No more Space Shuttles
So that everyone is clear about what my new theory actually is:
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Advanced Space Flight Technology
No more Space Shuttles ever needed again.
I have been asked by Deep Black
"Ok Jack , I read it. Assuming its true, then pray tell how do we get some and bottle it as fuel?"
Forget fuel. There is no fuel! This is not a rocket ejecting mass. Also that is what is wrong with Hal's approach and Woodward's approach and even Gennady Shipov's torsion field drive. Even though they are propellantless, i.e. not ejecting mass, nevertheless they change mass M (by one alleged means or other, torsion for Gennady Shipov, Mach's principle for James Woodward so there is a vdM/dt term just like in a rocket but without any ejected mass. This is intrinsically unstable and is a BOMB if they change e/m too much! Also it is a non-geodesic drive, i.e. they feel inertial g-forces! Mine is different. I have little LC oscillator loops embedded on nanoscale in thin very high Tc 2D layer anyon films "painted" on the fuselage. Forcing different non-integer continuously varying magnetic fluxes through the little Josephson "super-conducting loops" modifies the Goldstone phase of the Higgs vacuum phase that controls the curvature and the torsion of the local space-time geometrodynamic field. The trick is how to lock the phase of the vacuum to the magnetic fields (currents through the loops). I don't know enough solid state physics yet to do that.
Note that Maxwell's EM field equations in the curved space-time with Shipov's torsion field look like in local frame-invariant Cartan notation:
F = DA
DF = 0
D*F = *J
where
D = d + W/\ + S/
d = Cartan's exterior derivative
W = curvature spin-connection where
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S) = Russian Torsion Field 2-form
In addition
R = (d + W/\)W = Einstein's curvature 2-form from 1915 theory (not done this post-modern way of course)
R/\(1 + B) + /\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B)/\(1 + B) = 0
is 1915 Einstein vacuum equation with cosmological constant.
This all generalizes to include torsion to
R' = (d + W/\ + S/\)(W + S)
(d + W/\ + S/\)R' = 0
(d + W/\ + S/\)*R' = *J
(d + W/\ + S/\)^2*R' = (d + W/\ + S/\)*J = 0
this is key equation for local stress-energy current density conservation for practical low-power metric engineering of Weightless Warp Drive and Wormhole.
B is the curvature field gauge potential from locally gauging T4 -> Diff(4) of GCTs.
S is the torsion field gauge potential from locally gauging the Lorentz group O(1,3).
A is the electromagnetic gauge potential from locally gauging the internal U(1) group.
This local frame-invariant theory is easily extended to the standard model of quarks and leptons using the SU(2) and SU(3) internal symmetry groups.
From the standard model SU(2)hypercharge spontaneous symmetry breakdown in pre -> post inflation of false to true vacuum I get (consistent with both standard particle model and standard cosmological model of mainstream physics)
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)
T = (hG/c^3)d'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)
Note that
d^2 = 0
but
d'd' =/= 0
from PHASE SINGULARITIES
e.g. string vortex phase singularity along z-axis in 3D space
'd'(Phase) = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2) 1-form
Note that the 1-form is infinite on the z-axis string.
<&2|'d'(Phase)> = <2|d'd'(Phase)> = 2piN
N = integer winding number
This is Bohm-Aharonov nonlocal "Flux without flux".
The Bohm hidden variable single electron (quark) is an extended microgeon with a strong dark zero point energy uniform core and a thin shell of charge in a "point defect" in the LOCAL vacuum order parameter ODLRO Higgs field manifold G/H.
In Newtonian-Galilean limit
V(micro-geon) = @hc/mr + Q^2/mr + J^2/mr^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2
dV/dr = 0
solve for /\zpf
d^2V/dr^2 > 0 stability OK
@ from QED Casimir force calculation.
Is the discovery of dark energy the key to warp drive?
Dark energy is positive zero point energy density with negative pressure. Einstein showed that the pressure is 3 times as powerful as the energy density in bending space-time. Therefore, dark energy anti-gravitates repelling everything and expanding space beyond its normal Hubble expansion. This is the accelerating universe in which ~ 73% of the large-scale stuff is this dark energy with negative pressure. In addition the Russians (Gennady Shipov in Moscow) are extending Einstein's theory to include torsion fields as well as curvature fields. In that case we can have quintessent fields in which the zero point energy density is not simply a cosmological constant, but is a variable local scalar field. We can now build a Weightless Warp Drive (WWD) like Alcubierre's by a kind of Josephson wave interference effect. We live in a Higgs Ocean vacuum field. The Higgs Ocean has vacuum waves. We use a local high Tc coherent wave like in the thin film anyon condensates that locks into the local phase of the vacuum wave. This is similar to a heterodyne radio receiver. By modulating the local vacuum wave's phase we can make both positive and negative zero point quantum pressures in different parts of the star ship's fuselage and, therefore, shape the weightless free float geodesic glide path of the ship. This does not take a lot of power. It's like Tao Chi. For more details see the new book Super Cosmos by Jack Sarfatti (2005) ISBN:1-4184-7663-3.
Dark matter is negative zero point energy density with positive pressure. It clumps mimicking w = 0 CDM for distant observers, but up close and personal its w = -1. Dark matter detectors will never click with the right stuff to explaiin Omega(DM) ~ 0.23
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Dark Energy Core of the Electron
1. Lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle imply
w = -1
for all zero point fluctuations not only for virtual photons.
2. Unlike QED you cannot simply stick in a plate(s) as in Casimir force and forget the absolute background of ZPE. This is precisely the "cosmological constant problem."
i.e. zero point energy gravitates (and anti-gravitates depending) absolutely.
The QED Casimir force calculation for virtual photons (excluding even vacuum polarization, which makes no essential difference here) is irrelevant to the "charge cluster", or, more fundamentally, the stability of a single electron as an extended micro-geon. More precisely the Casimir energy is merely one term of several in the effective potential for the micro-geon including gravity.
i.e.
V = @hc/mr + Q^2/mr +(J/mr)^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2
The "gravity term" in this Newtonian approx is c^2/\zpfr^2 for a uniform core of positive ZPE of negative pressure. The Casmir term is @hc/mr that simply renormalizes the Coulomb barrier Q^2/mr. Everything Hal Puthoff talks about simply determines the pure number @ from QED.
dV/dr =0
d^2V/dr^2 > 0
3. The single electron Bohm hidden variable is not a point particle. Renormalization theory needs to be trashed as Feynman told me in his Cal Tech office in 1968. The electron (& quarks) is an extended shell of charge held in balance by its inner core of zero point dark energy where the vacuum coherence ODLRO field drops to zero exactly like in the core of a superfluid vortex except here we have a point defect rather than a string defect.
1. Lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle imply
w = -1
for all zero point fluctuations not only for virtual photons.
2. Unlike QED you cannot simply stick in a plate(s) as in Casimir force and forget the absolute background of ZPE. This is precisely the "cosmological constant problem."
i.e. zero point energy gravitates (and anti-gravitates depending) absolutely.
The QED Casimir force calculation for virtual photons (excluding even vacuum polarization, which makes no essential difference here) is irrelevant to the "charge cluster", or, more fundamentally, the stability of a single electron as an extended micro-geon. More precisely the Casimir energy is merely one term of several in the effective potential for the micro-geon including gravity.
i.e.
V = @hc/mr + Q^2/mr +(J/mr)^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2
The "gravity term" in this Newtonian approx is c^2/\zpfr^2 for a uniform core of positive ZPE of negative pressure. The Casmir term is @hc/mr that simply renormalizes the Coulomb barrier Q^2/mr. Everything Hal Puthoff talks about simply determines the pure number @ from QED.
dV/dr =0
d^2V/dr^2 > 0
3. The single electron Bohm hidden variable is not a point particle. Renormalization theory needs to be trashed as Feynman told me in his Cal Tech office in 1968. The electron (& quarks) is an extended shell of charge held in balance by its inner core of zero point dark energy where the vacuum coherence ODLRO field drops to zero exactly like in the core of a superfluid vortex except here we have a point defect rather than a string defect.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Wikipedia
Memorandum for the Historical Record
See reference to John Baez below and additional technical comments. Also note the Chris Hillman says he is "not interested" in quantum theory and my formula combines quantum theory with General Relativity in a new way he has never seen before. Chris Hillman is what Colin Bennett calls a "Victorian Station Master", what John Nash called a "hack mind", what Ayn Rand in "The Fountainhead" called a "second hander". Feynman cautioned against "rigor mortis" where mathematicians like John Baez and even Ed Witten, masquerade in theoretical physicist's clothing. Indeed the whole field of theoretical physics has been hijacked by these Math-Goths. None of Feynman's diagrams nor path integrals were mathematically rigorous and probably are not so to this day, nevertheless they are useful and are used.
OK here is why Chris Hillman and his gang of non-credentialled In-Wikitors defame me as a "crackpot" and "kook" spouting "nonsense" (read "what they cannot understand because it's too original and has not been handed down to them as gospel" or, alternatively, they have no education in the subject at all, as the case may be).
What is the basic issue here? It is the generalized Stoke's theorem:
(p+1|dp) = (&(p+1)|p)
I use Dirac notation in which the "ket" |p) is a Cartan p-form i.e. the thing integrated.
The bra (p+1| is a Cartan p+1 co-form or p-dimensional manifold of integration. When it is multiply-connected with "wormholes" (so to speak) it has a non-trivial co-homology quotient group of cosets Hp = {(p+1)-cycles}/{bounding (p+1)-cycles}, where the denominator is a normal subgroup of the numerator under a composition rule. See Baez's text book for more formal details.
The dual operators & and d are like a & a* in second quantization with Fermi-Dirac statistics in which
aa = a*a* = 0 (Pauli exclusion principle)
aa* + a*a = 1
& is the boundary operator on co-cycles.
&(co-cycle) = 0
&^2 = 0 is Wheeler's famous "Boundary of a boundary is zero".
Similarly for d^2 = 0
Note that Maxwell's EM eqs. are
F = dA
dF = 0
from d^2 = 0
&
d*F = *J
* is the Hodge dual. Again see Baez's book cited below for details.
Local conservation of electric current density is
d^2*F = d*J = 0
A the "vector 4-potential" comes from locally gauging the global abelian EM U(1) internal symmetry group.
If you have a non-Abelian "Yang-Mills" internal symmetry group, e.g. G = SU(2) or SU(3)
Then you must replace d with the covariant
D = d + A/
See Baez for definition of /\ the exterior product.
The Yang-Mills equations, where the gauge fields carry the same charges as the sources (not in U(1) EM) are then
F' = DA
DF' = 0 also called loosely a "Bianchi identity"
D*F' = *J'
D*J' = 0
Now we can do Einstein's 1915 GR in exactly the same way!
Notice that everything here is automatically local frame invariant! We never really need to go to a particular local frame of reference and write out indices.
e = 1 + B
is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad.
Einstein's metric tensor field g(curved) is not an ANTISYMMETRIC Cartan form. It is a SYMMETRIC bi-linear form
g(curved) = (1 + B)n(flat)(1 + B)
No "/\" in the above formula.
this is the local Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).
When B = 0, we have global special relativity of 1905.
B is the curved part of the tetrad.
1 is the "identity"
B is to the translation group T4 as A is to the U(1) EM group, or as A' is to the weak force SU(2) and the strong force SU(3) SAME IDEA that Chris Hillman says is "nonsense".
According to Chris Hillman, who boasts he has no interest in quantum theory, the battle-tested Principle of Local Gauge Invariance is "nonsense".
OK Einstein's 1915 GR in modern intrinsic notation is simply
T = D"e = 0
T is the torsion 2-form where
D" = d + W/
Where W is the 1-form spin-connection.
B determines W via the equation
T = de + W/\e = 0
i.e.
d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0
i.e.
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
The curvature 2-form is
R = D"W = dW + W/\W
Einstein's vacuum field equation with cosmological constant /\zpf (do not confuse with /\ for exterior multiplication) is
R/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0
See Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online for details.
D"R = 0 is the "Bianchi identity"
D"*R = *J
is essentially Einstein's
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter)
and
D"^2*R = D"*J = 0
is
Tuv^;v(Matter) = 0
Now we can go on to Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory by
e' = e + S
S is from locally gauging the Lorentz group O(1,3) not done in 1915 GR, but done by Utiyama & Kibble in 1960's after Einstein died in 1955.
Now we have
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
the torsion 2-form T =/= 0 when S =/= 0
More on this another time.
My ANSATZ for which Chris Hillman wants to burn me at the stake is to invoke the spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry for the SU(2)hypercharge group of the standard model to say
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
"Goldstone Phase" here in sense of "mean phase" associated with SU(2).
Details in text books and I will provide them later.
The above is the intuitive idea.
On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alex, a mathematician Chris Hillman, is lying about what you allegedly said about my formula
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
Hillman quotes you as saying that you wrote that the "derivation is generally regarded as nonsense". Hillman, or some one else, may have deliberately changed what you did say. Please clarify for the official record here.
Here is what you are cited by Chris Hillman as saying:
::: If you read the history page, you can see who wrote the sentence you are objecting to: ''This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense'', and you can see who added the link to the post by Burinskii (who I believe is either a Ph.D. physicist or mathematician, BTW), stating that he considers the alleged 'derivation' to be nonsense, as I do, and as do other knowledgeable scholars I know who have seen it. Since searching Google allows anyone to verify that responses to your 'derivation' was included 'this is nonsense', stating ''the alleged derivation is considered by at least some commentators to be nonsense'' is verifiable factual information. Arguably, you might be right that the current statement is a tad too strong. OTH, while this is harder to verify, I know I am knowledgeable, and I consider the alleged derivation to be utter bosh, so all in all I propose to change this sentence to ''this alleged derivation is considered by at least some knowledgeable commentators to be rubbish; not suprisingly, Sarfatti strongly disagrees with this judgement'', followed by links to your post giving the alleged derivation and to a post by a knowledgeable reader calling it nonsense. Would that be OK by you? Please note that according to my proposal, readers will easily be able to examine your alleged derivation and an objection and to make up their own minds about the likelihood of your derivation being meaningful or important. Fair enough?---[[User:Hillman|CH ]] [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 09:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Sarfatti
BTW: If Chris Hillman were honest, which he obviously is not, he would give a detailed refutation of why he considers
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
nonsense and not simply smear it without justification.
Note that John Baez's book has an example in which d acting on a zero form has a jump phase singularity.
"Flux without flux", i.e. QUANTUM NONLOCALITY of Bohm-Aharonov effect, that Chris Hillman eschews. Pardon me, but who is really the "crackpot" and "kook" here? However, I will keep the "Victor Von Frankenstein Prize for Weird Physics"! ;-)
Go to p. 130 of John Baez's "Gauge Fields. Knots and Gravity" where Baez writes:
"funny things can happen in regions of space that are not simply connected ...'
Baez uses "theta" where I use "Goldstone Phase"
"d"theta = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2)
Baez writes: "the coordinate 'theta', in addition to being ill-defined on the z-axis, is really only defined modulo 2pi. Nonetheless it is customary to define the one form "dtheta".
In effect then one gets from the Stoke's theorem
(p+1|dp) = (&(p+1)|p)
->
(2|d1) = (&2|1> = 2piN
N = 0, +-1, +- 2, ... number of flux quanta
|1) = B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
The important thing here is to see the intuitive idea, THE BIG PICTURE, and not get lost in Feynman's "rigor mortis".
Note gravity is macro-quantum emergent from SU(2)hypercharge broken vacuum symmetry, i.e. ODLRO.
No gravity when h -> 0.
