War in Space

Memorandum for the Official Record
Subject: Metric Engineering of Weightless Warp Drive for USAF, RAF & IAF Fighters
From: Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D. (theoretical physics, UC degree)
To: MASINT, NID, DIA et-al

The Russians and Chinese are actively pursuing this line of inquiry as are the Indians allegedly at the Tata Institute primarily.

I am using the modern local frame-invariant Cartan forms math that is in Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" book, in John Baez's "Gravity, Gauge, Knots" book, and in the appendices of Sean Carroll's new text book. Gennady is using the more cumbersome old-fashioned tensor indices method historically used by Einstein. The algebra is much simpler in the Cartan forms language but the results should be essentially the same.

I am also using the local gauge invariance principle that Gennady does not use explicitly. In addition to that I introduce spontaneous symmetry breakdown of the physical vacuum in which the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field is proportional to the "gradient" of the local macro-quantum coherent "supersolid" phase of the vacuum itself.
I smoothly join this to the standard model's Higgs field mechanism for the origin of the inertia of leptons and quarks via the Yukawa coupling. None of this "subspace" or "substratum" physics is in Gennady's low-energy semi-phenomenological effective c-number field theory approach historically used by Einstein 100 years ago before the modern physics was even developed.


On Sep 17, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote:

Dear Jack!

Let's made agreement about what torsion field is .

1. I work with the manifold of oriented points, instead of points manifold
of Riemann geometry.

My way of saying the above is locally gauge the 10-parameter Poincare group of global special relativity to get a 10-dimensional manifold for the configuration space of the "point" test particle. That is, we have 6 additional local scalar fields one for each element of the Lie algebra of the local Lorentz group O(1,3). These scalar fields form the elements of the antisymmetric Diff(4) tensor torsion 2-form

T(x) = T(x)uvdx^u/\dx^v = De(x) = de(x) + W(x)/\e(x)

D = d + W(x)/
is the Diff(4) covariant exterior derivative, /\ is Cartan's exterior product

Diff(4) is locally gauged T4

The Poincare group is T4*O(1,3)

Tuv(x) = (hG/c^3)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)[,u,v]

,u is ordinary partial derivative, [ ] is the antisymmetric commutator

Torsion means that the mixed 2nd-order partial derivatives of the mean Goldstone phase of the local physical vacuum (post-inflation) order parameter are not equal, e.g. Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformations", "Dirac strings", Michael Berry's "phase singularities", Abrikosov's "branch cut phase jumps" for lattices of magnetic vortices in Type II superconductors (ref. "Topological Quantum Mechanics" David Thouless).

e(x) = Einstein-Cartan 1-form tetrad field.

W(x) = Spin-connection equivalent to the Levi-Civita connection.

e(x)' = e(x) + S(x) = 1 + B(x) + S(x)

B(x) is the compensating 1-form tidal geodesic deviation curvature gauge potential from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4).

S(x) is the compensating 1-form torsion gauge potential from locally gauging O(1,3) to what for now I will call O*(1,3).

By DEFINITION

De(x) = de(x) + W(x)/\e(x) = 0

Therefore B(x) determines W(x).

T(x) = D'e'(x) = dS(x) + W(x)/\S(x) + S(x)/\(1 + B(x) + S(x))

Where D' = D + S(x)/
when S(x) = 0 then T(x) = 0

Therefore, the torsion 2-form T(x) depends on both the curvature W(x) spin connection and the torsion potential S(x).

The Einstein-Hilbert action density is the 4-form

R(x)/\e(x)/\e(x) + /\zpfe(x)/\e(x)/\e(x)/\e(x)

where the curvature 2-form is

R(x) = DW(x) = dW(x) + W(x)/\W(x)

Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation from the action principle is the 3-form equation

R(x)/\e(x) + /\zpfe(x)/\e(x)/\e(x) = 0

However, the Bianchi identities are

DR(x) = 0

But we also have

De(x) = 0

Therefore, obviously /\zpf must be a true constant when S(x) = 0.

This all changes when we have S(x) =/= 0

Define

R'(x) = D'(W(x) + S(x)) = dW(x) + dS(x) + (W(x) + S(x))/\(W(x) + S(x))

The new Bianchi identity is

D'R'(x) = 0

Note, that in ordinary 1915 GR where S(x) = 0

DR(x) = 0 (Diff(4) analog of Maxwell's U(1) dF = 0)

D*R(x) = *J(x) (Diff(4) analog of Maxwell's U(1) d*F = *J)

* = Hodge dual

Local conservation of stress-energy current densities is

D^2R(x) = D*J(x) = 0 (Diff(4) analog of Maxwell's U(1) d^2*F = d*J = 0)

Absolute parallelism means, obviously

R'(x) = 0


2. On the manifold of oriented points the geometry absolute parallelism ,
which possesses Ricci torsion Omega^i_jk (object anholomomity on Schouten)
is set.

I do not know that old cumbersome formalism. I prefer the above more elegant simpler more powerful formalism because I am definitely a "Lazy Dog" from the "Olympia Academy." ;-)

3. I name as a torsion field Ricci rotational coefficients T^i_jk, which
represent contorsion tensor of spaces of absolute parallelism.

In Cartan language

Tuv = Tuv^a&a

&a is a co-form vector field basis in the tangent space.

You can then write

Tuv^w = Tuv^ae'^wa

I use u,v,w for 0,1,2,3 in base space and i,j,l = 1,2,3 in a spacelike slice 3-geometry.



4. The geometry of absolute parallelism can be set by localization of
non-uniform Lorentz group (or Poincare's group).

I need to see your equations for that to understand your words.

5. Torsion field in my theory describes inertial properties of mass.
Operating by torsion fields, it is possible to change inertial mass of an
object.

Why change it? It's very dangerous to change inertial mass because then you change e/m ratios and as shown by Barrow & Tipler, by Paul Davies, by Martin Rees et-al, you destroy matter in a huge WMD explosion that can even destroy our entire universe. See, for example, "Our Final Hour" Chapter 11 by Sir Martin Rees. My idea is to leave m alone and simply change the shape of the local timelike geodesic glide path as I tried to explain to James Woodward in the previous message. Indeed you can change it by changing the intensity of the Higgs field on the scale of 1-fermi but we want to avoid doing so at all costs or else we will destroy the entire universe. That's a good enough reason for ET to be here to make sure we do not destroy them too!

6. Torsion fields create local Riemann curvature of space, therefore
operating by torsion fields, it is possible to operate by local Riemann
curvature and thus to carry out weightless or inertialess.

Jack, from my point of view you are right both as in my theory weightless
and inertialess is the same.

What I mean by "weightless" is simply (LC) ~ 0 for the occupants of the ship, i.e. no g-forces felt inside the ship in a dog fight. The UFO makes sharp turns at tremendous speeds that would rip a jet fighter apart from the g-force yet inside the crew is effectively "standing still" weightless in free float. It's the idea of the Alcubierre warp drive solution taken to the next step of finesse.



Shipov Gennady.

----- Original Message -----
From: "james f woodward"
To:

Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Weightless Warp Drive



I said EFFECTIVELY inertialess. And that is correct. Weightless is not
correct.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:41:59 -0700 Jack Sarfatti
writes:

means you can dogfight without a pressure suit. Stop talking about
it? Why? So that the USAF will lose the War in Space? Woodward here
confuses weight W with inertia m.

W = mg

only works for a non-geodesic.


"The distinctive thing about the metric(s) you're interested in
is that they render things/regions effectively inertialess. Yes,
inertialess. :-)" Woodward


On a geodesic g = 0 but m is still what it always is as in e/m for
example.

I ignore SR corrections for now.

Woodward above says m = 0 on the geodesic with g =/= 0 - that is
wrong physics.

In GR g ~ c^2(LC)^i00

i = 1,2,3

(LC) is the torsion-free Levi-Civita connection that is zero on a
timelike geodesic.

On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



On Sep 16, 2005, at 9:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



On Sep 16, 2005, at 8:50 PM, james f woodward wrote:

"You've got to stop talking about "weightless warp drive". Everything in orbit is "weightless", but none of it can go cavorting around the cosmos."


I am talking about metric engineering, i.e. shaping the geodesic as desired for
flight.


ET to Professor Woodward:

The basic equation is

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

By manipulating /\zpf with phase-locking to the vacuum phase,

/\zpf(x) ~ (Vacuum Coherence Length)^-1(Control Coherence Length)
^-1 cos(Vacuum Phase(x) - Control Phase(x))

Vacuum Phase(x) - Control Phase(x) = 2pi(Trapped flux at x/Quantum of flux)

you shape the local geodesic path of the ship as desired. That's what metric engineering means. I think even Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis understand that much? At least I hope so. To get more technical for everyone else. Woodward is stuck in the the test particle approximation in which the weightless geodesic motion of a ship cannot be changed by the ship itself. That is, the ship is a test particle that receives its marching orders from spacetime, but does not directly change the shape of space-time in its immediate vicinity. Warp drive changes all that!


On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:36:25 -0700 Jack Sarfatti

writes:



Memorandum for the Record

Subject: The necessity of the Russian torsion fields for

weightless


warp drive of the UFOs.

On Sep 15, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:





On Sep 14, 2005, at 9:47 AM, a retired US Naval Intelligence
Officer wrote:
"Yes, and I applaud your efforts to extend GR to include torsion;
as you know, I too have always believed torsion is vital for
propellantless propulsion. Seems like some small scale
engineering experimental method is needed to test your math"

My math is quite solid. I mean my proof that you cannot have
weightless warp drive without the torsion field in the sense of
the Moscow physicist Gennady Shipov. That is, without Shipov's torsion, the residual zero point vacuum dark energy density field proportional to /\zpf cannot vary in space and time because of the 1915 GR Bianchi identities. Every physicist in the field will agree with that much. The good data on UFOs shows the reality of the torsion fields. No Paul Hill "acceleration field" without torsion fields.




The curved part of the tetrad field B ~ (hG/c^3)^1/2@(x)^a(Pa/ih)

where {Pa/ih} is the Lie algebra of T4 and @(x)^a are the 4 space-
time dependent phases from the local gauging of T4 -> Diff(4).
Similarly for the torsion 2-form T ~ (hG/c^3)@(x)^a^bSab where {Sab}
is the Lie algebra of O(1,3) and @(x)^a^b are the 6 space-time
dependent phases of the local gauging of O(1,3).

Also

B = Budx^u is a dimensionless 1-form for the curved part of the
Einstein-Cartan tetrad

Bu = Bu^a&a

T = Tuvdx^u/\dx^v

Tuv = Tuv^a&a

{&a} is the basis of 1-co-forms (tangent vectors) in the tangent space

{dx^u} is the basis of 1-forms in the base space

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad field is

e' = e + S

e = 1 + B

B = (hG/c^3)d(Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO Higgs Field)

S is the torsion 1-form and the problem is to find its relation to

the torsion 2-form

T = D'e' = de' + (W + S)/\e'

d1 = 0

W is the torsion-free spin connection of 1915 GR that is completely determined from B.

T = dB + dS + (W + S)/\(1 + B + S)

However by definition

dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Therefore, the basic curvature-torsion equation is

T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)

OK, I think I now have the correct formula.

Recall that 1915 GR is simply the EEP

guv(curved) = (Iu^a + B(x)u^a)nab(flat)(Iv^b + B(x)v^b)


"but Shipov's toy models don't appear to test your math."

I don't know.


From: Jack Sarfatti

Subject: Re: Exotic weapons torsion field R&D in Mainland China?

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:16:47 -0700

Yes, but even more important I have the math down completely now
for all this stuff. The Chinese are BS'ing in that article. It's
flakey.
On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:49 PM, ... US Naval Intelligence, ret,wrote:

"Whether info or disfo, this is interesting and China is a
developing threat, much more so than many realize."

From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Kit Green ...
Subject: Exotic weapons torsion field R&D in Mainland China?

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:18:33 -0700

Memorandum For The Record

Subject: Threat Assessment

http://www.halturnershow.com/ChineseDefenseMinisterTalksWarAgainstUS.html

The Chinese report below appears to be mostly disinformation &
misinformation for foreigners. That does not preclude real fire
covered by smoke and mirrors.

Important background information on the torsion physics
mentioned below is at
http://qedcorp.com/APS/zpf2005.pdf updated periodically
also Discussion Forum at http://stardrive.org
and in 3 books:
Destiny Matrix
Space-Time & Beyond II
Super Cosmos
http://amazon.com

On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:23 PM, Gennady Shipov wrote:

"Jack!

