Understanding "Gravity Force"
bcc
In a nut shell Zielinski makes the common amateur error of pushing the superficial analogy of Newton's gravity potential -GM/r with Coulomb's electrical potential Q/r too far. See details below.

Franz Kafka, feeling like a cockroach under a magnifying glass focusing a blinding light, wakes up having been abducted by Gray cyborgs. He is in a closed room with no windows. He manages to undo the straps of the table bolted to the floor and he begins to float off the table. He holds on to one of the straps. Being a good physicist as well as story writer, Kafka knows instantly he is on a timelike geodesic out in space. Warp drive is the same experience the difference is that the Captain can control his ship's geodesic glide path to point in any direction and speed he likes without feeling any g-forces at all because no propellant is ejected in the maneuvers including sharp turns in space even instant U-turns. This is metric engineering the dark energy-matter envelope around the ship.

Kafka manages to find a port hole cover. He opens it. To his horror he sees that the ship is falling toward the Sun! That explains why it's been getting hotter. He sees a control panel on the side of the table he had been strapped to. He pulls on the strap to get closer to it. In desperation he starts playing with a joystick and suddenly he is pulled to the table. He feels weight returning. The ship's normal impulse swivel rocket engines have been switched on. He plays with the stick and some of the knobs and finally through his psychic intuition he finds a setting in which the ship stands still relative to the distant Sun that fortunately is still as far away as Venus. Indeed looking in a different direction he can see the planet Venus. The zero point energy powered rocket engines must continually fire to keep the ship hovering at a fixed distance from the Sun and from Venus. This hovering fixed point is a non-geodesic path through spacetime. Having wiped the sweat off his brow, he sees a spigot on the table side and is able to get some sweet-tasting water that instantly gives him a sense of well-being and relaxation in addition to a feeling of great muscular strength and youthful vitality. At that moment three Grays enter the room. The delicate one in the middle who seems more feminine than the other two says to him telepathically without sound "That was nicely done Professor Kafka. We apologize for putting you under stress, but you were in no real danger. Would you like us to explain to you how our ship works." Kafka answers - thinking telepathically "Is The Pope Catholic?"

On Aug 1, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Paul you are fundamentally wrong. I need to run now. More later tonite.
You are not the only one confused by this. It's subtle. There is no intrinsic gravity force. It's an inertial force created by nongravity forces pushing test particles off geodesics.

Yes it is very confusing owing to the nature of the GR terminology, but I can assure you I'm not the one who is
confused here.

It's also confusing because gravity really is a force in Newton's theory, though not in Einstein's. Einstein eliminates gravity as an intrinsic force like electromagnetic force replacing g-force with curved space-time.

Note the "curvature" in internal fiber space is the gauge "force". Therefore, the correct analogy between gravity and electromagnetism

space-time curvature analogous to electromagnetic force
i.e.

d^2(x^u - x'^u)/ds^2 = R^uvwl(dx^v/ds)(dx'^w/ds)(x^l - x'^l) gravity tidal acceleration for a pair of geodesic test particles

(This local frame-independent tensor equation can be calculated in either a LIF or a coincident LNIF)

is properly compared to the electromagnetic Lorentz force tensor equation

d^2x^u/ds^2 = (e/m)F^uvdx^v/ds for a single test particle with charge to mass ratio e/m.

In the language of Cartan's differential forms for space-time gravity for zero torsion limit

R = DW

R = curvature 2-form

W = spin-connection 1-form

D = d + W/\ = covariant exterior derivative

/\ = exterior multiplication

For general internal symmetry Yang-Mills fields (EM as trivial Abelian case)

D = d + A/
A = 4-potential connection 1-form

F = DA = Yang-Mills curvature 2-form ---> Yang-Mills 'force field" analog to Lorentz force eq.

Both

DR = D^2W = 0 (Gravity) and DF = D^2A = 0 (Yang Mills) analog of Faraday's law & no magnetic monopoles

also

D*W = *J source eq. D*F = *J (Yang-Mills) source eq.

Here the analogy breaks down from the equivalence principle.

The Gravity source equation is a 4-form equation because W is a 1-form and *W is a 3-form. So *J is a 4-form.
J is 0-form local scalar.

With tetrad indices this is

D*Wab = *Jab

that maps to

Guv = kTuv

Local conservation of matter source stress-energy current density is from

D^2*Wab = D*Jab = 0

i.e. Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

In contrast for Yang-Mills fields

D*F = *J is a 3-form eq. analog of Ampere's law and Gauss's law.

D*J = 0 local conservation of electrical current densities.

The equivalence principle is profound and many-faceted. There are deep similarities but also profound differences between the internal symmetry (extra dimensions of space) gauge theories and the space-time gauge theory of GR - the key difference is the equivalence principle.

The geodesic in Newton's theory is a straight line in Euclidean 3D space decoupled from 1D time at constant speed, no acceleration. Global inertial frames cover the entire space.

A test object falls freely to Earth. In Newton's theory the surface of earth is approximated as a GLOBAL INERTIAL FRAME. The parabolic trajectory of the test object is explained as a real gravity force in the Earth as an inertial frame. Einstein turns this upside down - PARADIGM SHIFT! The Earth is now a LOCAL NON-INERTIAL FRAME i.e. no global frames and the geodesic is completely different. The Einsteinian geodesic is in curved 4D space-time it can be a precessing ellipse in 3D space with accelerations relative to Earth frame at a focus. There is no pure gravity force on the test object because by definition real forces push test objects off geodesics.

Of course in both Newton's and Einstein's theories an observer on the freely-falling test object is weightless. However, the explanation for this invariant fact under morphing between the theories is very different.

Your error Paul is that you are trying to force Newton's explanation on Einstein's theory. It doesn't work! Apples and Oranges.

Any g-force is 100% an inertial reaction force in the local rest non-inertial frame of the test object generated by a non-gravity force (for all practical purposes an electromagnetic force).

Let's take some examples.

In globally flat empty space-time the metric is that of special relativity c = 1

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

This formula is an INERTIAL REPRESENTATION of invariant ds^2 for tiny inertial observer-detectors on timelike geodesics. In this case the timelike geodesics are Newtonian to a good approximation.

Obviously the Levi-Civita connection field (whose special combination is g-force) is globally zero in this inertial representation because the first partial derivatives of the constant metric components vanish. Obviously the geodesic deviation curvature tensor components vanish also. Note two kinds of geodesic deviation - Ricci components for a cloud of GEODESIC TEST OBJECTS and WEYL CONFORMAL TIDAL STRETCH-SQUEEZE (e.g. gravity waves). The pure gravity vacuum field without dark energy and torsion is 100% Weyl tensor. See Penrose "Road to Reality" for more details on that distinction.

However, we can still do a GCT (General Coordinate Transformation) on our flat metric to get

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

Now we will get a non-vanishing connection field!

What does this mean?

It means we are now in a LOCALLY VARIABLE NON-INERTIAL NON-GEODESIC REPRESENTATION.

Paul one of your errors is thinking only FORMALLY without thinking of the OPERATION MEANING of the GCT. What we have here is a NETWORK WEB of tiny NON-GEODESIC OBSERVERS firing their rocket engines arbitrarily. Not one of these observers could get on a non-geodesic were it not for the electromagnetic force. We can neglect consideration weak-strong forces here for all practical purposes since they are short range and we are at macro-range here.

Now compute the geodesic deviation - what is it? All components STILL ZERO. The curvature is zero!

How do the local non-geodesic observers do the experiment? -They can use tiny water drops if you like. The drop will not change shape. Better to use a dust cloud so as not to correct for surface tension.

Next in isotropic radial coordinate (that Hal Puthoff confounds with Schwarzschild radial coordinate in his wrong PV gravity theory in Eric Davis's USAF "Teleportation" study) in weak slow test particle speed limit, with UNIVERSAL Newtonian gravity potential energy V per unit test particle mass with a SSS (Static Spherically Symmetric) SOURCE:

ds^2 ~ (1 + 2V)dt^2 - (1 - 2V)[dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2]

In Hal Puthoff's PV theory replace (1 + 2V) by e^2V

But this too is a representation in terms of HOVERING local non-inertial observers firing their rocket engines just so such that they all experience WEIGHT/MASS = UNIVERSAL "g-force" (loose terminology)

gi ~ - dV/dxi

ds^2 = [(1 - 2m/4r*)/(1 + 2m/4r*)]^2dt^2 - (1 + 2m/4r*)^4(dr*^2 + r*^2dAngle^2)

Note to get to usual Schwarzshild non-inertial representation use

r = r*(1 + 2m/4r*)^2

ds^2 = (1 - 2m/r)dt^2 - (1 - 2m/r)^-1dr^2 + r^2dAngle^2

really only for 2m/r < 1

Then V = - m/r

Area of concentric sphere about center of symmetry is 4pir^2

V is dimensionless in these units

g ~ -m/r^2 ~ 1/Length

However, now when they use tiny dust cloud of geodesic nanobots with transceivers to central computer they get in empty space the Weyl conformal curvature components C of the form (loosely speaking)

C ~ m/r^3 ~ 1/Area

Now here is the crucial point - in first case of globally flat space-time you can MOCK up the g-field to look just like the second case, but you will not find geodesic deviation i.e. you will find C = 0.

THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE IT CONFIRMS IT.

LOCALLY all g-force measurements are same in both cases. Only when you do a completely different kind of measurement can you tell that there is a source in second case and none in first case. In both cases the local observers are in NON-INERTIAL REPRESENTATIONS!

Another point Paul is that you cannot think in the Newtonian manner, as you do, that

g-force = objective intrinsic tensor g-force - compensating local frame-dependent g-force

such that

g-force = 0 in a Local Inertial Frame coincident with test object on geodesic.

Note that the geodesic equation for test object is in frame-invariant form

D^2x^u/ds^2 = 0

In the REST LIF of the test object this is simply

d^2x^u/ds^2 = 0

g-force (100% inertial) is only registered in the rest frame of the test object when it is OFF-GEODESIC i.e. a different equation

D^2x^u/ds^2 = F^u(non-gravity)/M(test object)

In the object's now local non-inertial frame

d^2x&u/ds^2 = 0 as before, but now

g-inertial force (AKA "weight") ~ Connection Field^i00 ~ F^i(non-gravity)/M(test object)

i = 1,2,3 space components.


You are confusing a coordinate transformation of a given geodesic trajectory with an actual change from
one geodesic trajectory to another. Even in standard GR there is at least a *mathematical* distinction between
the two cases.

No I am not.

Changes in observer motion alone cannot change the geodesic trajectory of any freely falling body;

Of course.

while a changing gravitational field can.

Of course.

In GR, frame acceleration simply changes the *coordinate representation* of a geodesic.

Correct, and that's consistent with what I do above.

Suppose the test object is charged in an electric field, then in a local LIF, NO LONGER A REST FRAME of the test object

d^2x^u/ds^2 = F^u/M =/= 0.

connection field zero in that momentary LIF.


In addition, it should be intuitively obvious that there are two separate components to the Einstein g-field, one
physical and frame-independent, and the other subjective and frame-dependent.

You are wrong. Your intuition is no good here. That is proved by the fact you have not been able to formulate your intuition here mathematically in many years and you will never be able to do so because it is impossible. You are forcing Newton's world picture into Einstein's incompatible world picture - never mind that they give same answers to a good approximation in many ordinary situations.

Let's suppose there is a material source
located at some point, generating a static gravitational field of some kind, and we are observing this in a frame of
reference that is stationary with respect to the source. Now transform into a frame of reference that is accelerating
away from the source. If, keeping that frame of reference fixed, we suddenly remove the source to infinity, both the
tidal and the physical part of the g-field vanish, leaving only the inertial field. This shows immediately the physical
link between tidal curvature and the objective physical part of the g-field. In GR, there is also a corresponding
mathematical link between the two properties (tidal and g-field) of the curved metric. This also shows that the
distinction between the inertial and gravitational components of the combined g-field is *physically meaningful*
(since one component causally depends on the matter distribution, while the other does not).

What I am doing here is treating the objective physical g-field just like, say, an electrostatic field.

Yes, I know you are and that is an error!

