
EEP implies
ea^ueb^vec^wguv,w = 0
Note that this constraint is a Galois solvable polynomial of 4th order in the B-field and is linear in B's first-order partial derivatives.
Metricity is
guv;w = 0
i.e.
;w = ,w + (LC)^a^bw
That is, we are not free to impose connection fields willy-nilly & higgledy-piggledy & topsy-turvy. They are DYNAMICAL FIELDS! They must come from the principle of local gauge invariance!
Therefore, I do not understand Alex's
"An affine connection can be interpreted as induced by a frame of reference (FR), in which the gravitational field is considered ..."
Many other sentences in Alex's paper I simply do not understand. More on that anon.
I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
I think the key here is to understand that "locality" of coordinate frames arises at a different stage of analysis and interpretation in Alex's model.
Unintelligible.
In the orthodox theory this has everything to do with the localized nature of coordinate patches on curved manifolds
Of course.
(there is no such restriction on a flat manifold), and this has to do with the mathematical technicalities of homeomorphisms from opens sets on the manifold to R^4.
Unintelligible. Physical space-time is not flat. It is curved. That is directly observed LOCALLY as geodesic deviation for a pair of test particles at neighboring positions X & X'! Tidal distortion is
D^2(X^u - X'^u)/ds^2 = R^uvwl(Xl - X'l)(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds)
Physics is more constrained than pure math. What you write is unintelligible.
Alex's model of observer reference frames -- as I understand it -- comes before all this.
Unintelligible.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
OK...
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
I'm not sure this argument is correct. Obviously LC can be a zero matrix at some point in an "LIF" without
ceasing to be defined there.
Unintelligible.
That it is zero in a particular system of coordinates doesn't change the algebraic
relationship of (LC) with A, S, and Q.
So what?
A = (LC) + Q + S
Is this an empty definition of A like
F = ma
is an empty definition by itself? You need more information like
F = GMm/r^2 to break out of the empty definition.
Similarly, t_uv(vacuum) in Yilmaz is an empty definition.
(LC) = 0 in ALL LIF's at P means a critical point for guv,w as a functional of worldlines through intermediate event P. Those world lines for the LOCUS of critical points connecting P(initial) to P(final) are the "straightest" timelike geodesics of MAXIMAL proper time in the curved space-time. This is essentially the action principle for a neutral point test particle applied to geometrodynamics. It is the path of constructive interference of the complex quantum Feynman amplitudes e^iClassical Action/h for the point test particle.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
For simplicity Alex actually sets torsion to zero for his development in the GR-17 paper -- although he says this is not necessary.
So what? You evade the point.
My analogy with the A&P Weitzenboeck connection has nothing to do with torsion. It has only to do with defining alternate connections over a raw manifold and then writing algebraic relations between them -- which is exactly what Alex and also A&P do in their respective papers.
Unintelligible.
Look torsion is from locally gauging O(1,3).
Nonmetricity is from locally gauging GL(n) where n = number of extra bosonic space dimensions of hyperspace.
Otherwise, what Alex is doing is empty definitions with no physical meaning.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that.
It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
Are you saying you can't define a metric-free connection (with a non-zero tensor of non-metricity) on a differentiable manifold?
You can define anything you like, but it has nothing to do with the physics of gravity! You do not seem to understand the difference between theoretical physics and purely formal games.
And, alternately, the metric-compatible LC connection (with a zero non-metricity tensor) on same? Or that you can but you cannot formulate algebraic relationships between them?
Unintelligible.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
I have no interest in purely mathematical models if they have no connection to physics.
My interest is VERY NARROW and FOCUSED i.e.
practical low power metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon
as seen in the flying saucer evidence!
That is reverse engineering the Kaku Type IV Superior Military Super-Technology of the alleged time travelers - the "Masters of Hyperspaced" visiting Earth for at least the past 10,000 years according to Professor Scott Littleton (Anthropologist) from Claremont Colleges - not a Diploma Mill BTW!
BTW
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw
manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel
Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Message from the Q-Masters of Hyperspace ;-)
PS
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard P. Feynman
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
The relationship between the two levels (torsion tetrad substratum & curved geometrodynamics) is BILINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(P&a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
y is essentially the dimensionless energy gap scale for lepto-quark rest masses.
It is also the binding energy of a single virtual pair boundstate. The energy released in the chaotic inflation of the multiverse (of parallel universes sprouting baby universes) to heat up the Big Bang in our Level 1 (Max Tegmark) Hubble Bubble Universe isyhc/Lp, where is the mean number per unit area of condensed bound state virtual pairs in the post-inflationary macro-quantum Vacuum ODLRO vacuum, whose single-valued order parameter is for local physical event P
Psi(P) = ||^1/2e^i[Goldstone-Phase(P)]
[|Psi|^2] = 1/Area
if we normalize, as a toy model only, to the World Hologram Horizon of t'Hooft-Susskind (other variations on the theme are possible)
{P^a} is the Lie algebra of the T4 translation group in 4D GR tangent fiber space
Xa is canonically conjugate to Pa, the DIMENSIONLESS creation and destruction operators are
A = X/Lp + iPLp/h
A* = X/Lp - iPLp/h
The SQUEEZED (Bogoliubov pairing) post-inflationary SYMPLECTIC Wigner Phase Space Density Macro-Quantum Vacuum ODLRO LOCAL ORDER PARAMETER with ZERO ENTROPY is
= e^[z(P)A* - z*A]e^[(1/2)(s*(P)A^2 - s(P)A*^2)]|False Pre-Inflationary Vacuum>
s(P) = |s(P)|e^2iTheta(P)
z(P) = |z(P)|e^iPhi(P)
= |z| ~ ^1/2
= z^2 - cosh(|s|)sinh(|s|)
= |z|^2 + sinh^2(|s|)
|z|^2 = intensity of unsqueezed Glauber state
Theta is orientation of squeezing axis in Wigner Phase Space
|s| is the degree of squeezing.
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - (|z|^2 + sinh^2|s|)]
Ordinary vacuum is
/\zpf = 0
i.e.
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| = 1 "unit circle"
Repulsive Dark Energy w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Negative Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| < 1
Attractive Dark Matter w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Positive Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| > 1
Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda "origin of inertia" of lepto-quarks is only a small random drag correction on this coherent Higgs mechanism origin of inertia.
The path to practical metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon of Michio Kaku's "Type IV" Civilization "Masters of Hyperspace", i.e. The Q of Star Trek as it were, is from:
&/\zpf ~ chiLp^-1|Anyon Surface Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon))}
Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon)) = 2pi[Na(Phi(B)/Phi(A)) - Nb]
Na = number of magnetic A flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer".
Nb = number of torsion tetrad substratum B flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer"
Phi(B)/Phi(A) = dimensionless ratio of the two types of flux quanta from single-valuedness of Psi(P).
chi = dimensionless (Ray Chiao) impedance match ODLRO Goldstone SBS phases of active high Tc anyon layer to the vacuum it shares space with.
chi << 1
B torsion tetrad substratum flux quanta from
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is Iu^a + Bu^a
Iu^a is identity Kronecker-Delta
Bu^a = BuP^aLp/ih operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Bu = Bu^aXa/Lp operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Make distorted A & A* operators
A' = Bu^aXa/Lp + i(BuP^aLp/ih)
etc.
On May 3, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Synopsis
Math Corrected 2nd Draft
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
PS
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard P. Feynman
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
The relationship between the two levels (torsion tetrad substratum & curved geometrodynamics) is BILINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(P&a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
y is essentially the dimensionless energy gap scale for lepto-quark rest masses.
It is also the binding energy of a single virtual pair boundstate. The energy released in the chaotic inflation of the multiverse (of parallel universes sprouting baby universes) to heat up the Big Bang in our Level 1 (Max Tegmark) Hubble Bubble Universe is
Psi(P) = |
[|Psi|^2] = 1/Area
if we normalize, as a toy model only, to the World Hologram Horizon of t'Hooft-Susskind (other variations on the theme are possible)
{P^a} is the Lie algebra of the T4 translation group in 4D GR tangent fiber space
Xa is canonically conjugate to Pa, the DIMENSIONLESS creation and destruction operators are
A = X/Lp + iPLp/h
A* = X/Lp - iPLp/h
The SQUEEZED (Bogoliubov pairing) post-inflationary SYMPLECTIC Wigner Phase Space Density Macro-Quantum Vacuum ODLRO LOCAL ORDER PARAMETER with ZERO ENTROPY is
s(P) = |s(P)|e^2iTheta(P)
z(P) = |z(P)|e^iPhi(P)
|z|^2 = intensity of unsqueezed Glauber state
Theta is orientation of squeezing axis in Wigner Phase Space
|s| is the degree of squeezing.
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - (|z|^2 + sinh^2|s|)]
Ordinary vacuum is
/\zpf = 0
i.e.