No gravity when c -> infinity
Even when G =/= 0
The broken SU(2) hypercharge local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter is the INFLATION FIELD for the creation of the universe.
Macro-spacetime physics is local because of the locality of ODLRO and the Arrow of Time is explained because ODLRO lowers the phase space volume of the pre-inflation "false vacuum".
And this is what Chris Hillman calls "nonsense" and for this I am a "crackpot" and a "kook".
See "Dirac string" & Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformation".
Since there are knowledgeable people on the list above, integrity demands that Hillman give his reasons in detail.
Memorandum for the Historical Record
See reference to John Baez below and additional technical comments. Also note the Chris Hillman says he is "not interested" in quantum theory and my formula combines quantum theory with General Relativity in a new way he has never seen before. Chris Hillman is what Colin Bennett calls a "Victorian Station Master", what John Nash called a "hack mind", what Ayn Rand in "The Fountainhead" called a "second hander". Feynman cautioned against "rigor mortis" where mathematicians like John Baez and even Ed Witten, masquerade in theoretical physicist's clothing. Indeed the whole field of theoretical physics has been hijacked by these Math-Goths. None of Feynman's diagrams nor path integrals were mathematically rigorous and probably are not so to this day, nevertheless they are useful and are used.
OK here is why Chris Hillman and his gang of non-credentialled In-Wikitors defame me as a "crackpot" and "kook" spouting "nonsense" (read "what they cannot understand because it's too original and has not been handed down to them as gospel" or, alternatively, they have no education in the subject at all, as the case may be).
What is the basic issue here? It is the generalized Stoke's theorem:
(p+1|dp) = (&(p+1)|p)
I use Dirac notation in which the "ket" |p) is a Cartan p-form i.e. the thing integrated.
The bra (p+1| is a Cartan p+1 co-form or p-dimensional manifold of integration. When it is multiply-connected with "wormholes" (so to speak) it has a non-trivial co-homology quotient group of cosets Hp = {(p+1)-cycles}/{bounding (p+1)-cycles}, where the denominator is a normal subgroup of the numerator under a composition rule. See Baez's text book for more formal details.
The dual operators & and d are like a & a* in second quantization with Fermi-Dirac statistics in which
aa = a*a* = 0 (Pauli exclusion principle)
aa* + a*a = 1
& is the boundary operator on co-cycles.
&(co-cycle) = 0
&^2 = 0 is Wheeler's famous "Boundary of a boundary is zero".
Similarly for d^2 = 0
Note that Maxwell's EM eqs. are
F = dA
dF = 0
from d^2 = 0
&
d*F = *J
* is the Hodge dual. Again see Baez's book cited below for details.
Local conservation of electric current density is
d^2*F = d*J = 0
A the "vector 4-potential" comes from locally gauging the global abelian EM U(1) internal symmetry group.
If you have a non-Abelian "Yang-Mills" internal symmetry group, e.g. G = SU(2) or SU(3)
Then you must replace d with the covariant
D = d + A/
See Baez for definition of /\ the exterior product.
The Yang-Mills equations, where the gauge fields carry the same charges as the sources (not in U(1) EM) are then
F' = DA
DF' = 0 also called loosely a "Bianchi identity"
D*F' = *J'
D*J' = 0
Now we can do Einstein's 1915 GR in exactly the same way!
Notice that everything here is automatically local frame invariant! We never really need to go to a particular local frame of reference and write out indices.
e = 1 + B
is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad.
Einstein's metric tensor field g(curved) is not an ANTISYMMETRIC Cartan form. It is a SYMMETRIC bi-linear form
g(curved) = (1 + B)n(flat)(1 + B)
No "/\" in the above formula.
this is the local Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).
When B = 0, we have global special relativity of 1905.
B is the curved part of the tetrad.
1 is the "identity"
B is to the translation group T4 as A is to the U(1) EM group, or as A' is to the weak force SU(2) and the strong force SU(3) SAME IDEA that Chris Hillman says is "nonsense".
According to Chris Hillman, who boasts he has no interest in quantum theory, the battle-tested Principle of Local Gauge Invariance is "nonsense".
OK Einstein's 1915 GR in modern intrinsic notation is simply
T = D"e = 0
T is the torsion 2-form where
D" = d + W/
Where W is the 1-form spin-connection.
B determines W via the equation
T = de + W/\e = 0
i.e.
d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0
i.e.
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
The curvature 2-form is
R = D"W = dW + W/\W
Einstein's vacuum field equation with cosmological constant /\zpf (do not confuse with /\ for exterior multiplication) is
R/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0
See Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online for details.
D"R = 0 is the "Bianchi identity"
D"*R = *J
is essentially Einstein's
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter)
and
D"^2*R = D"*J = 0
is
Tuv^;v(Matter) = 0
Now we can go on to Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory by
e' = e + S
S is from locally gauging the Lorentz group O(1,3) not done in 1915 GR, but done by Utiyama & Kibble in 1960's after Einstein died in 1955.
Now we have
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
the torsion 2-form T =/= 0 when S =/= 0
More on this another time.
My ANSATZ for which Chris Hillman wants to burn me at the stake is to invoke the spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry for the SU(2)hypercharge group of the standard model to say
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
"Goldstone Phase" here in sense of "mean phase" associated with SU(2).
Details in text books and I will provide them later.
The above is the intuitive idea.
On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alex, a mathematician Chris Hillman, is lying about what you allegedly said about my formula
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
Hillman quotes you as saying that you wrote that the "derivation is generally regarded as nonsense". Hillman, or some one else, may have deliberately changed what you did say. Please clarify for the official record here.
Here is what you are cited by Chris Hillman as saying:
::: If you read the history page, you can see who wrote the sentence you are objecting to: ''This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense'', and you can see who added the link to the post by Burinskii (who I believe is either a Ph.D. physicist or mathematician, BTW), stating that he considers the alleged 'derivation' to be nonsense, as I do, and as do other knowledgeable scholars I know who have seen it. Since searching Google allows anyone to verify that responses to your 'derivation' was included 'this is nonsense', stating ''the alleged derivation is considered by at least some commentators to be nonsense'' is verifiable factual information. Arguably, you might be right that the current statement is a tad too strong. OTH, while this is harder to verify, I know I am knowledgeable, and I consider the alleged derivation to be utter bosh, so all in all I propose to change this sentence to ''this alleged derivation is considered by at least some knowledgeable commentators to be rubbish; not suprisingly, Sarfatti strongly disagrees with this judgement'', followed by links to your post giving the alleged derivation and to a post by a knowledgeable reader calling it nonsense. Would that be OK by you? Please note that according to my proposal, readers will easily be able to examine your alleged derivation and an objection and to make up their own minds about the likelihood of your derivation being meaningful or important. Fair enough?---[[User:Hillman|CH ]] [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 09:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Sarfatti
BTW: If Chris Hillman were honest, which he obviously is not, he would give a detailed refutation of why he considers
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
nonsense and not simply smear it without justification.
Note that John Baez's book has an example in which d acting on a zero form has a jump phase singularity.
"Flux without flux", i.e. QUANTUM NONLOCALITY of Bohm-Aharonov effect, that Chris Hillman eschews. Pardon me, but who is really the "crackpot" and "kook" here? However, I will keep the "Victor Von Frankenstein Prize for Weird Physics"! ;-)
Go to p. 130 of John Baez's "Gauge Fields. Knots and Gravity" where Baez writes:
"funny things can happen in regions of space that are not simply connected ...'
Baez uses "theta" where I use "Goldstone Phase"
"d"theta = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2)
Baez writes: "the coordinate 'theta', in addition to being ill-defined on the z-axis, is really only defined modulo 2pi. Nonetheless it is customary to define the one form "dtheta".
In effect then one gets from the Stoke's theorem
(p+1|dp) = (&(p+1)|p)
->
(2|d1) = (&2|1> = 2piN
N = 0, +-1, +- 2, ... number of flux quanta
|1) = B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
The important thing here is to see the intuitive idea, THE BIG PICTURE, and not get lost in Feynman's "rigor mortis".
Note gravity is macro-quantum emergent from SU(2)hypercharge broken vacuum symmetry, i.e. ODLRO.
No gravity when h -> 0.
No gravity when c -> infinity
Even when G =/= 0
The broken SU(2) hypercharge local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter is the INFLATION FIELD for the creation of the universe.
Macro-spacetime physics is local because of the locality of ODLRO and the Arrow of Time is explained because ODLRO lowers the phase space volume of the pre-inflation "false vacuum".
And this is what Chris Hillman calls "nonsense" and for this I am a "crackpot" and a "kook".
See "Dirac string" & Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformation".
Since there are knowledgeable people on the list above, integrity demands that Hillman give his reasons in detail.
Wikipedia
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Chris Hillman lies about Alexander Burinski on Wikipedia
Date: September 25, 2005 2:52:28 PM PDT
To: bur@ibrae.ac.ru, fhp@aps.org
Cc: sharkley1@panzerben1.fsworld.co.uk, projectbeckwith2@yahoo.com, hillman@math.washington.edu, b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk, iksnileiz@earthlink.net, baez@math.ucr.edu, f75m17h@mindspring.com, board@wikimedia.org, motl@feynman.harvard.edu, ANTIGRAY@cs.com, nyracum@yahoo.com, KDavidson@sfchronicle.com, creon@nas.nasa.gov, sirag@mindspring.com, amara@sonic.net, kate.griffiths@pioneertv.com, jon@ronson.demon.co.uk, daviddossier@yahoo.com, mhanna@aip.org, cramer@phys.washington.edu, editor@frontpagemag.com, editors@sciam.com, editorial@physicstoday.org, llisbona@nyc.rr.com, hankharrison916@hotmail.com, dmmcmah@sandia.gov, garysbekkum@hotmail.com, kay14081963@yahoo.com, swimp@shaw.ca, george@coasttocoastam.com, geopax@bluewin.ch, gknapp@klastv.com, alex@disinfo.com, purple@tellurian.com, shipov@aha.ru, arioch@eunet.yu, mitc1615@bellsouth.net, grant@cognoscence.org, uawret@cox.net, rc-losee@carolina.rr.com, eshel@tamar.tau.ac.il, isaacsonj@hotmail.com, sherlight@ktc.com, G.Novel@att.net, kauffman@uic.edu, rickdoty166@msn.com, nate@sfreporter.com, gene.loscowski@gmail.com, b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk, mjr36@cam.ac.uk, rouse@maths.ox.ac.uk, b.j.Carr@qmul.ac.uk, wrindler@iopener.net, kip@tapir.caltech.edu, drfinkelstein@mindspring.com, fhp@aps.org, hinckleargo@aol.com, timothyferris@timothyferris.com, bdj10@cam.ac.uk, kleinert@zedat.fu-berlin.de, walrod@mpc.com.br, apoltorak@gpci.com, RKiehn2352@aol.com, POGO@aol.com, mdavid@spectelresearch.com, dmmcmah@sandia.gov, stickrod@ix.netcom.com, rc-losee@carolina.rr.com, lwilliams@santarosa.edu, bar2siak@mit.edu, gross@itp.ucsb.edu, jfwoodward@juno.com, greene@math.columbia.edu, witten@ias.org
Memorandum for the Historical Record
See reference to John Baez below and additional technical comments. Also note the Chris Hillman says he is "not interested" in quantum theory and my formula combines quantum theory with General Relativity in a new way he has never seen before. Chris Hillman is what Colin Bennett calls a "Victorian Station Master", what John Nash called a "hack mind", what Ayn Rand in "The Fountainhead" called a "second hander". Feynman cautioned against "rigor mortis" where mathematicians like John Baez and even Ed Witten, masquerade in theoretical physicist's clothing. Indeed the whole field of theoretical physics has been hijacked by these Math-Goths. None of Feynman's diagrams nor path integrals were mathematically rigorous and probably are not so to this day, nevertheless they are useful and are used.
OK here is why Chris Hillman and his gang of non-credentialled In-Wikitors defame me as a "crackpot" and "kook" spouting "nonsense" (read "what they cannot understand because it's too original and has not been handed down to them as gospel" or, alternatively, they have no education in the subject at all, as the case may be).
What is the basic issue here? It is the generalized Stoke's theorem:
= <&(p+1)|p>
I use Dirac notation in which the "ket" |p> is a Cartan p-form i.e. the thing integrated.
The bra
The dual operators & and d are like a & a* in second quantization with Fermi-Dirac statistics in which
aa = a*a* = 0 (Pauli exclusion principle)
aa* + a*a = 1
& is the boundary operator on co-cycles.
&(co-cycle) = 0
&^2 = 0 is Wheeler's famous "Boundary of a boundary is zero".
Similarly for d^2 = 0
Note that Maxwell's EM eqs. are
F = dA
dF = 0
from d^2 = 0
&
d*F = *J
* is the Hodge dual. Again see Baez's book cited below for details.
Local conservation of electric current density is
d^2*F = d*J = 0
A the "vector 4-potential" comes from locally gauging the global abelian EM U(1) internal symmetry group.
If you have a non-Abelian "Yang-Mills" internal symmetry group, e.g. G = SU(2) or SU(3)
Then you must replace d with the covariant
D = d + A/
See Baez for definition of /\ the exterior product.
The Yang-Mills equations, where the gauge fields carry the same charges as the sources (not in U(1) EM) are then
F' = DA
DF' = 0 also called loosely a "Bianchi identity"
D*F' = *J'
D*J' = 0
Now we can do Einstein's 1915 GR in exactly the same way!
Notice that everything here is automatically local frame invariant! We never really need to go to a particular local frame of reference and write out indices.
e = 1 + B
is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad.
Einstein's metric tensor field g(curved) is not an ANTISYMMETRIC Cartan form. It is a SYMMETRIC bi-linear form
g(curved) = (1 + B)n(flat)(1 + B)
No "/\" in the above formula.
this is the local Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).
When B = 0, we have global special relativity of 1905.
B is the curved part of the tetrad.
1 is the "identity"
B is to the translation group T4 as A is to the U(1) EM group, or as A' is to the weak force SU(2) and the strong force SU(3) SAME IDEA that Chris Hillman says is "nonsense".
According to Chris Hillman, who boasts he has no interest in quantum theory, the battle-tested Principle of Local Gauge Invariance is "nonsense".
OK Einstein's 1915 GR in modern intrinsic notation is simply
T = D"e = 0
T is the torsion 2-form where
D" = d + W/
Where W is the 1-form spin-connection.
B determines W via the equation
T = de + W/\e = 0
i.e.
d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0
i.e.
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
The curvature 2-form is
R = D"W = dW + W/\W
Einstein's vacuum field equation with cosmological constant /\zpf (do not confuse with /\ for exterior multiplication) is
R/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0
See Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online for details.
D"R = 0 is the "Bianchi identity"
D"*R = *J
is essentially Einstein's
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter)
and
D"^2*R = D"*J = 0
is
Tuv^;v(Matter) = 0
Now we can go on to Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory by
e' = e + S
S is from locally gauging the Lorentz group O(1,3) not done in 1915 GR, but done by Utiyama & Kibble in 1960's after Einstein died in 1955.
Now we have
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
the torsion 2-form T =/= 0 when S =/= 0
More on this another time.
My ANSATZ for which Chris Hillman wants to burn me at the stake is to invoke the spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry for the SU(2)hypercharge group of the standard model to say
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
"Goldstone Phase" here in sense of "mean phase" associated with SU(2).
Details in text books and I will provide them later.
The above is the intuitive idea.