The problem is that we have a metric field guv ~ Newton's potential

Einstein's connection ~ gradients of Newton's potential

Einstein's curvature ~ gradients of gradients of Newton's potential

Your analogy to electrostatics is naive, superficial and completely wrong. It's what all amateurs do!

V(Newton) ~ -GM/r

V(Coulomb) ~ - Q/r

However, in Maxwell EM field theory

V(Coulomb) & Vector Potential A form the CONNECTION FIELD in internal S1 fiber space!

This is where your analogy profoundly breaks down and your entire thesis is not even wrong!

To take your analogy to it's absurd conclusion:

Einstein's metric would be a space-time connection since Newton's potential is part of it!

Now you can also see your error also in the Reissner-Nordstrom geometry with a charge on the SSS source where

(1 - 2m/r) is replaced by (1 - 2m/r + Q^2/r^2)

If we were to use your false analogy this should be, by your faulty intuition,

(1 + 2V(Gravity) +2 V(Coulomb) ) = (1 - 2m/r + Q/r)

The point is that in Maxwell's local gauge theory of the electromagnetic field, the Coulomb potential is the timelike part of a 4-potential connection field in internal symmetry space. Think fiber bundles.

But you cannot think of Newton's potential as part of the space-time connection field!

The difference is the equivalence principle. There is no equivalence principle for the EM force (not allowing Kaluza-Klein theory here).

Note that the gauge freedom of the connection fields is GCT in the case of the space-time connection.

Gauge transformations of EM/Yang-Mills connection fields are INHOMOGENEOUS just like space-time connection.

So in Einstein's GR gravity you have 3 levels

Metric (Newton's potential in weak field limit) tensor with local invariant ds^2

Connection (g-force) non-tensor NO local invariants! (barring tensor torsion of course)

Curvature tensor with local invariants.

There is also the 4 subspace level of tetrads where the metric is symmetric bilinear in the tetrads.

Curved tetrad is from local gauging of T4 - zero torsion.

Then in my emergent gravity theory the tetrads come from variations in the World Hologram Goldstone Phases of the Higgsian type Vacuum ODLRO inflation field. So this is a 5th level.

But in Maxwell & Yang-Mills local gaugings of internal U(1em), SU(2 weak) & SU(3 strong)

NO METRIC LEVEL!

The Coulomb potential is part of the CONNECTION

The tensor FIELD CURVATURE gives the electrostatic force that you FALSELY compare with g-force.

It should now be obvious why your entire thesis is PROFOUNDLY NOT-EVEN-WRONG.

Paul you have made a very common naive error made by many amateurs trying to make FREE ENERGY MACHINES and explain UFO saucer propulsion.

I am not reading the stuff below based on your false analogy of gravity to electrostatics.

Another way to see it is that

EM, Weak, Strong are renormalizable SPIN 1 theories.

Gravity is unrenormalizable SPIN 2 - but that gets into quantum field theory complications

The apparent net
effect of the electrostatic field on the motion of a charged particle depends on the observer's frame of reference,
because in certain observer frames the effects of the electrostatic field are compensated by the effects of frame
acceleration. Of course that doesn't mean that the electrostatic field itself is actually changing -- it is simply being
offset, as viewed from a given frame of reference, by an inertial field (of fictitious forces). Clearly in this case
the electrostatic and inertial fields are "apples and oranges", even in 100% orthodox textbook GR.

The situation is exactly the same for gravitational fields in GR, in the model I am proposing. The electrostatic example
clearly shows that such an "inertial compensation" interpretation of GR is feasible as a physical model.

This is why quantum fluctuations are in creative tension with classical equivalence since they are non-geodesic from the Bohm quantum potential which mimics electrical forces in a sense. The intrinsic gravity field is the relationship among the geodesics - hence curvature as "geodesic deviation". That you can write the connection field as a smooth field is relative to a set of detectors like hovering detections in standard REP is deceptive causing your confusion. But it has no scalar invariants i.e. is not a tensor field.

Jack, it is you who is confused here. The "forces" that are felt when you push a freely falling body off a geodesic
have nothing to do with *fictitious forces*. In GR this is simply a form of inertial resistance, which *appears* in
certain frames as inertia, while it *appears* in certain other frames as weight. This equally apparent character of
inertia and weight is what Einstein hoped would give him his "general relativity" and explain the equality of
gravitational and inertial mass. But when you look at his final 1916 theory, you immediately see that geodesics are
defined in a full covariant and completely objective manner, and frame transformations have the effect of changing
only the coordinate representation of geodesics, and not the actual geodesics themselves. So the most natural
interpretation of the 1916 formalism is the inertial compensation model I am proposing, which is however inconsistent
with Einstein's original concept of "general relativity".

It's just that in my model, the combined gravitational-inertial field of Einstein has a separate and distinct objective
component that is causally tied to the source(s) of the field. Eliminate the sources -- in a fixed frame of reference --
and you automatically eliminate both the tidal effects *and* the effects of the physical observer-independent part of the
g-field. Thus both the tidal and physical g-fields are causally related to the source of the actual physical
gravitational field. What is left after you remove the source while keeping the reference frame fixed is the pure inertial
part of Einstein's field.

This is like

F(x,y) = X(x) + Y(y)

So these two components really are apples and oranges, even in GR. In this respect GR is actually not significantly
different from Newtonian theory, despite all the hype. Strange, but true.

This is tricky and deep.

It is tricky.

Z.


On Aug 1, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

> Z: One aspect of this field is the action of so-called "g- forces" that act on
> test bodies;


WRONG. The g-force is NOT a property of the the gravitational field!

OK, then here is the nub of our disagreement.

I'm saying that there is an irreducible frame-independent component of the combined
g-field that is directly linked to curvature. I am saying that if you remove the sources
of the gravitational field, in a fixed observer frame, then this physical g-field
component goes to zero, along with the tidal forces, while the inertial g-field
component is unaltered.

The g-force is a property of non-gravity forces that create non- geodesic paths!

I say this only applies to the frame-dependent part (inertial part) of the combined
g-field.

Pure gravity is all geodesic paths.
Curvature is a property of geodesics.
There is no such thing as pure gravity force in GR.

Yes there is. That's the whole point.

Lord of The Ring Singularity

Most physicists do not understand the physics of General Relativity. They know how to do the math but do not have a clear idea of the operational meaning of the equations they solve. This is even more so in quantum theory. Part of the reason in the former is that as Einstein said it took him seven years to free himself from the Newtonian-Cartesian notion of the "immediate metrical meaning of coordinates". Also physicists, like Zielinski below, lapse into Newtonian modes of thought that the gravitational force field is an intrinsic objectively local real field independent of the measuring apparatus, which is not true. Only the local invariants of the matter-induced Ricci curvature appear to be intrinsic objectively local properties of the gravitational field. The fact that the Weyl conformal vacuum curvature is intrinsically nonlocal and is connected with the geometrodynamic entropy is profound and has to do with the "world hologram" i.e. the vacuum geometrodynamic field degrees of freedom are "surface" not "volume". The spacelike "volume" slices of the geometrodynamic field structure of the fabric of spacetime are analogous to the projected 3D images from a 2D hologram. That is the intrinsic geometrodynamic field is in 2 + 1 spacetime surrounding surfaces of the 3 + 1 spacetime. When you look at quantum properties of the geometrodynamic field you get "anyon" behavior with interpolating fractional quantum statistics that are coherent superpositions of fermions and bosons and are intrinsically supersymmetric.

That is, relative to a smooth vacuum ODLRO curved metric background, the elementary excitation quantum statistics derive from the fractional commutation rule

aa* + e^i@a*a = 1

@ = 0 fermions with Paul exclusion principle

@ = pi bosons with vacuum/ground state ODLRO spontaneous broken symmetries from emergence of a macroscopic eigenvalue of reduced micro-quantum density matrices that trigger macro-quantum single-valued local order parameters with long-range coherence and remote viewing retro-causal signal nonlocality violating the "perfect" no-cloning a quantum theorem.

@ can be anything in 2 + 1 space-time as shown by Frank Wilczek.

On Jul 29, 2006, at 10:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote to Zielinski:
So you need to start from beginning. Remember you are starting from zero even negative credibility with outrageous claims that require a careful logical development with a minimum of handwaving and citing obscure references. You must create it on the spot here using the Feynman Method.

Z: I've already put considerable effort into explaining "my" points to you, and to others with the appropriate
credentials.

I have been very specific. I gave you a lecture on the equivalence principle that I repeat below. Respond in kind. Now it's your turn. Explain the ideas in your own words and math!

Z: Throwing down the GAUNTLET huh?
OK, at least now I have your attention.

On Jul 29, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:10 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yes, you have not yet understood the equivalence principle.

Z: So you say, but our numerous exchanges revealed that you weren't aware of Einstein's own classic version of this principle, which is what I was referring to. I gave you the direct quotes from Einstein himself, but it didn't seem to make any difference.

And you are making outrageous claims that go against mainstream views in the field.


Z: It's called "affirming the weaker argument".
"Across the street they've nailed the curtains
They're getting ready for the feast
The phantom of the opera
A perfect image of a priest
They're spoon feeding Casanova
To get him to feel more assured
Then they'll kill him with self-confidence
After poisoning him with words"

Actually you are wrong about this as a matter of fact. Your GR clock seems to have stopped in the 1970s. In the US there were severe criticisms of the accounts given of the equivalence principle in MTW 1971-3. This was only fully cleared up by Wheeler in the mid-1990s when he co-authored "Gravitation and Inertia" with Ciufolini. But even Wheeler's remaining figleaf -- that you cannot measure tidal forces in an infinitesimal neighborhood of spacetime -- was blown away by the water droplet thought experiments in Ohanian and Ruffini.

You are comparing apples with oranges. You are making a category error. The direct simplest way to measure curvature, i.e. geodesic deviation is to use pairs of closely spaced geodesic test particles, each of which has zero g-force. The g-force in the connection field has little to do with the curvature. You can mock up the local g-force even in flat space-time. There is nothing objectively local about g-force. It is entirely an inertial force depending on arbitrary choice of local rest frame of the local detector. In contrast there are objective curvature invariants whose measurement is orthogonal to any g-force measurement. You, and others, simply garble "gravity field" as meaning "g-force" connection on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and as meaning "curvature invariants" on the other days -- sloppy ill-posed questions.

The equivalence principle SAYS NOTHING ABOUT CURVATURE! The equivalence principle is only about g-force! The curvature is irrelevant.

In SSS field of ideal Earth, radial g-force is

g = - GM/r^2 ~ connection field in hovering LNIF

What does this mean? This is only the HOVERING FORCE per unit mass.

i.e. how much rocket thrust you need to apply radially inward to keep a fixed distance from surface of Earth in space.

This is locally indistinguishable from the inertial force, indeed it is ENTIRELY an inertial force. You get same local g in deep space by simply accelerating the rocket properly without any Earth M at all. Of course you will not have any tidal effect out there.

That the tidal conformal geodesic deviations there are ~ GM/c^2r^3 can also be measured "quasi locally" to be sure, but it is a completely irrelevant piece of information to the equivalence principle per se.

Z: There is also the issue of *spinning test particles*, which you seem to think has something to do with "locality".

The equivalence principle is only formulated as an APPROXIMATE principle for IDEAL UNCHARGED NOT SPINNING POINT TEST PARTICLES. When you use spinning gyroscopes as test particles then the gyroscope's precession detect gravimagnetic fields from the rotation of the source, e.g. Earth in NASA Einstein B. All this assumes zero torsion fields. If there are torsion fields and some quantum effects as well you will violate the approximate equivalence principle.

Z: Bottom line here is that no one now takes the idea of "general relativity" and "equivalence" as originally espoused by Einstein seriously. Fock and Synge have been vindicated. "General relativity" now means something completely different -- to the extent that anyone can actually explain what it is now supposed to mean.

More polemics Paul -- physics beyond what I said much more specifically than your will o' the wisp Laputan disquisitions.