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| = 1 "unit circle"
Repulsive Dark Energy w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Negative Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| < 1
Attractive Dark Matter w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Positive Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| > 1
Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda "origin of inertia" of lepto-quarks is only a small random drag correction on this coherent Higgs mechanism origin of inertia.
The path to practical metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon of Michio Kaku's "Type IV" Civilization "Masters of Hyperspace", i.e. The Q of Star Trek as it were, is from:
&/\zpf ~ chiLp^-1|Anyon Surface Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon))}
Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon)) = 2pi[Na(Phi(B)/Phi(A)) - Nb]
Na = number of magnetic A flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer".
Nb = number of torsion tetrad substratum B flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer"
Phi(B)/Phi(A) = dimensionless ratio of the two types of flux quanta from single-valuedness of Psi(P).
chi = dimensionless (Ray Chiao) impedance match ODLRO Goldstone SBS phases of active high Tc anyon layer to the vacuum it shares space with.
chi << 1
B torsion tetrad substratum flux quanta from
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is Iu^a + Bu^a
Iu^a is identity Kronecker-Delta
Bu^a = BuP^aLp/ih operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Bu = Bu^aXa/Lp operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Make distorted A & A* operators
A' = Bu^aXa/Lp + i(BuP^aLp/ih)
etc.
On May 3, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Synopsis
Math Corrected 2nd Draft
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Lost Horizons
Synopsis
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Synopsis
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Flying Saucer Spray Paint?
On May 2, 2005, at 2:14 PM, art wagner wrote:
Exempt from Disclosure: The Disturbing Case About the UFO Coverup by Robert M. Collins and Richard C. Doty: Christopher Green MD, PhD in Neurophysiology now at Wayne State Medical Center in Michigan relates that many years ago one of his friends Richard Helms ex CIA Director at the time told him, "Always believe what Richard Doty tells you about UFOs."
Dr. Green was high up in the CIA. He still maintains high security clearances. Whatever The Truth here may be, it is very weird and bizarre.
The fact however is that the progress of mainstream physics has shed a bright light on the UFO phenomenon since the 1999 discovery of the key to the puzzle - Dark Energy!
The key equations for metric engineering Warp, Wormhole & Weapon are:
Guv + &/\zpfguv = 0
&/\zpf = (x/Lp)|Anyon Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)}
cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)} = cos[2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)]
2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)) is the dimensionless relative phase between the Vacuum ODLRO and the Anyon OLDRO in a small nano-LC loop etched on the high Tc thin active layer spray painted on the saucer fuselage.
x << 1 = Vacuum - Anyon impedance match coupling coefficient
Geodesic flight near Earth's surface at distance r from center of Earth requires
GM(Earth)/c^2r^3 ~ &/\zpf
Richard Helms was briefed into the subject of UFOs in the early days. He knew about Roswell and knew the involvement of the CIA from around 1950 to the 1970s. Helms knew the NSA involvement with programs to capture ET signals.
-Rick Doty
From: Bruce Maccabee
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:51:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:26:55 -0400
Subject: Wow! Exempt & Beta Together
Wow!
Hard to know what else to say.
I just read Exempt from Disclosure (Collins and Doty) and then
Project Beta (Bishop).
My head is swimming. Definitely a brain-scambling event! What to
believe? Whom to believe?
Are these guys crazy, or is they actually putting a hole in the
"iron (cover-up) curtain?"
Where these books intersect (Bennewitz, Moore) there are slight
differences in the history, but the quandary come clear in both:
who is telling the truth? And, if someone is, can we handle the
truth? Actually the typical reader will be in more of a quandary
after reading EfD (Exempt....) because it goes far beyond PB
(Beta).....
Here, for the first time anywhere (in publication, as far as I
know) are the names and activities of _living_ men who claim to
have first hand knowledge of AFC (alien flying craft) and alien
technology and alien bodies and... live aliens!
On the first page of the book (pg 3) the reader gets a flavor of
the openness of the presentation in the lst f names associated
to the investigation as it began almost 20 years ago. Some names
are recognized immediately, along with their Aviary (bird)
names:
Bill Moore
Jaime Shandara
Two names are less well known (the book authors)
Richard Doty (Falcon stand-in)
Robert Collins (Condor)
Three names that are known from a totally different history
(deceased):
James J.Angleton
I was contacted some years ago by someone who claimed to be Angleton's grandson and who I know was working with Collins. Allegedly Angleton's grandson said he knew I was shown a retrieved saucer in 1973-6. I denied that of course. I wish it were true. Either that or my memory of it was erased. See Saul-Paul Sirag's chapter in my autobiography Destiny Matrix on George Koopman for the real story that the above garbled story may be based upon.
Allen Dulles
Richard Helms
And a name unknown to most UFO investigators:
Ernie Kellerstrauss (Hawk).
Ernie Kellerstrauss? Who ordered him, you say? He is a source
for a sizeable fraction of what is in the book.
And then a few pages later we find:
Dale Graff (Falcon?)
Kit Green (Blue Jay)
Other people play a faint supporting role as compared to that of
Doty and Kellerstrauss in terms of providing information that
indicates a cover-up.
One, of many name(s,) not in the book - except as co-author of
the "Inflation..." paper that was published in JBIS used as a
reference - is Bruce Maccabee (Seagull)
But I have a part of it, small though it may be. I was probably
the first person to interview Hawk at length after he was
"discovered" by Collins. This was in the Nov-Dec 1985. I met him
in Feb 1986. By that time I had from him an amazing story which,
however, I now realize was only part of what he, apparently,
knew. I also was on the periphery of the Bennewitz saga, having
spoken to him once while investigating the Kirtland Landing
documents - when I met Doty for the first and last time.
In the following weeks and months I expect this book to stir up
a controversy comparable to that over the Roswell case, but with
a difference: now there are people who have gone public - and
some that have been 'outed' whether they want it or not - so now
we will see who has the fortitude to stand behind their claims
or will collapse in the barrage of attacks that are sure to
come.
But, more on that later. For now, to whet your appetite, just
let me say that in this book you will find the back story
leading up to "Cover Up Live" and much more. (It's not just
about strawberry ice cream and Tibetan music.)
To get the full understanding of what is coming down the pike I
recommend reading both these books, perhaps in this order.
Project Beta ( Amazon or bookstore)
Exempt from Disclosure can be obtained at:
www.ufoconspiracy.com
On May 2, 2005, at 2:14 PM, art wagner wrote:
Exempt from Disclosure: The Disturbing Case About the UFO Coverup by Robert M. Collins and Richard C. Doty: Christopher Green MD, PhD in Neurophysiology now at Wayne State Medical Center in Michigan relates that many years ago one of his friends Richard Helms ex CIA Director at the time told him, "Always believe what Richard Doty tells you about UFOs."
Dr. Green was high up in the CIA. He still maintains high security clearances. Whatever The Truth here may be, it is very weird and bizarre.
The fact however is that the progress of mainstream physics has shed a bright light on the UFO phenomenon since the 1999 discovery of the key to the puzzle - Dark Energy!
The key equations for metric engineering Warp, Wormhole & Weapon are:
Guv + &/\zpfguv = 0
&/\zpf = (x/Lp)|Anyon Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)}
cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)} = cos[2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)]
2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)) is the dimensionless relative phase between the Vacuum ODLRO and the Anyon OLDRO in a small nano-LC loop etched on the high Tc thin active layer spray painted on the saucer fuselage.
x << 1 = Vacuum - Anyon impedance match coupling coefficient
Geodesic flight near Earth's surface at distance r from center of Earth requires
GM(Earth)/c^2r^3 ~ &/\zpf
Richard Helms was briefed into the subject of UFOs in the early days. He knew about Roswell and knew the involvement of the CIA from around 1950 to the 1970s. Helms knew the NSA involvement with programs to capture ET signals.
-Rick Doty
From: Bruce Maccabee
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:51:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:26:55 -0400
Subject: Wow! Exempt & Beta Together
Wow!
Hard to know what else to say.
I just read Exempt from Disclosure (Collins and Doty) and then
Project Beta (Bishop).
My head is swimming. Definitely a brain-scambling event! What to
believe? Whom to believe?
Are these guys crazy, or is they actually putting a hole in the
"iron (cover-up) curtain?"
Where these books intersect (Bennewitz, Moore) there are slight
differences in the history, but the quandary come clear in both:
who is telling the truth? And, if someone is, can we handle the
truth? Actually the typical reader will be in more of a quandary
after reading EfD (Exempt....) because it goes far beyond PB
(Beta).....
Here, for the first time anywhere (in publication, as far as I
know) are the names and activities of _living_ men who claim to
have first hand knowledge of AFC (alien flying craft) and alien
technology and alien bodies and... live aliens!