On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alex, a mathematician Chris Hillman, is lying about what you allegedly said about my formula
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
Hillman quotes you as saying that you wrote that the "derivation is generally regarded as nonsense". Hillman, or some one else, may have deliberately changed what you did say. Please clarify for the official record here.
Here is what you are cited by Chris Hillman as saying:
::: If you read the history page, you can see who wrote the sentence you are objecting to: ''This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense'', and you can see who added the link to the post by Burinskii (who I believe is either a Ph.D. physicist or mathematician, BTW), stating that he considers the alleged 'derivation' to be nonsense, as I do, and as do other knowledgeable scholars I know who have seen it. Since searching Google allows anyone to verify that responses to your 'derivation' was included 'this is nonsense', stating ''the alleged derivation is considered by at least some commentators to be nonsense'' is verifiable factual information. Arguably, you might be right that the current statement is a tad too strong. OTH, while this is harder to verify, I know I am knowledgeable, and I consider the alleged derivation to be utter bosh, so all in all I propose to change this sentence to ''this alleged derivation is considered by at least some knowledgeable commentators to be rubbish; not suprisingly, Sarfatti strongly disagrees with this judgement'', followed by links to your post giving the alleged derivation and to a post by a knowledgeable reader calling it nonsense. Would that be OK by you? Please note that according to my proposal, readers will easily be able to examine your alleged derivation and an objection and to make up their own minds about the likelihood of your derivation being meaningful or important. Fair enough?---[[User:Hillman|CH ]] [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 09:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Sarfatti
BTW: If Chris Hillman were honest, which he obviously is not, he would give a detailed refutation of why he considers
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
nonsense and not simply smear it without justification.
Note that John Baez's book has an example in which d acting on a zero form has a jump phase singularity.
"Flux without flux", i.e. QUANTUM NONLOCALITY of Bohm-Aharonov effect, that Chris Hillman eschews. Pardon me, but who is really the "crackpot" and "kook" here? However, I will keep the "Victor Von Frankenstein Prize for Weird Physics"! ;-)
Go to p. 130 of John Baez's "Gauge Fields. Knots and Gravity" where Baez writes:
"funny things can happen in regions of space that are not simply connected ...'
Baez uses "theta" where I use "Goldstone Phase"
"d"theta = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2)
Baez writes: "the coordinate 'theta', in addition to being ill-defined on the z-axis, is really only defined modulo 2pi. Nonetheless it is customary to define the one form "dtheta".
In effect then one gets from the Stoke's theorem
= <&(p+1)|p>
->
<2|d1> = <&2|1> = 2piN
N = 0, +-1, +- 2, ... number of flux quanta
|1> = B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
The important thing here is to see the intuitive idea, THE BIG PICTURE, and not get lost in Feynman's "rigor mortis".
Note gravity is macro-quantum emergent from SU(2)hypercharge broken vacuum symmetry, i.e. ODLRO.
No gravity when h -> 0.
No gravity when c -> infinity
Even when G =/= 0
The broken SU(2) hypercharge local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter is the INFLATION FIELD for the creation of the universe.
Macro-spacetime physics is local because of the locality of ODLRO and the Arrow of Time is explained because ODLRO lowers the phase space volume of the pre-inflation "false vacuum".
And this is what Chris Hillman calls "nonsense" and for this I am a "crackpot" and a "kook".
See "Dirac string" & Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformation".
Since there are knowledgeable people on the list above, integrity demands that Hillman give his reasons in detail.
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: Chris Hillman lies about Alexander Burinski on Wikipedia
Date: September 25, 2005 2:52:28 PM PDT
To: bur@ibrae.ac.ru, fhp@aps.org
Cc: sharkley1@panzerben1.fsworld.co.uk, projectbeckwith2@yahoo.com, hillman@math.washington.edu, b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk, iksnileiz@earthlink.net, baez@math.ucr.edu, f75m17h@mindspring.com, board@wikimedia.org, motl@feynman.harvard.edu, ANTIGRAY@cs.com, nyracum@yahoo.com, KDavidson@sfchronicle.com, creon@nas.nasa.gov, sirag@mindspring.com, amara@sonic.net, kate.griffiths@pioneertv.com, jon@ronson.demon.co.uk, daviddossier@yahoo.com, mhanna@aip.org, cramer@phys.washington.edu, editor@frontpagemag.com, editors@sciam.com, editorial@physicstoday.org, llisbona@nyc.rr.com, hankharrison916@hotmail.com, dmmcmah@sandia.gov, garysbekkum@hotmail.com, kay14081963@yahoo.com, swimp@shaw.ca, george@coasttocoastam.com, geopax@bluewin.ch, gknapp@klastv.com, alex@disinfo.com, purple@tellurian.com, shipov@aha.ru, arioch@eunet.yu, mitc1615@bellsouth.net, grant@cognoscence.org, uawret@cox.net, rc-losee@carolina.rr.com, eshel@tamar.tau.ac.il, isaacsonj@hotmail.com, sherlight@ktc.com, G.Novel@att.net, kauffman@uic.edu, rickdoty166@msn.com, nate@sfreporter.com, gene.loscowski@gmail.com, b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk, mjr36@cam.ac.uk, rouse@maths.ox.ac.uk, b.j.Carr@qmul.ac.uk, wrindler@iopener.net, kip@tapir.caltech.edu, drfinkelstein@mindspring.com, fhp@aps.org, hinckleargo@aol.com, timothyferris@timothyferris.com, bdj10@cam.ac.uk, kleinert@zedat.fu-berlin.de, walrod@mpc.com.br, apoltorak@gpci.com, RKiehn2352@aol.com, POGO@aol.com, mdavid@spectelresearch.com, dmmcmah@sandia.gov, stickrod@ix.netcom.com, rc-losee@carolina.rr.com, lwilliams@santarosa.edu, bar2siak@mit.edu, gross@itp.ucsb.edu, jfwoodward@juno.com, greene@math.columbia.edu, witten@ias.org
Memorandum for the Historical Record
See reference to John Baez below and additional technical comments. Also note the Chris Hillman says he is "not interested" in quantum theory and my formula combines quantum theory with General Relativity in a new way he has never seen before. Chris Hillman is what Colin Bennett calls a "Victorian Station Master", what John Nash called a "hack mind", what Ayn Rand in "The Fountainhead" called a "second hander". Feynman cautioned against "rigor mortis" where mathematicians like John Baez and even Ed Witten, masquerade in theoretical physicist's clothing. Indeed the whole field of theoretical physics has been hijacked by these Math-Goths. None of Feynman's diagrams nor path integrals were mathematically rigorous and probably are not so to this day, nevertheless they are useful and are used.
OK here is why Chris Hillman and his gang of non-credentialled In-Wikitors defame me as a "crackpot" and "kook" spouting "nonsense" (read "what they cannot understand because it's too original and has not been handed down to them as gospel" or, alternatively, they have no education in the subject at all, as the case may be).
What is the basic issue here? It is the generalized Stoke's theorem:
I use Dirac notation in which the "ket" |p> is a Cartan p-form i.e. the thing integrated.
The bra
The dual operators & and d are like a & a* in second quantization with Fermi-Dirac statistics in which
aa = a*a* = 0 (Pauli exclusion principle)
aa* + a*a = 1
& is the boundary operator on co-cycles.
&(co-cycle) = 0
&^2 = 0 is Wheeler's famous "Boundary of a boundary is zero".
Similarly for d^2 = 0
Note that Maxwell's EM eqs. are
F = dA
dF = 0
from d^2 = 0
&
d*F = *J
* is the Hodge dual. Again see Baez's book cited below for details.
Local conservation of electric current density is
d^2*F = d*J = 0
A the "vector 4-potential" comes from locally gauging the global abelian EM U(1) internal symmetry group.
If you have a non-Abelian "Yang-Mills" internal symmetry group, e.g. G = SU(2) or SU(3)
Then you must replace d with the covariant
D = d + A/
See Baez for definition of /\ the exterior product.
The Yang-Mills equations, where the gauge fields carry the same charges as the sources (not in U(1) EM) are then
F' = DA
DF' = 0 also called loosely a "Bianchi identity"
D*F' = *J'
D*J' = 0
Now we can do Einstein's 1915 GR in exactly the same way!
Notice that everything here is automatically local frame invariant! We never really need to go to a particular local frame of reference and write out indices.
e = 1 + B
is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad.
Einstein's metric tensor field g(curved) is not an ANTISYMMETRIC Cartan form. It is a SYMMETRIC bi-linear form
g(curved) = (1 + B)n(flat)(1 + B)
No "/\" in the above formula.
this is the local Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).
When B = 0, we have global special relativity of 1905.
B is the curved part of the tetrad.
1 is the "identity"
B is to the translation group T4 as A is to the U(1) EM group, or as A' is to the weak force SU(2) and the strong force SU(3) SAME IDEA that Chris Hillman says is "nonsense".
According to Chris Hillman, who boasts he has no interest in quantum theory, the battle-tested Principle of Local Gauge Invariance is "nonsense".
OK Einstein's 1915 GR in modern intrinsic notation is simply
T = D"e = 0
T is the torsion 2-form where
D" = d + W/
Where W is the 1-form spin-connection.
B determines W via the equation
T = de + W/\e = 0
i.e.
d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0
i.e.
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
The curvature 2-form is
R = D"W = dW + W/\W
Einstein's vacuum field equation with cosmological constant /\zpf (do not confuse with /\ for exterior multiplication) is
R/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0
See Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online for details.
D"R = 0 is the "Bianchi identity"
D"*R = *J
is essentially Einstein's
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter)
and
D"^2*R = D"*J = 0
is
Tuv^;v(Matter) = 0
Now we can go on to Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory by
e' = e + S
S is from locally gauging the Lorentz group O(1,3) not done in 1915 GR, but done by Utiyama & Kibble in 1960's after Einstein died in 1955.
Now we have
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
the torsion 2-form T =/= 0 when S =/= 0
More on this another time.
My ANSATZ for which Chris Hillman wants to burn me at the stake is to invoke the spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry for the SU(2)hypercharge group of the standard model to say
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
"Goldstone Phase" here in sense of "mean phase" associated with SU(2).
Details in text books and I will provide them later.
The above is the intuitive idea.
On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alex, a mathematician Chris Hillman, is lying about what you allegedly said about my formula
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
Hillman quotes you as saying that you wrote that the "derivation is generally regarded as nonsense". Hillman, or some one else, may have deliberately changed what you did say. Please clarify for the official record here.
Here is what you are cited by Chris Hillman as saying:
::: If you read the history page, you can see who wrote the sentence you are objecting to: ''This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense'', and you can see who added the link to the post by Burinskii (who I believe is either a Ph.D. physicist or mathematician, BTW), stating that he considers the alleged 'derivation' to be nonsense, as I do, and as do other knowledgeable scholars I know who have seen it. Since searching Google allows anyone to verify that responses to your 'derivation' was included 'this is nonsense', stating ''the alleged derivation is considered by at least some commentators to be nonsense'' is verifiable factual information. Arguably, you might be right that the current statement is a tad too strong. OTH, while this is harder to verify, I know I am knowledgeable, and I consider the alleged derivation to be utter bosh, so all in all I propose to change this sentence to ''this alleged derivation is considered by at least some knowledgeable commentators to be rubbish; not suprisingly, Sarfatti strongly disagrees with this judgement'', followed by links to your post giving the alleged derivation and to a post by a knowledgeable reader calling it nonsense. Would that be OK by you? Please note that according to my proposal, readers will easily be able to examine your alleged derivation and an objection and to make up their own minds about the likelihood of your derivation being meaningful or important. Fair enough?---[[User:Hillman|CH ]] [[User_talk:Hillman|(talk)]] 09:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Sarfatti
BTW: If Chris Hillman were honest, which he obviously is not, he would give a detailed refutation of why he considers
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
nonsense and not simply smear it without justification.
Note that John Baez's book has an example in which d acting on a zero form has a jump phase singularity.
"Flux without flux", i.e. QUANTUM NONLOCALITY of Bohm-Aharonov effect, that Chris Hillman eschews. Pardon me, but who is really the "crackpot" and "kook" here? However, I will keep the "Victor Von Frankenstein Prize for Weird Physics"! ;-)
Go to p. 130 of John Baez's "Gauge Fields. Knots and Gravity" where Baez writes:
"funny things can happen in regions of space that are not simply connected ...'
Baez uses "theta" where I use "Goldstone Phase"
"d"theta = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2)
Baez writes: "the coordinate 'theta', in addition to being ill-defined on the z-axis, is really only defined modulo 2pi. Nonetheless it is customary to define the one form "dtheta".
In effect then one gets from the Stoke's theorem
->
<2|d1> = <&2|1> = 2piN
N = 0, +-1, +- 2, ... number of flux quanta
|1> = B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
The important thing here is to see the intuitive idea, THE BIG PICTURE, and not get lost in Feynman's "rigor mortis".
Note gravity is macro-quantum emergent from SU(2)hypercharge broken vacuum symmetry, i.e. ODLRO.
No gravity when h -> 0.
No gravity when c -> infinity
Even when G =/= 0
The broken SU(2) hypercharge local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter is the INFLATION FIELD for the creation of the universe.
Macro-spacetime physics is local because of the locality of ODLRO and the Arrow of Time is explained because ODLRO lowers the phase space volume of the pre-inflation "false vacuum".
And this is what Chris Hillman calls "nonsense" and for this I am a "crackpot" and a "kook".
See "Dirac string" & Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformation".
Since there are knowledgeable people on the list above, integrity demands that Hillman give his reasons in detail.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
More Wikepedia
Jack Sarfatti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jack Sarfatti is a frequent poster to certain Usenet groups, such as sci.physics. His contributions, which are notable for their extensive use of technical buzzwords, are often inaccuratly regarded as incoherent by poseurs illiterate in physics who think they know when they don't. Sarfatti's entry in the net-legends FAQ begins:
Posts long strange posts on physics, consciousness, and metaphysics, many of which do not make much sense to practitioners of the above fields. Used to crosspost to hell and back. Can be seen in the sci.* groups and alt.consciousness. A small collection of posts is available. *Not* a "crackpot" in the classic sense; has a Ph.D. in physics and understands the field quite well - but tends to use it to delve into philosophical concepts and outre' theories rather deeper than many other physicists care to read about. Also posts on and off to sci.psychology about connectionism and perception, and the neuro-psychological implications thereof.
Sarfatti's websites have quite unjustly earned the crankiest rating from the crank.net website by lesser minds than his. (See links below.) "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round." Cole Porter.
Sarfatti is definitely a fecund highly creative original eccentric, "but his knowledge of basic cosmology issues is razor sharp. As an example he was able to carefully delineate the basic flaw in the zero point energy paradigm as it relates to the Einstein cosmological constant, which I found extremely useful to know." A. Beckwith, physicist
Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have a strong academic background in theoretical physics from good universities. He earned an undergraduate BA from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the close guidance of Hans Bethe that corrected a small error in Julian Schwinger's WWII work on the polarization of synchrotron radiation. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from UCR in 1969, writing a thesis on local gauge invariance in the theory of superfluids under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State was a Research Fellow under David Bohm University of London and Abdus Salam (ICTP) where he explained the universal slope (1Gev)^-2 of the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as rotating Kerr black hole "micro-geons" with strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G before venturing into non-academic pursuits in Cold War covert intelligence operations in Europe. Sarfatti's 1967 paper "The Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect, written with Marshall Stoneham at Haarwell (later head of Theoretical Physics Div, Harwell UKAERE), is cited in the American Institute of Physics "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics." Ray Chiao, professor of physics at Berkeley credits Sarfatti's 1967 paper on self-trapped laser filaments as analogy with Type II superconductor vortices as helpful in his early experiments in nonlinear optics. Leonard Susskind, inventor of string theory, credits Sarfatti's help in his first published paper in 1964 at Cornell on quantum phase and time operators. Susskind and Sarfatti were students together with Johnny Glogower.