Here you can see a picture by M. C. Escher. The mechanism of levitation was first guessed to be based on magnetism (see, for example, Swift, 1726) or rocketry (for example Adams, 1982), but in fact it is based on a principle of the superstring theory in quantum physics far too complicated to explain it here. The name of the city derives etymologically from "large reputation", that means "the very honourable city" (and not from the spanish "la puta", as some scientists assumed). The government is a representative anarchy, the economy is based on a liberal stalinism. There are approximately 120,000 persons living constantly in Laputa. About 17,000 of those citizens are of noble birth and have wings; the rest of the population is forced to visit the ground with ropes or helicopters. It is forbidden by law for the nobles to marry one of the other citizens or one of the people living on the face of earth. Legends say that Laputa was originally invented as a weapon for warfare, but this is certainly untrue, since the city is fragile and unable to take part in combat. In fact, it was invented to allow the king to visit all parts of his country together with his court without discomfort, since the king was expected to travel trough his land all the time. The only time Laputa was used in a war lead immediately to its destruction. 3,000 years after this event, Laputa was rebuilt by the Disney company as an amusement park.

There is a sad bittersweet story about a noble girl from Laputa falling in love with a man from the earth in over 7,000 verses by a gifted poet.

http://www.janthor.de/anycolor/c599.htm

Note that remark on "superstring theory" - hmm...

Laputa hoisted by its own superstring.

Z: This is not based on Einstein's popular writings. It's based on his published papers supplemented by other writings, such as private letters.

Show the evidence.

Z: We've already been through all this Jack. We have already debated all this at great length.

Irrelevant. Andy has not seen any of this. And yes, IMO you completely distorted the meaning of the texts. I have explained it properly. As usual you have made a mountain out of a molehill - a tempest in a teapot.

Z: Einstein's classic equivalence hypothesis was designed to *explain* weak equivalence -- not just restate it. Einstein's explanation of weak equivalence was the basis for his concept of "general relativity": that an inertial field seen by an accelerating observer is -- at least "locally" -- indistinguishable from a matter-produced gravitational field

AND SO IT IS!

Z: *in all physically meaningful respects*.

Strike that last Red Herring, thank you.

a,b,c are LIF coordinate indices raise and lower with Flat Metric,
u,v,w are COINCIDENT LNIF coordinate indices raise and lower with Curved Metric

You appended *in all physically meaningful respects* which is completely irrelevant for the mathematical formulation of the equivalence principle in such applications as:

1) (Curved Metric Field)uv = (Tetrad Field)u^a(Flat Metric Field)ab(Tetrad Field)v^b

2) (Connection Field)^abc = 0 for LIF(P)

Note LIF(P) =/= LIF(P')

when

P =/= P'

that is you need to choose different local geodesic coordinate patches for different events.

Another application is

3) The vacuum dark zero point energy-stress density tensor is ~ Lambda(Curved Metric Field)uv

4) Minimal gauge coupling of source "matter" to geometrodynamic field, i.e. replace ordinary derivatives by gauge covariant derivatives using the connection field as the "gauge potential".

The connection field is quadratic in the tetrads and their derivatives etc.

5) Let W^a^b be the spin-connection 1-form be

Wab = Wabudx^u

W = W^a^b&a&b

Let e be the tetrad field

The Levi-Civita connection field of Einstein's 1915 GR is

{vw,u } = evaew^bWabu

zero torsion is when

{vw,u} = {wv,u}

e = 1 + A

A = 0 in region of space-time makes it globally flat.

A = A^a&a

A^a = Au^adx^u = 1-form curved Einstein-Cartan tetrads in SUBSPACE

dA = (hG/c^3)d(Theta)/\d(Phi) = Area flux density 2-form =/= 0 with spatial point singularities

But the volume 3-form d^2A = 0, i.e. WORLD HOLOGRAM - primacy of the Area flux density

Theta & Phi are the projected inflation Higgs-type field's Goldstone phases of Hawking's "Mind of God" as it were in a manner of metaphorical speaking.

Quantum of Area = hG/c^3

When a non-bounding closed 2D surface surrounds a point topological defect in space, the single-valuedness of the inflation field's local vacuum ODLRO order parameter ensures that the integral dA is quantized just like the circulation is quantized for a line phase singularity in a superfluid. This explains the Hawking-Bekenstein rule for entropy S of a black hole

S/k ~ Area/(Planck Area)

I don't have the factor of 4.

Do not confound this subspace point topological defect with the geometrodynamic level curvature singularity.

Z: Yes you can get a GR -> SR correspondence principle out of this, but you cannot reduce this "equivalence hypothesis" -- and that's what it was, a hypothesis -- to a correspondence principle.

So what? Where's the physics? Solve a problem that is interesting with his bogus insight. Then I will be impressed.

Z: You try to paper all this over with your strained and artificial definitions of "locality" and "g-field", but in my view this doesn't work. Test body spin, for example, has no natural connection with "locality". Remember I have easy access to Einstein's Collected Writings in the original German and in English translation at the UCB Library. The translations were done by people like Stachel, who knows the German and also know Einstein's physics extremely well.

Do you read German? OK present your evidence. I say you are not correctly understanding what you are reading.

OK, let's look at it with a magnifying glass.

Z: Let's ... so?

So show us the texts.

Also you are looking at an English translation of his German that may not be accurate enough.

Z: Of course you can always argue this way when I give you a direct quote that conflicts with your preconceived ideas, but I don't think so Jack. Einstein was actually pretty up front about this. You need to check the original with a physicist whose native language is German to get the nuance. I can look at the German myself, but I tend to trust Stachel. But as to the equivalence principle, there is simply no question that What you mean by the 'equivalence principle' is not what Einstein meant by the 'equivalence principle'. That is your misunderstanding, not mine.

Prove, I mean justify your outrageous allegation. Where is the evidence?

Z: Fair question.

I explained this above.

Z: Look it's not as if I'm pushing a controversial thesis here. Einstein's classic version of the equivalence principle is well known and understood in the field. Most Ph D physicists I've talked to get heartburn when they are told that Einstein reverted to an ether in 1918. They never believe it. But I have the papers!

You need to say "generally covariant aether". Tensor calculus grew out of crystal physics with defects. In fact the aether is a SUPER SOLID in 4D maybe imbedded in hyperspace.

But I'll see if I can dig up some direct quotes for you.

Here is my first shot across your bow on the Equivalence Principle:

On Jul 28, 2006, at 9:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Franz Kafka, feeling like a cockroach under a magnifying glass focusing a blinding light, wakes up having been abducted by Gray cyborgs. He is in a closed room with no windows. He manages to undo the straps of the table bolted to the floor and he begins to float off the table. He holds on to one of the straps. Being a good physicist as well as story writer, Kafka knows instantly he is on a timelike geodesic out in space. Warp drive is the same experience the difference is that the Captain can control his ship's geodesic glide path to point in any direction and speed he likes without feeling any g-forces at all because no propellant is ejected in the maneuvers including sharp turns in space even instant U-turns. This is metric engineering the dark energy-matter envelope around the ship.

All forms of mass-energy density, pressures and stressed induce a real gravity field with a non-vanishing invariant curvature pattern. I mean ALL FORMS including virtual zero point quantum inside the vacuum, i.e. both repulsive dark energy and attractive dark matter are virtual exotic vacuum phenomena as distinguished from ordinary real matter of atoms, magnetohydrodynamic plasma, radiation, neutrinos - possible exotic particles. When you put a slab of dark energy near a slab of dark matter with equal and opposite zero point energy pressure you have a weightless geodesic warp drive and that's basically how the "saucers" fly.

Note how with anyonic fractional quantum statistics we switch from fermionic to bosonic and in between
http://www.astrosciences.info/WarpDrive_files/image024.jpg
Note in the above picture, the BLUE SHIFT is from the DARK ENERGY'S STRONG SHORT-RANGE REPULSIVE ZERO POINT INDUCED ANTIGRAVITY from bosonic positive zero point energy density with equal but opposite negative quantum pressure. The RED SHIFT is from the DARK MATTER'S ZERO POINT INDUCED STRONG SHORT-RANGE ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY from fermionic negative zero point energy density with equal but opposite positive pressure. The pressure is three times more powerful than is the energy density in Einstein’s field equations with the constitutive constraints on the vacuum from Lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle that are the two corner stones of Einstein’s theory of gravity as curved space-time. The alien ET saucer geodesically glides with zero g-force to the left in the above picture. That is the BLUE SHIFT is the STERN and the RED SHIFT is the BOW. Sudden zero g-force turns come from modulating the PHASE ARRAY MATRIX of a high Tc surface ANYONIC superconductor in the thin nanoengineered fuselage using a kind of Josephson effect. The ANYONIC control phase locks to the Goldstone phases of the coherent inflation field whose nonlocally coherent, but locally incoherent, component is the dark energy/matter.

Kafka manages to find a port hole cover. He opens it. To his horror he sees that the ship is falling toward the Sun! That explains why it's been getting hotter. He sees a control panel on the side of the table he had been strapped to. He pulls on the strap to get closer to it. In desperation he starts playing with a joystick and suddenly he is pulled to the table. He feels weight returning. The ship's normal impulse swivel rocket engines have been switched on. He plays with the stick and some of the knobs and finally through his psychic intuition he finds a setting in which the ship stands still relative to the distant Sun that fortunately is still as far away as Venus. Indeed looking in a different direction he can see the planet Venus. The zero point energy powered rocket engines must continually fire to keep the ship hovering at a fixed distance from the Sun and from Venus. This hovering fixed point is a non-geodesic path through spacetime. Having wiped the sweat off his brow, he sees a spigot on the table side and is able to get some sweet-tasting water that instantly gives him a sense of well-being and relaxation in addition to a feeling of great muscular strength and youthful vitality. At that moment three Grays enter the room. The delicate one in the middle who seems more feminine than the other two says to him telepathically without sound "That was nicely done Professor Kafka. We apologize for putting you under stress, but you were in no real danger. Would you like us to explain to you how our ship works." Kafka answers - thinking telepathically "Is The Pope Catholic?"

The Equivalence Principle

What Einstein meant, and what everyone in physics still means today, by the equivalence principle in simplest form is:

"There is no local way to distinguish a real gravity "force" from an inertial "fictitious" g-force."

Z: A key term here is "distinguish".

You have to carefully define "local" here, and what "fictitious" inertial forces are.

Z: Those too.

Step hard on the accelerator of a powerful sports car - you feel the "fictitious" inertial g-force. Stand still on the floor. You feel your weight - gravity "force."

Inertial forces are caused by the acceleration of the non- inertial rest frame of reference of the object feeling the inertial force. Note the counter-intuitive way of using "inertial forces" in "non-inertial frames."

Z: Your "inertial forces" are not the same as the "fictitious forces" of an "inertial field".

What's the difference? Use math here. Words not good enough.

I mean "connection field" for "inertial field". I see no PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE.

Z: You have to be very careful here not to get these two kinds of "forces" confused.

Prove there are two kinds. Show me an experiment that can distinguish the two - and don't say measure curvature.
There is only ONE KIND of g-force and it's not physically objective. It's a contingent artifact of an arbitrary choice.

Unfortunately that is what Murray Gell-Mann calls a contingent unfortunate "frozen accident of history." It's bad English. We should call them fictitious non- inertial forces in non-inertial rest frames, but physicists do not - perhaps to confuse the masses if one wants to get conspiratorial. Note when you sit in the rigid car you are at rest relative to the car. The car is your non-inertial rest frame.

Z: So why use this confusing term "inertial forces"? Why not use the more neutral "inertial resistance"?

Because a jillion text books use it. Also

m = inertial resistance in most books!

as in F = ma

so that's not good either.

Note that the word "inertial" roughly translates to "timelike geodesic".

Z: In GR inertial motion is *unforced* motion along spacetime geodesics. Everyone agrees on that.

Yes, you pay lip service to it, but do not apply it correctly. In Newtonian gravity the curved timelike geodesic is interpreted as the effect of a gravity force. But that is always relative to a non-inertial frame like surface of Earth. I use "inertial" and "noninertial" only in sense of pseudo-Riemannian geometry.

Given two point events in a 4D curved space- time. Imagine all possible neighboring paths, or world lines, connecting the same two points. The geodesic is the longest one among them in a space-time. This leads to the the relative time dilation of two twins.

Z: This doesn't account for the relativity of simultaneity.

Sure it does.

Z: You are skating over the paradox.

I am not.

Z: You have to look at the simultaneity maps between observer frames to really understand the problem -- not just at the proper times computed from the world lines.