On the first page of the book (pg 3) the reader gets a flavor of
the openness of the presentation in the lst f names associated
to the investigation as it began almost 20 years ago. Some names
are recognized immediately, along with their Aviary (bird)
names:
Bill Moore
Jaime Shandara
Two names are less well known (the book authors)
Richard Doty (Falcon stand-in)
Robert Collins (Condor)
Three names that are known from a totally different history
(deceased):
James J.Angleton
I was contacted some years ago by someone who claimed to be Angleton's grandson and who I know was working with Collins. Allegedly Angleton's grandson said he knew I was shown a retrieved saucer in 1973-6. I denied that of course. I wish it were true. Either that or my memory of it was erased. See Saul-Paul Sirag's chapter in my autobiography Destiny Matrix on George Koopman for the real story that the above garbled story may be based upon.
Allen Dulles
Richard Helms
And a name unknown to most UFO investigators:
Ernie Kellerstrauss (Hawk).
Ernie Kellerstrauss? Who ordered him, you say? He is a source
for a sizeable fraction of what is in the book.
And then a few pages later we find:
Dale Graff (Falcon?)
Kit Green (Blue Jay)
Other people play a faint supporting role as compared to that of
Doty and Kellerstrauss in terms of providing information that
indicates a cover-up.
One, of many name(s,) not in the book - except as co-author of
the "Inflation..." paper that was published in JBIS used as a
reference - is Bruce Maccabee (Seagull)
But I have a part of it, small though it may be. I was probably
the first person to interview Hawk at length after he was
"discovered" by Collins. This was in the Nov-Dec 1985. I met him
in Feb 1986. By that time I had from him an amazing story which,
however, I now realize was only part of what he, apparently,
knew. I also was on the periphery of the Bennewitz saga, having
spoken to him once while investigating the Kirtland Landing
documents - when I met Doty for the first and last time.
In the following weeks and months I expect this book to stir up
a controversy comparable to that over the Roswell case, but with
a difference: now there are people who have gone public - and
some that have been 'outed' whether they want it or not - so now
we will see who has the fortitude to stand behind their claims
or will collapse in the barrage of attacks that are sure to
come.
But, more on that later. For now, to whet your appetite, just
let me say that in this book you will find the back story
leading up to "Cover Up Live" and much more. (It's not just
about strawberry ice cream and Tibetan music.)
To get the full understanding of what is coming down the pike I
recommend reading both these books, perhaps in this order.
Project Beta ( Amazon or bookstore)
Exempt from Disclosure can be obtained at:
www.ufoconspiracy.com
Sunday, May 01, 2005
My comments on Michio Kaku
On May 1, 2005, at 7:45 AM, antigray@cs.com wrote:
MICHIO KAKU talks parallel universes
Marco: How do you see the experimental confirmation on superstring theory ? How long will it remain an unproven theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future, However, indirect measurements may come fairly soon. Most science, in fact, is done with indirect experiments. For example, we have never visited the Sun but we know that is made out of Hydrogen because we have echoes from the Sun called sunlight. Similarly, we hope to find echoes from the tenth dimension. For example, in Geneva Switzerland, a large Hadron Collider will be turned on and we hope to find particles or super-particles which would be the next lowest vibration of the superstring. Furthermore, dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe maybe made up of super-particles.
Here is where my theory disagrees with Kaku's and all of string theory.
Dark energy/matter is not made up of real particles OUTSIDE the vacuum. It is all virtual particles INSIDE the vacuum. The 96% missing mass of universe (73% dark energy + 23% dark matter) is all zero point energy density too(zpf) given by Einstein's exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - Lp^n|VacuumODLRO|^2]
n = 2 for world hologram i.e. 3D space replaced by a 2D "horizon"
Dark energy repulsive blue shift field has positive zero point energy density t00(zpf) > 0 with equal and opposite negative pressure.
Dark matter attractive red shift field has negative zero point energy density t00(zpf) < 0 with equal and opposite positive pressure.
Putting both dark energy and dark matter together in the right way gives Alcubierre's zero time dilation weightless globally faster-than-light locally slower-than-light controlled-inflation warp drive seen in the flying saucers.
Starting from /\zpf = 0, the Type IV Civilization metric engineered induced warp field is
&/\zpf = x|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B - A)}
B = tetrad torsion 1-form connection of Vacuum ODLRO
A = control condensate 1-form connection
k = dimensionless impedance match of vacuum to control.
in a 2D anyon control condensate
|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2 = 1/Lp
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Loop Integral(B - A) = [NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
Nb = number of Vacuum ODLRO torsion flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
Na = number of Control ODLRO flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
For external curvature scale GM/c^2r^3, cancellation of this gravity by the zero point energy requires
GM/c^2r^3 ~ /\zpf = (x/Lp)|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos[NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
x << 1
Keith Marsden: Could I exist in a parallel universe and if so would my life take a different course?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many kinds of parallel universes. If we speak of quantum parallel universe then there may be resemblance to our Universe, except with one quantum difference. For example, if a cosmic ray went through Hitler's mother's womb and Hitler was never born, we could be one quantum event away from a parallel universe without World War 2. However, if the parallel universe is in another dimension then the laws of Physics themselves will change and atoms maybe unstable. And two kinds of matter exist - in those universes, Physics may look entirely different from our own.
Josh Conway: How important is time to the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is defined in eleven dimensional space time with ten dimensions of space and one dimension of time. So M-Theory only has one time. However, there is some speculation that F-Theory may contain two dimensions of time and ten dimensions of space. So that there would be two times in a twelve dimensional universe. However, F-Theory is only held by a minority of physicists.
Mike Garman: Your theory explains the start of our Universe, but where do the membranes come from that started it?
Dr Michio Kaku: We believe that a multiverse of universes exist like bubbles floating in Nothing. Each bubble forms as a quantum fluctuation in Nothing. We feel that as this bubble forms its matter is dominated by strings and membranes which create musical notes which we see as particles of the universe.
Ross McManus: Can dark matter and black holes be explained using the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: Partially yes. In M-Theory, black hole solutions exist not only as a remnant of a dying star; they also exist as subatomic particles.
This is in my book Space-Time & Beyond 1975, also in paper published in Collective Phenomena ed. H. Frohlich & FW Cummings published in 1973, which caused Abdus Salam to invite me to ICTP Trieste, Italy as Jagdish Mehra can confirm. A. Burinski is working on this in Moscow today. That is I explained the universal slope of the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as spin J ~ (1/Gev)^2E^2 tiny Kerr solutions with G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.
So there is an unity between black holes and elementary particles. Also, the next vibration of the string includes a photino or particle which may make up most of the dark matter in the Universe. So dark matter maybe a higher musical note on the string.
Pieter Verhoeven: What is meant by "Bubbles of Nothing"?
Dr Michio Kaku: Boiling water is a purely quantum mechanical event. If water molecules were like billiard balls, water would never boil. Water boils and a tiny fluctuation occurs in water. Similarly, universes maybe created all the time, even as we speak, due to fluctuation in Nothing. In other words, universes maybe for free and Big Bangs, happen all the time like in boiling water.
Peter Wentworth: What are the possibilities for a second Big Bang collision? Is it theoretically possible?
Dr Michio Kaku: There is some speculation that gamma-ray bursters release the greatest amounts of energy since the Big Bang. There is some speculation that they maybe powerful enough to open a hole in our bubble Universe, so that our Universe buds into two universes, creating a baby universe which leaves the mother universe. However, until M-Theory becomes better understood we cannot prove that baby universes can be created from our Universe.
John Reyes: Dr Kaku, how can one travel in time when time does not exist? And if it did, would you know which way to point your ship?
Dr Michio Kaku: Time is like a river. It bends and flows around the Universe. Time may also have whirlpools and also may fork into two rivers. In this way, time travel might be possible. However, you have to have the Planck energy to create a time machine or the energy of a Black Hole. That is far beyond our technology.
Kaku is wrong there IMHO. You can do low-power star gate/time travel IMHO. UFOs do it.
Dr: Do eleven dimensions mean there are other life forms of any kind?
Dr Michio Kaku: We do not know if life-forms can exist in another dimension. However, atoms as we know them may not be stable in other dimensions. If we replace Newton's Inverse square law with an inverse tube law then solar systems and atoms fall apart. However, new forms of matter may exist in higher dimensions.
Viva Wright: Is there the possibility that unconscious knowledge is transferred between universes?
Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicists believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain so telepathy between universes may not be possible.
I disagree with Kaku here.
However, the problem of consciousness in a quantum-theory is still an unresolved problem.
Consciousness is impossible in micro-quantum theory. Consciousness is a macro-quantum property of systems in non-equilibrium at all levels. Signal nonlocality (presponse) is necessary.
M-Theory is still a quantum-theory.
Nick Rimmington Do you think this theory may explain why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing?
Dr Michio Kaku: Nobody knows how to calculate dark energy which is causing the Universe to accelerate.
Wrong.
The best hope is M-Theory, but no-one knows how to solve M-Theory or the Big Bang. Maybe one of the viewers of this programme will be inspired to use M-Theory to explain the accelerating Universe.