In China very quickly develop torsion technologies.

Look at the attachment."


Jack Sarfatti :

Of course, back then this was not understood. Bureaucrats like ... in DIA are holding USG back in this whole field in US Defense Effort. Meantime the Indians, Chinese, Iranians, Ukrainians and Russians are forging ahead. It's no accident that I was invited to publish in a book from the Ukranian Academy of Sciences in Kiev. Those guys are not stupid. The Chinese are really open to this stuff. Note the new Russian-Chinese
joint War Games. Gennady Shipov is attacked by some of his "KGB"
colleagues, but I now can prove that we do need his torsion field to make all of this advanced weaponry really work! We see the torsion weaponry out there in the UFO data of Bruce Maccabee, NIDS et-al. So someone knows how to do it and we don't.

Shipov Gennady:
"Jack!
In China very quickly develop torsion technologies.
Look the attachment."

My preliminary comments for the record, indeed my equations show the interplay of the Russian torsion fields with the zero point vacuum energy density that would probably explain the anomalous "cold fusion" data that in reality is release of dark energy if cold fusion exists.


"Xing•liu Jiang, Xiong•wei Wen, China Science School,
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing
100083 and Li•jun Han, China Department of Materials Science
and Engineering, Beijing University of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Beijing 100083

ABSTRACT
Highly localized nuclear activation in electrochemical
systems and other electrical discharge processes have been
observed by many laboratories in the world. This report is
an attempt to explain such anomalous phenomena by using
torsion field theory and axion model. Anisotopic behaviours
of radiation products, burst character, "heat after death"
of excess energy release in electrical discharge systems are
considered to be interpreted by the torsion coherence of
vortex dynamics with the zero point energy induced by
localized intense field emission of micro-protrusion ofthe
cathode, and the dynamic Casimir effect of transient
evolution of triple region of gas, liquid solution, and
electrode protrusion. Axion model and Primakoff's effect are
proposed for explanation of nuclear transmutation without
noticeable gamma radiation."

These allegations cannot be checked without the mathematics. Briefly here is the real story in terms of mainstream physics. We use the elegant local frame invariant Einstein-Cartan exterior differential forms mathematics for the tetrad gravity field that is the "square root" of Einstein's 1915
symmetric metric tensor field. The tetrad technique is analogous to the Dirac "square root" of the quantum Klein- Gordon equation. Note that the metric is the anti-commutator of the Dirac matrices and Einstein's curved space-time geometrodynamic field guv is a symmetric bilinear form in the Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form field e where

e = 1 + B

When B = 0 we have globally flat Minkowski space-time. According to the local equivalence principle there is no real gravity (i.e. geodesic deviation tidal curvature) in that limit. Technically B is the compensating gauge potential when global T4 of special relativity is replaced by local Diff(4). In addition using the charge neutral Vacuum ODLRO VEV Higgs-
Goldstone field for the spontaneous breakdown of SU(2)
hypercharge in the standard model we can write

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Mean Goldstone Phase)

Goldstone Phase is a 0-form

No gravity & no inertia when h = 0 or 1/c = 0 even when G =/= 0.
Gravity and inertia are emergent "More is different" (P.W.
Anderson) properties of the spontaneous breakdown of SU(2)
hypercharge symmetry in the physical vacuum consistent with
the Standard Model explanation for inertia of quarks and leptons.


d is the Cartan exterior derivative, and we use the mean Goldstone Phase averaged over the internal indices of non- abelian SU(2).

The d^2 = 0 rule is suspended due to non-trivial multiply-
connected manifold cohomology in physical space and in VEV
local order parameter space. I call this "Flux without flux"

BTW like Wheeler's "Charge without charge". In Wheeler-
Feynman theory the gauge force connections are dynamically
redundant and are replaced by the source fields with advanced
light cone propagators. See Hoyle & Narlikar for1915 GR
version of Wheeler- Feynman elimination of the EM field for
the gravity case. Whether this 1940 classical idea survives
the transition to quantum field theory is an open question of
course.

Ref. John Baez, Gravity & Knots
Hagen Kleinert on "multi-valued gauge transformations"
Michael Berry "phase singularities"
Dirac Strings
Abrikosov phase jump branch cuts in physical space in Type II
superconducting magnetic vortex lattices

Therefore

F = dB =/= 0

If this were U(1) Maxwell EM field theory, the 4 Maxwell
equations would be in 2-lines

dF = 0 (metric independent - Faraday induction & no magnetic


monopoles laws)

d*F = *J (metric/constitutive material-dependent Ampere's & Gauss's laws)

* = Hodge dual p-form to N - p form in N-dim space-time.

hence

*d*F = J = current density 1-form

Local current density conservation is

d^2d*F = d*J = 0

Transition to gravity, i.e. General Relativity

W = spin connection

The Gennady Shipov torsion 2-form is

T = De = de + W/\e = dB + W/\(1 + B)

In 1915 GR

T = 0 , therefore W is determined completely by B.

In Gennady Shipov's theory O(1,3) is also locally gauged to give T =/ = 0, so now W depends on both B & T.

What is the torsion connection 1-form S?

If we use S = *dT we get

e' = e + S = 1 + B + S

Only use e to get EEP

guv = (1u^I + Bu^I)nIJ(1v^J + Bv^J) ?

If we use S = *DT we seem to get an infinite regress for W in terms of B & S.

Locally gauging entire Poincare group of 1905 SR gives Shipov's 10D "oriented point", which is essentially D3 BRANE theory BTW!

Finally the curvature 2-Form is

R = DW = dW + W/\W

Why the torsion field is needed.

In 1915 GR the Bianchi identities using the zero torsion tetrad


e = 1 + B

give

DR = 0

analogous to

d*J = 0 in EM

Einstein's exotic dark energy vacuum field equation is

R/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0 as a 3-form equation.

This implies that

D/\zpf = d/\zpf = 0

/\zpf is a 0-form

with

De = 0

i.e. /\zpf is a constant.

When we add torsion we get

D' = d + W/\ + S/
with

D'R = 0

Therefore

DR =/= 0

hence

d/\zpf =/= 0

in presence of a torsion field.

The zero point dark energy-stress tensor is

tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG*)/\zpfguv

/\zpf > 0 is repulsive dark energy of negative vacuum pressure (blue shift)

/\zpf < 0 is attractive dark matter (mis-named) of positive vacuum pressure (red shift)

/\zpf ~ (vacuum coherence length)^-1(anyon condensate
coherence length)^-1cos(Vacuum Phase - Anyon Phase)

This permits low power practical metric engineering of WEIGHTLESS Warp and Wormhole.

All the numerical PV estimates of Puthoff, Davis & Co are completely irrelevant. No USG money should be spent on high power laser bending of space-time - much too small. No Bang a mere Whimper for a Big Buck! Waste of tax money.

Leonard Susskind's book on Black Holes & Strings

6. "The Questions are: What are [Lenny's] Questions?"

"It was assumed that all observers would agree on the usual invariant relationships between events. This view persisted even in classical general relativity. But the paradigm is gradually shifting. It was never adequate to deal with the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity."

Actually Lenny is raising a Red Herring here, although it does not affect some of his conclusions.

The agreement of observers is strictly for LOCAL COINCIDENT observers all in the same local neighborhood. It does not at all apply to widely separated observers in the "black hole complementarity" gedanken experiment.

The issue however is to avoid contradictions when LIF Alice or coincident LNIF hovering Bob communicates with distant LNIF Eve in the asymptotic flat region before Alice plunges into the horizon like Tit Willow into the billowy wave.

Consider a proton passing through the horizon, the time for the virtual transitions is stretched out for the distant observer Eve by the red shift. Eve sees a "short-lived virtual fluctuation stretched out into a real process" p. 92. Essentially all contradictions are avoided by the implications of this insight. The proper temperature T of the Hawking radiation is ~ hovering "g-force" acceleration by the Unruh effect so that it is also going to infinity as (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-3/2 as r approaches 2GM/c^2 from the outside.

"In order to make an observation while the proton" [LIF Alice] is in a region of temperature" [greater than that needed for baryon number violation for example] "the" [coincident LNIF observer Bob] must do so very quickly. In the proton's" [LIF] "frame the time spent in the hot region before crossing the horizon" [is very short] "1/Mx. Thus, to obtain a single bit of information" [Bob] "must probe it with at least one quantum of energy of order Mx. But such an interaction ... can cause a baryon violation even from the perspective of the proton" [Alice] "Thus the observer" [Bob] cannot measure and report" [to Eve] "the absence of a baryon-violating interaction without himself causing it."

The situation here is akin to the Einstein-Bohr Box gedankenexperiment.

"an unprecedented mix of short distance and long distance. Radical changes ..."

As Above, So Below

"Black Hole Complementarity ... a new kind of relativity in which the location of phenomena depends upon the resolution time available to the experimenter who probes the system ... Alice" [Through The Looking Glass, Down the Wabbit Hole]", falling into an enormous black hole with Schwarzschild radius of a billion years. According to the low frequency observer, namely Alice herself ... nothing special is felt at the horizon ... In apparent complete contradiction, the high frequency observer who stays outside the black hole finds that his description involves Alice falling into a hellish region of extreme temperature, being thermalized, and eventually re-emitted as Hawking radiation. All of this takes place just outside the mathematical horizon ... the key to black hole complementarity is the extreme red shift of the quantum fluctuations as seen by the external observer."

Note that to a hovering rest LNIF observer Bob outside, but near to, the horizon Alice's LIF 21 cm signal, in her rest frame, to Bob sent from when she was far away from the horizon in the asymptotic flat region coincident with Eve is, is blue shifted to a much shorter wavelength, That same 21 cm signal sent by Alice when coincident with Bob near, but outside the horizon will be red shifted to a much longer wavelength received by Eve also hovering but at a huge distance from the horizon. Both Bob and Eve are non-geodesic feeling g-force from firing a rocket in space. Eve is practically weightless compared to Bob. Bob's g-force approaches infinity as he gets closer HOVERING a small distance above the horizon, i.e., (g-force)^i ~ mc^2(LC)^i00 ~ [(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-3/2](GMm/r^2) (check this formula I did it quick & dirty).

"The second new idea is the Infrared/Ultraviolet connection ... If one wished to study ... smaller and smaller objects one had to use higher and higher energy probes ...But once gravity is involved that trend is reversed ... At energies above the Planck scale any possible short scale physics is shrouded behind an event horizon."

Note that Hal Puthoff's PV SSS metric without an event horizon is inconsistent with this IR/UV duality. It has other things wrong with it as well of course.

"Third is the holographic principle, the non-redundant degrees of freedom that describe a region of space are on its boundary."

Remember the generalized Stoke's theorem

(p+1|d|p) = (&(p+1)|p)

d = exterior derivative

& = boundary operator

|p) = p-form

(p+1| is a p+1 co-form manifold on which to integrate p+1 forms (bra-ket inner product).

When the manifold co-form is multiply-connected with cohomology group larger than the identity, there are cycles that are not boundaries.

Let p = 2 in 4D space-time, then

(3|d|2) = (&3|2)

In 3D-space this would be the static divergence theorem, but now we are in 4D space-time. The World Hologram seems to be connected with this theorem?

In general relativity both curvature and torsion are |2> forms.

The curvature 2-form is

R = DW = dW + W/\W

W = the spin connection 1-form

The torsion is

T = De = de + W/\e = 0 in 1915 GR so W determined by e

e = Einstein-Cartan tetrad "square root" of the metric tensor.

In my emergent vacuum ODLRO c-number theory

e = 1 + B

this is all local frame-invariant

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Mean Goldstone Phase of SU(2)hypercharge SSB)

Therefore, from topological

(3|d|2) = (&3|2)

(3|(D - W/\|R) = (&3|R)

Which is kind of interesting to ponder before going on to black hole as string idea.

to be continued

On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

5.

"It was assumed that all observers would agree on the usual invariant relationships between events. This view persisted even in classical general relativity. But the paradigm is gradually shifting. It was never adequate to deal with the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity."

Actually Lenny is raising a Red Herring here, although it does not affect some of his conclusions.

The agreement of observers is strictly for LOCAL COINCIDENT observers all in the same local neighborhood. It does not at all apply to widely separated observers in the "black hole complementarity" gedanken experiment. That is consider three observers, Alice, Bob and Eve.