You are confusing global special relativity with local general relativity. You do not have the luxury of global frames anymore when there is curvature. Operationally all we can do is locally compare the twins on their return to a common place at a common time. That's good enough.

The one who takes a non-geodesic between the two points will be younger than the one who takes the geodesic.

Z: True, but I think you are missing the point of the two-clock problem, which is that the reciprocal character of the
time dilation is not additive.

Show an experiment for that. If Richard Feynman heard you spout that "philofawzy" he would jump on the table, stomp on it, hiss like The Snake East of Eden at you and whip you a new traversable wormhole. That's what Feynman would do and did with similar pompous peers making silly statements with authority. See intro to one of the Feynman Lectures on Computation on such an incident in Cal Tech Student Cafeteria with hundreds of students watching Feynman lambast a fellow professor.

You cannot move off a geodesic unless a non-gravity force operates and when you do the induced "g-force" felt as "weight" is a reaction to that non-gravity force.

Z; It is only modeled as "weight" -- in certain observer frames.

It's not "modeled" it's "felt" it's "measured".

Therefore, in fact there is no such thing as a pure gravity force that could exist without a non-gravity force like an electric force on a charge.

Z: No, because such a force can have the effect of accelerating a test body relative to a source of the field -- which
in itself does not involve any "non-gravity force".

What is "such a force"? Define it with the math. You lapsed into Newtonian thinking! That's not a kosher move in the game!
In general relativity motion of a test particle on a timelike geodesic is g-force free. Only if you stick a charge on that test particle and switch on an EM field will that charge move to a time-like non-geodesic. If you make the system more complex and stick a detector in - the detector will show g-force only when the EM field is switched on. Or if you have a rocket, only when matter is ejected.

Dual to the above, jump off a high place (in imagination unless you are a University of California Chancellor stealing money from the students like ENRON execs from stockholders and employees - then by all means be my guest ;-)) you will feel weightless - the gravity force disappears.

Z: Again, definitions. All you can really say here without invoking Einsteinian assumptions is that the *net observed effect* of the field *and* of the observer's motion disappears *in this frame*.

More obscurantism. Now you know why Feynman said "Kick out the CARGO CULT philofawzers of pseudoscience!" (paraphrase)

Z: Of course if you ignore the observer's acceleration relative to the source, it appears that the gravitational field is no longer present -- but this is quite different from saying that the physical field itself has actually been "annihilated", locally or otherwise. Acceleration of the test body relative to the source is an *objective* physical criterion for distinguishing the two situations.

The above is excess verbiage. IT'S NOT WELL-POSED. Looking outside the "elevator" gives remote information - it's classical nonlocal. Also it's irrelevant because there is kinematic acceleration relative to source for both zero g-force geodesics and non-zero g-force non-geodesics. So that's an irrelevant Red Herring.

When the test particle is on a geodesic a little detector at rest relative to the test particle will show 'zero g-force" on the test particle. If the test particle is a little conscious computer on the space-craft it will squawk in a cold metallic voice "Hey Boss, I am weightless." Switch on rockets and weight returns. The acceleration relative to Earth is a RED HERRING!

"Local" is defined in terms of idealized non-rotating uncharged test particles.

Z: Why non-rotating? And what has "locality" to do with the rotation of a test body?

Rotation of the test particle makes the problem of its path more complicated. One can do it of course and then there is the issue of what is the signature of any torsion field. The rotation of the test particle is a gravimagnetic moment and if the source is rotating then there will be a coupling to the source gravimagnetic field that will look like a deviation from the equivalence principle for an ensemble beam of test particles are spinning in random directions. It's like a Stern-Gerlach experiment with a mu.B interaction - but without the quantum effect if the particles are classical.

Z: This is simply disguised "ad hocery" IMHO.

Too much philofawzy and conspiracy theorizing makes Zielinski a dull boy.

Paul, you did cheap trick magic. The real Sorceror does Magick without magic!

Uh Oh look who just dropped in

"You summoned me Master?"
http://www.enworld.org/Pozas/Pictures/Monsters/kobold_sorceror.jpg

See what happens Paul when you use the wrong formula, the wrong incantation! What did I tell you?

A test particle is acted upon but does not directly react back on the field it is detecting.

Z: OK.

"Local" here means using only ONE test particle.

Z: What is the connection between "locality" and the limitation to a single test particle?

That's obvious since the idealization is a POINT TEST PARTICLE.

Z: This seems completely *ad hoc* to me.

NO, it's the simplest NON-QUANTUM model. It strikes at the core of your not even wrong argument.

One litmus test of a real gravity field is NONLOCAL only done using a pair of test particles each in geodesic free fall close to each other.

Z: Why is this "non-local"? Can you explain what you mean here?

Yeah, the two point test particles are not at the same place at the same time!
They are not "coincident" they are "proximate".

This is a matter of Hausdorf topology.

Each test particle has a set of coordinate patches that do not mutually overlap!

This is a TOPOLOGICAL DISTINCTION.

Therefore, there is no overlap function, not transition function from one to the other without specifying both a path and a connection field along that path.

You didn't think of that did you Paul? Huh! Huh!

Z: Do you mean simply that it requires the use of more than one test-particle? Why exactly do you think
that is a "non-local" measurement?

Locally means a single test particle in above topological pre-metrical sense.

Z: Isn't a measurement performed with a single test body of finite size then also "non-local"?

YES! That's why WEYL vacuum conformal curvature is NONLOCAL!

Then it's a matter of your RESOLVING POWER OF INSTRUMENTS

Then you need to use WAVELETS and FRACTALS may arise!

Z: If not, why not?

You measure their relative acceleration toward or away from each other. That tells you a component of their curvature tensor.

Z: Right.

The gravity field is real only if that relative acceleration is there and not zero for all possible directions at every point in a spacetime region.

Z: OK, so you do make a physical distinction between a real gravitational field and a fictitious field -- which is precisely
what Einstein eliminated in order to get what he called "general relativity", conceived as an extension of the domain of
the 1905 relativity principle to arbitrary motion.

NO YOU GARBLED IT AGAIN! YOU MISSED THE IDEA!

The g-force is FICTITIOUS WHETHER OR NOT CURVATURE IS THERE!

Take the SSS solution outside Earth - for now 2M/r << 1

ds^2 = -(1 - 2M/r)dt^2 + (1 - 2M/r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)

here when you get

g ~ GM/r^2

That's how you must fire the rocket in space to keep hovering at fixed r.

This is a hovering non-geodesic LNIF made possible from the non-gravitational electrical forces of combustion ejecting propellant.

This is an inertial g-force felt as weight by the astronaut - just the right amount to keep him hovering. So he knows there is a real gravity curvature field there by inference looking at the Earth with light. He knows from GR theory that IF he did the tidal measurements with pairs of test particles he would find GM/c^2r^3 Weyl curvature components. These are local properties of course. But in a Ricci vacuum Ruv = R = 0 and the pure local gravity stress-energy density tensor ~ Guv = 0 yet there is a total energy globally in the gravity field. That total energy need not be conserved in GR. For example the total dark energy of our pocket universe of the Cosmic Landscape of the Megaverse is increasing.

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_05_jpg.htm

The total radiation energy redshifts down as a^-1.

The total cold matter energy is constant.

The total vacuum zero point dark energy increases as a^3.

The universe is not time translation invariant. Therefore it's total energy is not conserved.

Note that dark energy makes Ricci curvature that then induces Weyl conformal vacuum curvature increasing entropy.

Z: Einsteinian "general relativity" really only works for a perfectly homogeneous gravitational field.
Once you impose the locality condition, you are talking about a very different animal. You are then only saying that in *certain qualified* respects, a gravitational field is identical in its physically observable effects to a field of fictitious forces.

NO - the g-force is completely identical to an inertial force in all important respects because I don't give a fig if the curvature is there or not as far as g-force is concerned. Curvature is an objective invariant, g-force is a contingent artifact. You cannot directly compare them. It's apples and oranges. Your theory is not even wrong ill-posed.

Z: Thus if you impose the locality restriction, you have lost Einstein's original concept of "general relativity", which requires
unconditional equivalence.

Show what difference this makes to experimental physics.

Z: However, it's even worse: you even lose it *locally* when the arguments of Ohanian and Ruffini are taken into account,
since in principle at least you can in GR measure tidal effects inside arbitrarily small neighborhoods. So your "locality"
condition is artificial and irrelevant.

No! Their criterion is irrelevant.

I. Do you have curvature?

2. Do you have g-force.

The two questions are conceptually orthogonal. They are logically independent.

OK it's very simple Paul. It's elementary differential calculus.

We are trying to INFER a real function f of a single real variable x with local measurements.

i) We measure f(xo) this is the metric field

ii) We measure df(xo)/dx this is the connection g-force field

iii) We measure d^2f(xo)/dx^2 this is the curvature field.

The equivalence principle is only about ii) it says nothing about iii).

The equivalence principle introduces another function F such that

Given df(xo)/dx =/= 0

F(df(xo)/dx) = 0

Also, if d^2f(xo)/dx^2 =/= 0

then

F(d^2f(xo)/dx^2) =/= 0

And if

d^2f(xo)/dx^2 = 0

then

F(d^2f(xo)/dx^2) =/= 0

that's all. The equivalence principle says a generalized F exists in the real world of 4D for the geometrodynamic field. It's an empirical principle.

That you can measure a curvature says nothing about the fact that locally the SUBJECTIVE g-force is 100% inertial independent of whether there is OBJECTIVE curvature or not.

z- After all, in GR the components of the Riemann tensor are defined at every point in spacetime, aren't they?

Yes for the RICCI CURVATURE. It's an issue for the Weyl conformal curvature that carries the geometrodynamic entropy in the surface modes.

There is no g-force in the above curvature measurement gedankenexperiment.

Z: But you are artificially separating one type of effect ("g-forces") of the presence of a gravitational field from another
("tidal forces").

NO YOU ARE ARTIFICIALLY CONFLATING THEM! Never the twain shall meet. You do not understand the key idea of Einstein's theory. There is no hope for you Paul. Climb to the top of a very tall ladder and fall off. Take a dive Paul!

Z: In reality they are both properties of a single physical field.

NO! Curvature is an objective invariant of the geometrodynamic field, g-force is not. g-force is contingent on arbitrary choice of motions of an LOCAL total experimental arrangement. (Bohr).

Z: It is simply that the non-tidal "g-forces" can be canceled by inertial effects in certain frames, leading to a local mockup of gravity-free conditions.

You are trying to force Einstein's discovery back into Newton's coffin. It won't work Paul. It's UGLY. It's an ABOMINATION. You are an ABORTIONIST of a GREAT LIVING IDEA!

Z: But this is simply a matter of observer-motion-dependent appearances. The physical field does not go out of existence; it is simply compensated.

When any field is zero classically, it's still there. Zero is number. You are confused about the meaning of "the field is zero". It's still there in the virtual quanta. "Zero" is not same as "Void".

Paul what you say is physically meaningless until you:

1) write an equation

2) show how to separately measure the "physical field" and the "compensating field" otherwise it's JUNK PHYSICS in Sharon Weinberger's sense of "Imaginary Weapons" p. 137 (if I recall correctly)

Z: I am arguing that this is the only fully consistent way to interpret the 1916 theory, once you go to general gravitational
fields which are not globally physically equivalent to inertial fields. Because you then have essential physical distinctions
between the two types of field.

NOT EVEN WRONG IMO.

Does it lead you do say there are no black hole horizons?

If so then it becomes physics. It will be tested and found wrong.

Z: What you are doing here is taking a position between two stools: you are positioning yourself half-way between the
original Einsteinian idea of equivalence, and the inertial compensation model, but artificially splitting the g-field, which is
inertially compensatable, from the tidal field, which is not. But these are really two aspects of the same integral
physical field, the gravitational field. A matter-produced g-field

There is no such thing Paul as a "matter-produced "g-force" field. There is only the objective matter produced 4th rank homogeneous tensor curvature field that you can construct local invariants from.

You cannot make objective invariants out of the non-tensor inhomogeneous connection field.

g-force is subjective, i.e. depends on arbitrary choice of local non-geodesic rest LNIF for the measurement of g-force.