We do not need M theory for that.
Adam Kirsch: If space is the 5th dimension what are the 6th or 7th?
Dr Michio Kaku: If the fifth dimension vibrates, then ripples on the fifth dimension are visible as light. If the other dimensions vibrate, then the ripples are seen as the nuclear force, so the forces of the universe can be viewed as ripples in hyper-space.
Christopher Sayer: Can a new membrane be created from two membranes colliding?
Dr Michio Kaku: When two membranes or two strings collide, they create new membranes and new strings. The diagrams which tell us how membranes and strings collide are like the Feynman diagrams that we see in quantum-theory. Our bodies are symphonies of vibrating strings and membranes. The chemistry of our body is a consequence of the collision of these membranes and strings.
Simon Lawrence: If the Universe is constantly expanding, when does this sign the end of our known Universe?
Dr Michio Kaku: Our Universe will die in ice rather than fire. Our Universe eventually, trillions and trillions of years away from now, will reach near absolute zero making intelligent life impossible. Therefore, we may have to escape into hyper-space if we are to survive the death of the Universe.
Tom Brown: In theory, is it possible to use the space between the Universes, leaving and re-entering, in order to travel many light years within our Universe, but without time having passed?
Dr Michio Kaku: Einstein's equations give us a possibility to leap into hyper-space through a worm-hole to reach another universe. However, we don't have enough energy to open up such a hole and we don't know how stable such a hole might be.
Kaku wrong there as well IMHO.
Brian Whaley: If time has only one dimension how can one deal with the issue of how "fast" time passes - and the difference between "time of day" and time as duration?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is only mathematically consistent with one dimension of time and ten dimensions of space. M-Theory is mathematically inconsistent for any other combination.
Sam Jenkins: if our Universe is contained within a "bubble", what makes up the surface?
Dr Michio Kaku: The surface of this bubble is the Universe itself. People often ask where did the Big Bang take place? The Big Bang did not take place on the surface of the bubble, it took place inside the bubble, i.e. in hyper-space.
Phil Williams: What is hyper-space?
Dr Michio Kaku: Hyper-space is space beyond three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Historically, scientists thought that hyper-space could not exist, now we believe that in hyper-space there is enough room to unify all fundamental forces. Four dimensions of space time are too small to unify the four fundamental forces
Chris Norrie: Do you believe in infinity?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many types of infinity. The age of our universe may increase without limit because our universe is accelerating. In space, however, our universe may be finite in hyper-space but infinite in three dimension just like a bubble. So the farthest object in the universe would be the back of your head.
Patrick Clarke: Are there infinite particles with the same x,y,z & time values as those in my body?
Dr Michio Kaku: Well, in M-Theory there are an infinite number of particles. Each one represents a musical note on a string or membrane, so the atoms of our body are like those of a string. Chemistry is the melodies on these membranes and the universe is a symphony of vibrating membranes and string.
William Joseph: Does M-theory say anything about the idea that the speed of light in our universe may be slowing down?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory reproduces all of Einstein's theory and more. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
Tony Hall: Does string theory incorporate number theory in its structure?
Dr Michio Kaku: String theory has gobbled up many branches of Mathematics which has astounded mathematicians. However, there is one branch of Mathematics that seems beyond the reach of string theory which is number theory. For example, we do not find Fermat's last theorem in string theory.
Jean: Could black holes be routes from our Universe to the other parallel universes? Could than be why nothing comes out of them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Yes, there is a theory that says that universes may have children, via a budding process in which a universe splits into two smaller universes. However this is just a theory, and we will have to wait until M-Theory is further developed to decide whether universes can have children.
Kip Thorne showed the difference between black holes and star gates held open by anti-gravitating dark zero point energy density of negative pressure (w = -1)
Universe Next Door
Patrick Clarke: Is the Big Bang where all eleven dimensions have a value of zero?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one solution of M-Theory, our Universe is a four-dimensional ball floating in eleven dimensions. In the other seven dimensions, there could be other bubbles floating. One theory says that the nearest bubble to our Universe maybe one millimetre away from us. This theory will be tested in Geneva in a few more years.
Nigel: Does the rate of vibration of membranes offer a possible connection between them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Large membranes may resemble universes like our own floating in eleven dimensional hyper-space. However, tiny membranes can be viewed as subatomic particles whose vibration and interaction give us the laws of Chemistry. Therefore M-Theory unifies subatomic particles and universes.
Trici Shaw: What is the "F" from F-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: F for F-Theory stands for Father. M for M-Theory may stand for Mother, Mystery or Membrane.
Alan Trevitt: If universes are parallel to each other, why does gravity run in only one direction i.e., downwards?
Dr Michio Kaku: Gravity is caused by the warping of space-time. Therefore, if we have two bubbles close to each other they will distort the space-time surrounding them and feel each others gravity. Therefore, dark matter may be the presence of a neighbouring universe that we cannot see.
This is wrong in my theory.
Alex Greybrook: How was hyper space discovered?
Dr Michio Kaku: The Greeks tried to prove 2000 years ago that hyper-space was impossible. However, Vernhard Riemann proved in the 1870s that hyper-space was possible. Then Kaluza in 1921 showed that universes may exist in hyper-space.
Richie Lunt: Although atoms are stable in our dimension would this be this case in others?
Dr Michio Kaku: Atoms in other dimensions may be unstable because the inverse square law does not hold. However, two forms of stable matter may exist in hyper universes, which are not based on atoms. But, physicists do not know any more than this.
Funky Monkey: Why are the other parallel universe's membranes different shapes. Shouldn't they be the same? Does what happens on the inside effects the universe's physical shape?
Dr Michio Kaku: Membranes can come in many sizes and many shapes. For example, a zero-brane is a particle, a one-brane is a string, a two-brane may be a membrane and a three-brane maybe a universe.
Zhou Fang: M-Theory may be shown to be mathematically possible, but would we ever be able to prove that it is actually the case?
Dr Michio Kaku: Experimentally, we hope to find super particles in the next few years with our atom-smashers.
I bet they do not find them.
However, I believe that if we are smart enough we could solve the theory and then derive all the laws of Chemistry and Physics. That to me would be a proof that M-Theory is correct. So, those experiments are not really necessary. Theory is enough.
Ross Campbell: Where did the energy required to produce membranes in the first instance come from?
Dr Michio Kaku: The amount of energy necessary to create a bubbled universe is zero. Matter has positive energy, but gravity has negative energy. The sum of the two might be zero. This means that bubbled universes can be created all the time. So the Universe is for free.
This is an important idea for low-power warp drive as we see in the flying saucers.
Kevin Wan: If the fabric of the Universe is being stretched, does this also mean that the membrane is also being stretched? If so, when will the stretching cease?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one theory, our Universe is a membrane. We live on the skin of this membrane which is constantly expanding because of dark energy. We think this expansion is accelerating and may go on for ever without limit.
Pimmy: Have any major "flaws" or "gaps" been found in M-theory so far which makes it unable to explain something?
Dr Michio Kaku: So far, M-Theory has withstood every mathematical challenge. In the past, previous attempts at a theory of everything could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent. M-Theory is the only theory which seems to be mathematically consistent. However, there are many solutions to M-Theory, one of which may be our Universe. No-one has found that one solution yet.
Adrian: I've heard that in other universes time might flow backwards! Is this true?
Dr Michio Kaku: Not long ago, Stephen Hawking thought that time may go backwards. If the Universe pulsated then during the contraction he thought that time might run backward. However, he has since admitted that he was wrong. Therefore, most physicists do not believe that time will reverse itself in our Universe. If there are time machines, you might be able to reverse time in a small area, but not for the entire Universe.
Trekkie: Is there a possibility of a 12th dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: In F-Theory the physicists at Harvard University have proposed a universe with two-times, so that you would have to have two watches on your wrist to tell you what time it is. However, most physicists today do not take F-Theory seriously although it seems compatible with M-Theory. This is still a mystery.
Rob Wood: How does M-theory explain quantum entanglement - is it via the collapsed dimensions?
Dr Michio Kaku: Quantum entanglement is a problem for all quantum theories including M-Theory. Quantum entanglement says that the Universe is non-local and that information may travel faster than light,. However, no useful information can be sent faster than light by means of quantum entanglement so there are no paradoxes in time.
True no paradoxes, untrue that FTL communication is impossible. It is impossible in micro-quantum theory, but it is possible in macro-quantum theory. See the papers of Antony Valentini on "sub-quantal non-equilibrium".
Bernard Hunt: Is time just the human awareness; a thing that isn't really a dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: Space time is an arena on which matter can exist. Therefore, time is a co-ordinate that measures the passing or evolution of an object. Some people have said that time does not exist, which confuses the perception of time with time as a co-ordinate on this arena.