Alice is LIF ("FREDO") and Bob is LNIF ("FIDO") but instantly coincident with Alice. Eve is the asymptotic LNIF (FIDO) observer far away from the black hole horizon in the asymptotic flat region receiving redshifted signals from outside the horizon. Black Hole complementarity is the relation between Alice and Eve. The usual invariant relation of ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v still obtains between Alice and Bob even when they are inside the event horizon.



Typo-corrected "micro-geon" below:
On Sep 5, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Lenny's densely mathematical book is not a popular book. It is incomprehensible to the general reader and it is not easy going for the professional theoretical physicist not in the sub-field. However, it has moments of great clarity and if it is wrong, as George Chapline thinks, it is brilliantly wrong. Certainly pieces of Lenny's thesis will survive. So, to really see what the book is about, it's best to read the end of the book first and then go back to the beginning. Lenny emphasizes the key role on nonlocality (e.g. nonlocality of gravity energy?) in black hole complementarity.

"In order to reconcile the equivalence principle with the rules of quantum mechanics the rules of locality must be massively modified."

I like the idea of the blackhole as a string since I already published in 1974 the explanation of the Regge slope alpha' (for strings)


J ~ alpha'E^2

alpha' ~ (1Gev)^-2

as rotating Kerr black hole Wheeler "micro-geon" with effective strong gravity G* ~ 10^40G in Herbert Frohlich's "Collective Phenomena". Indeed, that's why Abdus Salam invited me to ICTP Trieste, Italy 1973-74 (e.g. contact Jagdish Mehra).

What will survive is the IR/UV duality. What about LIF/LNIF complementarity? Intriguing. What is completely missing in Lenny's theory is Vacuum ODLRO. For example, Lenny never considers a Bose-Einstein condensate in the vacuum in which there is a macroscopic eigenvalue of the first reduced density matrix. All eigenvalues must be less than 1 in Lenny's theory. Second, Lenny used a positive energy density to derive some of his key results when in fact negative zero point energy density would describe dark matter. Third, Lenny's ADS model has the wrong sign of the actually observed small post-inflation cosmological constant. How fatal this is I do not know yet. Perhaps he analytically continues to the DS model? That is ADS is "dark matter" with negative zero point energy density and positive pressure. DS is "dark energy" with positive zero point energy density and negative pressure. Furthermore, Lenny's equation for p the power of t in the FRW scale factor a(t) ~ t^p breaks down in the most important case, i.e. p -> infinity when w -> -1, which is the case for zero point energy. One nice idea is that the D3 brane of M-theory is the kind of 3+1 space-time we live in with the 6 extra space-time dimensions as "scalar fields". This fits well with Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory extension of 1915 GR. Indeed, if we interpret these scalar fields as vacuum ODLRO Higgs-Goldstone fields associated with the local gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) then the vacuum order parameter space is SU(2)xSU(2) consistent with the Hedgehog anomaly centered at Sun seen in the TWO NASA Pioneer Space Probes where a_g = - cH(t). All stars may have this property, i.e. part of stellar formation? Maybe even galaxies have it? That is vacuum ODLRO topological defects as seeds for early galaxy formation explaining galactic halos as well?






On Sep 1, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:




Comment 3
Lenny's book will not be comprehensible to the math-illiterate New Age reader. He opens up with the math of black holes in different coordinate representations nicely presented in a way that implicitly clearly shows why Hal Puthoff's PV alternative to the black hole is not a good theory. But you need to remember (or look up) your high school logarithms and the trigonometry formula for the tangent of the half-angle to show from eqs (1.1.2) to (1.1.4) that a signal from the black hole surface horizon never reaches the distant observers. The Penrose diagram makes that instantly obvious of course. Hal uses isotropic coordinates inside the event horizon where they are not appropriate. He says he can do that because his exponential metric does not have an event horizon. But in that case his solution does not obey Einstein's vacuum GR equation Ruv = 0. Therefore, PV theory conflicts with GR. Indeed, PV theory is not consistent with Diff(4) tensors and therefore, it violates the equivalence principle. In spite of that Hal Puthoff claims he is not offering a theory different from GR but only an "engineer's" way to do it. This, of course, is self-contradictory. Note that in George Chapline's "dark star" theory there is dark energy behind the event horizon, i.e. not Ruv = 0, but the same equation I use

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

We do seem to need Gennady Shipov's torsion field beyond 1915 GR to allow

/\zpf^,v =/= 0 at the event horizon boundary because the Bianchi identities without torsion demand /\zpf^,v = 0.

On Aug 31, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:




Comment 2

Lenny: "Eventually the black hole must completely evaporate. Hawking then raised the question of what becomes of the quantum correlations between matter outside the black hole and matter that disappears behind the horizon. ... Hawking then made arguments that there is no way, consistent with causality, for the correlations to be carried by the outgoing evaporation products."

Jack: So much the worse for causality, which here means no space-like influences outside the local light cones. Bell's theorem shows that such space-like influences are needed and they are locally random in micro-quantum theory consistent with the blackbody radiation.

Lenny: "Thus, according to Hawking, the existence of black holes inevitably causes a loss of quantum coherence and breakdown of one of the basic principles of quantum mechanics - the evolution of pure states into pure states."

Jack: So much the worse for micro-quantum mechanics. It's time to slaughter that Sacred Cow. Global special relativity of 1905 is violated by the necessity of gravity and inertia in local general relativity of 1915 where it is relegated to a purely local tangent space by the equivalence principle. In the same way micro-quantum mechanics is not complete, but merely corresponds to nonlocally entangled small fluctuations about the stiff macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO coherent order parameter that provides the local fabric of space-time via

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argVacuum ODLRO).

Lenny: "Hawking further argued that once the loss of quantum coherence is permitted in black hole evaporation, it becomes compulsory in all processes involving the Planck scale. The world would behave as if it were in a noisy environment which continuously leads to a loss of coherence. The trouble with this is that there is no known way to destroy coherence without at the same time violating energy conservation by heating the world."

Jack: I need to see the math of the above argument. Why does not the expansion of the universe cool down this alleged heating effect? Also total energy is not necessarily conserved in curved space-time because of the breakdown of time translation symmetry. Presumably the book will explain this argument in more detail. Lenny wants to hold on to micro-quantum unitarity at all costs and I think this is the basic error in his thesis, but I could be wrong. The macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO order parameter does not obey a unitary time evolution. You cannot think of |psi|^2 as a Born quantum probability density like you can for micro-quantum wave functions.

Indeed the space integral of |psi(x)|^2 need not be a constant of the motion at all. For example, you have a pot of superfluid helium at almost T = 0 at t = 0 and then you slowly heat it. As you heat the superfluid it turns to normal fluid completely disappearing at the lambda point. In the case of vacuum ODLRO the "normal fluid" is the dark energy!

On Aug 31, 2005, at 9:07 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:





"Black Holes, Information and the String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe"

Comment 1

Lenny: "The paradox was discovered by Jacob Bekenstein and turned into a serious crisis by Stephen Hawking. ... Bekenstein realized that if the second law of thermodynamics was not to be violated in the presence of a black hole, the black hole must possess an intrinsic entropy. ... How and why a classical solution of field equations should be endowed with thermodynamical attributes has remained obscure."

Jack: The black hole is a property of Einstein's vacuum equation

Ruv = 0

However, this equation is a c-number emergent field theory from vacuum ODLRO. George Chapline, Jr and I have both arrived at this general idea quite independently. Let the vacuum ODLRO order parameter be

psi = |psi|e^iargpsi

suppress internal symmetry indices, but think of SU(2)hypercharge that has a neutral VEV in the standard model (evidence from NASA Pioneer anomaly a_g = -cH(t) as a hedgehog topological defect centered at Sun).

Let the Einstein-Cartan 1-form be

e = 1 + B

My ansatz is

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argtheta)

with "string" branch cuts in argtheta

Therefore, there is no gravity and inertia when h -> 0 and c -> infinity even when G =/= 0. There is still some residual "normal fluid" fluctuations around the stiff vacuum order parameter psi that obeys the rules of micro-quantum theory as given by Lenny. The ratio of normal to superfluid obviously has a temperature parameter T. Therefore, Lenny's question is answered.

to be continued

Final Chapter of Super Cosmos & SLAC SSI 2005


On Aug 8, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I got permission from Rocky Kolb (et-al) to use some of the SLAC SSI 2005 slides in Super Cosmos and got the file size down to under 2 megs. Also I mention Hagen Kleinert's latest on "multi-valued gauge transformations"

The very end of Super Cosmos is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/zpf2005.pdf 1.78 megs

Includes also latest on God, George Chapline, Susskind, Ken Shoulders EVOs, Puthoff, Shipov, Burinskii & good last line for the book.

Cosmic Coincidence a false alarm for Intelligent Design of the Universe?

On Aug 6, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Are we alone, or are the Little Green UFO Buggers here already screwing things up - as if we needed help?
From: The MASINT Irregulars

On Aug 6, 2005, at 4:32 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

"To Whom It May Concern:

We all have our jobs to do. I am trying to do the eschaton job."

For a moment, from the way Rocky Kolb joked around yesterday in the Panofsky Auditorium (Panofsky was there, Secretary of DOE was there the day before) it looked like Dan had a killer piece of evidence in Rocky's "Cosmic Coincidence Slide"

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1_Page_21_jpg.htm

Rocky joked about this slide as "Intelligent Design" and also compared it to Martha Stewart's sale of her ImClone stock on the downhill slide of its price. The point of the coincidence is that right now we are only a bit to the right of the crossing point of the red and blue curves. That is the vertical dotted green line for NOW AKA "0" should be a little to the right of where it is crossing the solid red line at 0.3 and, therefore, the solid blue line at 0.7. The Cosmic Coincidence is: WHY ARE WE SO CLOSE TO THE CROSSING POINT at 0.5? Is this Weak Anthropic Principle in action WITHOUT GOD? Or, is it a COSMIC COINCIDENCE "WOW" SIGNAL from GOD? Or from "Q" some Great Architect of the Frame of the World (Free Masons, Society of Cincinnatus), some Mighty Metric Engineer of Super Cosmos? Some Gulliver to us Lilliputans? ;-)

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html

On further reflection, this may only be Weak Anthropic Principle leaving no Room in The Inn for God? But I am not sure right now.


"I have always said that I would have to learn on the job. I will always make more wrong moves than correct moves, just by standard statistics. There is one best possible way to evangelize the eschaton and there are an infinity of
other ways to do it. Those stats are not in my favor. I am happy to learn that Kit is neither disturbed nor conflicted."

Kit's ignorance is bliss? :-)
http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_005/drgreen.htm

"I can only wish that I could be so fortunate. I will always be disturbed and
conflicted in a potentially infinite number of ways, so long as I remain
human. Eventually, according to Apokatastasis, we will all become God. At that point we will be conflicted in a transcendental number of ways. We may as well get used to it. My privately placed question to Kit was for his educated guess concerning the purpose of the alleged visitation. Is this asking too much? Is there a more important question we need to ask?"




-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 6:00 PM
To: Ron Pandolfi
Subject: Re: Please provide broad distribution to this Information

10-4

I. On Aug 6, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Ron Pandolfi, Ph.D. wrote:

"It has come to my attention that Dan Smith has been distributing e-mails indicating I had suggested that Dr. Green was "disturbed or conflicted." I
may have been on distribution for some of these e-mails. I wanted to
clarify that I do not often read these e-mails, so I was unaware of
their existence or of their interpretation. Please let me correct that I
had only stated to Mr. Smith that Dr. Green seemed "disturbed" with Mr. Smith's insistence that he provide evidence for ET visitations--what Mr. Smith
refers to as the "core story." Dr. Green has clearly stated his position
on these issues on multiple occasions and in multiple venues. My understanding was that he was "conflicted" in terms of his desire to address Mr. Smith's questions and his need to attend to more pressing issues."

For the record, Christopher "Kit" Green, former CIA "Weird Desk" Keeper
is "Kennett" in Jim Schnabel's
"Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies"
http://www.greylodge.org/occultreview/glor_005/drgreen.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter17.html
In Ch 11 of Schnabel's book, "Kit" has the same kind of "metallic
voice" contact as I had in 1953 approximately "twenty years" later as I
did and as was predicted in http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

Other incidents with the "metallic voice" exist.

II. Is this evidence below of a COSMIC COINCIDENCE WOW CONTACT SIGNAL
reported by Rocky Kolb yesterday at SLAC? Kolb "joked" about it as
"Intelligent Design". Is it a Joke? If not, it would support President
Bush on "Intelligent Design." Probably7 not.