There is no objective way to split the g-force into an objective inertial tensor field + a subjective compensating field
- in the case of zero torsion.

When you go beyond 1915 GR you do have a tensor torsion field added to the non-tensor connection field.

Z: is not the same physically as an inertial field of fictitious forces because a matter-produced
g-field is not fictitious.

I repeat: There is no such thing as a matter produced g-force field.

Define your terms here. You are being sloppy. This is bogus junk physics.

Show the math.

Z: Only an "inertial field" is fictitious,

Write the formula for the "inertial field". What is it?

Z: since it can be switched on or off simply by changing the motion of an observer. Also, different observers see different inertial fields; while all observers see the same physical g-field.

Define "g-field" - what is it?

Write the formula for "g-field".

As mentioned above, the only way you feel a gravity force locally equivalent to an inertial g-force is if the test object is pushed off the free float geodesic path in the curved spacetime by some non-gravity force.

Z: If you switch on a physical g-field, the test object is "pushed" by the field.

Is that N-rays or orgone rays?

Stop Paul. You are going off the deep end.

OK show me a gedankenexperiment defining what it means operationally. How do you tell an engineer to build the switch for the "physical g-field"?

Write the formula for it.

Z: You can see the object accelerating towards the source. Such an observable effect has nothing to do with the operation of non-gravitational forces.

Irrelevant. Dopper radar shows that kind of kinematic acceleration for both geodesic and non-geodesic motionm.

Z: So what is the significance of "feelings" here? Are visual observations of the effects of a gravitational field on test
bodies relative to sources no good here?

Look Paul all you can say is that when you fire a rocket jet in space in order to keep a fixed distance from a black hole for example, you know there is also a curvature field there. If there were no curvature field there, then you would accelerate away from the black hole when you fired the rocket no matter how hard you fired it. But when there is curvature there is a critical thrust that keeps you hovering. That's a contingent subjective criterion.

When you write grr = (1 - 2M/r)^-1

that's only for those HOVERING ROCKETS in space.

That gives Newton's g-field

g = -GM/r^2

ONLY FOR THEM!

g is 100% inertial!

i.e. from the ejection of propellant.

Z: What is this, gravitational physics on e-pills?

Yes. No such thing as "gravity force" apart from the reaction force to electric and other internal symmetry local gauge forces inducing non-geodesic motions of test charges.

This is done by electrical forces pushing on our feet when we stand in reaction to us pushing down on the ground. We are pushed off the natural geodesic path in the curved spacetime and that's why we feel weight - it's locally same as stomping on the accelerator of a Jaguar. The surface of the Earth is our local noninertial rest frame (LNIF).
Now there are a lot of deeper aspects of this having to do with the local gauging of the global symmetry of translations of source objects giving a compensating "connection" for parallel transport of oriented test particles that is essentially the inertial g-force in LNIFs. One way to tell if you are in a real gravity field is if you have to fire a rocket in space to keep at a fixed distance from the object. If you switch the rocket off you are weightless. That is, gravity fields emerge from the breakdown of the global homogeneity of the action of the source object, The gravity field in a sense restores the lost homogeneity symmetry by adding new geometrodynamic degrees of freedom to the action in addition to the degrees of freedom of the original source object.

Z: Homogeneous gravitational fields *look* like inertial fields,

Show me a source that makes a homogeneous gravity field - I mean globally exactly.
Every field looks homogeneous on a small enough scale.

That is for hovering LNIF special choice only

g = - GM/r^2

if r = ro + r'

when

r'/ro << 1

g looks uniform in a small neighborhood of ro from Taylor series

1/r^2 = 1/(ro + r')^2 ~ 1/ro^2(1 + 2r'/ro + ...) ~ (1/ro^2)(1 - 2r'/ro + ...)

g = - GM/r^2 ~ -GM/ro^2 + 2GMr'/ro^3 + ...

The first term on RHS is the approximate homogeneous HOVERING g-field.

THE HOVERING OBSERVER CONSTRAINT is a choice of INHOMOGENOUS PART OF THE FIELD.

IT'S NOT INTRINSICALLY GEOMETRODYNAMIC.

Z: but are still objective

False.

Z: and can be defined independently of the motion of any observer. Inertial fields, on the other hand, depend entirely on the motion of an observer, and different observers can see different inertial fields. Einstein's card trick was to pretend that this distinction does not exist,

Einstein was correct and you are not even wrong.

Z: and to treat the combined inertial-gravitational g-field as observer-dependent. But this is simply not the case. That is why modern treatments insist on the distinction between "non-permanent" and "permanent" fields, even in the case of a perfectly homogeneous field which while it does *appear* to go away globally in free-fall frames, doesn't actually -- neither globally nor locally.

Tangential issue.

Franz Kafka Abducted by ET Alien Grays on a Flying Saucer

Franz Kafka, feeling like a cockroach under a magnifying glass, wakes up having been abducted by Gray cyborgs. He is in a closed room with no windows. He manages to undo the straps of the table bolted to the floor and he begins to float off the table. He holds on to one of the straps. Being a good physicist as well as story writer, Kafka knows instantly he is on a timelike geodesic out in space. Warp drive is the same experience the difference is that the Captain can control his ship's geodesic glide path to point in any direction and speed he likes without feeling any g-forces at all because no propellant is ejected in the maneuvers including sharp turns in space even instant U-turns. This is metric engineering the dark energy-matter envelope around the ship.

Kafka manages to find a port hole cover. He opens it. To his horror he sees that the ship is falling toward the Sun! That explains why it's been getting hotter. He sees a control panel on the side of the table he had been strapped to. He pulls on the strap to get closer to it. In desperation he starts playing with a joystick and suddenly he is pulled to the table. He feels weight returning. The ship's normal impulse swivel rocket engines have been switched on. He plays with the stick and some of the knobs and finally through his psychic intuition he finds a setting in which the ship stands still relative to the distant Sun that fortunately is still as far away as Venus. Indeed looking in a different direction he can see the planet Venus. The zero point energy powered rocket engines must continually fire to keep the ship hovering at a fixed distance from the Sun and from Venus. This hovering fixed point is a non-geodesic path through spacetime. Having wiped the sweat off his brow, he sees a spigot on the table side and is able to get some sweet-tasting water that instantly gives him a sense of well-being and relaxation in addition to a feeling of great muscular strength and youthful vitality. At that moment three Grays enter the room. One delicate one that seems more feminine than the other two says to him telepathically without sound "That was nicely done Professor Kafka. We apologize for putting you under stress, but you were in no real danger. Would you like us to explain to you how our ship works." Kafka answers - thinking telepathically "Is The Pope Catholic?"

The Equivalence Principle

What Einstein meant, and what everyone in physics still means today, by the equivalence principle in simplest form is:

"There is no local way to distinguish a real gravity "force" from an inertial "fictitious" g-force."

You have to carefully define "local" here, and what "fictitious" inertial forces are. Step hard on the accelerator of a powerful sports car - you feel the "fictitious" inertial g-force. Stand still on the floor. You feel your weight - gravity "force."

Inertial forces are caused by the acceleration of the non-inertial rest frame of reference of the object feeling the inertial force. Note the counter-intuitive way of using "inertial forces" in "non-inertial frames." Unfortunately that is what Murray Gell-Mann calls a contingent unfortunate "frozen accident of history." It's bad English. We should call them fictitious non-inertial forces in non-inertial rest frames, but physicists do not - perhaps to confuse the masses if one wants to get conspiratorial. Note when you sit in the rigid car you are at rest relative to the car. The car is your non-inertial rest frame. Note that the word "inertial" roughly translates to "timelike geodesic". Given two point events in a 4D curved space-time. Imagine all possible neighboring paths, or world lines, connecting the same two points. The geodesic is the longest one among them in a space-time. This leads to the the relative time dilation of two twins. The one who takes a non-geodesic between the two points will be younger than the one who takes the geodesic. You cannot move off a geodesic unless a non-gravity force operates and when you do the induced "g-force" felt as "weight" is a reaction to that non-gravity force. Therefore, in fact there is no such thing as a pure gravity force that could exist without a non-gravity force like an electric force on a charge.

Dual to the above, jump off a high place (in imagination unless you are a University of California Chancellor stealing money from the students like ENRON execs from stockholders and employees - then by all means be my guest ;-)) you will feel weightless - the gravity force disappears.

"Local" is defined in terms of idealized non rotating uncharged test particles. A test particle is acted upon but does not directly react back on the field it is detecting.

"Local" here means using only ONE test particle.

One litmus test of a real gravity field is NONLOCAL only done using a pair of test particles each in geodesic free fall close to each other. You measure their relative acceleration toward or away from each other. That tells you a component of their curvature tensor. The gravity field is real only if that relative acceleration is there and not zero for all possible directions at every point in a spacetime region.

There is no g-force in the above curvature measurement gedankenexperiment.

As mentioned above, the only way you feel a gravity force locally equivalent to an inertial g-force is if the test object is pushed off the free float geodesic path in the curved spacetime by some non-gravity force. This is done by electrical forces pushing on our feet when we stand in reaction to us pushing down on the ground. We are pushed off the natural geodesic path in the curved spacetime and that's why we feel weight - it's locally same as stomping on the accelerator of a Jaguar. The surface of the Earth is our local noninertial rest frame (LNIF).

Now there are a lot of deeper aspects of this having to do with the local gauging of the global symmetry of translations of source objects giving a compensating "connection" for parallel transport of oriented test particles that is essentially the inertial g-force in LNIFs. One way to tell if you are in a real gravity field is if you have to fire a rocket in space to keep at a fixed distance from the object. If you switch the rocket off you are weightless. That is, gravity fields emerge from the breakdown of the global homogeneity of the action of the source object, The gravity field in a sense restores the lost homogeneity symmetry by adding new geometrodynamic degrees of freedom to the action in addition to the degrees of freedom of the original source object.

All forms of mass-energy density, pressures and stressed induce a real gravity field with a non-vanishing invariant curvature pattern. I mean ALL FORMS including virtual zero point quantum inside the vacuum, i.e. both repulsive dark energy and attractive dark matter are virtual exotic vacuum phenomena as distinguished from ordinary real matter of atoms, magnetohydrodynamic plasma, radiation, neutrinos - possible exotic particles. When you put a slab of dark energy near a slab of dark matter with equal and opposite zero point energy pressure you have a weightless geodesic warp drive and that's basically how the "saucers" fly.

EVOS as stringy black holes
re: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/.

But for strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G(Newton)
It gives a consistent picture with interior /\ ~ -(10^-13 cm)^-2 with positive ZPF pressure, w = -1 i.e. negative ZPF energy density inside the shell of charge.
Do we need extra space dimensions from string theory for this? Could be.
On Jul 27, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

This is WEAPONS RELATED not IMAGINARY BUT REAL.

Ken Shoulders is old USG weaponeer who worked with Hal Puthoff - he is a Tom Edison/Tesla type guy - we are talking on-the-shelf small EVO devices here - more than theory. It's operational lab stuff that Hal Puthoff is very interested in. Hal's theory is wrong, mine is right on target - I explain old problem of stability of electron as well as EVOS in one swoop + origin of weak force scale.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: July 27, 2006 7:26:17 AM PDT
To: Ken Shoulders

Subject: EVOS as black holes

If G = Newton's Weak-Long-Scale G they are not.
If G* = Strong-Short-Scale G they are.

In Newton's G

Gm/c^2 = 10^-56 cm

In strong G*

G*m/c^2 = 10^-16 cm weak force scale

An EVO of 10^12 electrons has gravity radius of 10^-4 cm.

If N electrons are on a shell of radius r in a single layer

N(h/mc)^2 = 4pir^2

10^12(10^-11)^2 ~ 10r^2

10^-9 ~ r^2

r ~ 10^-4 cm

So that works.

Also as I show in Super Cosmos you need exactly G* ~ 10^40G to glue the electrons together into the EVO from the interior positive zero point energy pressure with negative zero point energy density inside and a very weak positive dark energy density outside the shell consistent with observation. Puthoff's EVO model is opposite and is wrong.