Max Guglia: Apart from empirical speculation, what could be the benefits for humanity of proving the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: In the short term, nothing. But when Newton worked out the Force of Gravity, he helped to set into motion the industrial revolution. When Faraday worked out electricity and magnetism he set into motion the electric age. When Einstein wrote down E=MC2 he unleashed the nuclear age. Now, we are on the verge of a theory of all forces which may, one day, determine the fate of the human species. Centuries from now, M-Theory, I feel, may eventually determine the destiny of all intelligent life in the Universe.
UFOs show the super-technology.
Horizon Host: Here's our special guest with a final word:
Dr Michio Kaku: I am proud to be part of this BBC documentary, on the cutting edge of my field - M-Theory. It is absolutely essential that scientists speak to the public about the exciting and revolutionary developments rocking the foundations of modern Physics. Hopefully, one of you viewers will be inspired by this programme to become a physicist, who will eventually complete the M-Theory and answer questions like: 'Is time travel possible?' 'Can we journey to another dimension?' and 'What happened before The Big Bang?'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml
On May 1, 2005, at 7:45 AM, antigray@cs.com wrote:
MICHIO KAKU talks parallel universes
Marco: How do you see the experimental confirmation on superstring theory ? How long will it remain an unproven theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future, However, indirect measurements may come fairly soon. Most science, in fact, is done with indirect experiments. For example, we have never visited the Sun but we know that is made out of Hydrogen because we have echoes from the Sun called sunlight. Similarly, we hope to find echoes from the tenth dimension. For example, in Geneva Switzerland, a large Hadron Collider will be turned on and we hope to find particles or super-particles which would be the next lowest vibration of the superstring. Furthermore, dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe maybe made up of super-particles.
Here is where my theory disagrees with Kaku's and all of string theory.
Dark energy/matter is not made up of real particles OUTSIDE the vacuum. It is all virtual particles INSIDE the vacuum. The 96% missing mass of universe (73% dark energy + 23% dark matter) is all zero point energy density too(zpf) given by Einstein's exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - Lp^n|VacuumODLRO|^2]
n = 2 for world hologram i.e. 3D space replaced by a 2D "horizon"
Dark energy repulsive blue shift field has positive zero point energy density t00(zpf) > 0 with equal and opposite negative pressure.
Dark matter attractive red shift field has negative zero point energy density t00(zpf) < 0 with equal and opposite positive pressure.
Putting both dark energy and dark matter together in the right way gives Alcubierre's zero time dilation weightless globally faster-than-light locally slower-than-light controlled-inflation warp drive seen in the flying saucers.
Starting from /\zpf = 0, the Type IV Civilization metric engineered induced warp field is
&/\zpf = x|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B - A)}
B = tetrad torsion 1-form connection of Vacuum ODLRO
A = control condensate 1-form connection
k = dimensionless impedance match of vacuum to control.
in a 2D anyon control condensate
|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2 = 1/Lp
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Loop Integral(B - A) = [NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
Nb = number of Vacuum ODLRO torsion flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
Na = number of Control ODLRO flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
For external curvature scale GM/c^2r^3, cancellation of this gravity by the zero point energy requires
GM/c^2r^3 ~ /\zpf = (x/Lp)|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos[NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
x << 1
Keith Marsden: Could I exist in a parallel universe and if so would my life take a different course?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many kinds of parallel universes. If we speak of quantum parallel universe then there may be resemblance to our Universe, except with one quantum difference. For example, if a cosmic ray went through Hitler's mother's womb and Hitler was never born, we could be one quantum event away from a parallel universe without World War 2. However, if the parallel universe is in another dimension then the laws of Physics themselves will change and atoms maybe unstable. And two kinds of matter exist - in those universes, Physics may look entirely different from our own.
Josh Conway: How important is time to the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is defined in eleven dimensional space time with ten dimensions of space and one dimension of time. So M-Theory only has one time. However, there is some speculation that F-Theory may contain two dimensions of time and ten dimensions of space. So that there would be two times in a twelve dimensional universe. However, F-Theory is only held by a minority of physicists.
Mike Garman: Your theory explains the start of our Universe, but where do the membranes come from that started it?
Dr Michio Kaku: We believe that a multiverse of universes exist like bubbles floating in Nothing. Each bubble forms as a quantum fluctuation in Nothing. We feel that as this bubble forms its matter is dominated by strings and membranes which create musical notes which we see as particles of the universe.
Ross McManus: Can dark matter and black holes be explained using the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: Partially yes. In M-Theory, black hole solutions exist not only as a remnant of a dying star; they also exist as subatomic particles.
This is in my book Space-Time & Beyond 1975, also in paper published in Collective Phenomena ed. H. Frohlich & FW Cummings published in 1973, which caused Abdus Salam to invite me to ICTP Trieste, Italy as Jagdish Mehra can confirm. A. Burinski is working on this in Moscow today. That is I explained the universal slope of the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as spin J ~ (1/Gev)^2E^2 tiny Kerr solutions with G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.
So there is an unity between black holes and elementary particles. Also, the next vibration of the string includes a photino or particle which may make up most of the dark matter in the Universe. So dark matter maybe a higher musical note on the string.
Pieter Verhoeven: What is meant by "Bubbles of Nothing"?
Dr Michio Kaku: Boiling water is a purely quantum mechanical event. If water molecules were like billiard balls, water would never boil. Water boils and a tiny fluctuation occurs in water. Similarly, universes maybe created all the time, even as we speak, due to fluctuation in Nothing. In other words, universes maybe for free and Big Bangs, happen all the time like in boiling water.
Peter Wentworth: What are the possibilities for a second Big Bang collision? Is it theoretically possible?
Dr Michio Kaku: There is some speculation that gamma-ray bursters release the greatest amounts of energy since the Big Bang. There is some speculation that they maybe powerful enough to open a hole in our bubble Universe, so that our Universe buds into two universes, creating a baby universe which leaves the mother universe. However, until M-Theory becomes better understood we cannot prove that baby universes can be created from our Universe.
John Reyes: Dr Kaku, how can one travel in time when time does not exist? And if it did, would you know which way to point your ship?
Dr Michio Kaku: Time is like a river. It bends and flows around the Universe. Time may also have whirlpools and also may fork into two rivers. In this way, time travel might be possible. However, you have to have the Planck energy to create a time machine or the energy of a Black Hole. That is far beyond our technology.
Kaku is wrong there IMHO. You can do low-power star gate/time travel IMHO. UFOs do it.
Dr: Do eleven dimensions mean there are other life forms of any kind?
Dr Michio Kaku: We do not know if life-forms can exist in another dimension. However, atoms as we know them may not be stable in other dimensions. If we replace Newton's Inverse square law with an inverse tube law then solar systems and atoms fall apart. However, new forms of matter may exist in higher dimensions.
Viva Wright: Is there the possibility that unconscious knowledge is transferred between universes?
Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicists believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain so telepathy between universes may not be possible.
I disagree with Kaku here.
However, the problem of consciousness in a quantum-theory is still an unresolved problem.
Consciousness is impossible in micro-quantum theory. Consciousness is a macro-quantum property of systems in non-equilibrium at all levels. Signal nonlocality (presponse) is necessary.
M-Theory is still a quantum-theory.
Nick Rimmington Do you think this theory may explain why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing?
Dr Michio Kaku: Nobody knows how to calculate dark energy which is causing the Universe to accelerate.
Wrong.
The best hope is M-Theory, but no-one knows how to solve M-Theory or the Big Bang. Maybe one of the viewers of this programme will be inspired to use M-Theory to explain the accelerating Universe.
We do not need M theory for that.
Adam Kirsch: If space is the 5th dimension what are the 6th or 7th?
Dr Michio Kaku: If the fifth dimension vibrates, then ripples on the fifth dimension are visible as light. If the other dimensions vibrate, then the ripples are seen as the nuclear force, so the forces of the universe can be viewed as ripples in hyper-space.
Christopher Sayer: Can a new membrane be created from two membranes colliding?
Dr Michio Kaku: When two membranes or two strings collide, they create new membranes and new strings. The diagrams which tell us how membranes and strings collide are like the Feynman diagrams that we see in quantum-theory. Our bodies are symphonies of vibrating strings and membranes. The chemistry of our body is a consequence of the collision of these membranes and strings.
Simon Lawrence: If the Universe is constantly expanding, when does this sign the end of our known Universe?
Dr Michio Kaku: Our Universe will die in ice rather than fire. Our Universe eventually, trillions and trillions of years away from now, will reach near absolute zero making intelligent life impossible. Therefore, we may have to escape into hyper-space if we are to survive the death of the Universe.
Tom Brown: In theory, is it possible to use the space between the Universes, leaving and re-entering, in order to travel many light years within our Universe, but without time having passed?
Dr Michio Kaku: Einstein's equations give us a possibility to leap into hyper-space through a worm-hole to reach another universe. However, we don't have enough energy to open up such a hole and we don't know how stable such a hole might be.
