Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future

http://qedcorp.com/APS/ureye.gif

http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

First let's look at the classic Clauser-Aspect experiment. Too simple for a complex signal.

The photons were in a maximally entangled spin triplet

http://www.roxanne.org/epr/aspect2.gif
http://www.roxanne.org/epr/qmS.html
http://www.roxanne.org/epr/eprS.html

Bottom line, although you can code a message S(t) in the nonlocal correlation relative phase (mutual orientation at times of passage) ~ cos^2(2Theta(t)) that can be detected in hindsight by comparing data from both ends via classical retarded at most luminal signals you cannot decode the signal locally because the local detection probabilities ~ 1/2 (ideally) independent of the orientation of the sender at one end that codes the message.

Now, the idea behind Cramer's experiment is that there is some complete set of spatial transverse modes fk(x,y t) along line of flight z where, each photon pair is maximally entangled as, to a good approximation,

Psi(1,2) ~ Sum over k fk+(x,y,t)fk-(x'y't')e^iEk(t - t')

Where fk+(x,y,t)and fk-(x'y't') have the same shape in their respective transverse planar coordinates.

Now, what the "stencil"

http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Does on the time delayed future (b) sender photon is to MODE SELECT or filter a set of the initial modes into the UR shape, for example as above. This means the wave function collapses to a new state

Psi(1,2)' ~ Sum over k A(k)kfk+(x,y,t)fk-(x'y't')e^iEk(t - t')

With the set of filter coefficients {A(k)} encoding the shape of the UR stencil above.

This is a completely different kind of measurement than previous experiments.

The intuitive idea then is that the stencil inserted in the future by Wheeler delayed choice will be shadowed or imaged in the past for the twin photon. This is essentially the idea in Cramer's mind I suspect. That is, the retroactive nonlocal signal image is essentially the set {A(k)}

One then has to assume that the amplification at the past receiver photon can be done faithfully with a sufficiently good signal to noise ratio to clone a large number of photons with the same {A(k)} pattern without violating the no-cloning theorem.

Note what is seen at the receiver (x,y) image plane is the nonlocal signal set

{|A(k)|^2}

because we need to integrate the orthogonal modes over the entire source (x'y') plane.

Note, we can encode more info using scale-dependent wavelets.

The effective "amplification" is to use intense enough entangled very short laser pulses so that a large enough number of pairs are detected in each short burst to get enough statistics to see something.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 22, 2007 7:54:49 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Re: Cramer's Upcoming Retrocausality Experiment Back From The Future - new twist

On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Ah, yes, here it is.
Begin forwarded message:

From: ANTIGRAY@cs.com
Date: January 21, 2007 10:14:26 PM PST
To: marssouthpolereturns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Researchers condense entire image into single photon

Researchers condense entire image into single photon?

OK the photon quantum field operators are a sum over "modes" fk(x,y,z,t) i.e.

A = Sum over k [fk(x,y,z,t)a + fk*(x,y,z,t)a*]

where a and a* destroy and create a photon respectively

aa* - a*a = 1

The mode function need not be small. It can be quite large! Indeed the surviving mode function can be shaped by a "stencil" so that the "message" would be that filtered mode function

fk(x,y,z,t) = http://qedcorp.com/APS/URstencil.jpg

Thus, the single mode "message" pattern can be large in space and last in time for a significant duration - it's that the energy in the single photon is tiny and one needs to amplify that energy with a laser in such a way that the modal shape is not distorted since the "nonlocal signal" or "message" is in the shape of the single future filtered mode. The point of all this is that we should not need to use hindsight in after the fact time correlations between future sender and past receiver. The conventional wisdom of "signal locality" is that this is impossible in orthodox quantum physics.

The issue then is:

Can we shape this "UR" mode function with the "future" delayed (6.2 miles of coiled fiber optic cable) sender photon passing through the stencil and will that act back in time to select that same "UR" mode function in the past in the twin entangled receiver photon even before the choice is made in the future of what "stencil" message to insert in the future?

http://qedcorp.com/APS/in_laser_1.jpg

If we can do that, then can we amplify that stencil image in the past receiver photon with a good enough signal to noise ratio and not violate the no cloning theorem at the receiver?

Then, if we succeed in the above, what happens when we attempt to make an autocidal time travel paradox? What prevents the loop from being disturbed?

Posted Jan 21st 2007 4:06AM by Conrad Quilty-Harper
Filed under: Storage A team of researchers has managed to find a way to store a large amount of data in a single photon of light. Although the first stored item -- an image of the characters "UR" -- implies that the inventor was a 13 year old girl dealing with an extremely low text messaging limit, the image was in fact intended to signify the institution which developed the technology, the University of Rochester (either that or it's the shortest example of the "UR IN MY ... " meme that we've seen in the while.) Apparently the system works because "instead of storing ones and zeros" (a la binary code), the team has figured out how to store an entire image in a single photon, which sounds sort of impossible to us. Funny, because that's exactly what John Howell, the leader of the team said about the system. One of the key components of the process is the particle-wave duality nature of light: by firing a single photon of light through a stencil -- we presume one heckuva small one -- the wave carries a shadow of the image along with it at a very high signal-to-noise ratio, even with low light levels. The light is then slowed down in a cell of cesium gas, where it is compressed to 1 percent of its original length. This is where the storage aspect of the device comes in, as the researchers hope to be able to delay a single photon almost permanently, resulting in a device that can store "incredible amounts of information in just a few photons": an enticing thought for a world currently satisfied with a maximum of 1TB hard drives based on physical platters. A pity then that the world is completely distracted by the potential for "Photon on photons" jokes that this throws into the ring.