New Evidence Supports President Bush on Intelligent Design

AI = Advanced Intelligence
COSMIC COINCIDENCE? REALLY?
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1_Page_21_jpg.htm
This is too coincidental to be a random coincidence. Is it the COSMIC WOW SIGNAL for CONTACT with ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE?
Look here are the simple basic equations for precision cosmology
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1_Page_05_jpg.htm
Note that for "vacuum", i.e. zero point energy there can be an independent INTRINSIC cosmic time dependence for the zero point energy density not tied to a(t). Indeed, in my metric engineering theory the equation for this on a smaller scale is something like the "Flying Saucer Warp Drive Equation" of Dan Smith's alleged "Visitors" who seem to prefer "metallic voices" if we are to believe Jim Schnabel about CIA's Kit Green's experience during the Uri Geller experiments? ;-) As this message is being sent I am advised that Dan Smith is a "DIA Contractor" who has just been in a "car accident" in Washington DC/Baltimore area? There are no coincidences - cosmic or otherwise in this weird business. Note President Bush recently commented on "Intelligent Design" and so did a Pennsylvania Senator. It seems to be a hot topic.

/\(t) = (1/Lp*)(ODLRO Surface Density of Control Thin Film)Cos(VacuumODLRO Phase - Thin Film Phase)

Where

G*/G = (R/Lp)^n

i.e.

Lp*/Lp = (R/Lp)^n/2

for n extra space-dimensions of scale R.

OK we know k = 0 (Space is flat) from WMAP. This fits inflation. Therefore the total

Omega = (total density)/(critical density) = 1

trivially because

critical density(t) = 3H(t)^2/8piG

As t increases all densities decrease except for the zero point dark energy with w = -1.

This means the total critical density itself becomes dominated by the zero point dark energy.

i.e. H(t)^2 ---> c^2/\(t) as t increases.


Since there is no theory for /\ (other than mine) there can be an arbitrary t-dependence /\(t) that is independent of the scale factor a(t) for the expansion of space. Indeed this /\(t) can be from "The Architect" of Freemasonry, from Michio Kaku's "Masters of Hyperspace", from Star Trek's "Q", from Dan Smith's "Visitors", from the "Metric Engineers", from "Darth Vader", from "Gulliver", from "The Matrix", from "God" - take your pick.

Note that if the dark matter is really negative zero point energy with w = -1 and positive pressure that cannot be distinguished from w = 0 Cold Dark Matter (CDM) then NOW ~ 96% of our universe is zero point energy (73% positive and 23% negative). Only 4% is the stuff we are made from.

On Aug 5, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Desperate Cosmologists How far will they go?

Saul Perlmutter just happens to observe the Type1a supernovae just at the crossing point NOW 13.7 billion years since the BIG BANG where Dark Energy is shooting up and everything else is falling down.

Is this Dan Smith's ESCHATON? :-)

Kolb's final lecture at SSI 2005 is VERY FUNNY! (No, he did not mention Dan).

He compares Saul Perlmutter to Martha Stewart and sudden drop of IMCLONE when she sold. He uses Creation of Adam with God as Ed Witten and Adam as Peskin - who is here (the physicist not the politician).

Lectures in Macro-Quantum Gravity 1 & 2

Part 1

bcc

The big questions are

1. How does inflation work in the creation of the universe?

2. Why is the entropy low in the early universe?

3. What is dark energy and dark matter?

4. Why is the electron stable? (implication for Ken Shoulders EVOs)

5. What is the Galactic Halo? Why is the stellar rotation curve flat in a wide region?

6. What is causing the gravity anomaly in the two NASA Pioneer space probes?

7. What makes the gamma ray bursts?

8. Why the universal slope of the Regge paths of the hadronic resonances?


I suppress indices as much as possible for brevity in e-mail. When I am forced to use them, a,b,c in tangent fiber, u,v,w in base space, with I = Kronecker delta &u^a in the global aligned frame in flat Minkowski space-time. This frame is physical i.e. all non-rotating inertial detectors are on globally flat timelike geodesics where the geodesic deviation tidal curvature tensor field is identically zero in that limiting case.

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

e = I + B

I = identity

When the substratum warp field B = 0 identically, the tangent fiber is aligned with the base space in the "convenient" global frame. Of course Diff(4) transformations in this globally flat B = 0 everywhere-when limit will misalign the fiber with the base describing inertial forces on globally flat non-geodesic detectors. These inertial forces, that are locally equivalent, to gravity cannot exist without non-gravity electrical forces. In this B = 0 limit the geodesic deviation tidal tensor field AKA Cartan-Einstein curvature 2-form is identically zero.

B ~ Lp^2GradargPSI

Goldstone phase of vacuum ODLRO is argPSI, Grad is 4D.

In terms of Cartan's exterior derivative d with d^2 = 0

argPsi is a 0-form

B ~ Lp^2dargPSI

dB =/= 0 only because of multiple connectivity, i.e. singularities in argPSI that make B closed but not exact despite the notation dargPSI. See John Baez's book, on Gravity and Knots for example. The cohomology is non-trivial like vortex lines in superfluid helium which is, like the Higgs Ocean post-inflationary vacuum, a macro-quantum condensed system of real quanta rather than, as in our problem of emergent gravity, virtual zero-point quanta.

Technically H1, the first cohomology group of the local macro-quantum ODLRO order parameter PSI is larger than the trivial identity group that describes a simply-connected manifold.

PSI = LOCAL post-inflation order parameter (a complex-numbered scalar field in a 4D real manifold)

This explains why macro-spacetime physics is local and why the early universe has a small entropy.

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = Loop quantum of area

Therefore

1. if c -> infinity a real geodesic deviation tidal curvature warp field is impossible. That is, no gravity possible in Galilean relativity. You need special relativity as the local limit AKA the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).

2. if h -> 0 a real geodesic deviation tidal curvature warp field is impossible. That is, you need a finite quantum of action to get Einstein gravity as a "More is different" (PW Anderson) Andrei Sakharov emergent macro-quantum phenomenon.

These two conditions are non-trivial and are only explained clearly in my theory. The third condition is trivial, i.e.

4. if G -> 0 a real geodesic deviation tidal curvature warp field is impossible.

In essence I show here how Loop Quantum Gravity gives classical Einstein theory.


Part 2

EEP (Einstein's Equivalence Principle) in this formalism is symbolically

g(curved) = (I + B)(flat)(I + B)

= In(flat)I + I(flat)B + B(flat)I + B(flat)B

The terms of the curved metric field g linear in B are "elastic" terms and the nonlinear terms quadratic in B are the "plastic" terms causing the "cracking" of the world crystal lattice whose defects appear as curvature and torsion.

Under X in Diff(4), which is the locally gauged T4, with B as the substratum's compensating warp Yang-Mills gauge force potential of "spin 1" not spin 2, which appears only at the bi-linear level.

e' = Xe

That is total tetrad e is a Diff(4) first rank tensor.

e is also a Cartan 1-form in the substratum

Under L in tangent fiber Lorentz group SO(1,3)

e'' = Le

Note that XI = I' =/= I

What is physical meaning of X?

X is the field mapping of possible coincident detectors in arbitrary relative motion to each other in the neighborhood of the same physical event P. Such a mapping corresponds to a transition function connecting overlapping local coordinate charts. However, there are more such transition functions then physically significant Diff(4) X. Therefore X is a quotient set mod the equivalence relation ~ that leaves the relative motion of coincident detector sets invariant. That is

X = {transition functions}/~

i.e. X is a non-overlapping "coset" equivalence class mod ~ in the quotient group with the unphysical gauge freedom factored out.

Note that

e' = Xe = XI + XB = I' + XB = I + B'

Therefore,

B' = (I'-I) + XB = XI - I + XB

Therefore, B' has an inhomogeneous term under Diff(4) if we wish to make the split into a globally flat part and a warped part post the X transition. On the other hand, if we are content to use I' = XI, then B is a tensor under X. So it depends on how we want to make the split. Obviously, when B = 0 identically

g' = XI(flat)XI

is the apparent curved metric from the non-geodesic motion of the detectors. However, locally there is no way to distinguish an apparent gravity force from an actual gravity force. Globally we can, of course tell the difference. EEP is only a local principle. Geodesic deviation stretch-squeeze measurements of B in the relative coordinates are forbidden in this statement since they do not affect the actual force on the center of mass of an extended test object. You need non-gravity forces to create such non-geodesic motions in the detectors. Here we are talking about globally flat timelike geodesics when B is identically zero.

To proceed further we need to define the spin-connection W that is more fundamental physically than the Levi-Civita connection. W is a Cartan 1 form with values in the Lorentz Lie Algebra.

The gauge covariant exterior derivative at the bi-linear level of the geometrodynamic field is

D = d + W/
where d^2 = 0 ONLY in SIMPLY-CONNECTED manifolds without holes. /\ is the Cartan exterior product.

Do not confuse D with

D* = d + B/\ in the substratum of the fabric of spacetime!

D & D* are qualitatively physically different. I will use * on right of a symbol for substratum quantities, not to be confused with same * to left for the Hodge dual using the fully anti-symmetric tensors of different ranks 2 to 4. The Yang-Mills spin 1 substratum field is the 2-form

F* = D*B = dB + B/\B

The Bianchi identities in the substratum give

DF* = 0

i.e. the 3-form equation

dF* + B/\F* = d^2B + d(B/\B) + B/\dB + B/\B/\B = 0

The 1-form Yang-Mills source equation is

D*F* = *J

Remember B is from the local gauging of T4 a 4-parameter commutative group unless you deform it to a non-commutative space-time geometry where it may look like U(1)xSU(2)?

Next, I go to the bi-linear geometrodynamic level. The Cartan-Shipov torsion 2-form is defined as

T = De = de + W/\e

Since the tetrad is a 1-form.

Einstein's 1915 GR has T = 0 identically. This is what you get when you do NOT locally gauge SO(1,3) the 6-parameter Lorentz Lie Group.

Therefore

de + W/\e = 0

implicitly determines the spin-connection 1-form W in terms of the tetrad e = I + B

That is

d(I + B) + W/\(I + B) = 0

Since I is a constant, dI = 0

dB = - W/\(I + B)

Note, we cannot assume dX = 0 in a Diff(4) transformation.

When B = 0 identically, obviously W = 0 because

0 = - W/\I

The Levi-Civita connection is

(LC) = eWe = (I + B)W(I + B) = IWI + BWI + IWB + BWB

EEP here then implies that

(LC) = 0 in local curved spacetime geodesic coordinates only at a point event P - not identically. That is, one must make a different choice as one moves about in curved spacetime.

The stretch-squeeze geodesic deviation tidal curvature Cartan 2-form is

R = DW = dW + W/\W

Globally-flat Minkowski space-time has R = 0 identically.

The 1915 zero torsion Einstein-Hilbert classical action density is the 0-form

&S/&V^4 = *(e/\e/\R) + /\zpfe/\e/\e/\e)

Note that the Hodge star dual of a 4-form is a 0-scalar form.

where /\zpf is the dark zero point energy term shown now by observation to be 96% of the large-scale limit of the universe.

However, it is not required to form the nonlocal unitary Feynman micro-quantum gravity amplitudes



When

B ~ Lp^2GradargPSI

Instead one must use the NON-UNITARY local macro-quantum coherent Landau-Ginzburg equation with a micro-quantum dark energy noise term against a coherent vacuum ODLRO dynamical background.

Correction: In the superconductor with U(1)EM spontaneously broken, total electric charge is not conserved in the sense that there is a violation of Wigner's superselection rule. The macro-quantum ground state is a coherent superposition of different total charge number eigenstates.

The Devil Will Have His Due
bcc

Previews of Coming Attractions

1916 GR is like an old man with an enlarged prostate - a mere trickle of stress-energy density currents between gravity and matter fields because of the Bianchi identities with zero torsion and zero non-metricity.

Loop quantum gravity and superstrings? Who ordered them? They are both not even wrong.

Since the metric for the Hodge duality is Minkowski in the Yang-Mills spin 1 substratum of Einstein's emergent (A. Sakharov, 1967 "metric elasticity") we can cleanly separate positive and negative frequency parts for a good Fock occupation number space fiber with creation/destruction ladder operators for the virtual bosons inside the "Higgs Ocean" vacuum at each "coincidence" P. We never have to worry about quantum gravity foam because gravity is simply the smooth ODLRO phase modulation with a little bit of quantum noise in the Bu^a field.