Sarfatti predicted the recently observed ODLRO "supersolid" in Physics Letters A before Nobel Prize Tony Leggett did. George Chapline, who according to http://www.wyp-ptm.org/lecturers.html#chapline "... received the U.S. Department of Energy E.O. Lawrence Award in 1983 and served as Science Advisor to the Associate Lab Director for Defense Programs at the Los Alamos National Labs in 2000 and 2001 ..." wrote on 16 February 2005, saying in part: "... Jack, Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! ... This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me). george ...".
Tony Smith web site at http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have an academic background in theoretical physics. He earned an undergraduate from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the guidance of Hans Bethe. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from UCSD in 1967, writing a thesis under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State and the University of London before venturing into non-academic pursuits.
In various writings over the years, Sarfatti has apparently made numerous claims about his activities, including these:
* at age 13, received "phone calls from the future" informing him of his special destiny,
* founded a "Physics-Consciousness Research Group" with Werner Erhard, the founder of Esalen, and others,
* consulted for U.S. intelligence agencies on the so-called "physics" of remote-viewing,
* consulted for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative,
* has worked or is working under 'deep cover' (allegedly explaining the small number of his published research papers),
* involved in the publication of a controversial memoir by former K.G.B. agent Pavel Sudoplatov,
* taught math and physics for the U.S. Navy at sea (on board aircraft carriers)
* derived Einstein's field equation from the Goldstone phase of the Higgs field for SU(2)hypercharge using the curvature form method of Elie Cartan. This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense[1].
Sarfatti has had three books published by Author House since 2002, Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond II & Super Cosmos. He was awarded the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award in December 2004 by the denizens of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup.
[edit]
See also
* Usenet, an article about the Usenet in general
[edit]
External links
* Reality check], an essay by the now deceased physicist paranormal debunker Milton Rothman, reviewing for the skeptic group CSICOP the website of a "corporation" apparently created by Jack Sarfatti. Martin Gardner wrote extensively about Sarfatti and Uri Geller in "Magic and Paraphysics" in "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus."
* Crank dot net, a very extensive list of cranky websites,
* Part 1 of the net-legends FAQ,
* Is Jack Sarfatti a kook or a genius.., a thread from sci.physics,
* disformation (an interview of Sarfatti),
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti web page containing some snippets of autobiography by Sarfatti, including photographs of himself literally at sea (on the flight deck of a carrier); see what appears to be Sarfatti's own account of the phone calls mentioned above,
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti blog.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti"
Categories: Usenet people
Jack Sarfatti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jack Sarfatti is a frequent poster to certain Usenet groups, such as sci.physics. His contributions, which are notable for their extensive use of technical buzzwords, are often inaccuratly regarded as incoherent by poseurs illiterate in physics who think they know when they don't. Sarfatti's entry in the net-legends FAQ begins:
Posts long strange posts on physics, consciousness, and metaphysics, many of which do not make much sense to practitioners of the above fields. Used to crosspost to hell and back. Can be seen in the sci.* groups and alt.consciousness. A small collection of posts is available. *Not* a "crackpot" in the classic sense; has a Ph.D. in physics and understands the field quite well - but tends to use it to delve into philosophical concepts and outre' theories rather deeper than many other physicists care to read about. Also posts on and off to sci.psychology about connectionism and perception, and the neuro-psychological implications thereof.
Sarfatti's websites have quite unjustly earned the crankiest rating from the crank.net website by lesser minds than his. (See links below.) "They all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round." Cole Porter.
Sarfatti is definitely a fecund highly creative original eccentric, "but his knowledge of basic cosmology issues is razor sharp. As an example he was able to carefully delineate the basic flaw in the zero point energy paradigm as it relates to the Einstein cosmological constant, which I found extremely useful to know." A. Beckwith, physicist
Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have a strong academic background in theoretical physics from good universities. He earned an undergraduate BA from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the close guidance of Hans Bethe that corrected a small error in Julian Schwinger's WWII work on the polarization of synchrotron radiation. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from UCR in 1969, writing a thesis on local gauge invariance in the theory of superfluids under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State was a Research Fellow under David Bohm University of London and Abdus Salam (ICTP) where he explained the universal slope (1Gev)^-2 of the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as rotating Kerr black hole "micro-geons" with strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G before venturing into non-academic pursuits in Cold War covert intelligence operations in Europe. Sarfatti's 1967 paper "The Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect, written with Marshall Stoneham at Haarwell (later head of Theoretical Physics Div, Harwell UKAERE), is cited in the American Institute of Physics "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics." Ray Chiao, professor of physics at Berkeley credits Sarfatti's 1967 paper on self-trapped laser filaments as analogy with Type II superconductor vortices as helpful in his early experiments in nonlinear optics. Leonard Susskind, inventor of string theory, credits Sarfatti's help in his first published paper in 1964 at Cornell on quantum phase and time operators. Susskind and Sarfatti were students together with Johnny Glogower.
Sarfatti predicted the recently observed ODLRO "supersolid" in Physics Letters A before Nobel Prize Tony Leggett did. George Chapline, who according to http://www.wyp-ptm.org/lecturers.html#chapline "... received the U.S. Department of Energy E.O. Lawrence Award in 1983 and served as Science Advisor to the Associate Lab Director for Defense Programs at the Los Alamos National Labs in 2000 and 2001 ..." wrote on 16 February 2005, saying in part: "... Jack, Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! ... This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me). george ...".
Tony Smith web site at http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have an academic background in theoretical physics. He earned an undergraduate from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the guidance of Hans Bethe. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from UCSD in 1967, writing a thesis under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State and the University of London before venturing into non-academic pursuits.
In various writings over the years, Sarfatti has apparently made numerous claims about his activities, including these:
* at age 13, received "phone calls from the future" informing him of his special destiny,
* founded a "Physics-Consciousness Research Group" with Werner Erhard, the founder of Esalen, and others,
* consulted for U.S. intelligence agencies on the so-called "physics" of remote-viewing,
* consulted for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative,
* has worked or is working under 'deep cover' (allegedly explaining the small number of his published research papers),
* involved in the publication of a controversial memoir by former K.G.B. agent Pavel Sudoplatov,
* taught math and physics for the U.S. Navy at sea (on board aircraft carriers)
* derived Einstein's field equation from the Goldstone phase of the Higgs field for SU(2)hypercharge using the curvature form method of Elie Cartan. This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense[1].
Sarfatti has had three books published by Author House since 2002, Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond II & Super Cosmos. He was awarded the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award in December 2004 by the denizens of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup.
[edit]
See also
* Usenet, an article about the Usenet in general
[edit]
External links
* Reality check], an essay by the now deceased physicist paranormal debunker Milton Rothman, reviewing for the skeptic group CSICOP the website of a "corporation" apparently created by Jack Sarfatti. Martin Gardner wrote extensively about Sarfatti and Uri Geller in "Magic and Paraphysics" in "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus."
* Crank dot net, a very extensive list of cranky websites,
* Part 1 of the net-legends FAQ,
* Is Jack Sarfatti a kook or a genius.., a thread from sci.physics,
* disformation (an interview of Sarfatti),
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti web page containing some snippets of autobiography by Sarfatti, including photographs of himself literally at sea (on the flight deck of a carrier); see what appears to be Sarfatti's own account of the phone calls mentioned above,
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti blog.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti"
Categories: Usenet people
Russian Torsion Field R&D
A brief look at Gennady's equations here shows it to be similar to James Woodward's scheme. Neither Woodward's not Gennady's proposals would be WWD (Weightless Warp Drive) or GWD (Geodesic Warp Drive) in the sense of Alcubierre where we change the shape of the local geodesic glide path of the ship FROM the ship itself. However, both their schemes, would be PP, i.e. Propellantless Propulsion of the NON-geodesic kind so that, unlike WWD, the occupants in their ships will feel g-force stresses. My WWD is a superior scheme in that regard. The Shipov-Woodward fighters would be obviously outclassed by a WWD fighter in aerial or space combat.
Again for clarity
Woodward/Shipov schemes are PP but are not WWD, they are non-geodesic PP.
My scheme is WWD = geodesic PP.
Woodward tries to use Mach's Principle globally (or via advanced action Wheeler-Feynman) to get his
(dM/dt)v term
Note that Newton's F = dp/dt = Mdv/dt + (dM/dt)v
The second term on the RHS is the rocket propulsion term
Non-geodesic PP means dM/dt =/= 0 WITHOUT EJECTING PHYSICAL MASS.
Gennady Shipov
Dear Jack,
Concept of geodesic is relative.
Yes of course.
In Newton mechanics not geodesic movement (for example, free falling of the lift of Einstein) in Einstein's theory is considered as geodesic.
Yes of course.
In my work I use geodesic movement in geometry of absolute parallelism which from point of view of Newton mechanics is not geodesic.
OK
The main poin that now in physics there is a change of a scientific paradigm. To use the theories created in 20 century mean to go in impasse. The new 21 century demands new theory which should explain in the fundamental way the phenomena which now are proclaimed as abnormal. Now we know a lot of devices which have no a scientific substantiation within the framework of the equations of modern physics. The new physics, physics of 21 centuries is necessary and I think, that it will be a Theory of Physical vacuum. Creation of this theory is more important, than the invention of abnormal devices.
I need to see the math. I like the Cartan notation because
1. It is simple
2. It is automatically locally frame invariant for all symmetry groups.
So I say
e' = 1 + B + S = e + S
B is curvature 1-form tetrad
S is torsion 1-form tetrad
D' = d + W/\ + S/\ = D + S/
W is GR spin connection zero torsion where
d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S) = torsion 2-form
R = dW + W/\W = 1915 GR curvature 2-form
DR = 0 is 1915 Bianchi identity (like dF = 0 in EM)
D*R = *J (like d*F = *J in EM)
D^2R = D*J = 0
is 1915 GR stress-energy current density local conservation
R' = d(W + S) + (W + S)/\(W + S)
Absolute parallelism is
R' = 0
in that case,
dW + dS + W/\W + W/\S + S/\W + S/\S = 0
But
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
T = dS + W/\S + S/\S + S/\1 + S/\B
dS + W/\S + S/\S = T - S/\1 - S/\B
Therefore
dW + dS + W/\W + W/\S + S/\W + S/\S = 0
dW + T - S/\1 - S/\B + W/\W + S/\W = 0
R + T - S/\(1 + B + W) = 0
R + T = S/\(1 + B + W)
And when S = 0, therefore T = 0 and then
R = 0
which is flat space-time since R is the curvature 2-form, so that's OK.
However, when S =/= 0
R = S(1 + B + W) - T
where W is determined by B entirely.
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
Also
In general, however when
R' =/= 0
D'R' = 0
D'*R' = *J'
1915 GR uses only the unprimed pieces when S = 0.
Jack
The DANGER HERE is its INTRINSIC INSTABILITY - if you are too successful and change e/m for electrons and nucleons, then you BLOW UP THE MACHINE and indeed it may be a CATASTROPHIC WMD!
Gennady Shipov
Absolutely is no DANGER. The variable inertial mass M in the equation Mdv/dt + (dM/dt)v=0
That says dP/dt = 0, OK no external force.
appears as periodic function of time, instead of monotonously decreasing as at jet movement.
Depends on scale. If you change e/m on microscale you have a BOMB. This may apply more to James Woodward's device than to yours. I don't really know at this moment.
Jack
Gennady uses the torsion field Tuv^w to get the same term.
Note that neither Woodward nor Gennady use the full machinery of Einstein's GR the way I do. I also need Gennady's torsion field, but I use it in a completely different way.
Gennady Shipov
We go by different ways, but the main thing that we have one goal.
Jack
Note the connection of my notation to Gennady's notation
The Cartan torsion 2-form in curved base space is T where
T = Tuvdx^u/\dx^v
Tuv = Tuv^a&a
a is in the tangent fiber and &a is a co-form basis in the tangent fiber.
Shipov's Tuv^w = Tuv^ae'a^w
where, in local frame-invariant INTRINSIC FORM for BOTH LIF & LNIF (mutually COINCIDENT)
e' = 1 + B + S
B is the curvature connection 1-form from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4) ref. Utiyama & Kibble 1960's
S is the torsion-connection 1-form from locally gauging O(1,3) giving Gennady's extra 6D for his "oriented point".
In my theory, using the Higgs field of the simplest version of the standard model of quarks and leptons - just to show the main idea pedagogically, spontaneous breakdown of internal SU(2) hypercharge in the physical vacuum gives
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(argphi)
"d" indicates argphi Goldstone phase singularities or branch cut phase jumps for topological defects associated with the non-trivial topology of the degenerate vacuum manifold G/H where H is the unbroken normal subgroup.
In effect
dB =/= 0
i.e.
d^2 = 0
but
d"d" =/= 0 from singularities giving "Flux without flux" "multi-valued gauge transformations" (H. Kleinert)
Also?phi the LOCAL vacuum coherence macro-quantum Higgs field order parameter is shown here
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_27_jpg.htm
Furthermore, the curvature-torsion relation is
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
where
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
W is the 1915 GR "spin connection".
T = Tuvdx^u/\dx^v
Tuv = argphi[,u,v]
Gennady Shipov
Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected with primary torsion fields.
Jack
Show equations.
Shipov
It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum.
Jack
Show equations
A brief look at Gennady's equations here shows it to be similar to James Woodward's scheme. Neither Woodward's not Gennady's proposals would be WWD (Weightless Warp Drive) or GWD (Geodesic Warp Drive) in the sense of Alcubierre where we change the shape of the local geodesic glide path of the ship FROM the ship itself. However, both their schemes, would be PP, i.e. Propellantless Propulsion of the NON-geodesic kind so that, unlike WWD, the occupants in their ships will feel g-force stresses. My WWD is a superior scheme in that regard. The Shipov-Woodward fighters would be obviously outclassed by a WWD fighter in aerial or space combat.
Again for clarity
Woodward/Shipov schemes are PP but are not WWD, they are non-geodesic PP.
My scheme is WWD = geodesic PP.
Woodward tries to use Mach's Principle globally (or via advanced action Wheeler-Feynman) to get his
(dM/dt)v term
Note that Newton's F = dp/dt = Mdv/dt + (dM/dt)v
The second term on the RHS is the rocket propulsion term
Non-geodesic PP means dM/dt =/= 0 WITHOUT EJECTING PHYSICAL MASS.
Gennady Shipov
Dear Jack,
Concept of geodesic is relative.
Yes of course.
In Newton mechanics not geodesic movement (for example, free falling of the lift of Einstein) in Einstein's theory is considered as geodesic.
Yes of course.
In my work I use geodesic movement in geometry of absolute parallelism which from point of view of Newton mechanics is not geodesic.
OK
The main poin that now in physics there is a change of a scientific paradigm. To use the theories created in 20 century mean to go in impasse. The new 21 century demands new theory which should explain in the fundamental way the phenomena which now are proclaimed as abnormal. Now we know a lot of devices which have no a scientific substantiation within the framework of the equations of modern physics. The new physics, physics of 21 centuries is necessary and I think, that it will be a Theory of Physical vacuum. Creation of this theory is more important, than the invention of abnormal devices.