Kaku wrong there as well IMHO.
Brian Whaley: If time has only one dimension how can one deal with the issue of how "fast" time passes - and the difference between "time of day" and time as duration?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is only mathematically consistent with one dimension of time and ten dimensions of space. M-Theory is mathematically inconsistent for any other combination.
Sam Jenkins: if our Universe is contained within a "bubble", what makes up the surface?
Dr Michio Kaku: The surface of this bubble is the Universe itself. People often ask where did the Big Bang take place? The Big Bang did not take place on the surface of the bubble, it took place inside the bubble, i.e. in hyper-space.
Phil Williams: What is hyper-space?
Dr Michio Kaku: Hyper-space is space beyond three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Historically, scientists thought that hyper-space could not exist, now we believe that in hyper-space there is enough room to unify all fundamental forces. Four dimensions of space time are too small to unify the four fundamental forces
Chris Norrie: Do you believe in infinity?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many types of infinity. The age of our universe may increase without limit because our universe is accelerating. In space, however, our universe may be finite in hyper-space but infinite in three dimension just like a bubble. So the farthest object in the universe would be the back of your head.
Patrick Clarke: Are there infinite particles with the same x,y,z & time values as those in my body?
Dr Michio Kaku: Well, in M-Theory there are an infinite number of particles. Each one represents a musical note on a string or membrane, so the atoms of our body are like those of a string. Chemistry is the melodies on these membranes and the universe is a symphony of vibrating membranes and string.
William Joseph: Does M-theory say anything about the idea that the speed of light in our universe may be slowing down?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory reproduces all of Einstein's theory and more. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
Tony Hall: Does string theory incorporate number theory in its structure?
Dr Michio Kaku: String theory has gobbled up many branches of Mathematics which has astounded mathematicians. However, there is one branch of Mathematics that seems beyond the reach of string theory which is number theory. For example, we do not find Fermat's last theorem in string theory.
Jean: Could black holes be routes from our Universe to the other parallel universes? Could than be why nothing comes out of them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Yes, there is a theory that says that universes may have children, via a budding process in which a universe splits into two smaller universes. However this is just a theory, and we will have to wait until M-Theory is further developed to decide whether universes can have children.
Kip Thorne showed the difference between black holes and star gates held open by anti-gravitating dark zero point energy density of negative pressure (w = -1)
Universe Next Door
Patrick Clarke: Is the Big Bang where all eleven dimensions have a value of zero?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one solution of M-Theory, our Universe is a four-dimensional ball floating in eleven dimensions. In the other seven dimensions, there could be other bubbles floating. One theory says that the nearest bubble to our Universe maybe one millimetre away from us. This theory will be tested in Geneva in a few more years.
Nigel: Does the rate of vibration of membranes offer a possible connection between them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Large membranes may resemble universes like our own floating in eleven dimensional hyper-space. However, tiny membranes can be viewed as subatomic particles whose vibration and interaction give us the laws of Chemistry. Therefore M-Theory unifies subatomic particles and universes.
Trici Shaw: What is the "F" from F-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: F for F-Theory stands for Father. M for M-Theory may stand for Mother, Mystery or Membrane.
Alan Trevitt: If universes are parallel to each other, why does gravity run in only one direction i.e., downwards?
Dr Michio Kaku: Gravity is caused by the warping of space-time. Therefore, if we have two bubbles close to each other they will distort the space-time surrounding them and feel each others gravity. Therefore, dark matter may be the presence of a neighbouring universe that we cannot see.
This is wrong in my theory.
Alex Greybrook: How was hyper space discovered?
Dr Michio Kaku: The Greeks tried to prove 2000 years ago that hyper-space was impossible. However, Vernhard Riemann proved in the 1870s that hyper-space was possible. Then Kaluza in 1921 showed that universes may exist in hyper-space.
Richie Lunt: Although atoms are stable in our dimension would this be this case in others?
Dr Michio Kaku: Atoms in other dimensions may be unstable because the inverse square law does not hold. However, two forms of stable matter may exist in hyper universes, which are not based on atoms. But, physicists do not know any more than this.
Funky Monkey: Why are the other parallel universe's membranes different shapes. Shouldn't they be the same? Does what happens on the inside effects the universe's physical shape?
Dr Michio Kaku: Membranes can come in many sizes and many shapes. For example, a zero-brane is a particle, a one-brane is a string, a two-brane may be a membrane and a three-brane maybe a universe.
Zhou Fang: M-Theory may be shown to be mathematically possible, but would we ever be able to prove that it is actually the case?
Dr Michio Kaku: Experimentally, we hope to find super particles in the next few years with our atom-smashers.
I bet they do not find them.
However, I believe that if we are smart enough we could solve the theory and then derive all the laws of Chemistry and Physics. That to me would be a proof that M-Theory is correct. So, those experiments are not really necessary. Theory is enough.
Ross Campbell: Where did the energy required to produce membranes in the first instance come from?
Dr Michio Kaku: The amount of energy necessary to create a bubbled universe is zero. Matter has positive energy, but gravity has negative energy. The sum of the two might be zero. This means that bubbled universes can be created all the time. So the Universe is for free.
This is an important idea for low-power warp drive as we see in the flying saucers.
Kevin Wan: If the fabric of the Universe is being stretched, does this also mean that the membrane is also being stretched? If so, when will the stretching cease?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one theory, our Universe is a membrane. We live on the skin of this membrane which is constantly expanding because of dark energy. We think this expansion is accelerating and may go on for ever without limit.
Pimmy: Have any major "flaws" or "gaps" been found in M-theory so far which makes it unable to explain something?
Dr Michio Kaku: So far, M-Theory has withstood every mathematical challenge. In the past, previous attempts at a theory of everything could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent. M-Theory is the only theory which seems to be mathematically consistent. However, there are many solutions to M-Theory, one of which may be our Universe. No-one has found that one solution yet.
Adrian: I've heard that in other universes time might flow backwards! Is this true?
Dr Michio Kaku: Not long ago, Stephen Hawking thought that time may go backwards. If the Universe pulsated then during the contraction he thought that time might run backward. However, he has since admitted that he was wrong. Therefore, most physicists do not believe that time will reverse itself in our Universe. If there are time machines, you might be able to reverse time in a small area, but not for the entire Universe.
Trekkie: Is there a possibility of a 12th dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: In F-Theory the physicists at Harvard University have proposed a universe with two-times, so that you would have to have two watches on your wrist to tell you what time it is. However, most physicists today do not take F-Theory seriously although it seems compatible with M-Theory. This is still a mystery.
Rob Wood: How does M-theory explain quantum entanglement - is it via the collapsed dimensions?
Dr Michio Kaku: Quantum entanglement is a problem for all quantum theories including M-Theory. Quantum entanglement says that the Universe is non-local and that information may travel faster than light,. However, no useful information can be sent faster than light by means of quantum entanglement so there are no paradoxes in time.
True no paradoxes, untrue that FTL communication is impossible. It is impossible in micro-quantum theory, but it is possible in macro-quantum theory. See the papers of Antony Valentini on "sub-quantal non-equilibrium".
Bernard Hunt: Is time just the human awareness; a thing that isn't really a dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: Space time is an arena on which matter can exist. Therefore, time is a co-ordinate that measures the passing or evolution of an object. Some people have said that time does not exist, which confuses the perception of time with time as a co-ordinate on this arena.
Max Guglia: Apart from empirical speculation, what could be the benefits for humanity of proving the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: In the short term, nothing. But when Newton worked out the Force of Gravity, he helped to set into motion the industrial revolution. When Faraday worked out electricity and magnetism he set into motion the electric age. When Einstein wrote down E=MC2 he unleashed the nuclear age. Now, we are on the verge of a theory of all forces which may, one day, determine the fate of the human species. Centuries from now, M-Theory, I feel, may eventually determine the destiny of all intelligent life in the Universe.
UFOs show the super-technology.
Horizon Host: Here's our special guest with a final word:
Dr Michio Kaku: I am proud to be part of this BBC documentary, on the cutting edge of my field - M-Theory. It is absolutely essential that scientists speak to the public about the exciting and revolutionary developments rocking the foundations of modern Physics. Hopefully, one of you viewers will be inspired by this programme to become a physicist, who will eventually complete the M-Theory and answer questions like: 'Is time travel possible?' 'Can we journey to another dimension?' and 'What happened before The Big Bang?'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml
On May 1, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
go to http://stardrive.org/title.shtml
moderated discussion forum for technical details
On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, about the entangled Josephson Junction stuff in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153 cited by Gary,
I agree with you when you say
"... this is a VERY useful paper! ... I can apply [it] to my macro-quantum vacuum ... treated like ... "effective" coupled JJs.
I see all sorts of possibilities here. ... ... Obviously the high Tc thin skin NANO-NETWORK of the saucer is simultaneously a propulsion unit and a macro-quantum computer ... around the fuselage of the saucer. ...".