Star Gate
Commentaries on The New Physics
for the 21st Century
Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.
Theoretical Physics
University of California

GRAVITY
Everyone thought that gravity universally attracts everything to each other until very recently when astronomers discovered dark energy at the beginning of the 21st Century. The dark energy is a very weak universally repelling cosmic field on large scales that causes the rate of expansion of three-dimensional space to speed up, to accelerate, rather than to slow down, to decelerate, as everyone mistakenly thought. It is important to realize that both gravity and dark energy are not ordinary forces acting on matter but are “geometrodynamic” properties of the intrinsic fabric of space itself. This delicate distinction will be explained in more detail below.
The discovery of the cosmic dark energy is like the discovery of the shape of the blackbody radiation spectrum at the beginning of the 20th Century. The fact that the radiated energy of the blackbody radiation decreased with increasing frequency caused Max Planck to begin to invent quantum theory. The classical physics of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory broke down for blackbody radiation because it wrongly predicted an absurd infinity. The very cold redshifted Cosmic Black Body Radiation (CMBR) filling the three-dimensional space of our expanding accelerating universe today is important evidence that there was a very hot Big Bang at the creation of our local pocket universe in the Megaverse Cosmic Landscape of parallel pocket universes suggested by the theory of eternal chaotic inflation describing the cold moment before the hot Big Bang - first Ice then Fire! How come the pre-Big Bang pocket universe was cold with small entropy? That’s a happy coincidence needed to understand the “Arrow of Time” of the irreversible aging leading to our mortal deaths of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Why do we get older as our pocket universe’s 3D space expands? The answer seems to be that advanced signals from the far future reach back to the initial inflationary quantum vacuum phase transition to lower its thermodynamic entropy. More on this later in the book.

Gravity is important on both the shortest and the longest scales of space-time. It is important on the shortest scales because of the weak equivalence principle that demands that all forms of energy, both real and virtual in the sense of quantum theory, curve spacetime. The smallest scales have the largest energy fluctuations causing the formation of tiny virtual blackholes that can even sprout baby pocket universes out of ours.
Gravity is different from electromagnetism, the weak radioactive and the strong subnuclear forces because gravity free-fall acceleration is universal and the other forces are not. This was first understood by Galileo hundreds of years ago before Newton. All neighboring uncharged non-spinning objects (AKA “test particles”) in a vacuum fall with exactly the same acceleration. Einstein generalized Galileo’s observations to the principle of subluminal timelike geodesic motion of massive test particles in curved space-time. The slower-than-light geodesic is the straightest possible world line in four-dimensional space-time. It looks curved in three-dimensional space like the elliptic orbit of the Earth around the Sun as an example. This appears to be a “force” in the Newtonian way of thinking, but there is no gravity free-fall force in the Einsteinian way of thinking. Many people, even some physicists, have difficulty in understanding this idea properly. Each point on the timelike geodesic path is inside its local invariant light cone. The curvature of space-time corresponds to a relative tilt in the field of light cones. What we call “g-force” that you feel when an elevator starts to move, or when you stomp on the accelerator of a powerful car, or catapult off an aircraft carrier, or blast off in the Space Shuttle is actually non-geodesic motion caused by some kind of non-gravity force. In every day life the only effective non-gravity force is the electrical force that also determines the combustion of jet and rocket fuel along with the quantum Pauli exclusion principle. The Paul exclusion principle prevents identical spin ½ particles (electrons, nucleons) from occupying the same quantum state. This ensures the diversity and stability of the forms of ordinary real matter out of which we are made.

Of course, ordinary real matter is only about 4% of all the “stuff” in our pocket universe piece of the Megaverse. Universally repelling virtual positive dark zero point vacuum energy density with equal negative pressure is about 73% of the world stuff generating the local “Ricci curvature” of the fabric of spacetime. The remaining 23% is, in my opinion, universally attracting negative zero point vacuum energy with equal positive pressure. This is called “dark matter”, also a local source of Ricci curvature, although it does not consist of any real exotic particles at all in my opinion. Therefore, I predict that the Large Hadron Collider will not find any dark matter particles at all that can account for the missing 23% seen in galactic halos for example. What determines the sign of the gravity influence, universal attraction or universal repulsion is the sign of the quantum pressure not the sign of the quantum energy density because, according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the pressure outweighs the energy density by a factor of three at least in the case of no Casimir type effect boundaries. This factor of three comes from the equivalence principle.
“Einstein’s great idea, that gravity is curvature of spacetime, is based on the equivalence principle. … All objects are acted on by gravity and fall to the floor with the same acceleration in the Earth lab; in the rocket ship the lab floor accelerates and catches up with the [free floating] objects, so they appear to accelerate toward the floor at the same rate. From inside the lab one cannot tell from such experiments whether one is in a gravitational field or in an accelerating lab: they are equivalent. There is also a converse of this equivalence … If we let the Earth lab fall freely then objects inside will accelerate along with it and appear to float, just like in the rocket lab [out in far empty space] with the motor turned off. We can think of gravity as being transformed away in the freely falling lab. Einstein called this insight his ‘happiest thought’. … we certainly cannot think of the Earth as accelerating outward … Einstein showed that we obtain the same effect if spacetime is curved. For bodies moving slowly in a weak gravitational field such as the Earth’s, it is the warping of time that produces the effect of gravity, while the warping of space is less effective. … the Earth’s gravity is due mainly to the fact that a clock near the surface runs slightly slower than a more distant clock even though the amount of the slowing is only a few parts in 10^8.” Ronald Adler in “The New Physics for the Twenty-First Century ed. G. Fraser, Cambridge 2006

The accelerating rocket frame out in empty deep space with motor on is called “LNIF” for Local Non-Inertial Frame as compared to the geodesic LIF for Local Inertial Frame when the rocket motor is switched off and therefore the rocket center of mass is on a timelike geodesic worldline or path or history. The rocket world line with motor on is still timelike always inside its momentary light cone, but it is not geodesic. Time passes slightly slower when the rocket motor is turned on compared to when it is turned off. The geodesic is the straightest worldline in 4D curved spacetime. It is a critical point in the geometrodynamic action for the motion of a test particle in the space of possible worldliness. It is where the Feynman quantum amplitudes for each path constructively interfere with each other.

One can, of course, measure curvature by measuring the vacuum “conformal Weyl” tidal relative acceleration between pairs of neighboring objects at the second order of smallness in the sense of a Taylor series expansion of the metric field in differential calculus. The above statement of the equivalence principle is only meant to the first order of smallness in the metric field. It is the metric field that determines the physically invariant infinitesimal separations for arbitrary local choices of local coordinates. This arbitrary local choice depends on three sub-choices. Is the motion of the local rocket frame geodesic or non-geodesic? How are the spatial coordinate grids painted and how is the local clock calibrated. How these sub-choices are made is completely subjective – pure art. Do as thou wilt at that level of “representation” of the local objective structure of “classical reality” ignoring nonlocal quantum entanglements of critical degrees of freedom of distantly separated detectors. What counts here is always the relevant “total experimental arrangement” in Niels Bohr’s sense.
The locally frame invariant geodesic equation is symbolically in intuitive form
X;ds;ds = 0
where X is the location of the test particle, ds is the invariant differential (infinitesimal) proper time and ; is a covariant derivative operator we will define more carefully later on. It depends on a connection field for the transport of vector arrows parallel to itself along an arbitrary path. This is the equation for the uncharged non-rotating test particle. If the test particle has electric charge and there is an electromagnetic field we have a new non-geodesic equation
X;ds;ds = F/m
F is the electromagnetic force and m is the mass of the charge. This is simply Newton’s 2nd Law of Mechanics generalized to curved spacetime. We can also make similar equations for the rocket of mass M, but we then get an additional term ~ M;ds since the rocket is losing mass when it ejects propellant. This does not happen in weightless warp drive (WWD) where the equation of the alleged alien ET flying saucer out of hyperspace is still the geodesic equation above. The new feature is that the crew inside the saucer is able to control the shape of its momentary local timelike geodesic for their ship’s center of mass with small Weyl conformal tidal stretch-squeeze forces across the ship end-to-end. This is what “metric engineering warp and wormhole” is all about.
The measurement of vacuum Weyl conformal tidal curvature requires two neighboring neutral zero spin test particles each free-floating on timelike geodesics separated by &X. The equation of their tidal geodesic “stretch-squeeze” deviation is symbolically and intuitively of the local frame-invariant form
&X;ds;ds + CX;dsX’;ds = 0
where
&X = X – X’
and C is the vacuum Weyl conformal curvature tensor piece of the full Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor whose “Ricci” part is zero in an ordinary vacuum with zero dark energy/matter.
Let the metric field be “g”. The connection field is first order ~ g ,u where ,u is the ordinary partial derivative in the u-dimension, the curvature field is second order ~ g,u,v
The Taylor series expansion of metric field g from point Po to point P is then of the form
g(P) ~ g(Po) + g(Po),u(P – Po)u + (1/2)g(Po),u,v(P – Po)u(P-Po)v + …
This is symbolically and heuristically
g(P) ~ g(Po) + (Connection at Po)(P – Po) + (Curvature at Po)(P – Po)2 + …
with the connection and the curvature fields embedded inside the first-order linear and second-order quadratic expansion corrections respectively
The condition for the geodesic LIF is like a test-particle action extremum
(Connection at Po) = 0
This is like a max or min or inflection critical point in elementary calculus for
y = f(x)
The sign of the “curvature” second derivative is whether we have a max, or min etc.
In terms of my vacuum ODLRO emergent coherent gravity model, the metric field is a symmetric bilinear product of the Cartan tetrad 1-forms e, where symbolically and intuitively, more rigorous discussion will come later in the book
g(Curved) = e(Flat)e
e = 1 + A
A has the physics of curvature and it comes from two effective coherent vacuum ODLRO Goldstone phases Theta & Phi of the inflation field where the geometrodynamic area flux density 2-form is
dA = (hG/c^3)d(Theta)/\d(Phi) = (Planck Area) d(Theta)/\d(Phi)
with point singularities in the single-valued inflation field. Therefore, the integral of dA over a surface without boundary that surrounds the singularity is quantized
Area ~ Integer (Planck Area)
That is the geometrodynamic degrees of freedom have area flux quanta. The geometrodynamic “volume” operator d^2A = 0 in this theory as in the World Hologram conjecture.

Post-Quantum Signal Nonlocality Revisited

Lenny Susskind gives the simplest proof of the no-cloning theorem in his little blackhole book.

Suppose we have a single unitary time evolution operator

U(t) = e^iHt/hbar

ignore issues of time ordering in quantum field theory for now that will apparently not make a significant difference to the conclusion?

Do not here think of |0) as the vacuum with |1) as a single-quantum state in sense of second-quantization a*|0)

Consider a single qubit with a c-bit basis |1) and |0) at time t = 0, at time t these states transform to

|0)' = U(t)|0)

|1)' = U(t)|1)

The general qubit at t = 0 is the fragile coherent superposition

|qubit) = |0)(0|qubit) + |1)(1|qubit)

completeness is

|0)(0| + |1)(1| = 1

Therefore

|qubit)' = U(t)|qubit)

= U(t)|0)(0|qubit) + U(t)|1)(1|qubit) = |0)'(0|qubit) + |1)'(0|qubit)

Note that U*(t)U(t) = U(t)U*(t) = 1 by hypothesis, therefore

(...|qubit) = '(...|qubit)'

i.e. invariance of inner products under the SAME unitary transformation.

Let C(t) be a hypothetical cloning operator. Can it be linear and unitary?

C(t)|0) = |0)|0)

C(t)|1) = |1)|1)

Using only linearity

C(t)|qubit) = C(t)|0)(0|qubit) + C(t)|1)(1|qubit)

= |0)|0)(0|qubit) + |1)|1)(1|qubit) =/= |qubit)|qubit)

Therefore, it cannot be linear and unitary because

|qubit)|qubit) = [|0)(0|qubit) + |1)(1|qubit)][|0)(0|qubit) + |1)(1|qubit)]

= |0)|0)(0|qubit)^2 + |1)|1)(1|qubit)^2 + 2|0)|1)(0|qubit)(1|qubit)

But if C(t) were also unitary, then, for arbitrary inner products

(...|C*(t)C(t)|???) = (...|???) =/= (...|???)^2

Nick Herbert's FLASH theorem is that a C(t) operator for arbitrary |qubit) states permits signal nonlocality.