Let a(x) and a*(x) destroy and create a VIRTUAL boson inside the post-inflation vacuum then

|Post-Inflation Higgs Ocean>

= e^(w*aa - wa*a*)e^(za* - z*a)|Massless Pre-Inflation Dirac Sea>

a|z> = z|z> Glauber macro-quantum state (displaced circular Gaussian in phase space).

|w,z> = squeezed elliptical displaced Gaussian. The squeeze parameter is the eccentricity of the ellipse and the orientation of its major axis in phase space (N,theta). The area of the Gaussian random noise is preserved.

The inflation noise is Gaussian obviously and this is actually observed in WMAP. We should also look for variable squeezing across the sky related to galaxy and star formation?


On Jun 12, 2005, at 2:55 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:


I agree with you that the non-trivial part B of the tetrad field may be the key to separating observer-dependent and objective aspects of the Einstein field, and arriving at a satisfactory understanding of gravitational energy.


J: Rovelli starts from there, but he has no idea that ALSO the dimensionless

Bu^a ~ BuLp Grad(Vacuum ODLRO)

4D Grad in a indices.


for the 4D Diff(4) macro-quantum supersolid world crystal is analogous to

v = (h/m)Grad[arg(Ground state ODLRO) for the 3D macro-quantum superfluid

g(curved metric)uv ~(flat)uv + B(uIv) + B(uBv) for "spin 2"

Note the elastic linear B term and the plastic nonlinear B^2 term.

Also, B while is not a spin-2 Diff(4) first rank tensor field all by itself, it is a Minkowski spacetime spin-1 Yang-Mills vector field.

Z: No surprise, since he is working with a different model.

Personally, I think you are way ahead of him.

J: I do explain many puzzling anomalies now observed!


J: Lubos is probably correct about the lack of contact of loop quantum gravity with observation and that it cannot even reproduce GR. Baez admitted that at GR 17. Of course string theory has its weaknesses too, but may be closer to observation? We also have to look at Wilczek's objections to some of Penrose's statements.

Z: Also, as I've mentioned, spacetime coordinate transformations, as *mathematically* defined, do not change any observer's world line.


J: That's what I call a kind of gauge freedom.

Z: You can call it that, and I appreciate your analogy, but I think the problem goes much deeper.

J: Too vague. Show how.

J: That is, all GCTs that do not change the state of motion of a detector are physically equivalent. An example of a physical GCT is starting in the rest LIF of a detector in space and then firing a rocket engine attached to the detector. The transformation, in that case, tetrad eu^a(P), that describes the relation between the momentarily coincident LIF with indices a & LNIF with indices u at same P. But you see here a complete local equivalence of the inertial force to the gravity since the physical difference is Bu^a in

eu^a(P) = Iu^a + Bu^a(P)

i.e. Bu^a(P) encodes the information of switching on the rocket engine!

You cannot locally distinguish inertial force from gravity force!

Z: But actually you can, as shown by Ohanian & Ruffini.

J: No, you still don't get it! You keep getting hung up on that. You do not understand what the word "locally" means. It means DO NOT MEASURE GEODESIC DEVIATION. Indeed, geodesic deviation is irrelevant to gravity force. The measurement procedures are orthogonal.

Obviously you can measure the local tidal curvature tensor at P in either an LIF or a LNIF makes no difference.

EEP means, YOU DO NOT MEASURE THE GEODESIC DEVIATION CURVATURE AT P because even if you do, then you STILL cannot tell the difference between an inertial force and a gravity force! Suppose the curvature is not zero so what? Think of y = y(x) and dy/dx. Measure y at xo. That does not tell you anything about dy/dx at xo if you have no prior knowledge of y(x). Indeed IN ALL CASES GRAVITY FORCE IS ALWAYS 100% INERTIAL FORCE. GRAVITY FORCE IS 100% INERTIAL FORCE in EVERY CASE IMAGINABLE.

Here inertial force is the NON-GRAVITY REACTION FORCE needed to PUSH the test particle OFF a timelike geodesic (relative to LC connection - I only do 1916 GR here).

The measurement of tidal curvature geodesic deviation is most cleanly done in the LIF where all gravity forces are strictly ZERO and special relativity applies locally to a good approximation.

Consider the SSS metric in only the radial direction to keep it simple

ds^2 = (1 - 2rs/r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2rs/r)^-1dr^2


This metric is only good for those HOVERING LNIFs at FIXED r > rs. Some NON-GRAVITY FORCE is pushing those HOVERING LNIFS off timelike geodesics. For the LIF observer the effective LOCAL metric is always to lowest order approximation

ds^2 = (cdt')^2 - dr'^2

even though geodesic deviation for the LIF observer is not zero!

The key is

(1/2)c^2Gradgoo = (1/2)c^2Grad(1 - 2rs/r) = c^2rs/r^2 = GM/r^2

= APPLIED UNIVERSAL NON-GRAVITY INERTIAL FORCE PER UNIT TEST MASS POINTING OUTWARD NEEDED TO KEEP THE HOVERING LNIF DETECTOR AT FIXED r.

IN FACT GRAVITY FORCE IS ELIMINATED 100%. What we call "gravity force" is 100% INERTIAL FORCE logically independent of curvature.

Of course in flat space-time you do not need any non-gravity force at all to keep a test particle "still" relative to a marker (neglecting their weak gravity of course).

Therefore, Paul you have been working on a non-problem! The gravity energy is also a non-problem, but much more subtle.

Similarly, I mean a local event as a coincidence of at least two processes, like Rovelli's "collision" of two point particles, that is clearly an active Diff(4) invariant "object".


Z: Spacetime "events" are addressed by coordinates,

This is wrong.


Z: Wrong?

J: Yes, wrong.

Z: Obviously "events" occur at definite locations on the spacetime manifold, and these 4D locations (points on the spacetime manifold) are assigned unique addresses by spacetime coordinate systems.

J: Not even wrong until you give an operational definition for "definite locations on a spacetime manifold". Rovelli is good on this issue.

Z: Mathematically, at least, changing CS *addresses* has to be sharply distinguished from changing *locations*.

J: Prove that with a mathematical example. Your words are too vague.


Rovelli is correct on that part. Events are coincidences like the collision of two point particles (toy model).


Z: Yes, but these coincidences occur at *definite locations in spacetime*

J: Wrong. Read Rovelli again on this. There is no such thing as

*definite locations in spacetime*

Define what you mean. Do you mean a collision of two point particles? If so, see Rovelli's discussion of the "Einstein hole problem" with the nice pictures.

that are merely assigned addresses by
spacetime coordinate systems.

Z: If Rovelli thinks that there is no mathematical distinction between an active Diff(4) rearrangement of manifold points (an actual deformation of the manifold) on the one hand, and a mere reshuffling of CS addresses, on the other, then
he is quite mistaken IMHO.

J: I do not understand what you just wrote. Your words are not even wrong. Give a mathematical example of what you mean here. If you cannot do that you have not really said anything worth saying on the issue.

You seem to think that the Diff (4) group creates physical deformations. That is not true at all. Only stress-energy density currents and self-interactions of the geometrodynamic field create physical deformations of the manifold. That's why we have Diff(4) covariance in the first place! That's why in

Guv(Gravity) + /\(ZPF Vacuum Energy)guv(Gravity) + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0

We only have Diff(4) COVARIANT TENSORS!

Diff(4) is the LOCAL SYMMETRY GROUP it DON'T MAKE ANY PHYSICAL or "actual deformations". You have the wrong idea entirely!

Diff(4) is the LOCAL GAUGING of T4 with Bu^a as the induced compensating gauge potential. Also, you have Vacuum ODLRO in the inflation phase transition from the unstable rest-massless gravity-free conformal false vacuum to the stable curved vacuum with rest masses from Higgs ODLRO coherence and gravity and even dark energy/matter in which T4 is SPONTANEOUSLY BROKEN to allow CURVATURE! You do not get Gennady Shipov's torsion until you LOCALLY GAUGE so(1,3) in addition to T4. If IN ADDITION you spontaneously break so(1,3) in the vacuum then you will also get preferred velocity effects. Whether that happens or not, apart from Hubble flow (maximal isotropy of CMB) is purely empirical.


Z: but are not defined by them. So it should be obvious that such "events", just like manifold points, are absolutes with respect to such transformations.

J: Too vague. Give a precise mathematical example.

You have the wrong idea here. I mean you have garbled things above.

Z: No, I just disagree with your your version of Rovelli.

J: Well you are so vague that your words have no meaning to me.

Physical events are invariants to be sure, but "manifold points" are not.


Z: Manifolds are not *deformed* by mere coordinate changes.

J: Right, but neither are they deformed in active diffeomorphisms! That's the point!


Z: So as far as I can see, the effect of GCTs on manifold points and events is similar. Addresses are simply re-shuffled.

J: Yes, but that is the case for both active and passive Diff(4). The mathematically distinct manifold points A & B in Rovelli's nice discussion are not physically distinguishable, i.e. the collision of particles 1 & 2 is PUSHED FORWARD (or is it backward?) from A to B so that NOTHING MEASURABLE has changed in the active Diff(4) from A to B. P includes both A & B in the same equivalence class!

Now your way of thinking will work to some extent in special relativity quantum field theory and in classical mechanics and classical electromagnetism, but it does not work in GR and it took the great Einstein what 3 years? to understand this and today most physicists still do not really understand it!


See Rovelli's explanation of Einstein's solution of the "hole problem".

For example, any transition overlap function between 2 local charts for same "coincident" P that leaves c^2(LC)00^i, i = 1,2,3 invariant is not physical. Note that points A & B in Rovelli's are same P = {~| A,B,C ...} That is A ~ B if B = active Diff(4) on A etc.

Z: In my POV, *none* of the mathematically defined coordinate transformations on the spacetime manifold has any physical meaning at all until such a meaning is attached to them, or to some subset of them.

Z: Chasing your own tail. Circular. Meaningless until you show an independent procedure.

Z: It's pretty obvious if you think about it.

J: Since I do not understand your English I do not know. If you cannot make your idea more mathematical or more specific in terms of gedankenexperiments you are not communicating to my mind at least.

Z: Mathematical coordinate changes in themselves do not change any observer's world line. But in order to change an observer's frame of reference, you must at the same time also change that observer's world line.

J: Yes, that I understand. I understand that if a LIF observer fires a rocket engine in space then she is transformed to a LNIF observer and that instant coincident local transformation (approximately to be sure) is not a Diff(4) thing at all but is a tetrad thing. But then if she changed the thrust it is a Diff(4) thing moving from one non-geodesic to another "instantly" at a "crossing point". But even then, the Diff(4) is a MERE DESCRIPTION of her PHYSICAL ACTION, e.g. throwing the switch or turning the dial on the thrust control panel.

Z: So there is a basic *contradiction* in the orthodox treatment that needs to be resolved. I'm resolving it.

J: No you have not. I just resolved it for you in my above remark - bull's eye!


I have no idea what you are talking about.


Z: I believe you. I'm afraid you'll have to wait until I write this up.

J: Read Andrew Marvel "To a coy mistress". Hal Puthoff has the same problem. Time and ET waits for no mortal. Promises, promises ...


That is, think of EM and weak and strong fields Au ... as animals living on Leviathan the Great White Whale Moby Dick, which is the geometrodynamic tetrad field e = I + B.


Note also Rovelli's remark that you cannot do spinors without using tetrads. See Kiehn's latest on MACRO spinor solutions of EM field solitons (if I got that right?).


Z: Fine.

* J: Kiehn thinks his spinor solitons explain Ken Shoulders EVOs. Perhaps, but I think I explain them with dark energy cores holding in the electric charge shell. On the other hand if the Vacuum ODLRO local field were itself some kind of macro-spinor field that could be interesting although I am not here sure if that idea makes any sense.


Z: This is *all* up in the clouds. Do you think Rovelli's indistinguishable points on the bare 4D manifold is not "up in the clouds"?

J: No, what he said there I find very clear. I have hardly read the rest of his book as yet.

Z: The abstract vector space that is constructed at each point on the manifold for which the tetrad forms a set of basis vectors need not have anything to do with the tangent bundle. Using a tetrad to span a tangent manifold is just a particular concrete interpretation of the abstract mathematical concept. All in the realm of pure mathematics, however.

J: So what? I don't see you saying anything important here.

Z: You can also choose a coordinate basis. That is not automatic either.