http://hdtv.engadget.com/2007/01/21/researchers-condense-entire-image-into-single-photon/


On Jan 22, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

There was also a report of being able to imprint a complex image on a single photon!
Well, if that is true then what happens if that is done one photon pair at a time to the delayed photon in Cramer's experiment? Will that complex image be transmitted backwards in time to the undelayed twin photon. Since, it's one photon pair at a time the usual argument of the late H.Pagels et-al of the random washing out of the nonlocal signal in the statistical accumulation (e.g. local probabilities stay at 1/2) would be side-stepped, completely irrelevant to this new kind of total experimental arrangement seemingly permitted by the new technology beyond the wildest dreams of the creators of quantum theory almost 100 years ago now.

On Jan 22, 2007, at 12:19 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

Go to
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL&type=printable

Science hopes to change events that have already occurred
- Patrick Barry
Sunday, January 21, 2007

Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voice mail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner.

Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible -- what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth.

Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration.

It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed -- and that is a huge if -- it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

Dating back to Newton's laws of motion, the equations of physics are generally "time symmetric" -- they work as well for processes running backward through time as forward. The situation got really strange in the early 20th century when Einstein devised his theory of relativity, with its four-dimensional fabric of space-time. In this model, our sense that history is unfolding is an illusion: The past, present and future all exist seamlessly in an unchanging "block" universe.

"If you have the block universe view, the future and the past are not any different, so there's no reason why you can't have causes from the future just as you have causes from the past," says David Miller of the Centre for Time at the University of Sydney in Australia.

With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, the relative timing of particles and events became even less relevant. "Real temporal order in general, for quantum mechanics, is not important," says Caslav Brukner, a physicist at the University of Vienna, Austria. By the 1940s, researchers were exploring the possibility of time-reversed phenomena. Richard Feynman lent credibility to the idea by proposing that particles such as positrons, the antimatter equivalent of electrons, are simply normal particles traveling backward in time. Feynman later expanded this idea with his mentor, John Wheeler of Princeton University. Together they worked out a theory of electrodynamics based on waves traveling forward and backward in time. Any proof of reverse causality, however, remained elusive.

Fast forward to 1978, when Wheeler proposed a variation on the classic double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics. Send photons through a barrier with two slits in it, and choose whether to detect the photons as waves or particles. If you put up a screen behind the slits, you will get a pattern of light and dark bands, as if each photon travels through both slits and interferes with itself, like a wave. If, on the other hand, you take a snapshot of the slits themselves, you will find each photon passes through one slit or the other: it is forced to pick a path, like a particle. But, Wheeler asked, what if you wait until just after the photon has passed the slits to make your choice? In theory, you could suddenly raise the screen to expose two cameras behind it, one trained on each slit. It would seem that you can affect where the photon went, and whether it behaved like a wave or particle, after the fact.

In 1986, Carroll Alley at the University of Maryland at College Park, found a way to test this idea using a more practical set-up: an interferometer which lets a photon take either one path or two after passing through a beam splitter. Sure enough, the photon's path depended on a choice made after the photon had to "make up its mind." Other groups have confirmed similar results, and at first blush this appears to show the present affecting the past. Most physicists, however, take the view that you can't say which path the photon took before the measurement is made. In other words, still no unambiguous evidence for retrocausality.

That's where John Cramer comes in. In the mid-1980s, working at the University of Washington in Seattle, he proposed the "transactional interpretation" of quantum mechanics, one of many attempts to relate the mathematics of quantum theory to the real world. It says particles interact by sending and receiving physical waves that travel forward and backward through time. In June, at a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Cramer proposed an experiment that can at last test for this sort of retrocausal influence. It combines the wave-particle effects of double slits with other mysterious quantum properties in an all-out effort to send signals to the past.

The experiment builds on work done in the late 1990s in Anton Zeilinger's lab, when he was at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Researcher Birgit Dopfer found that photons that were "entangled", or linked by their properties such as momentum, showed the same wave-or-particle behavior as one another. Using a crystal, Dopfer converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector, which could sense a photon in two different positions.

The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.

To use this setup to send a signal, it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University, Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs.

Instead of the "double slit" use the "stencil" on the delayed photon! See what happens.



One of the key components of the process is the particle-wave duality nature of light: by firing a single photon of light through a stencil

The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other. As before, the way you measure one should affect the other. Jensen suggested that such a setup might let you send a signal from one detector to another instantaneously -- a highly controversial claim, since it would seem to demonstrate faster-than-light travel.

If you can do that, Cramer says, why not push it to be better-than-instantaneous, and try to make the signal arrive before it was sent? His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several kilometers of coiled-up fiber-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds. This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timing of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it.