I need to see the math. I like the Cartan notation because
1. It is simple
2. It is automatically locally frame invariant for all symmetry groups.
So I say
e' = 1 + B + S = e + S
B is curvature 1-form tetrad
S is torsion 1-form tetrad
D' = d + W/\ + S/\ = D + S/
W is GR spin connection zero torsion where
d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S) = torsion 2-form
R = dW + W/\W = 1915 GR curvature 2-form
DR = 0 is 1915 Bianchi identity (like dF = 0 in EM)
D*R = *J (like d*F = *J in EM)
D^2R = D*J = 0
is 1915 GR stress-energy current density local conservation
R' = d(W + S) + (W + S)/\(W + S)
Absolute parallelism is
R' = 0
in that case,
dW + dS + W/\W + W/\S + S/\W + S/\S = 0
But
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
T = dS + W/\S + S/\S + S/\1 + S/\B
dS + W/\S + S/\S = T - S/\1 - S/\B
Therefore
dW + dS + W/\W + W/\S + S/\W + S/\S = 0
dW + T - S/\1 - S/\B + W/\W + S/\W = 0
R + T - S/\(1 + B + W) = 0
R + T = S/\(1 + B + W)
And when S = 0, therefore T = 0 and then
R = 0
which is flat space-time since R is the curvature 2-form, so that's OK.
However, when S =/= 0
R = S(1 + B + W) - T
where W is determined by B entirely.
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)
Also
In general, however when
R' =/= 0
D'R' = 0
D'*R' = *J'
1915 GR uses only the unprimed pieces when S = 0.
Jack
The DANGER HERE is its INTRINSIC INSTABILITY - if you are too successful and change e/m for electrons and nucleons, then you BLOW UP THE MACHINE and indeed it may be a CATASTROPHIC WMD!
Gennady Shipov
Absolutely is no DANGER. The variable inertial mass M in the equation Mdv/dt + (dM/dt)v=0
That says dP/dt = 0, OK no external force.
appears as periodic function of time, instead of monotonously decreasing as at jet movement.
Depends on scale. If you change e/m on microscale you have a BOMB. This may apply more to James Woodward's device than to yours. I don't really know at this moment.
Jack
Gennady uses the torsion field Tuv^w to get the same term.
Note that neither Woodward nor Gennady use the full machinery of Einstein's GR the way I do. I also need Gennady's torsion field, but I use it in a completely different way.
Gennady Shipov
We go by different ways, but the main thing that we have one goal.
Jack
Note the connection of my notation to Gennady's notation
The Cartan torsion 2-form in curved base space is T where
T = Tuvdx^u/\dx^v
Tuv = Tuv^a&a
a is in the tangent fiber and &a is a co-form basis in the tangent fiber.
Shipov's Tuv^w = Tuv^ae'a^w
where, in local frame-invariant INTRINSIC FORM for BOTH LIF & LNIF (mutually COINCIDENT)
e' = 1 + B + S
B is the curvature connection 1-form from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4) ref. Utiyama & Kibble 1960's
S is the torsion-connection 1-form from locally gauging O(1,3) giving Gennady's extra 6D for his "oriented point".
In my theory, using the Higgs field of the simplest version of the standard model of quarks and leptons - just to show the main idea pedagogically, spontaneous breakdown of internal SU(2) hypercharge in the physical vacuum gives
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(argphi)
"d" indicates argphi Goldstone phase singularities or branch cut phase jumps for topological defects associated with the non-trivial topology of the degenerate vacuum manifold G/H where H is the unbroken normal subgroup.
In effect
dB =/= 0
i.e.
d^2 = 0
but
d"d" =/= 0 from singularities giving "Flux without flux" "multi-valued gauge transformations" (H. Kleinert)
Also?phi the LOCAL vacuum coherence macro-quantum Higgs field order parameter is shown here
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_27_jpg.htm
Furthermore, the curvature-torsion relation is
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
where
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
W is the 1915 GR "spin connection".
T = Tuvdx^u/\dx^v
Tuv = argphi[,u,v]
Gennady Shipov
Goldstone's fields and Higgs's mechanism in my theory are connected with primary torsion fields.
Jack
Show equations.
Shipov
It is object which appears pioneering from Absolute Vacuum.
Jack
Show equations
Savage Nation: Loonie Lefties with Mental Disorders, 9-11 Conspiracy UFO Kooks?
On Sep 22, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am suspicious of Jim Marrs. He wrote a hack anti-American 9-11 book saying it was all our fault. His book supports Al Qaeda it seems to me. It looks to me that Jim Marrs is on the wrong side in the War on Terror. Maybe I am wrong, but that's my impression right now. Jim is what my good buddy Michael Savage is ranting about - Lefties with Mental Disorders! There are also Righties with Mental Disorders of course. Jihad! Jihad! Einstein is Allah! :-)
On Sep 22, 2005, at 9:39 AM, art wagner wrote:
(http://www.majiceyesonly.com)
On Sep 22, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am suspicious of Jim Marrs. He wrote a hack anti-American 9-11 book saying it was all our fault. His book supports Al Qaeda it seems to me. It looks to me that Jim Marrs is on the wrong side in the War on Terror. Maybe I am wrong, but that's my impression right now. Jim is what my good buddy Michael Savage is ranting about - Lefties with Mental Disorders! There are also Righties with Mental Disorders of course. Jihad! Jihad! Einstein is Allah! :-)
On Sep 22, 2005, at 9:39 AM, art wagner wrote:
(http://www.majiceyesonly.com)
Zero Point Energy
I am not misusing cosmology. Your w = +1/3 model of the EVO requires that we live in a sea of random zero point energy with /\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2. It is you who do not understand the restriction that cosmology places on your model. Also you do not understand that even a uniform field of zero point energy density must bend spacetime because of the equivalence principle. Your argument that only differences in zero point energy density are physical contradicts Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Hal your argument below is surface looking blindly at the formalism without any deep physical intuition on what that formalism really means IMHO.
On Sep 22, 2005, at 12:15 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
Jack, you have many times invited me to critique your theoretical approach as you have mine. OK, I then provide the following for your consideration.
First, yes, it is true that, as you and Ibison have agreed upon (as do I, BTW) an "empty" universe filled only with a cubic-frequency ZPE that is Lorentz invariant and has no cutoff has an equation of state w = -1 for the very good reasons stated in Peacock, p. 26 ff., and as restated in very clear terms by Michael. We have no disagreement there.
OK. But you did use w = +1/3 in that EVO paper right? I mean you have a positive ZPE density with a positive ZPE pressure outside your shell of charge with zero ZPE inside. Yes?
When it comes to applying ZPE concepts to Casimir Effect calculations, however, the vacuum territory is radically restructured. The introduction of specifically-placed plate boundaries with materials-dependent cutoffs means that we no longer have a w = -1, Lorentz-invariant vacuum structure, but rather a frame-dependent vacuum structure defined by the placement and materials of the Casimir plates.
I am not talking about that. You have used w = +1/3 outside the shell of charge in the space of the entire universe.
The details, explicitly stated in GR vacuum stress-energy terms as you wish to do, are provided in B. S. DeWitt, "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime," Phys. Reports, vol. 19, pp. 295-357 (1975). In setting up the problem of a ZPE-filled vacuum into which plates are to be inserted, regularization of the now-required frame-dependent stress tensor at the beginning setup yields T^(uv) = (3/\^4/pi^2) x diag [1, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3], where /\ here is a high-energy cutoff (not the cosmological constant). As stated by DeWitt, "This has exactly the same form as the stress tensor of a photon gas at rest (zero total 3-momentum) in the chosen frame." That is, w = + 1/3.
This makes no sense at all. What stress tensor are you talking about? The stress tensor of the matter of the plates? What do you mean by a "photon gas"? If you mean real photons then they obey hf = hck and of course w = +1/3 for things like black-body radiation. What does that have to do with the ZPF? There is something very wrong with what you say here. The error may be DeWitt's not yours. What you seem to say is something like this, start with Einstein's equation
Guv = KTuv(Matter)
Do some kind of quantum regularization on classical Tuv(Matter) to get T*uv(Matter)
But that is irrelevant to what I am talking about.
I start with VACUUM in which classical Tuv(Matter) = 0
The quantum vacuum has
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
where the stress-energy density of the vacuum ZPF is
tuv(ZPF) = K^-1/\zpfguv with w = -1
Now if you stick in the plates as well then you get
Guv + /\zpfguv = KTuv(PLATES)
Regularize the RHS and according to you one allegedly gets something like
Tuv(Plates) -> T*uv(Plates + QF)
where the QF part has w = +1/3 like a real photon gas (e.g. black body rad) and the Plates have w = 0.
I use "QF" from quantum fluctuations induced by inserting plates so as not to confused them with the ZPF that is there even when there are no plates.
This makes some sense because of the Unruh-Hawking Effect. That is your w = 0 PLATES fixed in a gravity field are in a LNIF off geodesic, therefore they will see LNIF black body radiation with w = +1/3 from the equivalence principle but of very low temperature.
But that is irrelevant, because DeWitt is talking about a completely different term than I am talking about! DeWitt is talking about Tuv(Plates) in a non-geodesic LNIF in which YES I agree there will be a TINY w = +1/3 component artifact of inserting the plates.
I am talking about the different term /\zpfguv. Also
/\zpfguv >> Regularized Tuv(Plates)
in your EVO model, if you did it correctly.
So, in general
Guv + /\zpf(vacuum)guv = KT*(LNIF Plates + Hawking-Unruh Radiation)
Where
/\zpf(vacuum)guv is w = -1
and
KT*(Plates + Hawking-Unruh Radiation)
has both a w = 0 classical Plate component and the w = +1/3 LNIF Hawking-Unruh black body radiation component.
Both of these terms are SMALL compared to /\zpfguv (in the interior of the shell of charge in my model and in the exterior of the shell in your model.
Then, when the parallel conductors are introduced, "the vacuum between is no longer the vacuum of uncluttered Minkowski space" and calculation leads to the result
T^(uv) = (3/\^4/pi^2) x diag [1, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3] + (pi^2 h-bar c/720 d^4) X diag [-1, 1, 1, -3], where d is the spacing between the plates. This leads to a net pressure that can be written T^33 = - pi h c/480 d^4. (Note use of h, not h-bar, here.)
Yes for QED Casimir force that is irrelevant to my point about the direct bending of space-time by any residual zero point energy density that is not absorbed into the vacuum ODLRO macro-quantum coherent "supersolid" order parameter whose Goldstone phase argphi actually gives
Guv + /\zpf(vacuum)guv = KT*(LNIF Plates + Hawking-Unruh Radiation)
via
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(argphi)
where
Now, to be clear just what this means, we go to P. W. Milonni et al., "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum: Physical Interpretation of the Casimir Force," Phys. Rev. A, vol. 38, 1621-1623 (1988). Here Milonni explicitly chose to calculate the Casimir force, not on the basis of energy changes as is the usual case, but rather on the basis of differences in Poynting vector (positive) radiation pressures of the boundary-dependent fields between and outside the plates. The result, as in the GR calculation above, is Eq. (6), Net P = - pi h c/480 d^4. Lest there remain any question as to exactly the interpretation to be given to this result, Milonni states explicitly (p. 1622, 1st column):
".. since the modes in the space outside the plate form a continuum, whereas those inside are restricted to discrete values of k_z, there are 'more' modes outside to push the plates together by radiation pressure than there are modes between the plates to push them apart." He then goes on to indicate that just counting the modes is not the whole story, since for the spherical case the same calculation leads to an expanding rather than collapsing geometry, but, nonetheless, the positive radiation pressure still holds in that "The simple analysis leading to Eq. (6) shows that the Casimir effect is just the zero-temperature limit of this classical (italics his) radiation force."
Hal I know this elementary stuff you are parroting back to me, but it misses my point entirely and is not relevant.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" (J.A. Wheeler)
Everything you say about is about Special Relativity without gravity! I have no argument with that other than it is incomplete. As soon as you include the equivalence principle everything changes dramatically and the direct bending of space-time by even a UNIFORM field of ZPE density cannot be avoided! Cosmology is very relevant here. The kind of special relativistic quantum field theory you cite above is completely inadequate conceptually to deal with the problem, that's why all The Big Shot Pundits are all in the Men's Hair Shop because they have pulled out their hair going bonkers worrying about this problem as well they should. ;-)
In summary, we have both the curved-space GR vacuum approach (DeWitt) of a type that you wish to use, and the classical-like ZPE radiation pressure approach (Milonni) leading to the same result, experimentally verified to high precision (5% by Lamoreaux at Univ. of Wash./LANL), 1 % by Mohideen et al. at UC Riverside).
All DeWitt did there was to show the Hawking-Unruh radiation effect induced by placing the neutral conducting plates on a non-geodesic world line in curved space-time. He would LOCALLY get same thing by accelerating the plates in flat space-time. So what?
Jack, until you have gone to the effort to study and understand this material, we will only continue to talk past each other with one-liner sound bites and rebuttals on the topic of Casimir models for charge clusters and related phenomena.
No Hal, the problem is very simple. Your calculation for the EVOs is no good because it really does contradict cosmological data and you completely missed what I was saying about the stability of the single electron even if there are no EVOs in Ken Shoulders sense as Ibison seems to think? You have misunderstood DeWitt I think and you did not calculate the size of his regularization I suspect. It will be small compared to what I am talking about.
On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:04 PM, cosifan (Robert Collins - a delusional not very intelligent groupie of Hal's) wrote:
If you use Einstein's exponential metric which JS
knows all about there are no such things as event horizons or
black holes.
Yes, Mouse we know that, but the evidence is against that. Where is the evidence?
Start here
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/program.htm
Meantime BACK INTO TO YOUR TEAPOT! I'm late, I'm late ... :-)
To give Hal his due, these issues of renormalization are very tricky and probably inconsistent anyway. Renormalization starts with assuming a point charge electron and it is not appropriate the micro-geon model. BTW one gets pretty good answer for things like Lamb shift with a cutoff at 10^-13 cm. This is consistent with strong short-range zero point energy dark energy cores /\zpf ~ (c^3/hG*) where G* ~ 10^40G. In other words, the whole problem must be looked at new.
Hal cites DeWitt on quantum field theory in curved space-time, to which my remarks were addressed. Then he jumped to a flat space-time calculation of the Casimir force which is completely irrelevant. Hal seems to say that it's OK to use w = +1/3 because the plates break translation symmetry in flat space-time. However, this sounds dubious because Lorentz group symmetry should still be OK. So Hal and Ibison seem to be at odds on w = +1/3 vs w = -1.
In any case, I do not think the QED calculations in flat space-time Hal cites are relevant to the problem even if one can get away with using w = +1/3 there.
My picture of the single extended electron is geometrodyamics with QED Casimir force as a term in the Hamiltonian of order (number @ from Hal's QED citation) hc/r where in Galilean limit for a uniform ZPE density inside the shell of charge
V ~ +@hc/mr + + e^2/mr + c^2/\zpfr^2 + J^2/2mr^2
Therefore, Hal's Casimir force is simply an effective re-scaling of the "charge" factor from e^2 to e^2 + @hc
J = rotational momentum
That is e*^2 = e^2(1 + @hc/e^2) = e^2(1 + @137) ~ 137@e^2
Where @ is the pure number from the QED Hal mentions. So Hal's point is simply one term in my model. No problem!
Therefore INCLUDING HAL's CASIMIR FORCE term from the QED (if it used w = + 1/3 so what?) my model has
V = 137@e^2/mr + J^2/mr^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2
The equilibrium is at
dV/dr = 0
The equilibrium is stable because
d^2V/dr^2 > 0
SIMPLE & PRETTY
Therefore, the basic renormalization procedure starting from a point charge may not be correct at all!