J:
e = eu^a&adx^u

e is a dimensionless Cartan 1-form

&a is a 1-co-form vector field basis in the tangent fiber with dimension 1/length

dx^u is a 1-form basis in base space with dimension length

Z: Yes, fine. I can see you've been studying this stuff.


J: Beginning to. There are some ambiguities in getting everything dimensionally consistent with factors of Lp. Mathematicans doing physics ignore all that setting everything = 1 and I think they make mistakes as a result e.g. mixed dimensions of the same components of the (LC) connection field for example. Some ~ r others ~ 1/r for SSS solution in some books. First rule in Physics 101 is that any equation should be consistent in units and physical dimensions.


Z: I think you may be right that at some point in the development the units should be put back in and careful attention should be paid to them.

J: I know I am right about that. Basic physics is being ignored by these mathematicians in physicist's clothing.

You can make them anholonomic (non-coordinate) sticking in Lie brackets - all well-known techniques.

e.g.

[dx^a,dx^b] = Wab^cdx^c

Wab^c = Jim Corum's object of anholonomy with dimension length

Yes, and what it represents physically is the state of linear elastic warping B(uIv) and nonlinear plastic cracking B(uBv) of the perfect Minkowski Planck lattice that is the pre-inflationary massless conformal false vacuum without any gravity and inertia at all!

Z: If you construct such a tetrad field, yes it can be interpreted that way.

J: It's very important - that's Hagen Kleinert's key idea. Tensors were invented for elasticity theory in the 19th Century.

Z: I'm simply pointing out that this is a particular interpretation of the abstract notion of a tetrad.

J: So? What then? Right but trite unless you say something surprising beyond that.
e.g. the state of warping and cracking of the 4D active Diff(4) invariant supersolid Higgs vacuum at P is given by the base space reciprocal lattice vector field

eu(P) = eu^a&a = (Iu^a + Bu^a)&a

where &a = nab&^b and [eu(P)] is a length^-1 i.e. eu - &u = Bu = crystal distortion reciprocal lattice "phonon" wave vector away from equilibrium along the u axis (u = 0,1,2,3), e^u - dx^u = B^u is the lattice distortion with dimension of length.

nab = flat Minkowski metric of pre-inflation unstable false conformal massless twistor vacuum without gravity and inertia because vacuum ODLRO = 0

Z: In the long-wave approximation this looks to me like a theory of continuous media in 4D.

J: That's Kleinert's idea. I have simply plugged into that with

Bu^a = Bu&^aargVacuumODLRO

Bu^a is a pure number. Therefore Bu is a length in that convention since &^a is 1/length

Z: OK.

J: Bu = Bu^adxa

dxa = (Mink)abdx^b

Bu = Bu&^aargVacuumODLROdxa

&^aargVacuumODLROdxa = 1

Z: OK.

J: What they are doing in loop gravity is overly-complicated (complexification of the tetrad, taking self-dual "instanton" part etc.) Where all the Pundits go wrong is not realizing that there even is a macro-quantum theory whose rules are different from micro-quantum theory. I get diff(4) invariance + background-independence non-perturbatively trivially!

J: Hawking made this error at GR 17. Susskind makes it also. So does Lubos. Of course, I could be wrong, but we shall see.

Z: If you're right they are all barking up the wrong tree.

J: Yes, All The Kings Horses and All The King's Men - even The Astronomer Royal!


Z: I'm inclined to agree.


J: Micro-QM is linear, nonlocal, unitary with signal locality. Macro- QM is nonlinear, local, non-unitary with signal nonlocality. Gravity + dark energy is a "More is different" macro-quantum phenomenon.

Vacuum ODLRO makes quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) completely consistent with each other.


Z; I think it's an interesting and very promising approach.

J: BTW John Baez in Ch 5 last part also waffles on gravity energy problem, p. 452 Notes to Part III


Z: YES.

Z: So does Penrose in "Road to Reality".

J: I think I gave the real answer as to why this is really a pseudo-problem:
BTW from my "Rovelli Notes": The non-trivial warp part B of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad components e = I + B comes into being and becoming from the simultaneous local gauging and spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking of the spacetime translation group T4, therefore there is no reason at all, from Noether’s theorem, to imagine that either total energy or total linear momentum of the pure gravity field as the spacelike integral of a local density should be conserved as the lapse function "time" pushes forward from one spacelike slice to another in the ADM 3+1 foliation. Indeed, the Hamiltonian of the pure gravity field is strictly zero because of the constraint structure of Einstein’s field equation.

The error you make Paul is to over-extend flat spacetime ideas to where they do not work.


Z: And from my POV you may simply be fetishizing curved spacetime, which may turn out to be simply a *geometric model* for the correct fundamental theory. That was Feynman's view.

J: Feynman's ideas here were not well developed. He was thinking only flat space-time background then as I recall. It was 25 years ago.

Z: In the discussion on "no curved spacetime" on Baez's web site, for example, you will see that even Steve Carlip admits that there is at present no local empirical basis for deciding between a flat-background model and a curved-spacetime model for
Einstein GR.

J: Of course most of the data are still weak field where the flat background works OK pragmatically.

Z: So it could be that a local flat-background model could exhaust the confirmed (and confirmable) empirical content of GR. The reality here is that we really don't know at this point how this will eventually shake down.


J: Conservation of total energy is simply a piece of T4 symmetry, i.e. time displacement invariance. It is certainly FALSE for the gravity vacuum.


Z: Depends on the theory. This is certainly the case in Einstein's theory. Inside Einstein GR, gravitational field energy isn't even *defined*.

J: GR is the only GOOD theory we have. There is no other. It works and so far has not been falsified. The whole attempt is wrong and that includes what Alex has proposed IMHO. Local conservation? Yes! Global conservation in general? No!


Z: I think the decomposition we are talking about is local, i.e., point by point.

J: What's your point? (Pun intended)

Z: As Einstein himself once said, "all physics is local". That's how he preserved his equivalence hypothesis.

J: See what I said above.


Z: Then in Einstein's theory, where physically does the energy carried away by gravitational waves go?


J: When there is the flat background in weak field there is no problem. Since "total energy" is meaningless in a curved spacetime, it need not go anywhere!


Z: Well, that could be viewed as a problem with the geometric model for GR. Einstein certainly regarded this as a serious problem in 1918, since he wrote several papers about it.

J: Simply a failure of nerve on his part perhaps? Not enough faith in his own equations? It happens frequently.

You know mathematically all they have is

Tuv^;v(Matter) = 0 locally

Then they make the split

Tuv^;v(Matter) = Tuv(Matter)^,v + parts that depend on products of the (LC) connection with Tuv(Matter)

They identify the sum of these products with tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v.

LC is LC(Gravity) therefore LC(Gravity)Tuv(Matter) is dependent on both Matter & gravity.

Also note that Tuv(Matter) = &Action(Matter)/&guv

Where & is a functional derivative.

So what would tuv(gravity vacuum) even mean?

Does it mean

&Action(gravity)/&matter fields ?

Clearly not.

It must mean

&Action(Gravity)/&guv(Gravity)?

I suspect that is ZERO?

Back to original thread:

Where tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0 in an LIF since (LC) = 0 in an LIF by EEP.

Now we have something like the divergence theorem where

|||Div.Ad^3x = ||A.nd^2x

tuv(Matter-Gravity)^v is like DivA

So one can get an expression for tuv(Matter-Gravity). Does Pauli do this explicitly BTW? What's the equation number.

Z: You seem to be holding up the curved-manifold model as the measure of all things.

J: If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Z: I am saying it can itself be critically evaluated against other standards.

J: Show me. Hand waving not allowed.

Z: "No critical action without critical reaction". A metatheoretic "general relativity principle".:-)

J: Talk is cheap. Let's see the math.

"Total energy" conservation is an artifact of T4 symmetry. Gravity is the breaking of T4 symmetry. Without the symmetry there is no conservation law, e.g. Noether's theorem. Read Wigner.

Z: But your own tetrad/gauge field model shows how the effects of B and I can be separated.

J: So what? What's the connection?

e(curved) = I(flat) + B(curved)

Do a GCT X

e' = Xe

g(curved) = [I(flat) + B(curved)](flat)[I(flat) + B(curved)]

g'(curved) = X(I + B)(flat)X(I + B)

The globally flat case is B = 0 where

g'(curved) = XI(flat)XI

So what? What then? What's your next step?

recall e is a map from LIF to LNIF & back at SAME P (a "coincidence")

recall X is a map from LNIF to LNIF' & back again at same P

Note different manifold points A =/= B FORMALLY are same PHYSICAL P when

B = active Diff(4)A

So what?

Locally there is no problem of course.


Z: Yes there is -- Einstein's field stress-energy is not general covariant.

J: First write down the formula for that. Or if you cannot tell me which equation in Pauli shows the formula for that. I have Pauli with me here in NYC. First let's see what exactly you are talking about.

My B is also NOT a Diff(4) tensor Paul.

Only e = I + B is the Diff(4) tensor. So what?

Remember

e' = I + B'

But

e' = Xe = XI + XB

But

XI =/= I

Rather

XI = I' =/= I

Therefore

e' = I + XI + XB - I

Therefore

B' = XB + XI - I

Therefore,

XI - I is the INHOMOGENEOUS part of the Yang-Mills spin-1 FLAT vector potential in the tetradic substratum where

B(curved) ~ 4DGrad(Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO)

F = DB

D = d + B/\ = Cartan exterior gauge covariant derivative making p-forms into p+1 forms

where B is a 1-form and *B is a Hodge-dual 3-form relative to Minkowski metric that is the exact metric in the tetradic substratum.

Note that Stokes theorem is

|B = ||dB

| is over the closed loop boundary c of surface s

|B =/= 0 even though B ~ grad(Goldstone Phase) when the Higgs |Vacuum ODLRO| -> 0 at a Goldstone PHASE SINGULARITY making the effective manifold of the vacuum condensate MULTIPLY-CONNECTED like the normal fluid vortex cores in superfluid He4. This causes an ANHOLONOMY (mixed partial derivatives of the Goldstone phase do not commute). What is happening is that the line integral |B is no longer a over the outer closed loop that is also a boundary because of the "hole" where |Vacuum ODLRO| -> 0. That is, like the TWO 2D wormhole mouths in an Einstein-Bridge connecting two 3D parallel universes, there are TWO separated closed loops that together form the boundary over which Stokes theorem applies. If we only measure the outer line integral we get "flux-without-flux". Similarly in the wormhole mouth, if we only are in one universe we see a net charge (flux) coming out of the wormhole mouth even though the total flux is zero out of both wormhole mouths because in Gauss's law divE = 0 in vacuum.

To repeat: This, in effect, gives a phantom "Flux without flux" through the surface s IF we ignore the inner line integral enclosing the return flux in the hole that is something like a phantom string if the "vorticity" core penetration length area is small compared to the area of s.

Furthermore, since the Vacuum ODLRO field is single-valued, the fluxes are quantized.

DF = 0 are the "Bianchi identities" in this Yang-Mills self-interacting field.

D*F = *J is the source equation.

The topology here is analogous to a wormhole where the two closed surfaces are like the wormhole mouths.

The stress-energy current density is shared between the gravity and matter fields in

Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0

in 1916 GR.


Z: Right.

J: So show me the explicit formula for tuv(Matter-Gravity) - cite equation in Pauli OK.

Note that here tuv(Gravity)^;v = 0 separately, therefore the sharing is not as direct as it could be when the (LC) Bianchi identities are violated by torsion and non-metricity.

What we really want is

tuv(Gravity)^;v + tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v + Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

with none of the terms on LHS separately zero, but all sharing the currents!

1916 GR is like an old man with an enlarged prostate - a mere trickle of stress-energy density currents between gravity and matter fields because of the Bianchi identities with zero torsion and zero non-metricity.

You can get a global conservation approximately only with asymptotic flat space-times.


Z: Yes, and that's the best that can be done in Einstein's theory. So this problem was never actually solved by Einstein, even while he himself recognized it as a serious problem.

J: There is nothing to solve because of Noether's theorem. It's a false problem. Total global energy conservation breaks down when T0 symmetry breaks down in the Vacuum ODLRO and in the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4). Local conservation of stress-energy current densities still holds. What is true locally need not be true globally.

There is a theorem that U(1) gauge invariance demands that the photon have zero rest mass. U(1) is spontaneously broken in the superconducting ODLRO ground state and the photon inside that macro-quantum ground state has a rest mass

m = h/c(penetration depth of magnetic field)

Electric charge however is still conserved. The EM potential Au is the compensating field from locally gauging global U(1) on the electron field down to local U(1).