That's the idea anyway. What will the experimenters actually see? Cramer says they could control the movable detector so that it alternates between measuring wave-like and particle-like behavior over time. They could compare that to the pattern from the beam that wasn't delayed and was recorded on a sensor from a digital camera. If this consistently shifts between an interference pattern and a smooth singleparticle pattern a few microseconds before the respective choice is made on the delayed photons, that would support the concept of retrocausality. If not, it would be back to the drawing board.

If the experiment does show evidence for retrocausation, it would open the door to some troubling paradoxes. If you could see the effects of your choice before you make it, could you then make the opposite choice and subvert the laws of nature? Some researchers have suggested retrocausality can occur only in limited circumstances in which not enough information is available for you to contradict the results of an experiment.

Another way to resolve this is to say that even if the present can influence the past, it cannot change it. The fact that your hair is shorter today has as much influence on your going to the barber yesterday as the other way around, yet you can't change that decision. "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future.

If all that gives you a headache, then consider this: if retrocausality does exist, it says something profound about how the universe works. "It has the potential to solve what is one of the biggest problems in modern physics," says Huw Price, head of Sydney's Centre for Time. It goes back to quantum entanglement and "nonlocality" -- one particle instantaneously affecting another, even from the other side of the galaxy. That doesn't sit well with relativity, which states that nothing can travel faster than light. Still, the latest experiments confirm that one particle can indeed instantaneously affect the other. Physicists argue that no information is transmitted this way: Whether the spin of a particle is up or down, for instance, is random and can't be controlled, and thus relativity is not violated.

Retrocausality offers an alternative explanation. Measuring one entangled particle could send a wave backward through time to the moment at which the pair was created. The signal would not need to move faster than light; it could simply retrace the first particle's path through space-time, arriving back at the spot where the two particles were emitted. There, the wave can interact with the second particle without violating relativity. "Retrocausation is a nice, simple, classical explanation for all this," Dowe says.

While Cramer last week prepared to start a series of experiments leading up to the big test of retrocausality, some researchers expect reverse causality will play an increasingly important role in our understanding of the universe. "I'm going with my gut here," says Avshalom Elitzur, a physicist and philosopher at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, "but I believe that when we finally find the theory we're all looking for, a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and relativity, it will involve retrocausality."

But if it also involves winning yesterday's lottery, Cramer won't be telling.

Did we reach back to shape the Big Bang?
If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe -- exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in.

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: The universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the Big Bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature.

And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."

-- Patrick Barry
Retrocausality: Can the present affect the past?




Researchers have devised an experiment using laser light to demonstrate a property of quantum mechanics: That pairs of entangled photons show identical properties as either a wave or a particle. By using this knowledge, they hope to demonstrate how to influence an event that has already occurred.


1. A laser beam is directed into a crystal that makes two streams of photons.

2a. One stream of photons travels through a screen with two slits.

2b. The other stream of photons travels through an identical screen with two slits BUT is routed through six miles of fiber-optic cable that delays the light by microseconds.

3a. A detector captures the light and records it as a wave-like or particle-like photon (you don't know which yet).

3b. The delayed light is sensed by a movable detector. If the detector is closer to the lens it's recorded as a wave-like interference pattern. If its farther from the lens it is recorded as a particle.

What is happening here: By choosing to measure the delayed photon as either a wave or particle photon, the experimenter forces the other photon to appear in the same way - because they are entangled - even though it reaches the detector earlier.


Sources: John Cramer, University of Washington; NewScientist, Sept. 2006

Patrick Barry wrote this piece for the New Scientist, where it first appeared. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

Page E - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Lubos Motl's forced resignation from Harvard Physics Department

Memorandum for the Record

I complained to Amazon about Lubos Motl smearing Woit's & Smolin's anti-string theory books as "crank" and "crackpot." At least he reviewed those. In my case he never bought any of my books about UFOs, paranormal, quantum physics, relativity, my autobiography, etc from Amazon, he does not own them, he never read them, and yet he tagged them with insults and slurs. It now looks like Amazon will not allow non-customers who did not buy the books from them to tag them with slander and libelous language in acts of personal vengeance as was so in the case of Lubos Motl. Motl insults Sir Roger Penrose as "disconnected" from Reality, but at least he reviewed Roger's book. It's one thing for people to flame each other in e-mail, it's quite another to do it irresponsibly like Lubos Motl making financially damaging comments under false circumstances commenting negatively on books never read without specific details in a review to substantiate the allegations.

People like Lubos who live in glass houses should not throw stones

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

Lubos was, in reality, fired last week or so from Harvard Physics Department (outwardly he "resigned" - but no one willingly resigns from Harvard in mid-year obviously) for precisely this kind of unprofessional public activity. Too much blogging and calling people bad names and too little research. Not wise for a young man without tenure. BTW for the record I had nothing to do with Harvard's decision and did not at all try to get Lubos fired. I only found out about his tags of my books after he tendered his resignation. Lubos, of course, uses me as his scapegoat in this tawdry affair. Wikipedia should learn from Amazon. It was Lubos Motl working for Shermer et-al at CSICOPS who got me into the War with Wiki and whose associate Calton Bolick keeps false information on me in my bio, e.g. me and Uri Geller. They keep "reverting" corrections to distorted information about what allegedly happened in 1975 as if it is true today in 2007 - that is Calton's doing. Jaron Lanier's description of Wikipedia as "Digital Maoist" Cult attempting to take over the Internet like The Borg is apt.