Lenny Susskind shows that a violation of this no-cloning theory contradicts his theory of black hole complementarity - another story for another time.

Let's now directly look at the theorem forbidding signal nonlocality, i.e. forbidding controlled spooky telepathic paranormal action at a distance using quantum entanglement as a stand-alone Command-Control-Communication (AKA C^3) in which a classical light-cone limited signal is NOT required to decode the message encoded in the spread out entanglement.

Consider a pair-entangled state

|Alice, Bob) = |ab)(ab|Alice, Bob) + |a'b')(a'b'|Alice, Bob)

where a(b) & a'(b') are two possible eigenvalues Alice (Bob) can directly locally measure.

Suppose these are the only two eigenvalues that each is able to measure.

Therefore

|a)(a| + |a')(a'| = 1 local completeness for Alice

|b)(b| + |b')(b'| = 1 " " " Bob

However

|ab)(ab| + |a'b')(a'b'| =/= 1

In fact

|ab)(ab| + |a'b')(a'b'| + |a'b)(a'b| + |ab')(ab'| = 1

Entanglement means incompleteness at the pair-level! If we had pair-completeness the pair state would be a statistically independent product for the measurement of the operators

A = a|a)(a| + a'|a')(a'|

and

B = b|b)(b| + b'|b')(b'|

[A,B] = AB - BA = 0

The forbidding of signal nonlocality, i.e. the enforcement of "signal locality", is that summing ("tracing") over Alice's eigenvalues a & a'

|ab) = |a)|b) etc.

For the irreversible detections of Alice's A quanta, measurement theory demands for what distant Bob will see:

TraceA|Alice,Bob)(Alice,Bob|

= TraceA{[|ab)(ab|Alice, Bob) + |a'b')(a'b'|Alice, Bob)][(Alice, Bob|ab)(ab| + (Alice, Bob|a'b')(a'b'|]}

= TraceA{(|a)(a|)(|b)(b|)|(ab|Alice,Bob)|^2 + (|a')(a'|)(|b')(b'|)|(a'b'|Alice,Bob)|^2

+ (|a')(a|)(|b')(b|)(a'b'|Alice,Bob)(Alice,Bob|ab) + (|a)(a'|)(|b)(b'|)(ab|Alice,Bob)(Alice,Bob|a'b')}

Assume (a|a) = (a'|a') = 1 Normalized states

(a|a') = (a'|a) = 0 Alice's local orthogonality.

TraceA ... = (a|...|a) + (a'|...|a')

Therefore

TraceA|Alice,Bob)(Alice,Bob| = (|b)(b|)|(ab|Alice,Bob)|^2 + |b')(b'||(a'b'|Alice,Bob)|^2

without any local fringe interference terms ~ |b)(b'| and |b')(b|

So this is the proof of no stand-along LOCAL FRINGES in entangled systems - in a generic pair state somewhat simplified to dichomatic eigenvalues without loss of generality.

Now what can go wrong with this proof? More than one thing, but note if we used ODLRO macro-quantum coherent Glauber states then

(a|a') --> (z|z') ~ e^-|z-z''|^2 =/= 0 generalize "a" to a continuous complex variable z

i.e. macro-quantum ODLRO signal nonlocality.

Another approach would be a anholonomy in which the evolution of the different Alice states is path dependent so that at the local Alice (sender) measurements

|a)' = U(a)|a) & |a')' = U(a')|a')

where

U(a)*U(a') =/= 1

Therefore in effect even though (a|a') = 0 initially on a fuzzy spacelike hypersurface of finite thickness ~ resolving time

'(a|a')' =/= 0 on the evolved fuzzy local spacelike hyperspace where Alice's quanta are irreversibly detected.

i.e. an effective non-unitary evolution making Alices local states non-orthogonal even if they started out orthogonal - i.e. emergent signal nonlocality in a more general post-quantum theory.

On Jul 18, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Good news. :-)
I hope to be able to focus in on this more intensely soon. Meantime I have seen no one able to refute your argument or Cramer's argument - nothing from Nick Herbert on this for example. You seem to have found a new loophole that bypasses the standard no-cloning based on unitarity and linearity - a new incompleteness in orthodox QM. I am not sure yet myself - but that is how it appears at the moment.

On Jul 18, 2006, at 1:58 PM, Srikanth R wrote:

Hi, Dr. Jack,

Just back from out of station...

Thanks a lot for your comments. As you point out, an actual experimental test of nonlocal signaling using the modified Dopfer experiment would help at this point.

I have been talking to an experimentalist colleague of mine about testing the idea of noncomplete measurement at the level of unentangled photons (since we entanglement based experiments are not yet available here). He seems to be quite enthusiastic, so I hope to have interesting results to report soon!!

With best regards,
Srik.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 10, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Srikanth R wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK here is my morning-after assessment of the situation.
Quantum Reality is complex. ;-)
Just as Classical Reality is real... ;-)

Exactly! Seriously, Roger Penrose has some really interesting insights on the physical meaning of complex numbers in "The Road to Reality". Born probability rule breaks "complex holomorphic structure" - curious clue.
Woke up this morning with a lucid dream of a technicolor 3D tour of Dante's Inferno underneath The Vatican - seemed very real. :-)
Clarifications on "counter-factual definiteness" and the equation for the complete set of Alice's photon states |y> that washes out any stand-alone local fringes on Bob's side if the CCC is switched off in the usual orthodox quantum theory.
Previously I wrote:
The real idea here is counter-factual definiteness that what might happen even if it doesn't would be definite if it were to happen.
Now what happens is that we need to wait for a large enough statistical sample or "Born ensemble" of photon pairs to register on each side to see what is happening. This is like Lenny Susskind's populated "peppered" cosmic landscape in eternal chaotic inflation on the much larger scale in which our universe has a small enough cosmic dark energy allowing us to come into being and becoming in the sense of the Weak Anthropic Principle AKA WAP.
Therefore, the equation of completeness
Integral |y)(y| = 1
of everything Alice might have done in all the multiple branches or parallel classical worlds add up to what Bob actually sees locally without the CCC. That's the basic implicit subliminal ontological-epistemological Ansatz in the orthodox thinking I think?
Now Alice the "sender" has two choices to measure in the image plane or in the focal plane in the picture. Call the two variables y and y' respectively.
The issue is
Sum|y)(y| = 1 image plane (POSITION MEASUREMENT) YES? NO? (1)
YES! Let us denote the outcomes on the image plane y and -y (following the figure). Outcome y corresponds to the measurement given by the sum of annihliation operators for modes |-ps> and |-pd>. That is:

Y = a_{-ps} + a_{-qs}

= |vac><-ps| + |vac><-qs| = |vac>(<-ps| + <-qs|),

assuming single photon modes. Written as a projector, Y^{daggar}Y, it has the form:

(|-ps> + |-pd>)(<-ps| + <-pd|)

Restricted to the subspace spanned by {|-ps>,|-qs>}, it is simply the projector |-ps><-ps|. Likewise, restricted to this same subspace, the measurement corresponding to Alice's detection at image plane point -y is |-qs><-qs|. Clearly |-ps><-ps| + |-qs><-qs| = 1 in this subspace, giving completeness.
Sum|y'>
THIS IS THE KEY POINT RIGHT HERE!

NO! Restricting to horizontal modes, only one possible measurement outcome is: at m (cf. Figure). In this case, Alice's measurement operator is given by the sum of annihilation operators for modes |-ps> and |-qs>, which converge to m. Expressed as projector, this is:
P = (|-ps> + |-qs>)(<-ps| + <-qs|)

Within this subspace, this is the only possible outcome for Alice's focal plane measurement. Noncompleteness is the statement that P not = 1.

OK - THIS IS THE CRUCIAL IDEA TO THINK ABOUT. Of course, doing an actual experiment here would help! :-)

We note that Alice's measurement here is not the incomplete (as against what I have called "noncomplete") measurement

|-ps><-ps| + |-qs><-qs|,

which would have precluded two-photon interference even with CCC.
These sums add up all the actual places Alice's photons land in the statistical sample that act as nonlocal entanglement random noise on what Bob sees LOCALLY when the CCC (Coincidence Counting Circuit) is switched off.
Specifically (2) at the focal plane. Standard theory says (2) is still true only the domain of y' at the focal plane has been squeezed compared to the domain of y at the image plane.
Also at issue here is
<-ps|-pd> = 0 YES? NO? image plane (3)
YES! It is so irrespective of measurement plane. That is, the 4-stream model assumes that |-ps>, |-qs>, |-pd> and |-qd> are orthogonal modes. This assumption is necessary if we assume, quite apart from the signal nonlocality question, that the two-photon correlations are tight (with CCC).
<-ps|-qs> = 0 YES? NO? focal plane (4)
YES! Same arguments apply as with (3).
Note that in the case of Alice's image plane ensemble of y measurements, the nonlocally entangled pair state has already collapsed to
(y,x|A,B) = (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)
+ (y|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)
->
(y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)
from Alice's filters
-> (y|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B)
from Bob's filters
This final pair state is completely disentangled with the Bohm random phase factor e^i@ so that we have a random statistical mixture of (x|ps) and (x|qs) on Bob's screen with no local fringes at all!
Indeed.
The issue then is what happens when Alice freely chooses to do a focal plane measurement of the y' variable?
The two-sided Copenhagen "collapse" of the nonlocally entangled photon pair state is now
(y',x|A,B) = (y'|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y'|-pd)(-pd|A)(x|pu)(pu|B)
+ (y'|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B) + (y'|-qd)(-qd|A)(x|qu)(qu|B)
->
(y',x|A,B)' = (y'|-ps)(-ps|A)(x|ps)(ps|B) + (y'|-qs)(-qs|A)(x|qs)(qs|B)
After both Alice's and Bob's filters operate - this is the entangled state left over.
The key to what Bob sees locally is then the integral of (-ps|y')(y'|-qs>) over the statistical ensemble of Alice's photons collected in the extended focal region of Alice's lens. If
(-ps|-qs) = 0 ORTHOGONALITY
and if
Sum |y')(y'| = 1 COMPLETENESS
Then Bob still sees NO STAND-ALONE LOCAL FRINGES when the CCC is switched off.
An important point to address. It is avoid this scenario that I introduced the "direction filter". To be precise, noncompleteness exists even otherwise, but may be submerged under the integrated signal coming from fringe patterns corresponding to Alice's different focal plane measurement outcomes.

If you are correct here you will get a Nobel Prize for sure. :-) See Martin Gardner's remark about me in this context in "Magic and Paraphysics" - late 1970's. I need to think more about this before I take a stand, but you are arguing well. :-)
The direction filter ensures that insofar as Alice's focal plane measurement is considered, Bob will observe only the horizontal modes, i.e., those coincident with her detection at m (cf. Figure), which will leave Bob's twin photon in a definite momentum state. This can be construed as a horizontally moving plane wavefront, which, impinging on his double-slit diaphragm, will interfere to produce a *fixed* stand-alone fringe pattern. Other potential wavefronts that could have washed out the fringes in the sense you point out are filtered out by the direction filter because they are not horizontally moving. That is, if Alice detects photons elsewhere than m on the focal plane, Bob registers no corresponding photons.
If you switch on the CCC one will see Bob's fringes emerge after the fact TOO LATE for any retro-causal (BACK FROM THE FUTURE) or faster-than-light SIGNAL NONLOCALITY.
This is what most physicists will say will happen contradicting what Cramer, Woodward, Srikanth think might happen.
Indeed. As far as I understand, the modified Dopfer experiment's success depends precisely on measurement non-completeness at the focal plane being verified to exist.
One might at first suspect that non-completeness violates probability conservation in an undesirable way, but I find that it can be easily interpreted as a modification of the probability to produce entanglement in the nonlinear crystal.
If the mainstream is correct here then the no perfect cloning theorem of orthodox quantum theory is correct and if orthodox quantum theory is complete in Bohr's sense as THE FINAL SOLUTION FOR ALL PHYSICAL REALITY then Lenny Susskind's black hole complementarity is also correct. From that it follows that:
1) Signal nonlocality is impossible.
2) Remote viewing is impossible.
3) We can never directly see beyond the horizons (event or particle) to the parallel universes on the cosmic landscape.
This is a creative tension in Lenny Susskind's theory because as David Gross pointed out in Nature it makes Lenny's theory untestable in Popper's sense. That makes everyone uneasy.
On the other hand from AAAS USD Russell Targ's comments on Ingo Swann in the CIA SRI tests remote viewing is ALLEGEDLY a fact. We also heard from Roger Nelson the Global Consciousness data and from other people. So the debate will be on how good the evidence is?
Is it junk science? Is it pathological science? Or is it good science? No double standards here. The same rules need to be applied not only to Hafnium isomer triggers but also to string theory and to loop quantum gravity theory. No one is above the Rule of Law.
Does the claimed remote viewing data demonstrate superluminality?