As Hal P said, Dark Energy only makes up a
small fraction of the total vacuum energy density of the Universe
or something like ~5% compared to the total vacuum energy density.
It's only that small fraction with w = -1 pushing the galaxies apart....Rmc
No Mouse you got that completely wrong as usual! In Hal's defense he never said that.
The dark energy pushing the galaxies apart in addition to the Hubble expansion is
a 73% effect not your 5% that you garbled with 4% of "atoms" below.
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/Kolb2_Page_12_jpg.htm
On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:16 AM, art wagner wrote:
Jack, I'd say that these two papers bode pretty well for your w = -1
position: (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0502203) and
(http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0503210)
I am not misusing cosmology. Your w = +1/3 model of the EVO requires that we live in a sea of random zero point energy with /\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2. It is you who do not understand the restriction that cosmology places on your model. Also you do not understand that even a uniform field of zero point energy density must bend spacetime because of the equivalence principle. Your argument that only differences in zero point energy density are physical contradicts Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Hal your argument below is surface looking blindly at the formalism without any deep physical intuition on what that formalism really means IMHO.
On Sep 22, 2005, at 12:15 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
Jack, you have many times invited me to critique your theoretical approach as you have mine. OK, I then provide the following for your consideration.
First, yes, it is true that, as you and Ibison have agreed upon (as do I, BTW) an "empty" universe filled only with a cubic-frequency ZPE that is Lorentz invariant and has no cutoff has an equation of state w = -1 for the very good reasons stated in Peacock, p. 26 ff., and as restated in very clear terms by Michael. We have no disagreement there.
OK. But you did use w = +1/3 in that EVO paper right? I mean you have a positive ZPE density with a positive ZPE pressure outside your shell of charge with zero ZPE inside. Yes?
When it comes to applying ZPE concepts to Casimir Effect calculations, however, the vacuum territory is radically restructured. The introduction of specifically-placed plate boundaries with materials-dependent cutoffs means that we no longer have a w = -1, Lorentz-invariant vacuum structure, but rather a frame-dependent vacuum structure defined by the placement and materials of the Casimir plates.
I am not talking about that. You have used w = +1/3 outside the shell of charge in the space of the entire universe.
The details, explicitly stated in GR vacuum stress-energy terms as you wish to do, are provided in B. S. DeWitt, "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime," Phys. Reports, vol. 19, pp. 295-357 (1975). In setting up the problem of a ZPE-filled vacuum into which plates are to be inserted, regularization of the now-required frame-dependent stress tensor at the beginning setup yields T^(uv) = (3/\^4/pi^2) x diag [1, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3], where /\ here is a high-energy cutoff (not the cosmological constant). As stated by DeWitt, "This has exactly the same form as the stress tensor of a photon gas at rest (zero total 3-momentum) in the chosen frame." That is, w = + 1/3.
This makes no sense at all. What stress tensor are you talking about? The stress tensor of the matter of the plates? What do you mean by a "photon gas"? If you mean real photons then they obey hf = hck and of course w = +1/3 for things like black-body radiation. What does that have to do with the ZPF? There is something very wrong with what you say here. The error may be DeWitt's not yours. What you seem to say is something like this, start with Einstein's equation
Guv = KTuv(Matter)
Do some kind of quantum regularization on classical Tuv(Matter) to get T*uv(Matter)
But that is irrelevant to what I am talking about.
I start with VACUUM in which classical Tuv(Matter) = 0
The quantum vacuum has
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
where the stress-energy density of the vacuum ZPF is
tuv(ZPF) = K^-1/\zpfguv with w = -1
Now if you stick in the plates as well then you get
Guv + /\zpfguv = KTuv(PLATES)
Regularize the RHS and according to you one allegedly gets something like
Tuv(Plates) -> T*uv(Plates + QF)
where the QF part has w = +1/3 like a real photon gas (e.g. black body rad) and the Plates have w = 0.
I use "QF" from quantum fluctuations induced by inserting plates so as not to confused them with the ZPF that is there even when there are no plates.
This makes some sense because of the Unruh-Hawking Effect. That is your w = 0 PLATES fixed in a gravity field are in a LNIF off geodesic, therefore they will see LNIF black body radiation with w = +1/3 from the equivalence principle but of very low temperature.
But that is irrelevant, because DeWitt is talking about a completely different term than I am talking about! DeWitt is talking about Tuv(Plates) in a non-geodesic LNIF in which YES I agree there will be a TINY w = +1/3 component artifact of inserting the plates.
I am talking about the different term /\zpfguv. Also
/\zpfguv >> Regularized Tuv(Plates)
in your EVO model, if you did it correctly.
So, in general
Guv + /\zpf(vacuum)guv = KT*(LNIF Plates + Hawking-Unruh Radiation)
Where
/\zpf(vacuum)guv is w = -1
and
KT*(Plates + Hawking-Unruh Radiation)
has both a w = 0 classical Plate component and the w = +1/3 LNIF Hawking-Unruh black body radiation component.
Both of these terms are SMALL compared to /\zpfguv (in the interior of the shell of charge in my model and in the exterior of the shell in your model.
Then, when the parallel conductors are introduced, "the vacuum between is no longer the vacuum of uncluttered Minkowski space" and calculation leads to the result
T^(uv) = (3/\^4/pi^2) x diag [1, 1/3, 1/3, 1/3] + (pi^2 h-bar c/720 d^4) X diag [-1, 1, 1, -3], where d is the spacing between the plates. This leads to a net pressure that can be written T^33 = - pi h c/480 d^4. (Note use of h, not h-bar, here.)
Yes for QED Casimir force that is irrelevant to my point about the direct bending of space-time by any residual zero point energy density that is not absorbed into the vacuum ODLRO macro-quantum coherent "supersolid" order parameter whose Goldstone phase argphi actually gives
Guv + /\zpf(vacuum)guv = KT*(LNIF Plates + Hawking-Unruh Radiation)
via
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(argphi)
where
Now, to be clear just what this means, we go to P. W. Milonni et al., "Radiation Pressure from the Vacuum: Physical Interpretation of the Casimir Force," Phys. Rev. A, vol. 38, 1621-1623 (1988). Here Milonni explicitly chose to calculate the Casimir force, not on the basis of energy changes as is the usual case, but rather on the basis of differences in Poynting vector (positive) radiation pressures of the boundary-dependent fields between and outside the plates. The result, as in the GR calculation above, is Eq. (6), Net P = - pi h c/480 d^4. Lest there remain any question as to exactly the interpretation to be given to this result, Milonni states explicitly (p. 1622, 1st column):
".. since the modes in the space outside the plate form a continuum, whereas those inside are restricted to discrete values of k_z, there are 'more' modes outside to push the plates together by radiation pressure than there are modes between the plates to push them apart." He then goes on to indicate that just counting the modes is not the whole story, since for the spherical case the same calculation leads to an expanding rather than collapsing geometry, but, nonetheless, the positive radiation pressure still holds in that "The simple analysis leading to Eq. (6) shows that the Casimir effect is just the zero-temperature limit of this classical (italics his) radiation force."
Hal I know this elementary stuff you are parroting back to me, but it misses my point entirely and is not relevant.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" (J.A. Wheeler)
Everything you say about is about Special Relativity without gravity! I have no argument with that other than it is incomplete. As soon as you include the equivalence principle everything changes dramatically and the direct bending of space-time by even a UNIFORM field of ZPE density cannot be avoided! Cosmology is very relevant here. The kind of special relativistic quantum field theory you cite above is completely inadequate conceptually to deal with the problem, that's why all The Big Shot Pundits are all in the Men's Hair Shop because they have pulled out their hair going bonkers worrying about this problem as well they should. ;-)
In summary, we have both the curved-space GR vacuum approach (DeWitt) of a type that you wish to use, and the classical-like ZPE radiation pressure approach (Milonni) leading to the same result, experimentally verified to high precision (5% by Lamoreaux at Univ. of Wash./LANL), 1 % by Mohideen et al. at UC Riverside).
All DeWitt did there was to show the Hawking-Unruh radiation effect induced by placing the neutral conducting plates on a non-geodesic world line in curved space-time. He would LOCALLY get same thing by accelerating the plates in flat space-time. So what?
Jack, until you have gone to the effort to study and understand this material, we will only continue to talk past each other with one-liner sound bites and rebuttals on the topic of Casimir models for charge clusters and related phenomena.
No Hal, the problem is very simple. Your calculation for the EVOs is no good because it really does contradict cosmological data and you completely missed what I was saying about the stability of the single electron even if there are no EVOs in Ken Shoulders sense as Ibison seems to think? You have misunderstood DeWitt I think and you did not calculate the size of his regularization I suspect. It will be small compared to what I am talking about.
On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:04 PM, cosifan (Robert Collins - a delusional not very intelligent groupie of Hal's) wrote:
If you use Einstein's exponential metric which JS
knows all about there are no such things as event horizons or
black holes.
Yes, Mouse we know that, but the evidence is against that. Where is the evidence?
Start here
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/program.htm
Meantime BACK INTO TO YOUR TEAPOT! I'm late, I'm late ... :-)
To give Hal his due, these issues of renormalization are very tricky and probably inconsistent anyway. Renormalization starts with assuming a point charge electron and it is not appropriate the micro-geon model. BTW one gets pretty good answer for things like Lamb shift with a cutoff at 10^-13 cm. This is consistent with strong short-range zero point energy dark energy cores /\zpf ~ (c^3/hG*) where G* ~ 10^40G. In other words, the whole problem must be looked at new.
Hal cites DeWitt on quantum field theory in curved space-time, to which my remarks were addressed. Then he jumped to a flat space-time calculation of the Casimir force which is completely irrelevant. Hal seems to say that it's OK to use w = +1/3 because the plates break translation symmetry in flat space-time. However, this sounds dubious because Lorentz group symmetry should still be OK. So Hal and Ibison seem to be at odds on w = +1/3 vs w = -1.
In any case, I do not think the QED calculations in flat space-time Hal cites are relevant to the problem even if one can get away with using w = +1/3 there.
My picture of the single extended electron is geometrodyamics with QED Casimir force as a term in the Hamiltonian of order (number @ from Hal's QED citation) hc/r where in Galilean limit for a uniform ZPE density inside the shell of charge
V ~ +@hc/mr + + e^2/mr + c^2/\zpfr^2 + J^2/2mr^2
Therefore, Hal's Casimir force is simply an effective re-scaling of the "charge" factor from e^2 to e^2 + @hc
J = rotational momentum
That is e*^2 = e^2(1 + @hc/e^2) = e^2(1 + @137) ~ 137@e^2
Where @ is the pure number from the QED Hal mentions. So Hal's point is simply one term in my model. No problem!
Therefore INCLUDING HAL's CASIMIR FORCE term from the QED (if it used w = + 1/3 so what?) my model has
V = 137@e^2/mr + J^2/mr^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2
The equilibrium is at
dV/dr = 0
The equilibrium is stable because
d^2V/dr^2 > 0
SIMPLE & PRETTY
Therefore, the basic renormalization procedure starting from a point charge may not be correct at all!
As Hal P said, Dark Energy only makes up a
small fraction of the total vacuum energy density of the Universe
or something like ~5% compared to the total vacuum energy density.
It's only that small fraction with w = -1 pushing the galaxies apart....Rmc
No Mouse you got that completely wrong as usual! In Hal's defense he never said that.
The dark energy pushing the galaxies apart in addition to the Hubble expansion is
a 73% effect not your 5% that you garbled with 4% of "atoms" below.
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/Kolb2_Page_12_jpg.htm
On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:16 AM, art wagner wrote:
Jack, I'd say that these two papers bode pretty well for your w = -1
position: (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0502203) and
(http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0503210)
Ira Einhorn's new book & hate mail campaign from Springfield MO Sept 17, 2005.
On Sep 22, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Jim Sorrells wrote:
Jack,
I don't know Brandon, but there are worse people with whom to be grouped than Werner Erhard and Mike Murphy! (I knew Mike and Dick Price from before Esalen Hot Springs became Esalen, and I was an enthusiastic est grad although not an est-hole, at least I don't think. The est training was one of the most valuable experiences I've ever had, bar none.)
As David suggested, I would be delighted to send you the book. I think you will find it fascinating. In fact, Ira suggested it, but I have been negligent.
Jim Sorrells
You are in touch with Ira in prison? Please tell him 5 friends of mine received that hate letter mailed from Springfield MO on Sept 17, 2005 basically accusing me of the sorts of crimes against women that he was accused of! Strange that appeared out of the blue around same time that this book is coming out. This is happening at same time I have cracked the physics enigma of how the alien flying saucers really work! If you go to my website http://stardrive.org Discussion forum you will find technical info you can copy and mail to Ira.
At 12:57 PM 9/22/2005, gear2000@lightspeed.net wrote:
Jack,
I have not read Ira's book, Prelude to Intimacy, since my computer
died and have been borrowing a neighbor's a few hours a day to
deal with my email via server site, but Nayer Hardin and Jim Sorrells
have read it, Jim being Ira's friend from the 60's publishing the book
and Nayer helping get it into/onto eBook format etc, ready for release
any day now, see both cc above.
If you want to do a review of/for the book, one of them can send it.
Sorry to hear about the trouble of the hate mail problem.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Sep 21, 2005 3:00 PM
To: David Williams,
Colin Bennett
Subject: Re: Esalen & publication congratulations on Super Cosmos book by Jack Sarfatti
Thanks, have you read Ira's book?
You know there is an anonymous hate letter campaign against me
accusing me basically of being drug-crazed and the real Ira Einhorn
serial murderer - even worse - The Devil Incarnate! The letter has me
in league with Werner Erhard and also mentions Michael Murphy and
Nathaniel Brandon. Brandon is almost as evil as me, but I am worse
says the "woman" writer. It started Sept 17, 2005 from a post-box in
Springfield MO. So far I know of 5 identical unsigned letters no
return address all sent out from the same PO at same time.
Herbert Gold said it is the price of fame. It has happened to him.
He told me to wear it as a "badge of honor."
On Sep 21, 2005, at 10:34 AM, gear2000@lightspeed.net wrote:
> Jack,
>
> Please add my congratulations to the pile of it building
> up over the publication of your Super Cosmos book.
>
> Ira Einhorn's "Prelude to Intimacy" will come soon
> as an eBook. Amazing grace of internet publishing
> technology status these days, amazing.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ira-einhorn
>
> Best Wishes for your continuing god work,
>
> David
>
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
>
> http://www.stardrive.org
>
>> From: JR
>> Date: September 20, 2005 2:29:31 PM PDT
>> To:
>> Subject: Congratulations on the publication of your book!
>>
>>
>> To view this email as a Web page, click HERE..
>>
>> Dear Jack,
>>
>> Congratulations! Your book has gone "live" and is now available for
>> sale on the AuthorHouse website http://www.authorhouse.com/
>> BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999! Your book will soon be
>> available for sale through thousands of retailers nationwide! A
>> courtesy copy of your book SUPER COSMOS, is being mailed to you.
>>
On Sep 22, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Jim Sorrells wrote:
Jack,
I don't know Brandon, but there are worse people with whom to be grouped than Werner Erhard and Mike Murphy! (I knew Mike and Dick Price from before Esalen Hot Springs became Esalen, and I was an enthusiastic est grad although not an est-hole, at least I don't think. The est training was one of the most valuable experiences I've ever had, bar none.)
As David suggested, I would be delighted to send you the book. I think you will find it fascinating. In fact, Ira suggested it, but I have been negligent.