Somewhere on Wiki Lubos writes I did not write to his bosses but he seems to have forgotten that. In any case it was Lubos who fired the first shot across my bow, not the other way round and, again I repeat, I played no active role in ending his short career in the Physics Big Leagues at Harvard. He did it all by his little self without any help from me. Let him blame Karmic Destiny. ;-)

PS, It also appears that Lubos has made blacklists for webmaster of Harvard Physics with names like "scum", "criminals", "cranks" and "crackpots" - sounds like Lubos since he invented some of those tags on Amazon now removed.

References
Exhibit A:
X-Apparently-To: sarfatti@pacbell.net via 68.142.199.144; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:01:31 -0800
X-YahooFilteredBulk: 128.103.101.20
X-Originating-IP: [128.103.101.20]
Authentication-Results: mta106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com
from=physics.harvard.edu; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 207.115.36.52 (EHLO nlpi023.sbcis.sbc.com) (207.115.36.52)
by mta106.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:01:31 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [128.103.101.20]
Received: from physics.harvard.edu (physics.harvard.edu [128.103.101.20])
by nlpi023.sbcis.sbc.com (8.13.8 inb/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0JF1PwW010826
for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:01:25 -0600
Received: from login.physics.harvard.edu ([192.168.100.11])
by physics.harvard.edu with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24)
(Exim 4.50)
id 1H7vAv-0006w5-QK
for sarfatti@pacbell.net; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:57:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:57:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Lubos Motl
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Has China shot down a US NRO Satellite starting real Space War?
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
References: <007701c73b65$efcc0750$6800a8c0@a7n8xedx>


MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Incidentally, you were the first external person who has created a very
unpleasant situation for me at Harvard, and this has repeated itself lots
of times and this fucked up job has always been used as a tool to
blackmail me. I don't want to be blackmailed and manipulated like that all
the time. Best, Lubos
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exhibit B.
From: motl@physics.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Penrose on the Maldacena conjecture & Ed Witten
Date: January 19, 2007 6:55:32 AM PST
To: sarfatti@pacbell.net
X-Apparently-To: sarfatti@pacbell.net via 68.142.199.34; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:55:36 -0800
X-Yahoofilteredbulk: 128.103.101.20
X-Originating-Ip: [128.103.101.20]
X-Originating-Ip: [128.103.101.20]
Authentication-Results: mta140.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=physics.harvard.edu; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 207.115.20.158 (EHLO flpi118.sbcis.sbc.com) (207.115.20.158) by mta140.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:55:35 -0800
Received: from physics.harvard.edu (physics.harvard.edu [128.103.101.20]) by flpi118.sbcis.sbc.com (8.13.8 inb/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0JEtEND002722 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:55:15 -0800
Received: from login.physics.harvard.edu ([192.168.100.11]) by physics.harvard.edu with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.50) id 1H7v9R-0006tc-VO for sarfatti@pacbell.net; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:55:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <99950EE4-ED7E-4B8A-8C85-5CB802941041@pacbell.net>
Message-Id:
References: <4F6D9385-0B9E-4A8E-B08B-52ACC91A659D@pacbell.net> <0DBD8244-53D9-4262-8BD9-55263EFE7B1A@pacbell.net> <99950EE4-ED7E-4B8A-8C85-5CB802941041@pacbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I don't depend on any grant but I just resigned. It's probably not your
business to ask, is it? Best, Lubos
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exhibit C.
From: motl@feynman.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: The Wit & Wisdom of Lubos Motl on George Chapline & Lisa Randall ;-)
Date: April 6, 2006 12:07:47 PM PDT
To: sarfatti@pacbell.net
X-Apparently-To: sarfatti@pacbell.net via 68.142.199.147; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:07:50 -0700
X-Originating-Ip: [128.103.101.233]
X-Originating-Ip: [128.103.101.233]
Authentication-Results: mta106.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com from=feynman.harvard.edu; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
Received: from 207.115.20.32 (EHLO flpvm02.prodigy.net) (207.115.20.32) by mta106.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:07:49 -0700
Received: from schwinger.harvard.edu (schwinger.harvard.edu [128.103.101.233]) by flpvm02.prodigy.net (8.12.10 083104/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k36J72OQ013759 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2006 12:07:03 -0700
Received: from [140.247.123.226] (helo=feynman) by schwinger.harvard.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FRZpb-00021w-Jm for sarfatti@pacbell.net; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:07:47 -0400
Received: from motl (helo=localhost) by feynman with local-esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FRZpb-00051k-6c for sarfatti@pacbell.net; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:07:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <443564AF.1070203@earthlink.net>
Message-Id:
References: <2f9.255c92a.3165a01e@aol.com> <44344D5C.7040701@earthlink.net> <53B4108F-0522-409F-B872-F737E3E462D9@pacbell.net> <44349B6B.2060602@earthlink.net> <64102ED1-2C3F-469A-8485-B2EFE537C317@pacbell.net> <443564AF.1070203@earthlink.net>
Organization: Harvard University
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: Lubos Motl

Dear Jack,
I've read most of this text of yours and it's entertaining. Thanks,
Lubos
______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/384-9488 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
Webs: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/ http://motls.blogspot.com/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Differential Geometry in Physics 1-4