No, but it is clearly precognitive. Russell Targ gives an example with a CIA test of Ingo Swann in which Ingo correctly identified a location of a Chinese nuclear test and its failed outcome "uranium burn" fully FOUR DAYS before it happened. This is consistent with other information told to me by CIA Chief of Station Harold Chipman in the mid-1980's.

We are such dreams that stuff is made from.
IT FROM BIT

On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:49 PM, D Ivanovich wrote:

Ken:

"Sounds like the reality of archetypes incarnates only
upon experience by a willing or even unwitting host."

Listen to the last half of

http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Doug

--- KenJenkins@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 7/16/06 4:05:01 AM,
pantheon@ix.netcom.com writes:

"Anyway, archetypes are not physical, neither space nor time nor energy
nor matter nor motion is involved."

Archetypes are invariants of finite groups of morphings. There is a relation of finite groups to continuous groups Saul-Paul Sirag is interested in.

"I agree.

"But if they can be experienced, then in Jack's words, they are physical
events."

"OK."

"So, what is a true meaning of physicality?"

Anything that happens is physical. Anything that might happen is physical. Anything that is not forbidden is physical. Not all physical phenomena are "material", i.e. are Bohm's "hidden variables" - they can be mental thought pilot waves that influence the motion of matter. Gravity also influences the motion of matter, but there is a big difference between gravity and mind. Gravity is a material field, a geometrodynamic field not unlike the electron field and other matter fields. All matter fields are driven by thought fields. When the matter fields directly back-react on their pilot thought qubit fields then they excite presponse inner conscious experiences or qualia in those thought pilot fields with signal nonlocality, i.e. retro-causal spooky telepathic action at a distance violating the no-cloning theorem of orthodox quantum theory. This is a more general quantum theory like general relativity is to special relativity.

"That's a big, multidimensional question."

"So how about this way around: something like an archetype BECOMES also
physical (by Jack's definition) only when it is experienced. This idea is
related to the observer phenonmenon, and to the concept of "collapsing".

Ken"

Russian Psychotronic Weapons Systems? - Physical Principles
On The Physics of Psychotronic Weapons Systems

Begin forwarded message:


re: http://www.nonlocal.com/hbar/qbrain.html
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/jpw22/physics.html
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math/msg/8361f96eccbca8a8?hl=en&

The nonlinear local ODLRO Landau-Ginzburg equation for the macro-quantum order parameter of the pumped coarse-grained electric dipole Frohlich collective mode http://www.nonlocal.com/hbar/frohlich.html emergent "More is different" order parameter is (neglecting random noise quasi-particle excitations of this effective Bose-Einstein condensate where "temperature" ~ 1/pump power like in a laser:

ihPsi,t = Ah^2Grad^2Psi + BPsi + C|Psi|^2Psi

Psi = Re^iS

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation is

S,t = A(GradS)^2 + B - Ah^2(A/R)Grad^2R + CR^2

Supplemented by local conservation of supercurrent

R^2,t + 2AGrad.(R^2GradS) = 0

However, the micro-quantum Born probability rule does not apply here.

The self-interacting term ~ R^2 will enforce phase rigidity along with the term ~ (GradS)^2.

There are different layers of mental information processing in the brain holographic phase field S.

Use the "wavelet" Wigner phase-space density notation where

S --> S(x,p)

p is the reciprocal scale of "ZOOM IN/OUT" resolution where different layers of information are encoded in different regions of (xp) symplectic 8D phase space of basic "areas". Note that x = (r,t) p = (P,E)

P = h/L

E = h/T

L & T are the space & time ZOOM resolution scales on which coarse/fine grained information is stored and processed in different "layers" simultaneously.

This is very crude and proper resolution-dependent wavelet signal processing analysis will be done later. The minimum p is the reciprocal scale of the entire cortex and the max p is ~ reciprocal ten nanometers.

Appendix
Frohlich Coherence
The Frohlich effect is a paradigm of how quantum coherence can exist and play a physical role at biological scales.
Herbert Frohlich, one of the great pioneers in superstate physics, described a model of a system of coupled molecular oscillators in a heat bath, supplied with energy at a constant rate. When this rate exceeds a certain threshold then a condensation of the whole system of oscillators takes place into one giant dipole mode, similar to Bose-Einstein condensation. A coherent, nonlocal order emerges.
Because this effect takes place far from equilibrium, Frohlich coherence is in that sense related to the principles underlying the laser (another pumped, coherent system).
So what can this coherence accomplish? Frohlich emphasized the lossless transmission of energy from one "mode" to another...

How does it work?

Coherence is a matter of phase relationships, which are readily destroyed by almost any perturbation. For this reason superconducting and superfluid states of matter exist only in the relative absence of thermal agitation. However, such states in some sense exhibit only the simplest kind of phase relationships, and in particular ones which are coupled to the environment -
On the other hand, complex dynamical systems have subtle internal phase relationships, and in some cases the nature of the dynamics protects these relationships through feedback, amplification, etc., especially in the presence of a supply of energy.



Here is another kind of coherent structure, in what must be an infinite hierarchy of increasing complexity and subtlety: in complex dynamical spaces many kinds of coherence are possible...
Is the effect physically significant?

Yes. In such cases the physical dynamics which follow from quantum coherence can assume a significant role....


references
H. Frohlich, Long Range Coherence and Energy Storage in Biological Systems, Int. J. Quantum Chem., v.II, 641-649 (1968)

abstract:
Biological systems are expected to have a branch of longitudinal electric modes in a frequency region between 10^11 and 10^12 per second... In section 2 it is shown quite generally that if energy is supplied above a certain mean rate to such a branch, then a steady state will be reached in which a single mode of this branch is very strongly excited. The supplied energy is thus not completely thermalized but stored in a highly ordered fashion. This order expresses itself in long-range phase correlations; the phenomenon has considerable similarity with the low temperature condensation of a Bose gas...



Nonlocality
Coherence
Bose condensation
Quantum brain


http://www.nonlocal.com/hbar/frohlich.html

On Jul 16, 2006, at 9:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


http://www.hep.upenn.edu/%7Emax/brain.pdf
Whilst all of Max Tegmark's calculations are correct, they do not ask the correct question.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler who is Tegmark's mentor.
Nowhere in Max's paper does he mention PW Anderson's "More is different" except for a passing informal reference to superconductors, superfluids, macro-quantum Bose-Einstein condensates. None of Max's useful calculations have ODLRO in the lower order reduced density matrices whose "phase rigidity" is an effective barrier against the thermal decoherence mechanisms he mentions. Note that the qubits of the alpha-beta superpositions of the electrons in the dimers should not be considered as individual fragile quantum superpositions subject to the decoherence calculated by Tegmark.

Rather we have a STIFF macro-quantum ODLRO parameter of the form

PSI(x) = R(x)e^iS(x)

Where S(x) is the macroquantum relative phase between alpha and beta and

R(x)^2 ~ density of phase-locked dimers at x.

We really need to do a resolution-scale dependent "wavelet" analysis here - this is only a crude first toy model.

The mental information is HOLOGRAPHICALLY encoded in the STIFF STABLE MACRO-QUANTUM PHASE S(x) in which we use Herbert Frohlich's PUMPED collective electric dipole modes in which 1/Pump Power ~ effective temperature. Ordinary thermal decoherence of the Tegmark type is irrelevant.

On Jul 16, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 7/16/2006 10:39:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Cramer's handshake supplemented by signal nonlocality - in every case
of successful RV the subject learns the details of the target in the
future. This information is sent back in time in a self-consistent
"Novikov" loop. This conjecture is falsifiable, e.g. subject dies
before learning details of target yet the prediction is true.
Could be falsified by Price's RV of Semipalatinsk. Though he got feedback on his drawing of the crane, he insisted that the site had to do with development of technology for space travel, concerning which the intell evaluators unanimously disagreed. He died shortly thereafter. At the end of the cold war, however, it was found that his claim was correct.

Of course, you can save your hypothesis by saying that he got feedback after he died! :-)

Hal

Max Tegmark's Objections Against Microtubule Consciousness
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/%7Emax/brain.pdf
Whilst all of Max Tegmark's calculations are correct, they do not ask the correct question.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler who is Tegmark's mentor.
Nowhere in Max's paper does he mention PW Anderson's "More is different" except for a passing informal reference to superconductors, superfluids, macro-quantum Bose-Einstein condensates. None of Max's useful calculations have ODLRO in the lower order reduced density matrices whose "phase rigidity" is an effective barrier against the thermal decoherence mechanisms he mentions. Note that the qubits of the alpha-beta superpositions of the electrons in the dimers should not be considered as individual fragile quantum superpositions subject to the decoherence calculated by Tegmark.

Rather we have a STIFF macro-quantum ODLRO parameter of the form

PSI(x) = R(x)e^iS(x)

Where S(x) is the macroquantum relative phase between alpha and beta and

R(x)^2 ~ density of phase-locked dimers at x.

We really need to do a resolution-scale dependent "wavelet" analysis here - this is only a crude first toy model.

The mental information is HOLOGRAPHICALLY encoded in the STIFF STABLE MACRO-QUANTUM PHASE S(x) in which we use Herbert Frohlich's PUMPED collective electric dipole modes in which 1/Pump Power ~ effective temperature. Ordinary thermal decoherence of the Tegmark type is irrelevant.

On Jul 16, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 7/16/2006 10:39:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Cramer's handshake supplemented by signal nonlocality - in every case
of successful RV the subject learns the details of the target in the
future. This information is sent back in time in a self-consistent
"Novikov" loop. This conjecture is falsifiable, e.g. subject dies
before learning details of target yet the prediction is true.
Could be falsified by Price's RV of Semipalatinsk. Though he got feedback on his drawing of the crane, he insisted that the site had to do with development of technology for space travel, concerning which the intell evaluators unanimously disagreed. He died shortly thereafter. At the end of the cold war, however, it was found that his claim was correct.

Of course, you can save your hypothesis by saying that he got feedback after he died! :-)

Hal

Remote Viewing Far Future
http://www.hku.hk/rss/res_proj/99/fig2.jpg
It's like analytic continuation of a complex function w(z) of complex
variable z. We have overlapping circles of convergence. Each
circle is a community of scientists (e.g. SRI Team) timeline along the
curve. Pat Price dies inside of the first circle. In this way, one can
receive messages from the far future so long as the "circles overlap".

Remote Viewing as Operational Intelligence Gathering

http://www.philipcoppens.com/starcon.pdf
That's a good falsification - unless he got info before he died from someone in the future who had that info later. That is, we must consider all the electron qubit webs in each brain as nodes in a trans-temporal network - what PK Dick called VALIS. However, Hal's point is well-taken that the individual brain alone as a hypothetical retro-causal device is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon. Precognitive auto-correlation inside of one brain not enough there must also be telepathic cross-correlations among the brains.

On Jul 16, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 7/16/2006 10:39:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Cramer's handshake supplemented by signal nonlocality - in every case
of successful RV the subject learns the details of the target in the
future. This information is sent back in time in a self-consistent
"Novikov" loop. This conjecture is falsifiable, e.g. subject dies
before learning details of target yet the prediction is true.
Could be falsified by Price's RV of Semipalatinsk. Though he got feedback on his drawing of the crane, he insisted that the site had to do with development of technology for space travel, concerning which the intell evaluators unanimously disagreed. He died shortly thereafter. At the end of the cold war, however, it was found that his claim was correct.

Of course, you can save your hypothesis by saying that he got feedback after he died! :-)


Hal