Further, resonant connections between the fuselage quantum computer network of JJs and the tubulin quantum computer of the brain of the pilot is probably what enables the pilot to control the craft, and it is probable that each craft is resonantly tuned to the brain of its pilot, so that anyone not knowing that particular resonant pattern cannot control the craft.
With 10^18 tubulins, the resonant "key" is probably hard to crack, even for NSA, and therefore it may be difficult
for anyone (such as a USAF test pilot) who does not have the (alien?) key to make it fly.
Yes, something like that is what I am thinking. This idea is completely crazy, is it crazy enough to be true? :-)
If the craft is roughly a flat saucer with top and bottom surface area each about 70 m x 70 m = 4,900 m^2, or total surface of about 10^4 m^2 = 10^8 cm^2, then, in order to have about 10^18 JJ to match the 10^18 brain tubulins,
the area of each JJ would have to be about 10^(8-18) = 10^(-10) cm^2, or in other words a little square about 10^(-5) cm = 10^(-7) m = 100 nm on a side, which is on the same order of magnitude as the 25 nm diameter of a microtubule and is something that could reasonably be synthesized with advanced nanotechnology.
It is interesting that the authors of the paper at
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
are Israeli and Russian.
The Russians and Ukranians are more open to adventurous ideas than our guys.
If you are not able to convince the USA black projects community to do serious work on this stuff, then (unless the Israelis help the USA) it may be that Russia/China will beat the USA to that level of technology, and they will defeat the USA, and
New York will become a backwater with Shanghai the new World Ruling City, with Havana as its Western Hemisphere headquarters. I do hope that you can make responsible people aware of the seriousness of the situation.
I may be meeting a lot of those people at a dinner in NYC on June 16. :-)
On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks, this is interesting and I have been independently thinking about this sort of thing i.e. entanglement and teleportation in macro-quantum systems as distinct from micro-quantum systems.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Entanglement and teleportation of macroscopic continuous variables by
superconducting devices
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
Here we consider a hitherto unexplored quantum aspect of coupled
Josephson Junctions:
the ability to produce Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) entanglement of
their continuous variables, namely, their magnetic fluxes and induced
charges. Such entanglement, apart from its conceptual novelty, is the
prerequisite for a far-reaching goal: teleportation of the flux and
charge variables between JJs, implementing the transfer of an unknown
quantum state along a network of such devices.
--
Gary S Bekkum
Starstream Research
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
garysbekkum@gmail.com
On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Gladstone wrote:
At the time of the 1991 Solar Eclipse, which triggered a string of 11:11 synchronicities for me, a lot of what I was processing involved pillars - El Pilar, Boaz and Jachin, and so on. The body of info involved the progression from 11:11 to 12:12 and the construction of the temple in the New Jerusalem. 12:12 is also the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe who is linked to Mexico City which was buzzed by UFOs on the day of the eclipse. The holographic pillars I was seeing at that time triggered kundalini. The twin pillars are a visible representation of the number eleven, and I was shown how the passages regarding these pillars were deliberately marked by the number 11. Rev 11 for instance. The imagery is a visual depiction of the numbers 11:11: These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
From:
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/BoazandJachinPillars.html
But in the End-Time these pillars of the Temple shall be literally manifested as two witnesses....And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
A Study on Hebrews Chapter Nine
... and Boaz' pillar was the location next to which kings were anointed, ...
Israels spiritual and political leaders, Lev. 8:3ff; 2.Ki. 11:14; Psalms 99:7. ...
www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrews_chapter_9.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Beside the pillar...as the manner was
... Beside the pillar... as the manner was'. (2 Kings 11,14) ... whereas the
North-East part with its Boaz pillar belonged to the territory of Benjamin, ...
freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/pillars.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Gail Whittaker
"Let's hope that UFOs are real and that
they are time-travelling ships from friendly ETs,
or time travellers from our future - because if they
are not real, it looks pretty grim for your children
and their children."
-Jack Sarfatti
-----Original Message-----
From: d14947
To: Susan Waitt
Subject: Re: Meaning of 11-11 & Uri Geller--singing with the devil
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee. Jack has shown that the string theory is *not* a viable theory as it stands, not based on observation, so the stuff about the Sephirot doesn't connect either.
Well, I am skeptical of string theory. Kaku of course is selling string theory with Brian Greene. Roger Penrose is skeptical. I certainly don't need string theory to explain:
1. WHY gravity and inertia?
i.e. emergence of Einstein's 1916 GR geometrodynamics directly as an effective smooth classical field theory from the macro-quantum coherence of the post-inflation Higgs field!
2. Why both dark energy and dark matter?
3. The stability of the electron as an extended "micro-geon" Kerr-Newman-Burinski object in the sense of Bohm's hidden variables.
4. Why galactic halos
/\zpf = (v/c)(1/r^2)
v = constant stellar tangential circulating speed in flat portion of galaxy rotation curve along axis perpendicular to the galactic plane.
& dark galaxies.
5. Why dark matter detectors can't click with the right stuff ever!
6. Why there ain't any "quantum foam" in principle.
7. NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 anomalous blue shifts of 1 nanometer per sec per sec a_g = -cH(t) as a hedgehog topological defect of the post-inflationary Higgs Ocean vacuum coherence order parameter S^2 space centered at Sun, i.e. UNIFORM radial a_g confined between two spheres concentric with Sun with the dark energy distribution between the spherical boundaries
/\zpf = (H(t)/c)(1/r)
V(zpf) = c^2/\zpfr^2
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr = -cH(t) = 1 nanometer per second per second as observed!
8. How Michio Kaku's Type IV Masters of Hyperspace of the Q-Continuum really metric engineer their warps, wormholes and weapons!
On 4/29/05, Susan Waitt wrote: This reminds me of another recent discussion....
>>(Jack Sarfatti) Kaku also said that the Indian mystic
mathematician Ramanujan... who wrote to Hardy
was doing string theory in 1910 that the elliptic modular functions are
only in 10 and 26 dimensions, which agree with Qabala?<<
The Cabalah and Superstrings
"....The fundamental building blocks of the universe are vibrating strings that can only exist in 10 or 26 dimensions.
....The gematria of the most sacred name of G-d (yod-hey-vav-hey) is 26, and Cabalistic teachings explain that the universe was created through 10 utterances, the ten sephiroth....There are two ways in which a string can vibrate, either clockwise or counter-clockwise. Clockwise vibrations utilize 10-dimensional space and counterclockwise 26 dimensional space....the ten dimensions are, of course, associated with the ten sephiroth....the twenty six dimensions break down into our four space-time dimensions and 22 hidden ones that can be related to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the paths of the Tree of Life.....This is not just a remarkable "string" of coincidences...." Best, Susan Waitt
On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I looked the paper. It's no good at all for the "100 rotating black holes seen with Hubble telescope" (M. Kaku) because its starting point eq (1) is same as Hal's scalar PV i.e. NO ROTATION! There are no gravimagnetic rotation terms g0i as in GR Kerr metric. I am amazed that paper got published. I bet Bernie Haisch sent it through since he is an editor of that journal. It's obvious from the git-go that Martin Rees & Co would never have allowed it to be published. I don't know what the author from Oklahoma State is doing with all that data analysis, but spending time on that paper is a bad bet IMHO.
Unless Yilmaz theory is "rotation without rotation"? ;-)
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Martin Rees (2003, "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology", Cambridge) writes "the evidence points insistently towards the presence of dark objects, with deep potential wells and 'horizons' through which matter can pass into invisibility"
There you have it, "horizons" contradicts Yilmaz's "exponential metric". But what does Martin know? He is only the British Astronomer Royal, FRS, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, and Hawking's boss! ;-)
"however, the evidence does not yet allow observers to confirm the form of the metric in the strong gravity region" p. 218
p. 224 12.6 Rees admits there is not conclusive evidence "for black holes with the precise Kerr metric", but he does think there is enough evidence for "horizons" which exclude the Yilmaz/scalar PV "exponential metrics". Indeed Cliff Will, Matt Visser & Bill Unruh all told me they do not believe such an exponential metric is any good last July 2004 at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland! Therefore, whether or not the Kerr metric, the Yilmaz/Puthoff model is unacceptable to these Top Gun experts in experimental general relativity.
The data from emission from accretion flows is still "imprecise and messy" p. 225 and the gas dynamics is too complex "There are however several encouraging new possibilities"
X rays! MAXIM detector! ASCA X-ray satellite "There is already one convincing case of a broad asymmetric emission line indicative of a relativistic disk" - that data is 10 years old 1995 Tanaka Nature 375, 659 - must be new data in 2005?
go to http://stardrive.org/title.shtml
moderated discussion forum for technical details
On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, about the entangled Josephson Junction stuff in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153 cited by Gary,
I agree with you when you say
"... this is a VERY useful paper! ... I can apply [it] to my macro-quantum vacuum ... treated like ... "effective" coupled JJs.