Check out this on-line course in differential geometry and Einstein's gravity
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html

Vectors, Co-Vectors, Tensors
"The procedure is ... to cover the manifold with a patchwork of overlapping coordinate systems so that each point lies in at least one patch. Some points will then lie in more than one patch and are correspondingly assigned more than one set of coordinates, so coordinate transformations must then be presented." Roger Penrose


http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/pics/TwoCharts.gif

There is, however, a lot of redundancy. The physics is only concerned with local observers. Each local observer is equipped with detectors and can communicate with other local observers by electromagnetic signals. However, there are an infinity of static 3D coordinate transformations as well as local recalibrations of the clock that need to be factored out in the sense of being put into the same equivalence class. The physical observer is, formally abstractly, the equivalence class of these redundant local coordinate patches.

For example transforming from 3D Cartesian coordinates to 3D spherical polar coordinates should not change the local observer. However

z' = z - vt

v/c << 1

is a relationship between two inertial geodesic observers in flat spacetime in small relative speed to each other.

z' = z - (1/2)gt^2

gt/c << 1

is the relationship between weightless inertial geodesic observer Alice (z) free floating in space and the non-inertial non-geodesic observer Bob firing his rocket along the z direction and feeling "weight" g-force g (per unit mass).

All of the physics is in the relationships of different local observers looking at the same happenings and each computing local invariants for them that all agree. Those observers in local coincidence are the most important. Widely separated observers are need to use light cone limited signals to talk to each other with local time delays - unless there are retrocausal advanced signals of course as in the Feynman zig-zag e.g. John Cramer's "transaction" quantum theory. Also, we assume that there are no Heisenberg incompatibility issues when Alice and Bob look at the same process. In all of this, the size of the neighborhoods of the local observers must be small compared to the local ambient radii of curvature. This is not a big problem on Earth where the ambient radius of curvature is ~ 100,000,000 miles! Note that the corresponding time is only 8 minutes and that the 100% inertial force "weight" we feel on our non-geodesic paths fixed to hard Earth is determined by that 8 minute limit. Alice is, technically, only the same local frame for about 8 minutes. This relationship is only contingent, i.e. it is convenient for us because it is actually the closest abstraction of the theory to our direct experience. All theories are incomplete maps of our experience in which our detectors are extensions of our senses getting down in the end to qualia - the stream of consciousness that IS who we are - The Post-Quantum Ghost, The Soul In The Machine. Welcome to The Machine (Pink Floyd).


http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/pics/SphereCover.gif

"The coordinate system is itself something quite arbitrary ... Sometimes ...particular types of coordinates suggest themselves as more 'natural' than the general curvilinear type ... But when the manifold M is curved in an arbitrary way it tends to be inconvenient to try to single out special coordinate systems ... Instead, one asks for propertied of the manifold M which can be ascertained equally well whichever system of coordinates is selected. Indeed this is the advantage of using local coordinate-invariant Eli Cartan's (1869 - 1951) exterior differential forms based on the use of totally antisymmetric tensor fields - more on that later.

"The most primitive objects (after the points ...) are the scalar fields, these being simply smooth functions on (manifold) M ... a function on M is then deemed smooth, if when expressed in terms of the coordinates, is differentiable (in the ordinary calculus sense) as a function of these coordinates. Next, objects called vector fields, covector fields, tensor fields, and connections may be introduced in turn.


http://www-cm.math.uiuc.edu/242syl_files/245syl_gr_12.gif


http://www-cm.math.uiuc.edu/242syl_files/245syl_gr_22.gif


http://www.zib.de/benger/TensorFibers.jpg

The contravariant tangent vector fields at a point p on the manifold form a tangent vector space Tp.

A tangent vector field V(p) of tiny arrows tangent to the manifold at variable p can be split into a basis set {V^i,i = 1 ... N}. For us positive integer N = 4 unless otherwise stated. No fractal manifolds as yet where N is replaced by N/N' rational numbers.

V is a linear differential operator related to the total linear 4-momentum Hermitian operator P^u on complex-numbered qubit waves in "Hilbert space" in quantum theory that generate the globally rigid T4 group of Einstein's 1905 special relativity that, when locally gauged the same way (equivalence principle) on all non-gravity source field globally invariant actions, gives the curvature gravity field of Einstein's 1915 GR. It took Einstein 10 years to go from SR to GR. He did not do it using the local gauge principle however. The local gauge principle from Emmy Noether's theorem connecting conservation laws to continuous symmetries of the field actions, was not well understood back then. In fact she announced it in 1915 much too late for Einstein to use in his thinking from 1905 to 1915. http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Noether_Emmy.html

Let S be a scalar field on the manifold M.

S(scalar) ---> V(S) also a scalar

Then V(S(p)) is the directional derivative rate of change of S along the direction V on M. Using a local coordinate patch (x^u(p)) at p

V(S) = V^1dS/dx^1 + V^2/dx^2 + ... = (V^ud/dx^u)S

V(S +S') = V(S) + V(S')

V(SS') = SV(S') + S'V(S)

*Now here is an important trick from Penrose:

Let p have local coordinates x^u(p). Consider an infinitesimally close neighboring point p' with local coordinates (in same patch of course) x^u(p') = x^u(p) + @V^u where @ << 1. Dilate this by 1/@ >> 1 You now have a finite displacement in the dilated tangent space @^-1Tp, where V has components V^u. However, you cannot use the simple Pythagorean theorem in Cartesian coordinates because that measure of distance is not invariant under coordinate transformations. For that you need the curvilinear metric guv, even when there is no intrinsic curvature because physically inequivalent coordinate patches describe locally coincident generally non-geodesic observers looking at the same local process.