Jim Sorrells
You are in touch with Ira in prison? Please tell him 5 friends of mine received that hate letter mailed from Springfield MO on Sept 17, 2005 basically accusing me of the sorts of crimes against women that he was accused of! Strange that appeared out of the blue around same time that this book is coming out. This is happening at same time I have cracked the physics enigma of how the alien flying saucers really work! If you go to my website http://stardrive.org Discussion forum you will find technical info you can copy and mail to Ira.
At 12:57 PM 9/22/2005, gear2000@lightspeed.net wrote:
Jack,
I have not read Ira's book, Prelude to Intimacy, since my computer
died and have been borrowing a neighbor's a few hours a day to
deal with my email via server site, but Nayer Hardin and Jim Sorrells
have read it, Jim being Ira's friend from the 60's publishing the book
and Nayer helping get it into/onto eBook format etc, ready for release
any day now, see both cc above.
If you want to do a review of/for the book, one of them can send it.
Sorry to hear about the trouble of the hate mail problem.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Sep 21, 2005 3:00 PM
To: David Williams
Colin Bennett
Subject: Re: Esalen & publication congratulations on Super Cosmos book by Jack Sarfatti
Thanks, have you read Ira's book?
You know there is an anonymous hate letter campaign against me
accusing me basically of being drug-crazed and the real Ira Einhorn
serial murderer - even worse - The Devil Incarnate! The letter has me
in league with Werner Erhard and also mentions Michael Murphy and
Nathaniel Brandon. Brandon is almost as evil as me, but I am worse
says the "woman" writer. It started Sept 17, 2005 from a post-box in
Springfield MO. So far I know of 5 identical unsigned letters no
return address all sent out from the same PO at same time.
Herbert Gold said it is the price of fame. It has happened to him.
He told me to wear it as a "badge of honor."
On Sep 21, 2005, at 10:34 AM, gear2000@lightspeed.net wrote:
> Jack,
>
> Please add my congratulations to the pile of it building
> up over the publication of your Super Cosmos book.
>
> Ira Einhorn's "Prelude to Intimacy" will come soon
> as an eBook. Amazing grace of internet publishing
> technology status these days, amazing.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ira-einhorn
>
> Best Wishes for your continuing god work,
>
> David
>
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
>
> http://www.stardrive.org
>
>> From: JR
>> Date: September 20, 2005 2:29:31 PM PDT
>> To:
>> Subject: Congratulations on the publication of your book!
>>
>>
>> To view this email as a Web page, click HERE..
>>
>> Dear Jack,
>>
>> Congratulations! Your book has gone "live" and is now available for
>> sale on the AuthorHouse website http://www.authorhouse.com/
>> BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999! Your book will soon be
>> available for sale through thousands of retailers nationwide! A
>> courtesy copy of your book SUPER COSMOS, is being mailed to you.
>>
Something Wiki this way comes
Jack Sarfatti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jack Sarfatti is a frequent poster to certain Usenet groups, such as sci.physics. His contributions, which are notable for their extensive use of technical buzzwords, are often incorrectly regarded as incoherent.
Sarfatti's websites have earned the crankiest rating from the crank.net website. (See links below.)
"Sarfatti is eccentric, but his knowledge of basic cosmology issues is razor sharp. As an example he was able to carefully delineate the basic flaw in the zero point energy paradigm as it relates to the Einstein cosmological constant, which I found extremely useful to know." A. Beckwith
Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have an academic background in theoretical physics. He earned an undergraduate from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the guidance of Hans Bethe. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from UCR in 1969, writing a thesis under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State was a Research Fellow under David Bohm University of London and Abdus Salam (ICTP) before venturing into non-academic pursuits. Sarfatti's 1967 paper "The Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect, written with Marshall Stoneham (later head of Theoretical Physics Div, Harwell UKAERE, is cited in American Institute of Physics "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics." Ray Chiao, professor of physics at Berkeley credits Sarfatti's 1967 paper on self-trapped laser filaments as analogy with Type II superconductor vortices as helpful in his early experiments in nonlinear optics. Leonard Susskind, inventor of string theory, credits Sarfatti's help in his first published paper in 1964 at Cornell on quantum phase and time operators. Susskind and Sarfatti were students together with Johnny Glogower.
Sarfatti predicted the recently observed ODLRO "supersolid" in Physics Letters A before Nobel Prize Tony Leggett did. George Chapline, who according to http://www.wyp-ptm.org/lecturers.html#chapline "... received the U.S. Department of Energy E.O. Lawrence Award in 1983 and served as Science Advisor to the Associate Lab Director for Defense Programs at the Los Alamos National Labs in 2000 and 2001 ..." wrote on 16 February 2005, saying in part: "... Jack, Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! ... This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me). george ...".
Tony Smith web site at http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
Sarfatti has had three books published by Author House since 2002, Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond II & Super Cosmos. He was awarded the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award in December 2004 by the denizens of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup.
[edit]
See also
* Usenet, an article about the Usenet in general
[edit]
External links
* Reality check], an essay by the late physicist Milton Rothman who, like Heinz Pagels, allegedly died shortly after dissing Sarfatti it appears, reviewing for the skeptic group CSICOP the (apparently defunct) website of something called the Internet Science Education Project, a "corporation" apparently created by Jack Sarfatti,
* Crank dot net, a very extensive list of cranky websites,
* Part 1 of the net-legends FAQ,
* Is Jack Sarfatti a kook or a genius.., a thread from sci.physics,
* disformation (an interview of Sarfatti),
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti web page containing some snippets of autobiography by Sarfatti, including photographs of himself literally at sea (on the flight deck of a carrier); see what appears to be Sarfatti's own account of the phone calls mentioned above,
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti blog.
Jack Sarfatti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jack Sarfatti is a frequent poster to certain Usenet groups, such as sci.physics. His contributions, which are notable for their extensive use of technical buzzwords, are often incorrectly regarded as incoherent.
Sarfatti's websites have earned the crankiest rating from the crank.net website. (See links below.)
"Sarfatti is eccentric, but his knowledge of basic cosmology issues is razor sharp. As an example he was able to carefully delineate the basic flaw in the zero point energy paradigm as it relates to the Einstein cosmological constant, which I found extremely useful to know." A. Beckwith
Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have an academic background in theoretical physics. He earned an undergraduate from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the guidance of Hans Bethe. He went on to earn a Ph.D. from UCR in 1969, writing a thesis under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State was a Research Fellow under David Bohm University of London and Abdus Salam (ICTP) before venturing into non-academic pursuits. Sarfatti's 1967 paper "The Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect, written with Marshall Stoneham (later head of Theoretical Physics Div, Harwell UKAERE, is cited in American Institute of Physics "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics." Ray Chiao, professor of physics at Berkeley credits Sarfatti's 1967 paper on self-trapped laser filaments as analogy with Type II superconductor vortices as helpful in his early experiments in nonlinear optics. Leonard Susskind, inventor of string theory, credits Sarfatti's help in his first published paper in 1964 at Cornell on quantum phase and time operators. Susskind and Sarfatti were students together with Johnny Glogower.
Sarfatti predicted the recently observed ODLRO "supersolid" in Physics Letters A before Nobel Prize Tony Leggett did. George Chapline, who according to http://www.wyp-ptm.org/lecturers.html#chapline "... received the U.S. Department of Energy E.O. Lawrence Award in 1983 and served as Science Advisor to the Associate Lab Director for Defense Programs at the Los Alamos National Labs in 2000 and 2001 ..." wrote on 16 February 2005, saying in part: "... Jack, Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! ... This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me). george ...".
Tony Smith web site at http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/
Sarfatti has had three books published by Author House since 2002, Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond II & Super Cosmos. He was awarded the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award in December 2004 by the denizens of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup.
[edit]
See also
* Usenet, an article about the Usenet in general
[edit]
External links
* Reality check], an essay by the late physicist Milton Rothman who, like Heinz Pagels, allegedly died shortly after dissing Sarfatti it appears, reviewing for the skeptic group CSICOP the (apparently defunct) website of something called the Internet Science Education Project, a "corporation" apparently created by Jack Sarfatti,
* Crank dot net, a very extensive list of cranky websites,
* Part 1 of the net-legends FAQ,
* Is Jack Sarfatti a kook or a genius.., a thread from sci.physics,
* disformation (an interview of Sarfatti),
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti web page containing some snippets of autobiography by Sarfatti, including photographs of himself literally at sea (on the flight deck of a carrier); see what appears to be Sarfatti's own account of the phone calls mentioned above,
* a Sarfatti website,
* a Sarfatti blog.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Hal Puthoff's error in ZPE calculations
On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/19/2005 12:17:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Hal ... got it wrong in his charge cluster paper where he used the wrong w = + 1/3 instead of the correct w = -1.
No, Jack.
w = -1 is the equation of state for the vacuum.
w = +1/3 is the equation of state for EM fields in the vacuum.
No Hal, you are wrong. The virtual ZPF photons in Casimir effect have w = -1. Only real photons have w = +1/3. You are completely wrong about that. Any calculations that use w = +1/3 are wrong and if they give a seemingly correct answer there is some kind of fudge or cancellation of two errors going on.
Secondly, even if we accept your use of w = +1/3 then you still get into a serious contradiction, because then your zero point energy density filling the vacuum outside the charge clusters corresponds to
/\zpf(Hal Puthoff) ~ (mc/h)^2 ~ (10^-11 cm)^-2
I grant you that this is an improvement over the naive quantum gravity foam value of
/\zpf(Quantum Foam) ~ (c^3/hG) ~ (10^-33 cm)^-2
when the observed number is
/\zpf ~ (H(t)/c)^-2 ~ (10^+29 cm)^-2
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/Kolb2_Page_25_jpg.htm
So your number is too big by 78 POWERS OF TEN! That's better than 122 POWERS OF TEN for naive quantum foam cutoff at Planck scale, but still not good enough!
Now, I understand that your HRP SED picture of ZPF for the origin of inertia DEMANDS w = +1/3 and that is another reason it is bad physics on top of all the reasons Mike Ibison has given.
Note that in your theory the pressure of the EM ZPF (SED version) is (1/3)(ZPE density) - same as black body thermal radiation of real photons into far field. Ignore Unruh/Hawking effect for now where surface gravity locally equivalent to non-geodesic accelerating LNIF makes a black body spectrum of tiny temperature. Therefore, in your theory the pressure of the SED EM ZPF is positive and this is clearly wrong.
Look at the clear difference between our two models of Ken Shoulders "charge clusters". We both picture a thin spherical shell of N electrons which obey
N(h/mc)^2 = 4pia^2
a = radius of the charge cluster.
You assume ZPE pressure p(inside) = 0 with a POSITIVE ZPE pressure(outside) = +(1/3)ZPE density.
That gets you in contradiction with above data on the vacuum energy density of the universe seen in Type Ia supernovae standard candles.
In contrast I have a huge w = -1 NEGATIVE ZPE p(inside) ~ -c^4/8piG(mc/h)^2 with a very tiny negative pressure outside corresponding to the observed /\ ~ (10^29 cm)^-2 as given by Rocky Kolb's slide above.
Casimir calculations are based on the latter, not the former (except in your model).
I recommend you read the definitive book on Casimir effects, K. A. Milton, Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy: The Casimir Effect (World Scientific Press, New Jersey, 2001).
Yes, and all those calculations are simply wrong. I don't care if they are in text books. People make mistakes. If you read Feynman's original papers on QED you will see those calculations are mis-conceived. It is you Hal who is not skeptical enough in this case! :-)
On Sep 19, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
...
To place all this in perspective, I consider myself, as a radical empiricist, to be an unreconstructed arch skeptic. A corollary of this, of course, is that my skepticism is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. I am on the one hand skeptical of radical physics ideas (e.g., SED, PV, Yilmaz), but I am equally skeptical of their facile dismissal on the basis of unexamined mainstream physics belief. (As you might correctly infer from these remarks, in my view you are often not skeptical enough!) Since I choose not to accept the given wisdom without question, nor rely on just historical authority alone, I opt to investigate such things myself to see where they lead, and then report out the results. This, to me, rather than sound-bite dismissals, is real physics.
To reiterate. I am aware of Peter Milonni's error in this regard in one of his 3 ways of calculating the Casimir effect and it is in other books as well. Indeed, the error may be traced to Landau himself - I will need to check that. But, obviously the calculation is wrong even if it gives the right answer, it does so for the wrong reasons!
Virtual photons off mass shell (light cone) are inside the physical vacuum. They must have w = -1 (assuming they are totally random & isotropic). Real photons on mass shell radiating to far field have w = +1/3.
Virtual ZPF photons have ALL three polarization states. Real photons have only 2. All of this is in Feynman's original papers that created QED.
On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/19/2005 12:17:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Hal ... got it wrong in his charge cluster paper where he used the wrong w = + 1/3 instead of the correct w = -1.
No, Jack.
w = -1 is the equation of state for the vacuum.
w = +1/3 is the equation of state for EM fields in the vacuum.
No Hal, you are wrong. The virtual ZPF photons in Casimir effect have w = -1. Only real photons have w = +1/3. You are completely wrong about that. Any calculations that use w = +1/3 are wrong and if they give a seemingly correct answer there is some kind of fudge or cancellation of two errors going on.
Secondly, even if we accept your use of w = +1/3 then you still get into a serious contradiction, because then your zero point energy density filling the vacuum outside the charge clusters corresponds to
/\zpf(Hal Puthoff) ~ (mc/h)^2 ~ (10^-11 cm)^-2
I grant you that this is an improvement over the naive quantum gravity foam value of
/\zpf(Quantum Foam) ~ (c^3/hG) ~ (10^-33 cm)^-2
when the observed number is
/\zpf ~ (H(t)/c)^-2 ~ (10^+29 cm)^-2
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/Kolb2_Page_25_jpg.htm
So your number is too big by 78 POWERS OF TEN! That's better than 122 POWERS OF TEN for naive quantum foam cutoff at Planck scale, but still not good enough!
Now, I understand that your HRP SED picture of ZPF for the origin of inertia DEMANDS w = +1/3 and that is another reason it is bad physics on top of all the reasons Mike Ibison has given.
Note that in your theory the pressure of the EM ZPF (SED version) is (1/3)(ZPE density) - same as black body thermal radiation of real photons into far field. Ignore Unruh/Hawking effect for now where surface gravity locally equivalent to non-geodesic accelerating LNIF makes a black body spectrum of tiny temperature. Therefore, in your theory the pressure of the SED EM ZPF is positive and this is clearly wrong.
Look at the clear difference between our two models of Ken Shoulders "charge clusters". We both picture a thin spherical shell of N electrons which obey
N(h/mc)^2 = 4pia^2
a = radius of the charge cluster.
You assume ZPE pressure p(inside) = 0 with a POSITIVE ZPE pressure(outside) = +(1/3)ZPE density.
That gets you in contradiction with above data on the vacuum energy density of the universe seen in Type Ia supernovae standard candles.
In contrast I have a huge w = -1 NEGATIVE ZPE p(inside) ~ -c^4/8piG(mc/h)^2 with a very tiny negative pressure outside corresponding to the observed /\ ~ (10^29 cm)^-2 as given by Rocky Kolb's slide above.
Casimir calculations are based on the latter, not the former (except in your model).
I recommend you read the definitive book on Casimir effects, K. A. Milton, Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy: The Casimir Effect (World Scientific Press, New Jersey, 2001).
Yes, and all those calculations are simply wrong. I don't care if they are in text books. People make mistakes. If you read Feynman's original papers on QED you will see those calculations are mis-conceived. It is you Hal who is not skeptical enough in this case! :-)
On Sep 19, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
...