I see all sorts of possibilities here. ... ... Obviously the high Tc thin skin NANO-NETWORK of the saucer is simultaneously a propulsion unit and a macro-quantum computer ... around the fuselage of the saucer. ...".
Further, resonant connections between the fuselage quantum computer network of JJs and the tubulin quantum computer of the brain of the pilot is probably what enables the pilot to control the craft, and it is probable that each craft is resonantly tuned to the brain of its pilot, so that anyone not knowing that particular resonant pattern cannot control the craft.
With 10^18 tubulins, the resonant "key" is probably hard to crack, even for NSA, and therefore it may be difficult
for anyone (such as a USAF test pilot) who does not have the (alien?) key to make it fly.
Yes, something like that is what I am thinking. This idea is completely crazy, is it crazy enough to be true? :-)
If the craft is roughly a flat saucer with top and bottom surface area each about 70 m x 70 m = 4,900 m^2, or total surface of about 10^4 m^2 = 10^8 cm^2, then, in order to have about 10^18 JJ to match the 10^18 brain tubulins,
the area of each JJ would have to be about 10^(8-18) = 10^(-10) cm^2, or in other words a little square about 10^(-5) cm = 10^(-7) m = 100 nm on a side, which is on the same order of magnitude as the 25 nm diameter of a microtubule and is something that could reasonably be synthesized with advanced nanotechnology.
It is interesting that the authors of the paper at
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
are Israeli and Russian.
The Russians and Ukranians are more open to adventurous ideas than our guys.
If you are not able to convince the USA black projects community to do serious work on this stuff, then (unless the Israelis help the USA) it may be that Russia/China will beat the USA to that level of technology, and they will defeat the USA, and
New York will become a backwater with Shanghai the new World Ruling City, with Havana as its Western Hemisphere headquarters. I do hope that you can make responsible people aware of the seriousness of the situation.
I may be meeting a lot of those people at a dinner in NYC on June 16. :-)
On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks, this is interesting and I have been independently thinking about this sort of thing i.e. entanglement and teleportation in macro-quantum systems as distinct from micro-quantum systems.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Entanglement and teleportation of macroscopic continuous variables by
superconducting devices
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
Here we consider a hitherto unexplored quantum aspect of coupled
Josephson Junctions:
the ability to produce Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) entanglement of
their continuous variables, namely, their magnetic fluxes and induced
charges. Such entanglement, apart from its conceptual novelty, is the
prerequisite for a far-reaching goal: teleportation of the flux and
charge variables between JJs, implementing the transfer of an unknown
quantum state along a network of such devices.
--
Gary S Bekkum
Starstream Research
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
garysbekkum@gmail.com
On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Gladstone wrote:
At the time of the 1991 Solar Eclipse, which triggered a string of 11:11 synchronicities for me, a lot of what I was processing involved pillars - El Pilar, Boaz and Jachin, and so on. The body of info involved the progression from 11:11 to 12:12 and the construction of the temple in the New Jerusalem. 12:12 is also the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe who is linked to Mexico City which was buzzed by UFOs on the day of the eclipse. The holographic pillars I was seeing at that time triggered kundalini. The twin pillars are a visible representation of the number eleven, and I was shown how the passages regarding these pillars were deliberately marked by the number 11. Rev 11 for instance. The imagery is a visual depiction of the numbers 11:11: These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
From:
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/BoazandJachinPillars.html
But in the End-Time these pillars of the Temple shall be literally manifested as two witnesses....And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
A Study on Hebrews Chapter Nine
... and Boaz' pillar was the location next to which kings were anointed, ...
Israels spiritual and political leaders, Lev. 8:3ff; 2.Ki. 11:14; Psalms 99:7. ...
www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrews_chapter_9.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Beside the pillar...as the manner was
... Beside the pillar... as the manner was'. (2 Kings 11,14) ... whereas the
North-East part with its Boaz pillar belonged to the territory of Benjamin, ...
freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/pillars.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Gail Whittaker
"Let's hope that UFOs are real and that
they are time-travelling ships from friendly ETs,
or time travellers from our future - because if they
are not real, it looks pretty grim for your children
and their children."
-Jack Sarfatti
-----Original Message-----
From: d14947
To: Susan Waitt
Subject: Re: Meaning of 11-11 & Uri Geller--singing with the devil
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee. Jack has shown that the string theory is *not* a viable theory as it stands, not based on observation, so the stuff about the Sephirot doesn't connect either.
Well, I am skeptical of string theory. Kaku of course is selling string theory with Brian Greene. Roger Penrose is skeptical. I certainly don't need string theory to explain:
1. WHY gravity and inertia?
i.e. emergence of Einstein's 1916 GR geometrodynamics directly as an effective smooth classical field theory from the macro-quantum coherence of the post-inflation Higgs field!
2. Why both dark energy and dark matter?
3. The stability of the electron as an extended "micro-geon" Kerr-Newman-Burinski object in the sense of Bohm's hidden variables.
4. Why galactic halos
/\zpf = (v/c)(1/r^2)
v = constant stellar tangential circulating speed in flat portion of galaxy rotation curve along axis perpendicular to the galactic plane.
& dark galaxies.
5. Why dark matter detectors can't click with the right stuff ever!
6. Why there ain't any "quantum foam" in principle.
7. NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 anomalous blue shifts of 1 nanometer per sec per sec a_g = -cH(t) as a hedgehog topological defect of the post-inflationary Higgs Ocean vacuum coherence order parameter S^2 space centered at Sun, i.e. UNIFORM radial a_g confined between two spheres concentric with Sun with the dark energy distribution between the spherical boundaries
/\zpf = (H(t)/c)(1/r)
V(zpf) = c^2/\zpfr^2
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr = -cH(t) = 1 nanometer per second per second as observed!
8. How Michio Kaku's Type IV Masters of Hyperspace of the Q-Continuum really metric engineer their warps, wormholes and weapons!
On 4/29/05, Susan Waitt
>>(Jack Sarfatti) Kaku also said that the Indian mystic
mathematician Ramanujan... who wrote to Hardy
was doing string theory in 1910 that the elliptic modular functions are
only in 10 and 26 dimensions, which agree with Qabala?<<
The Cabalah and Superstrings
"....The fundamental building blocks of the universe are vibrating strings that can only exist in 10 or 26 dimensions.
....The gematria of the most sacred name of G-d (yod-hey-vav-hey) is 26, and Cabalistic teachings explain that the universe was created through 10 utterances, the ten sephiroth....There are two ways in which a string can vibrate, either clockwise or counter-clockwise. Clockwise vibrations utilize 10-dimensional space and counterclockwise 26 dimensional space....the ten dimensions are, of course, associated with the ten sephiroth....the twenty six dimensions break down into our four space-time dimensions and 22 hidden ones that can be related to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the paths of the Tree of Life.....This is not just a remarkable "string" of coincidences...." Best, Susan Waitt
On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I looked the paper. It's no good at all for the "100 rotating black holes seen with Hubble telescope" (M. Kaku) because its starting point eq (1) is same as Hal's scalar PV i.e. NO ROTATION! There are no gravimagnetic rotation terms g0i as in GR Kerr metric. I am amazed that paper got published. I bet Bernie Haisch sent it through since he is an editor of that journal. It's obvious from the git-go that Martin Rees & Co would never have allowed it to be published. I don't know what the author from Oklahoma State is doing with all that data analysis, but spending time on that paper is a bad bet IMHO.
Unless Yilmaz theory is "rotation without rotation"? ;-)
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Martin Rees (2003, "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology", Cambridge) writes "the evidence points insistently towards the presence of dark objects, with deep potential wells and 'horizons' through which matter can pass into invisibility"
There you have it, "horizons" contradicts Yilmaz's "exponential metric". But what does Martin know? He is only the British Astronomer Royal, FRS, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, and Hawking's boss! ;-)
"however, the evidence does not yet allow observers to confirm the form of the metric in the strong gravity region" p. 218
p. 224 12.6 Rees admits there is not conclusive evidence "for black holes with the precise Kerr metric", but he does think there is enough evidence for "horizons" which exclude the Yilmaz/scalar PV "exponential metrics". Indeed Cliff Will, Matt Visser & Bill Unruh all told me they do not believe such an exponential metric is any good last July 2004 at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland! Therefore, whether or not the Kerr metric, the Yilmaz/Puthoff model is unacceptable to these Top Gun experts in experimental general relativity.
The data from emission from accretion flows is still "imprecise and messy" p. 225 and the gas dynamics is too complex "There are however several encouraging new possibilities"
X rays! MAXIM detector! ASCA X-ray satellite "There is already one convincing case of a broad asymmetric emission line indicative of a relativistic disk" - that data is 10 years old 1995 Tanaka Nature 375, 659 - must be new data in 2005?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