A dual co(variant)vector field U is a map of a vector field V to a scalar field S. It can be pictured as (N-1)-dim plane elements. In spacelike 3D the vector V is a Bohm hidden variable point particle path (center of mass CM of extended particle) and the dual covector U is a piece of quantum deBroglie iso-phase wavefront.

U(V) = 0

if U is dual to V.

"The plane element at p contains all the directions of all the arrows representing vectors V at p for which U(V) = 0. This enables us to proceed to the general concept of a tensor field on M, which can be viewed as a ... multi-linear map from collections of vectors and covectors to scalars (or else to vectors, covectors, or other tensors if desired)"

The symmetric metric tensor field is g(...) operating on two contravariant vector fields V & V' such that we get a locally invariant scalar field, the same number for all possible local coordinate transformations among the overlapping patches at p:

g(V,V') = g(V',V) = guvV^uV'v = g11V^1V'1 + g12V^1V'^2 + ... g1NV^1V'^N

+ g21V^2V^1 + g22V^2V'^2 + ... g2NV^2V'^N

...

+gN1V^NV'1 + gN2V^NV'^2 + ... gNNV^NV'^N

= guvV^uV^v

*This is in the dilated tangent space @^-1Tp.

Shrinking it back down again like Alice in Wonderland eating the LSD-laced cookies

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea

for the special case of the fundamental infinitesimal spacetime separation ds between p and p'.

Next time "connections" and "curvature" in more detail from Roger Penrose's keen mind that is both intuitive for physicists as well as riigorous without being "rigor-mortified."

Half-Baked Note 4-1: Einstein's "GCTs" (General Coordinate Transformations) from localizing the globally rigid 4-parameter spacetime symmetry group T4 are examples of the overlapping local patches. The four Einstein-Cartan geometrodynamic tetrad 1-forms are then the compensating gauge potential connection fields A^a analogous to the potential 1-form A of the electromagnetic field.

A^a(gravity-curvature) = A^audx^u from locally gauging T4

A(electromagnetism) = Audx^u from locally gauging U(1)

Beyond Einstein's 1915 GR are the dynamically independent

S^a^b(torsion) = -S^b^a = S^a^budx^u from locally gauging O(1,3).

Note, however, that the geometrodynamic connection field is not A^a but is

C^luv = e^la(d/dx^u)e^av

e^la = I^la + A^la

I^la is the globally flat tetrad that is an arbitrary curvilinear function for non-geodesic local observers with the proviso that the geodesic deviation curvature 2-form vanishes. The geometrodynamic covariant partial derivative on a first-rank world tensor is

DTv/dx^u = dTv/dx^u + C^luvTl

What about spinors?

Are spinors BIT with tensors IT in John Wheeler's

IT FROM BIT?


http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/p453/essays/quantum/12essa.1.jpg
http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/p453/essays/quantum/wheeler.html

The spinor-tensor coupling coefficients in flat spacetime are $l^Z^Z', where l = 0,1,2,3
Z = 0,1, Z' = 0',1'

(we will come back to spinors later)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 14, 2007 7:43:19 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] Fwd: Differential Geometry in a Nutshell - from Star Gate 3
Reply-To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com

The first idea in differential geometry is that of the "manifold." The manifold is a set of "points" with a "local structure." The "point" need not be a tiny infinitesimal. It can be an entire pocket universe in the megaverse on Leonard Susskind's populated "cosmic landscape" in which we are here by random Darwinian selection. That's only one possibility of course. It might be wrong. "Locality" means being "close together" and "continuous" but there is still at this primordial stage no emergent concept of "metric" nothing like a "distance between two points" needed in Einstein's historic 1915 theory of gravity that replaced Newton's 17th century model of "gravity force" acting "at-a-distance" like Haitian voodoo instantly faster-than the-speeding-photon with absolute simultaneity. Time, like Ol' Man River, it just keeps roll'n along. This first level of manifold topology does not tell us if the curves or surfaces or hypersurfaces imbedded inside the manifold are smooth or kinky. That's the next level of differential structure. Beyond that is "size" AKA "metric" and in-between is conformal, projective and affine. I am being sloppy here this first time round about Felix Klein's "Erlangen Program" of 1872 where different kinds of nested geometries like Russian Dolls and Ezekial's "wheels within wheels" are defined in the non-Boolean quantum lattice of invariant groups, semi-groups to categories and functors with equivalent representations. Of great importance to metric engineering super cosmos by men like Gods is the affine level of self-parallel transport of objects along paths in the manifold. This requires the idea of the connection field that is also the origin of the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces among the quarks and leptons as well as the gravity and torsion fields of the fabric of 4D space-time and possibly even extra-dimensional "hyperspace" including fermionic anticommuting dimensions.