This is analogous to locally gauging global T4 down to local Diff(4) GCTs X with tetrad warp field Bu^a. Note that the tangent fiber index a is like the internal index of a self-interacting non-Abelian Yang-Mills spin-1 Poincare group first rank tensor (4-vector) field. The "internal" fiber group is so(1,3) in this Yang-Mills setting. The Lie algebra of so(1,3) is like TWO SU(2) groups one for the 3 space-space rotations and one for the 3 boost space-time rotations all at LOCAL FIXED P.

Bu^a has a coherent signal c-number ODLRO part and some random quantum noise because the Higgs vacuum is a macro-quantum squeezed Glauber state (like in quantum nonlinear optics). We can squeeze the orthogonal Higgs amplitude & Goldstone phase quadratures in the local phase space fiber (N, theta) at P.

Since the metric for the Hodge duality is Minkowski in the Yang-Mills spin 1 substratum of Einstein's emergent (A. Sakharov, 1967 "metric elasticity") we can cleanly separate positive and negative frequency parts for a good Fock occupation number space fiber with creation/destruction ladder operators for the virtual bosons inside the "Higgs Ocean" vacuum at each "coincidence" P. We never have to worry about quantum gravity foam because gravity is simply the smooth ODLRO phase modulation with a little bit of quantum noise in the Bu^a field.

Let a(x) and a*(x) destroy and create a VIRTUAL boson inside the post-inflation vacuum then

|Post-Inflation Higgs Ocean>

= e^(w*aa - wa*a*)e^(za* - z*a)|Massless Pre-Inflation Dirac Sea>

a|z> = z|z> Glauber macro-quantum state (displaced circular Gaussian in phase space).

|w,z> = squeezed elliptical displaced Gaussian. The squeeze parameter is the eccentricity of the ellipse and the orientation of its major axis in phase space (N,theta). The area of the Gaussian random noise is preserved.

The inflation noise is Gaussian obviously and this is actually observed in WMAP. We should also look for variable squeezing across the sky related to galaxy and star formation?

For example, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the superspace whose points are 3D geometries 3gij is

H(pure gravity)(BIT Wave Function of Multiverse) = 0

leading to the “problem of time” in idealistic non-Bohmian attempts at quantum gravity that are only thoughtlike BIT with no rocklike hidden variable IT. In the Bohmian interpretation, the super- geodesic equation of motion for the IT hidden variable is separate from the above Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the pilot BIT wave functional that need not depend on any time parameter.

Z: I would have to think about this.

J: Shelly Goldstein has shown this in detail.

Z: OK.

J: All you can say is

Sum of all Tuv = 0 locally, i.e. matter + gravity + exotic zpf vacua



Z: Yilmaz has worked out the detailed math for his particular implementation of this idea. For a scalar auxiliary field you get an exponential solution for the SSS problem, which agrees very closely with the Schwarzschild metric. It's all in his papers.

J: Yilmaz's theory is complete nonsense IMHO. Not even wrong. It solves nothing. It explains nothing. It leads nowhere. It is obscure.


Z: I'm simply pointing out that by definition a gravitational vacuum source field doesn't go away even when all gravitating matter is removed.

J: Right but trite. I said that long ago in both my books from 2002 on Amazon.com. It's obvious. What is not obvious is how to apply that to the observations and I have done that too.

Z: Of course, a zero point field that is always present in the vacuum falls in a grey zone.

J: Too vague. Examples of that are the galactic halo gravity lenses & flat stellar rotation curves, the Pioneer anomalies, the voids, and the interior of electrons and EVOs. Electrons look like points because of a huge space warp at scale of 1 fermi. Lubos Motl is wrong that GR is not important on scale of 1 fermi. Lepto-quarks are micro geons like Kerr-Newman vacuum solutions with effective G* from dark energy /\zpf cores ~ 10^40G (see also A. Burinski). They also mimic strings because they obey

J(Spin) ~ Regge Slope (Energy)^2

as I showed in 1973 which caused Abdus Salam to invite me to ICTP in Trieste. Ask Jagdish Mehra. He was there and knows what happened.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ice9.wav


Residual zero point energy "exotic vacua" of both dark energy (Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly a_g = -cH) and dark matter (Galatic Halos flat stellar rotation curves) & stability of extended electron Bohm hidden variable and Ken Shoulders mesoscopic "charge clusters" does give a local tuv(zpf) but that has nothing at all to do with classical gravity waves in weak field approximation on a flat background.

Z:Right.


J: You seem to contradict yourself.


Z: Nope.


J: In any case what you wrote above is so vague I do not know what you were trying to say.


Z: A vacuum source field means that R_uv =/= 0 in the vacuum, since this source field itself produces curvature. It also carries a "baseline" energy-momentum density.

J: Right but trite. In fact most regions of spacetime have /\zpf ~ 0 at most scales. This puts the base line at ~ ZERO!

Z: Thus it is natural to include it in the field Lagrangian, in which case it will show up in the field equations derived from this Lagrangian. Why is that "vague"?

J: Because you have not written a formula! Also you did not say anything like that at all to begin with. The Einstein-Hilbert action density with /\ is written down routinely as R + /\ (both have dim 1/Area - multiply by string tension c^4/8piG

Z: If you want to see a specific implementation of this idea, with detailed math, look at Yilmaz's papers.

J: Hogwash. I don't need no Yilmaz for that. Also he does not have the correct formulas. He does not have /\guv terms at all. Yilmaz's theory is a dead horse fly in your soup.


With

TOTAL Tuv^;v = 0

Therefore, any total energy-momentum = 0

Universe is a "free lunch".

In my view the search for quantum gravity is a serious error. Gravity is emergent in the inflationary vacuum phase from micro- quantum theory to macro-quantum theory. God plays dice in the unstable pre-inflationary micro-quantum vacuum that has no gravity and no inertia in it. The rules change completely in the Big Bang. God loads the dice significantly in order for gravity and dark energy to emerge into Being and Becoming. Our post-inflationary expanding accelerating universe in the multiverse of parallel worlds next door is a vibrating “super- solid” or “world crystal”.


Z: It's certainly a promising alternative to the usual perturbative approach. The macro-quantum ghost of the departed Maxwellian aether.


J: It's not "departed", we are fish swimming in it, or rather the "fish" are themselves phase ripples in it - solitons i.e. vacuum geons like Chapline & Laughlin's "dark energy stars" on micro- scale of "mass without mass" (Wheeler) in which the zero point energy false vacuum cores give effective strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G on the fermi scale of 10^-13 cm ~ e^2/mc^2.


Z: But we are not fish swimming in Maxwell's *classical mechanical* ether. Hence "departed".

J: This is where Rovelli's philofawzy is good. More on that later.


Z: The only flag I would raise here is about the stability of the vacuum LRO. According to your BEC model, why is the gravitational vacuum observed to be so stable? What exactly would it take to disrupt and destabilize this LRO?

J: This means you still do not understand the key idea. Ask why is the superconductor ground state stable? It's the same problem!

Z: OK. If it's really not a problem, then it's not a problem.


J: If you read PW Anderson you will see why. Actually I have explained it many times. It's the released binding energy when the ionized virtual e+-e- plasma of the false vacuum FUSES in the inflation to the vacuum ODLRO condensate of bound virtual positronium! The released energy heats up the real quark-gluon plasma post-inflation.

Z: OK.


J: The Goldstone phase of Vacuum ODLRO is "rigid" that's part of "More is different". That's why space-time is stiff. If you do not do your homework and read the key "superfluid" papers in PW Anderson's "A Career in Theoretical Physics" you will never really understand the idea here. Soft condensed matter physicists are very familiar with this idea.


Z: Yes, I know there is a lot of literature on this. I'll try and get hold of Anderson's "Career". And what about light propagation? How does light propagate through the vacuum BEC? Could the characteristics of the vacuum BEC be responsible for the permeability and dielectric constant of the vacuum?


J: That's Puthoff's dead end. I will not go there.

Z: Just a question.

J: "The Question is: What is The Question?" Not all questions need to be answered. Some questions are not worth answering because the question is not interesting. Theoretical physics is the art of asking good questions.

Z: Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the properties of your all-pervading positronium BEC would determine at least some optical characteristics of the vacuum?

J: Indeed it does. It makes guv!

Z: OK. What about vacuum light propagation speed?

J: That's like asking how to calculate Young's modulus in a crystal. Not interesting.

Z: Obviously gravitation has an effect on light propagation, so your BEC field must have some connection to the observed speed of propagation of light.

J: I get guv that's enough. Light is ds^2 = 0. I follow Einstein there.

Z: But you can't deny that if your vacuum BEC exists, then light has to travel through it to get from A to B.


J: Yes, but QED shows direct effects are MINISCULE!

Z: OK -- but that's not the same as "zero".

J: Quibble. Atomic BECs slow down speed of light, but they are real atoms on mass shell not virtual quanta inside the vacuum.

Hal has wasted 20 years or more on that and has gotten nowhere important. I think Ibison is finally persuading him to look in my direction?

Z:Hal's theory is a toy model that was designed to be used as a heuristic tool for "engineering".


J: Hal's toy is badly broken. It has not done anything important there at all. Where are the engineering plans for saucers that fly? They don't exist - I mean not based on PV.


Z: It's not an exact quantum theory of the physical vacuum, and it doesn't claim to be.

J: The truth is that PV has failed to deliver on any of its promises in 20 years! Time is up for Hal. The Devil will have his due! :-)

Loop Quantum Gravity? Failed?

On Jun 12, 2005, at 4:52 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jun 11, 2005, at 4:58 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:


Jack Sarfatti wrote:



Paul

Rovelli calls the "tetrad field" the "gravity field" in his new book on "Quantum Gravity".




OK, that makes sense to me.

I agree with you that the non-trivial part B of the tetrad field may be the key to separating observer-dependent and objective aspects of the Einstein field, and arriving at a satisfactory understanding of gravitational energy.



Rovelli starts from there, but he has no idea that ALSO the dimensionless

Bu^a ~ BuLp(argVacuumODLRO)^,a for the 4D Diff(4) macro-quantum supersolid world crystal

analogous to

v = (h/m)GradargGroundstateODLRO for the 3D macro-quantum superfluid

g(curved metric)uv ~(flat)uv + B(uIv) + B(uBv) for "spin 2"

Note that elastic linear B term and the plastic nonlinear B^2 term.

Also, B while not a spin2 Diff(4) first rank tensor field all by itself, is a Minkowski spacetime spin 1 Yang-Mills vector field.


No surprise, since he is working with a different model.

Personally, I think you are way ahead of him.

Lubos is probably correct about the lack of contact of loop quantum gravity with observation and that it cannot even reproduce GR. Baez admitted that at GR 17. Of course string theory has its weaknesses too but may be closer to observation? We also have to look at Wilczek's objections to some of Penrose's statements.


Maybe Alex can explain to you why he and I propose to draw a fundamental distinction between raw mathematical spacetime CSs, on the one hand, and physical spacetime CSs ("moving CSs") that in GR represent observer reference frames, on the other.


Yes, he did, but I am not convinced that his idea is any better than mine, which is that a local frame (inertial or non-inertial) is an equivalence class of local coordinate charts at P that do not change the motion of the detector.


I think that's a different issue.

Maybe.

Also, as I've mentioned, spacetime coordinate transformations, as *mathematically* defined, do not change any observer's world line.

That's what I call a kind of gauge freedom. That is, all GCTs that do not change the state of motion of a detector are physically equivalent. An example of a physical GCT is starting in the rest LIF of a detector in space and then firing a rocket engine attached to the detector. The transformation, in that case, tetrad eu^a(P), that describes the relation between the momentarily coincident LIF with indices a & LNIF with indices u at same P. But you see here a complete local equivalence of the inertial force to the gravity since the physical difference is Bu^a in

eu^a(P) = Iu^a + Bu^a(P)

i.e. Bu^a(P) encodes the information of switching on the rocket engine!

You cannot locally distinguish inertial force from gravity force!


Similarly, I mean a local event as a coincidence of at least two processes, like Rovelli's "collision" of two point particles, that is clearly an active Diff(4) invariant "object".


Spacetime "events" are addressed by coordinates,

This is wrong. Rovelli is correct on that part. Events are coincidences like the collision of two point particles (toy model).

but are not defined by them. So it should be obvious
that such "events", just like manifold points, are absolutes with respect to such transformations.

You have the wrong idea here. I mean you have garbled things above. Physical events are invariants to be sure, but "manifold points" are not.