To place all this in perspective, I consider myself, as a radical empiricist, to be an unreconstructed arch skeptic. A corollary of this, of course, is that my skepticism is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. I am on the one hand skeptical of radical physics ideas (e.g., SED, PV, Yilmaz), but I am equally skeptical of their facile dismissal on the basis of unexamined mainstream physics belief. (As you might correctly infer from these remarks, in my view you are often not skeptical enough!) Since I choose not to accept the given wisdom without question, nor rely on just historical authority alone, I opt to investigate such things myself to see where they lead, and then report out the results. This, to me, rather than sound-bite dismissals, is real physics.
To reiterate. I am aware of Peter Milonni's error in this regard in one of his 3 ways of calculating the Casimir effect and it is in other books as well. Indeed, the error may be traced to Landau himself - I will need to check that. But, obviously the calculation is wrong even if it gives the right answer, it does so for the wrong reasons!
Virtual photons off mass shell (light cone) are inside the physical vacuum. They must have w = -1 (assuming they are totally random & isotropic). Real photons on mass shell radiating to far field have w = +1/3.
Virtual ZPF photons have ALL three polarization states. Real photons have only 2. All of this is in Feynman's original papers that created QED.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Torsion Field WMD Dangers
Highlights of some of the math details:
First, amplitude modulation of the Higgs vacuum coherent field does change the rest masses of the leptons and quarks. Gennady Shipov is correct that torsion fields are needed for that. String theory and M-theory do have torsion fields built in automatically. Shipov's torsion theory is a kind of D3 brane theory in 10D.
Second, the above amplitude modulation of the Higgs field is decoupled, in first approximation - one must be careful of course not to make a WMD inadvertently, from the phase modulation of the Higgs field needed for metric engineering, e.g. WEIGHTLESS WARP DRIVE (WWD) in which one controls the shape of the timelike geodesic glide path of the flying machine from the machine itself. That is the warp drive means that the machine is no longer a passive test particle in a fixed external geometrodynamic field from some large on-mass-shell source like the Earth. The strong direct gravity from zero point energy is used to change the local geodesic shape at the machine itself by the machine itself using
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)
dimensionless 1-form
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
dimensionless 2-form
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
T = (hG/c^3)d"d"(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)
Note that d^2 = 0, but d"d" =/= 0 from Goldstone phase singularities (more on that in due course) - non-trivial cohomology of the vacuum manifold G/H for "ODLRO" spontaneous broken symmetry G -> H.
Einstein's 1915 geometrodynamic field g(curved) is the symmetric bi-linear form
g(curved) = (1 + B)(flat)(1 + B)
/\zpf^,v =/= 0 is only possible when S =/= 0 in the exotic vacuum "dark energy" field equation
R'/\(1 + B + S) + /\zpf(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S) = 0
R = (d + W/\)W = 1915 GR curvature 2-form
R' = (d + W/\ + S/\)(W + S)
to be continued
On Sep 18, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
typo-corrected 2nd draft
FLASH: I am told Hal Puthoff has finally thrown in the towel on PV as a viable theory. What about HRP ZPE "origin of inertia"?
The objections of James Woodward and Eric Davis against the standard model origin of inertia of leptons and (unconfined) quarks based on the temporary failure to observe the on-shell Higgs boson (s) are completely false. The two couplings, one for the mass of the Higgs boson, the other(s) for the leptons and quarks (Yukawa couplings) are independent of each other. Both depend on the Higgs VEV ODLRO virtual amplitude |<0|phi|0>| of course, which is the key point.
Gennady Shipov is correct that you can change the fundamental masses of leptons and quarks with torsion fields. I have given the rigorous mathematical proof of that. While you can do it in principle, my point is that you do not want to do so because not only will you destroy the lab if you change e/m too much for the sample you are working with, you may even destroy the entire universe in an "Ice 9" effect. See Chap. 11 of Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" and his "Just Six Numbers".
My proof that you need Shipov's torsion field in order to amplitude modulate the zero point stress-energy tensor
tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
that is, without torsion, /\zpf is really constant because of the Bianchi identities and it is at large scale from vacuum ODLRO
/\zpf ~ (H(t)/c)^2 ~ (10^28 cm)^-2
in contrast to Hal Puthoff's PV "cutoff"
/\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2 ~ (10^-11 cm)^-2
in his "charge cluster model"
and in contrast to naive QFT
/\zpf ~ (c^3/hG) ~ (10^-33 cm)^-2
On Sep 18, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
Woodward wrote: "Warp drive" (and its various other metric equivalents) is not simple weightlessness. It requires the manipulation of the masses of things.
My reply to that is:
Red Herring, I never claimed ""Warp drive" (and its various other metric equivalents) is simple weightlessness." I claim any good warp drive must have the occupants weightless.
On Sep 18, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
Reply to James Woodward and then Shipov's message.
On Sep 17, 2005, at 11:41 PM, james f woodward wrote:
Shipov, while claiming to support Sarfatti's incorrect remark about
"weightless warp drive" in fact, however, makes precisely my point:
manipulation, in this case, of the torsion field alters the MASSES (read
inertia) of things. If it did not, there would be no effect of interest.
Weightlessness can be achieved by almost anything by simple geodesic
motion. "Warp drive" (and its various other metric equivalents) is not
simple weightlessness. It requires the manipulation of the masses of
things.
Jim
You are completely wrong in your physics here. You do not understand MTW's "Gravitation" or any of Wheeler's other books on Space-Time physics. The rest mass m is completely irrelevant to timelike geodesic motion in curved space-time. Even in Newtonian physics
F = ma
F = - GMm/r^2
a = -GM/r^2
The mass m of the ship cancels out of the equation. You do not seem to understand even that? Weight W obeys
W = mg
remember?
g = 0 on a timelike geodesic in curved space-time because of the equivalence principle (LC) = 0 in the LIF. Remember? m does not change. e/m does not change.
The whole point of metric engineering is to change the shape of the timelike geodesic that the ship is on from the ship itself (e.g. Alcubierre). If you change the rest masses of the constituents of the ship, which you can do in principle by changing the Higgs vacuum order parameter amplitude, you destroy the ship - and maybe the whole universe!
Warp drive does not require the "the manipulation of the masses of things" that is a deep misunderstanding. It is not true of Alcubierre's solution. Jim does not seem to understand Einstein's general relativity here. Metric engineering is the direct control of the timelike geodesic structure of the local geometrodynamic field guv(x) at the ship itself from the ship. The rest mass m of the ship is completely irrelevant. Motion of the center of mass of a complex object on a timelike geodesic without rotation about the center of mass is continuously "weightless", but the rest inertia m of parts of the object are still present obviously as is common experience in the Space Shuttle.
On Sep 18, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Weightless Warp Drive, WMD & Russian-Chinese Torsion Field R&D
Revised, corrected, expanded Draft #2
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
Jack Sarfatti
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.
Gennady Shipov
In my book "A Theory of Physical Vacuum ", which has appeared at you
library in 2000, I use formalism of external differential forms (pp. 194-196).. Look attentively, or look the attachment and my website http://www.shipov.com
10-4 I have your book. Thanks for reminding me. :-)
But to receive a solution of the vacuum equations , index record is
necessary for me to present the equations component by component.
On Sep 17, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote:
Dear Jack!
Let's make an agreement about what the torsion field is .
1. I work with the manifold of oriented points, instead of the points
manifold of Riemann geometry.
Jack Sarfatti
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
Shipov wrote: "2. On the manifold of oriented points the geometry absolute
parallelism ,which possesses Ricci torsion Omega^i_jk (object anholomomity on
Schouten) is set."
Jack Sarfatti
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." ;-)
Shipov: "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.
Shipov: "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. "Localization" is what I mean by "locally gauging."
Shipov: "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."
Jack Sarfatti
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!
Gennady Shipov
"I have shown in my work that to change inertial rest mass it is possible,
having created rotation of masses and having received (as result) not
compensated forces of inertia inside of the system
See my work on http://www.trinitas.ru "
Are you changing the inertial mass or have you changed the shape of the geodesic? -- is the the question here.
Shipov: "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."
Jack Sarfatti
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.
Gennady Shipov: "In my theory I mean by "weightless" compensation of gravitational forces by forces of inertia. Yes, in Einsten's theory it is simply (LC) ~ 0."
Shipov Gennady.
----- Original Message -----
From: "james f woodward"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Weightless Warp Drive
Woodward: :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 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.
Highlights of some of the math details:
First, amplitude modulation of the Higgs vacuum coherent field does change the rest masses of the leptons and quarks. Gennady Shipov is correct that torsion fields are needed for that. String theory and M-theory do have torsion fields built in automatically. Shipov's torsion theory is a kind of D3 brane theory in 10D.
Second, the above amplitude modulation of the Higgs field is decoupled, in first approximation - one must be careful of course not to make a WMD inadvertently, from the phase modulation of the Higgs field needed for metric engineering, e.g. WEIGHTLESS WARP DRIVE (WWD) in which one controls the shape of the timelike geodesic glide path of the flying machine from the machine itself. That is the warp drive means that the machine is no longer a passive test particle in a fixed external geometrodynamic field from some large on-mass-shell source like the Earth. The strong direct gravity from zero point energy is used to change the local geodesic shape at the machine itself by the machine itself using
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)
dimensionless 1-form
T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)
dimensionless 2-form
dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0
T = (hG/c^3)d"d"(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)
Note that d^2 = 0, but d"d" =/= 0 from Goldstone phase singularities (more on that in due course) - non-trivial cohomology of the vacuum manifold G/H for "ODLRO" spontaneous broken symmetry G -> H.
Einstein's 1915 geometrodynamic field g(curved) is the symmetric bi-linear form
g(curved) = (1 + B)(flat)(1 + B)
/\zpf^,v =/= 0 is only possible when S =/= 0 in the exotic vacuum "dark energy" field equation
R'/\(1 + B + S) + /\zpf(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S) = 0
R = (d + W/\)W = 1915 GR curvature 2-form
R' = (d + W/\ + S/\)(W + S)
to be continued
On Sep 18, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
typo-corrected 2nd draft
FLASH: I am told Hal Puthoff has finally thrown in the towel on PV as a viable theory. What about HRP ZPE "origin of inertia"?
The objections of James Woodward and Eric Davis against the standard model origin of inertia of leptons and (unconfined) quarks based on the temporary failure to observe the on-shell Higgs boson (s) are completely false. The two couplings, one for the mass of the Higgs boson, the other(s) for the leptons and quarks (Yukawa couplings) are independent of each other. Both depend on the Higgs VEV ODLRO virtual amplitude |<0|phi|0>| of course, which is the key point.
Gennady Shipov is correct that you can change the fundamental masses of leptons and quarks with torsion fields. I have given the rigorous mathematical proof of that. While you can do it in principle, my point is that you do not want to do so because not only will you destroy the lab if you change e/m too much for the sample you are working with, you may even destroy the entire universe in an "Ice 9" effect. See Chap. 11 of Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour" and his "Just Six Numbers".
My proof that you need Shipov's torsion field in order to amplitude modulate the zero point stress-energy tensor
tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
that is, without torsion, /\zpf is really constant because of the Bianchi identities and it is at large scale from vacuum ODLRO
/\zpf ~ (H(t)/c)^2 ~ (10^28 cm)^-2
in contrast to Hal Puthoff's PV "cutoff"
/\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2 ~ (10^-11 cm)^-2
in his "charge cluster model"
and in contrast to naive QFT
/\zpf ~ (c^3/hG) ~ (10^-33 cm)^-2
On Sep 18, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
PS
Woodward wrote: "Warp drive" (and its various other metric equivalents) is not simple weightlessness. It requires the manipulation of the masses of things.
My reply to that is:
Red Herring, I never claimed ""Warp drive" (and its various other metric equivalents) is simple weightlessness." I claim any good warp drive must have the occupants weightless.
On Sep 18, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
Reply to James Woodward and then Shipov's message.
On Sep 17, 2005, at 11:41 PM, james f woodward wrote:
Shipov, while claiming to support Sarfatti's incorrect remark about
"weightless warp drive" in fact, however, makes precisely my point:
manipulation, in this case, of the torsion field alters the MASSES (read
inertia) of things. If it did not, there would be no effect of interest.
Weightlessness can be achieved by almost anything by simple geodesic
motion. "Warp drive" (and its various other metric equivalents) is not
simple weightlessness. It requires the manipulation of the masses of
things.
Jim
You are completely wrong in your physics here. You do not understand MTW's "Gravitation" or any of Wheeler's other books on Space-Time physics. The rest mass m is completely irrelevant to timelike geodesic motion in curved space-time. Even in Newtonian physics
F = ma
F = - GMm/r^2
a = -GM/r^2
The mass m of the ship cancels out of the equation. You do not seem to understand even that? Weight W obeys
W = mg
remember?
g = 0 on a timelike geodesic in curved space-time because of the equivalence principle (LC) = 0 in the LIF. Remember? m does not change. e/m does not change.
The whole point of metric engineering is to change the shape of the timelike geodesic that the ship is on from the ship itself (e.g. Alcubierre). If you change the rest masses of the constituents of the ship, which you can do in principle by changing the Higgs vacuum order parameter amplitude, you destroy the ship - and maybe the whole universe!
Warp drive does not require the "the manipulation of the masses of things" that is a deep misunderstanding. It is not true of Alcubierre's solution. Jim does not seem to understand Einstein's general relativity here. Metric engineering is the direct control of the timelike geodesic structure of the local geometrodynamic field guv(x) at the ship itself from the ship. The rest mass m of the ship is completely irrelevant. Motion of the center of mass of a complex object on a timelike geodesic without rotation about the center of mass is continuously "weightless", but the rest inertia m of parts of the object are still present obviously as is common experience in the Space Shuttle.
On Sep 18, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Weightless Warp Drive, WMD & Russian-Chinese Torsion Field R&D
Revised, corrected, expanded Draft #2
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
Jack Sarfatti
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.
Gennady Shipov
In my book "A Theory of Physical Vacuum ", which has appeared at you
library in 2000, I use formalism of external differential forms (pp. 194-196).. Look attentively, or look the attachment and my website http://www.shipov.com
10-4 I have your book. Thanks for reminding me. :-)
But to receive a solution of the vacuum equations , index record is
necessary for me to present the equations component by component.
On Sep 17, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote:
Dear Jack!
Let's make an agreement about what the torsion field is .
1. I work with the manifold of oriented points, instead of the points
manifold of Riemann geometry.
Jack Sarfatti
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
Shipov wrote: "2. On the manifold of oriented points the geometry absolute
parallelism ,which possesses Ricci torsion Omega^i_jk (object anholomomity on
Schouten) is set."
Jack Sarfatti
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." ;-)
Shipov: "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.
Shipov: "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. "Localization" is what I mean by "locally gauging."
Shipov: "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."
Jack Sarfatti
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!
Gennady Shipov
"I have shown in my work that to change inertial rest mass it is possible,
having created rotation of masses and having received (as result) not
compensated forces of inertia inside of the system
See my work on http://www.trinitas.ru "
Are you changing the inertial mass or have you changed the shape of the geodesic? -- is the the question here.
Shipov: "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."
Jack Sarfatti
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.
Gennady Shipov: "In my theory I mean by "weightless" compensation of gravitational forces by forces of inertia. Yes, in Einsten's theory it is simply (LC) ~ 0."
Shipov Gennady.
----- Original Message -----
From: "james f woodward"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: Weightless Warp Drive
Woodward: :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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