Patchwork Quilt


http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:qOYFlv9Yw5yStM:http://americasantiques.biz/RWBOneP3.JPG

"A topological space is called an n-dimensional manifold if the topology in the neighborhood of any point is the same as in an n-dimensional Euclidean space E^n. ... Thus, we can envision piecing together a number of local portions of a Euclidean n-space with regions of overlap specified to form a manifold M. ... The rules for how this piecing together is to be achieved in any particular case can be given in an entirely intrinsic manner without reference to any embedding space ... One has to be careful ... when specifying how these "gluings" are to be arranged, that the resulting space does not possess leaves or branches." Roger Penrose

However the quantum bit information manifold of the many worlds interpretation must obviously be non-Hausdorff in order for the world to split or for worlds to merge into alternate timelines for time travellers. See papers by David Deutsch from Oxford, where Penrose also is, for details.

Einstein's general coordinate transformations GCT's Xu^u'(P) connecting coordinate patch x^u(P) with overlapping coordinate patch x^u'(P) in the same "hood" of objective happening P are the "gluings" of Penrose above. Ideally each patch is an observer or local frame of reference. However, there is a gauge freedom redundancy that must be factored out by forming equivalence classes of different coordinate patches that correspond to the same objective local observer-detector or local frame. The mathematics here is woefully redundant with inessential formal distinctions not relevant to the physical observations. There be weeds here.

Next lecture, tensors, spinors, local-frame invariant objective intrinsic Cartan forms like Plato's Ideas free from its shadowy fetters grim inside The Cave.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/fettersgrim.mov Cornell Savoyards 1964 (use powered speakers)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 14, 2007 5:05:58 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Differential Geometry in a Nutshell - from Star Gate 2

Curved non-Euclidean geometries have a natural scale of length built in unlike globally flat Euclidean geometry. For example, our dark energy deSitter universe has an intrinsic length scale that is the reciprocal square root of the observed Einstein cosmological constant from Type Ia supernovae standard candles. This corresponds to our universe as a retro-causal advanced wave back from the future cosmic computer worth ~ 10^120 bits.


http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/jpg/kolb1new_Page_08.jpg
http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

For example the area of a small triangle on an arbitrarily curved 2D surface is proportional to the deviation of the sum of its angles away from pi.

To get an idea of the strength of Newton's gravity on the large-scale, it may change on the small scale so that the original 1Gev hadronic string theory may be OK, the radius of curvature created by the Earth's mass of 6x10^24 kilograms at its surface at 6x10^3km is about 1.6x10^8 km ~ 1AU = Earth-Sun mean distance. For a neutron star at its surface divide by a million. The the entire visible universe from our vantage point multiply by a hundred trillion 10^14. The larger the radius of curvature the weaker is the intrinsic gravity geodesic deviation curvature field that has no fundamental relation to the 100% inertial non-geodesic g-forces. However, if you want to stand still in a curvature field then there is such a contingent relationship. However, if you are inside the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole then you cannot stand still. Space itself collapses to the spacelike infinite curvature singularity that is a finite proper time t measured by the falling observer relative to passing through the lightlike event horizon.

A key Jungian-Pauli archetype for all mathematics is the Athenian Plato's Allegory of The Cave in Book 7 of The Republic that in modern parlance is Invariant -> Representation rather than Light -> Shadow. There are many points of view POV on the same objective invariant "truth" or "Platonic Idea" or "Form."

http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/philosophy/plato.htm
http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/greeks/philosophy/pictures/cave.jpg

Subject: Differential Geometry in a Nutshell - from Star Gate 1


http://www.abc-people.com/data/michelangelo/creation-adam.jpg
The Michelangelo Code



http://www.cassiopaea.org/images/ureye.gif

http://homepage1.seed.net.tw/web@3/xplanet/images/book09.jpg
http://www.ojardimhermetico.com/img/aforisma/intro/suares4.jpg
http://istoe.terra.com.br/planetadinamica/site/fotos%5C359_krishna_01(1).jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39507000/jpg/_39507313_dennisbardens203.jpg

Working on this as a chapter for my next book Star Gate following Roger Penrose here.


http://www.astrosciences.info/WarpDrive_files/image024.jpg
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/wormholem.jpeg


http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/jpg/Kolb2_Page_12.jpg

Metric engineering dark zero point energy for warp and wormhole pictured above is how Michio Kaku's Type IV advanced time travelers get to Earth from our future and interfere in our history. Indeed, they seem to have genetically engineered us explaining the legend of the Garden of Eden. Warning: There are mainstream physics papers that argue such things are impossible. However, actual facts show that these theoretical papers are all wrong in my opinion. We have a problem of denial of evidence by some of the "experts." Damn the gamma burst torpedos full warp ahead. Engage!