See Rovelli's explanation of Einstein's solution of the "hole problem".

For example, any transition overlap function between 2 local charts for same "coincident" P that leaves c^2(LC)00^i, i = 1,2,3 invariant is not physical. Note that points A & B in Rovelli's are same P = {~| A,B,C ...} That is A ~ B if B = active Diff(4) on A etc.


In my POV, *none* of the mathematically defined coordinate transformations on the spacetime manifold has any physical meaning at all until such a meaning is attached to them, or to some subset of them.

Chasing your own tail. Circular. Meaningless until you show an independent procedure.

In my model, you define a *parallel set of GCTs* to which physical meaning is attached. This parallel set of GCTs is a *copy* of a subset of the mathematical GCTs (Einstein's "moving coordinates") which is given a physical interpretation in terms of a set of observer frames.

I do not understand your remark here. It's too vague. Define "copy", define "observer frame". Relate your key terms to the mathematical symbols of GR. Provide operational gedankenexperiments. I have no idea what you are talking about.


That is, think of EM and weak and strong fields Au ... as animals living on Leviathan the Great White Whale Moby Dick which is the geometrodynamic tetrad field e = I + B.



The Ashtekar idea is a much more fancy way of doing what I have done more simply, i.e. the basic field is the tetrad = flat + curved,

Yes, but you have to be careful about how the coordinate-basis tetrad is physically interpreted. There is more than one possible interpretation.


Rovelli et-al show a completely coordinate-free Cartan form tetrad e. In fact the tetrad e is a 1-form independent of coordinates. Torsion and curvature are 2-forms. No problem!


Of course -- in the abstract, the tetrad is mathematically defined in a a coordinate-free manner as a set of basis vectors spanning a vector space that is constructed at each point on the manifold.

Note also Rovelli's remark that you cannot do spinors without using tetrads. See Kiehn's latest on MACRO spinor solutions of EM field solitons (if I got that right?).

But then this tetrad field can be further *interpreted* in terms of the set of tangent manifolds (tangent bundle). This is not automatic.

Too vague. I don't know what you mean. "interpreted"? How? Give an example. Your head is too much in the clouds.

You can also choose a coordinate basis. That is not automatic either.


e = eu^a&adx^u

e is a dimensionless Cartan 1-form

&a is a 1-co-form vector field basis in the tangent fiber with dimension 1/length

dx^u is a 1-form basis in base space with dimension length


Yes, fine.

I can see you've been studying this stuff.

Beginning to. There are some ambiguities in getting everything dimensionally consistent with factors of Lp. Mathematicans doing physics ignore all that setting everything = 1 and I think they make mistakes as a result e.g. mixed dimensions of the same components of the (LC) connection field for example. Some ~ r others ~ 1/r for SSS solution in some books. First rule in Physics 101 is that any equation should be consistent in units and physical dimensions.


You can make them anholonomic (non-coordinate) sticking in Lie brackets - all well-known techniques.

e.g.

[dx^a,dx^b] = Wab^cdx^c

Wab^c = Jim Corum's object of anholonomy with dimension length



As I'm sure you know, the tetrad starts out simply as a coordinate- independent basis for a any 4D vector space defined at each point on the spacetime manifold.


Yes, and what it represents physically is the state of linear elastic warping B(uIv) and nonlinear plastic cracking B(uBv) of the perfect Minkowski Planck lattice that is the pre-inflationary massless conformal false vacuum without any gravity and inertia at all!


If you construct such a tetrad field, yes it can be interpreted that way.

It's very important - that's Hagen Kleinert's key idea. Tensors were invented for elasticity theory in 19th Century.

e.g. the state of warping and cracking of the 4D active Diff(4) invariant supersolid Higgs vacuum at P is given by the base space reciprocal lattice vector field

eu(P) = eu^a&a = (Iu^a + Bu^a)&a

where &a = nab&^b and [eu(P)] is a length^-1 i.e. eu - &u = Bu = crystal distortion reciprocal lattice "phonon" wave vector away from equilibrium along the u axis (u = 0,1,2,3), e^u - dx^u = B^u is the lattice distortion with dimension of length.

nab = flat Minkowski metric of pre-inflation unstable false conformal massless twistor vacuum without gravity and inertia because vacuum ODLRO = 0

In the long-wave approximation this looks to me like a theory of continuous media in 4D.

That's Kleinert's idea. I have simply plugged into that with

Bu^a = Bu&^aargVacuumODLRO

Bu^a is a pure number. Therefore Bu is a length in that convention since &^a is 1/length

Bu = Bu^adxa

dxa = (Mink)abdx^b

Bu = Bu&^aargVacuumODLROdxa

&^aargVacuumODLROdxa = 1


but Ashtekar & Co do not use local gauge invariance & vacuum ODLRO directly the way I do.


OK.


They do not seem to even be conscious of vacuum ODLRO - but maybe I have underestimated them there.



Maybe not.


We will see as I read Rovelli's book.


OK.


What they are doing in loop gravity is overly-complicated (complexification of the tetrad, taking self-dual "instanton" part etc.) Where all the Pundits go wrong is not realizing that there even is a macro-quantum theory whose rules are different from micro- quantum theory. I get diff(4) invariance + background independence non-perturbatively trivially!

Hawking made this error at GR 17. Susskind makes it also. So does Lubos. Of course, I could be wrong, but we shall see.


I'm inclined to agree.


Micro-QM is linear, nonlocal, unitary with signal locality. Macro- QM is nonlinear, local, non-unitary with signal nonlocality. Gravity + dark energy is a "More is different" macro-quantum phenomenon.

Vacuum ODLRO makes quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR) completely consistent with each other.



I think it's an interesting and very promising approach.


BTW John Baez in Ch 5 last part also waffles on gravity energy problem, p. 452 Notes to Part III



YES.

So does Penrose in "Road to Reality".


I think I gave the real answer as to why this is really a pseudo- problem:

BTW from my "Rovelli Notes"
The non-trivial warp part B of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad components e = I + B comes into being and becoming from the simultaneous local gauging and spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking of the spacetime translation group T4, therefore there is no reason at all, from Noether’s theorem, to imagine that either total energy or total linear momentum of the pure gravity field as the spacelike integral of a local density should be conserved as the lapse function "time" pushes forward from one spacelike slice to another in the ADM 3+1 foliation. Indeed, the Hamiltonian of the pure gravity field is strictly zero because of the constraint structure of Einstein’s field equation.

The error you make Paul is to over-extend flat spacetime ideas to where they do not work. Conservation of total energy is simply a piece of T4 symmetry, i.e. time displacement invariance. It is certainly FALSE for the gravity vacuum. The whole attempt is wrong and that includes what Alex has proposed IMHO. Local conservation? Yes! Global conservation in general? No!


Then in Einstein's theory, where physically does the energy carried away by gravitational waves go?

When there is the flat background in weak field there is no problem. Since "total energy" is meaningless in a curved spacetime, it need not go anywhere! "Total energy" conservation is an artifact of T4 symmetry. Gravity is the breaking of T4 symmetry. Without the symmetry there is no conservation law, e.g. Noether's theorem. Read Wigner.

Locally there is no problem of course. The stress-energy current density is shared between the gravity and matter fields in

Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-gravity)^,v = 0

in 1916 GR.

You can get a global conservation approximately only with asymptotic flat space-times.

How does it get there?

I agree that inside Einstein GR, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as gravitational vacuum stress-energy.


For example, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the superspace whose points are 3D geometries 3gij is

H(pure gravity)(BIT Wave Function of Multiverse) = 0

leading to the “problem of time” in idealistic non-Bohmian attempts at quantum gravity that are only thoughtlike BIT with no rocklike hidden variable IT. In the Bohmian interpretation, the super- geodesic equation of motion for the IT hidden variable is separate from the above Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the pilot BIT wave functional that need not depend on any time parameter.


I would have to think about this.

Shelly Goldstein has shown this in detail.


All you can say is

Sum of all Tuv = 0 locally, i.e. matter + gravity + exotic zpf vacua





Or, more generally, you can introduce *some* kind of source field for vacuum G_uv.
This provides an objective localizable physical "container" for the energy lost through gravitational radiation -- which is not the situation in orthodox GR.


No, you are confusing apples (zero point dark energy) and oranges (classical gravity waves).


No, not at all. I'm just saying that adding a *gravitational* vacuum source field for G_uv is *one* way out of this, because then you have somewhere for the gravitationally radiated energy to go that can be defined objectively,
i.e., in an observer-coordinate-free (frame-independent) manner.

This is not even wrong. You have no math to justify this confused idea.

Of course, a gravitating ZPF might also be a kind of "vacuum source field", but not a *gravitational* vacuum source field , which latter is still present even in the absence of all matter, including EM fields.

Meaningless if you cannot show a math model illustration.


Residual zero point energy "exotic vacua" of both dark energy (Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly a_g = -cH) and dark matter (Galatic Halos flat stellar rotation curves) & stability of extended electron Bohm hidden variable and Ken Shoulders mesoscopic "charge clusters" does give a local tuv(zpf) but that has nothing at all to do with classical gravity waves in weak field approximation on a flat background.


Right.

You seem to contradict yourself. In any case what you wrote above is so vague I do not know what you were trying to say.


With

TOTAL Tuv^;v = 0

Therefore, any total energy-momentum = 0

Universe is a "free lunch".

In my view the search for quantum gravity is a serious error. Gravity is emergent in the inflationary vacuum phase from micro-quantum theory to macro-quantum theory. God plays dice in the unstable pre-inflationary micro-quantum vacuum that has no gravity and no inertia in it. The rules change completely in the Big Bang. God loads the dice significantly in order for gravity and dark energy to emerge into Being and Becoming. Our post-inflationary expanding accelerating universe in the multiverse of parallel worlds next door is a vibrating “super-solid” or “world crystal”.


It's certainly a promising alternative to the usual perturbative approach. The macro-quantum ghost of the departed Maxwellian aether.

It's not "departed", we are fish swimming in it, or rather the "fish" are themselves phase ripples in it - solitons i.e. vacuum geons like Chapline & Laughlin's "dark energy stars" on micro-scale of "mass without mass" (Wheeler) in which the zero point energy false vacuum cores give effective strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G on the fermi scale of 10^-13 cm ~ e^2/mc^2.


But we are not fish swimming in Maxwell's *classical mechanical* ether.

Hence "departed".

This is where Rovelli's philofawzy is good. More on that later.



The only flag I would raise here is about the stability of the vacuum LRO. According to your BEC model, why is the gravitational vacuum observed to be so stable? What exactly would it take to disrupt and destabilize this LRO?



This means you still do not understand the key idea. Ask why is the superconductor ground state stable? It's the same problem!


OK. If it's really not a problem, then it's not a problem.

If you read PW Anderson you will see why. Actually I have explained it many times. It's the released binding energy when the ionized virtual e+-e- plasma of the false vacuum FUSES in the inflation to the vacuum ODLRO condensate of bound virtual positronium! The released energy heats up the real quark-gluon plasma post-inflation.


The Goldstone phase of Vacuum ODLRO is "rigid" that's part of "More is different". That's why space-time is stiff. If you do not do your homework and read the key "superfluid" papers in PW Anderson's "A Career in Theoretical Physics" you will never really understand the idea here. Soft condensed matter physicists are very familiar with this idea.


Yes, I know there is a lot of literature on this. I'll try and get hold of Anderson's "Career".



And what about light propagation? How does light propagate through the vacuum BEC? Could the characteristics of the vacuum BEC be responsible for the permeability and dielectric constant of the vacuum?



That's Puthoff's dead end. I will not go there.


Just a question.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that the properties of your all-pervading positronium BEC would determine at least some optical characteristics of the vacuum?

Indeed it does. It makes guv!


I get guv that's enough. Light is ds^2 = 0. I follow Einstein there.


But you can't deny that if your vacuum BEC exists, then light has to travel through it to get from A to B.

Yes, but QED shows direct effects are MINISCULE!


Hal has wasted 20 years or more on that and has gotten nowhere important. I think Ibison is finally persuading him to look in my direction?


Hal's theory is a toy model that was designed to be used as a heuristic tool for "engineering".

It has not done anything important there at all. Where are the engineering plans for saucers that fly? They don't exist - I mean not based on PV.

It's not an exact quantum theory of the physical vacuum, and it doesn't claim to be.

The truth is that PV has failed to deliver on any of its promises in 20 years! Time is up for Hal. The Devil will have his due! :-)