Physics is not mathematics. Einstein said that there is a creative tension a complementarity between mathematics and physics.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Mathematics is the language of physics. However, physics is not about proving theorems. Of course a mathematical statement in physics must be self-consistent and therefore physical theories are always incomplete maps of reality. That's a theorem of Kurt Godel's. Physics is about understanding phenomena. We know that we have an understanding of some phenomenon when we can control it and also predict new unobserved phenomena. For example, an unusual gamma burst has been observed in empty space without any ordinary matter. I attempt to explain it as the implosion of two concentric spherical shells of zero point dark energy. The outer shell has repulsive negative pressure and the inner shell has attractive positive pressure. If my model is correct there will be a blueshift - redshift doublet in the spectroscopy. Therefore, I have predicted something that can be tested.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061220-gamma-rays.html

to be continued


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Unified Field Theory

re: http://www.shipov.com

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Shipov.jpg

1. Einstein-Cartan Curvature-Torsion Theory is a Local Gauge Theory (TWB Kibble, 1961).
The standard model of electro-weak-strong forces comes from locally gauging the internal symmetry groups U(1), SU(2) & SU(3) for "charged" quantum field actions. We also break parity by hand in the SU(2) weak force and spontaneously break symmetry in the SU(2) vacuum to get the masses of W-bosons and the quarks. We have somewhere between 18 - 23 fudge factors or epicycles but string theory and loop quantum gravity have nothing to offer here in terms of prediction and interpreting real data not only in HEP but also in the dark energy & dark matter measurements. So standard model is the worst model we have except for any other. General relativity with torsion added comes from locally gauging the 10-parameter Poincare space-time symmetry group for all non-gravity field actions. The equivalence principle is automatic because we do all actions of every quantum field in special relativity. The 16 tetrads Au^a = eu^a - I^u^a and 24 spin connections Su^a^b = - Su^b^a are the compensating gauge potentials for the curvature and torsion fields respectively. This is a pretty picture.

That is you start with a field, either classical or quantum. You construct its rigid Poincare group T4O(1,3) + rigid internal symmetry group (U(1)SU(2)SU(3)) invariant dynamical global action S. You now let the constant parameters of all of the groups be arbitrary functions of the 4 space-time coordinates. This breaks the symmetries, i.e. the field actions are no longer invariant. You restore this set of broken global symmetries with a set of connections for parallel transport of "tensors/spinors" relative to the group either in the base space-time and/or the internal fiber spaces as the case may be. These connections are also called "gauge potentials" A and they obey "gauge transformations" that in the case of T4 are Einstein's 1915 "General Coordinate Transformations" GCT's, i.e. infinitesimal local displacements for T4 -> T4(x).

2. Note when we only locally gauge 4-parameter translation group of displacements T4 generated by the total global 4-momentum Pu(phi) of the field phi(x) whose action we are dealing with. Since this all happens in globally flat Minkowski spacetime there is no problem defining conserved global Pu(phi). This simplicity breaks down in curved spacetime after we locally gauge T4 because bare invariance under space and time linear displacements makes no sense in curved space-time. That is, total energy, total linear and rotational momenta of all fields are not fundamental only their local current densities are. Note that it is impossible to measure global integrals over the entire history of the universe everywhere when. We can only do local measurements and we find conservation of fluxes through small closed bounding 2D surfaces only when the radii of curvature are large compared to the scale of the closed bounding surfaces. Note that not all closed surrounding 2D surfaces without boundary are themselves boundaries if the 3D interior has star gate wormholes.

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/wormholem.jpeg

3. Furthermore, if we only locally gauge T4 and keep O(1,3) globally rigid, then the Shipov 2nd-order torsion gap field of dislocation defects in the world crystal lattice (H. Kleinert) vanishes. That is, for the 4 tetrad 1-forms e^a = I^a + A^a, I^a are the globally flat tetrads, A^a are the intrinsically curved tetrads.

T^a = De^a = de^a + S(T4)^ac/\e^c = 0 (vanishing torsion field)

d^2 = 0

where S(T4)^a^b = - S(T4)^b^a are the 6 non-dynamical spin connection 1-forms with T4 curvature 2-form

R^a^b(T4) = DS(T4)^a^b = dS(T4)^a^b + S(T4)^ac/\S(T4)^c^b

with Einstein-Hilbert T4 action density

L(Einstein-Hilbert) = {abcf}R^a^b(T4)/\e^c/\e^f

Note that in a classical vacuum the Ricci scalar R vanishes and, therefore, the classical gravity vacuum action is zero, which is essentially why there is no non-zero local gravity field stress-energy tensor in that limit. That is, the functional derivative of the gravity vacuum action with respect to the tetrads vanishes.

4. Now locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group O(1,3) of spacetime rotations giving naturally the 6 extra anholonomic dimensions of the Calabi-Yau space of superstring theory pictured metaphorically by Shipov in the first figure above. This gives the new dynamical spin connections S(1,3)^a^b such that we now have a non-zero torsion field

T^a = S(1,3)^ac/\e^c

The new curvature 2-form is

R^a^b(10) = D'(S(T4)+S(1,3))^a^b

= d(S(T4)+S(1,3))^a^b + (S(T4)+S(1,3))^ac/\(S(T4)+S(1,3))^c^b

Note the curvature-torsion cross-coupling terms in the second term on the RHS.

5. Shipov's "teleparallelism" is the "Clifford parallel" (e.g. Hopf fibration).

Shipov adhoc requires the constraint (Ansatz, conjecture)

R^a^b(10) = 0

Therefore the torsion spin connections S(1,3) act as sources of curvature.

Now Shipov has a physical interpretation of this as "inertial fields" and I am not sure if I buy that. Shipov hopes he can derive the standard model matter fields from S(1,3) alone but he has not proved that. On the other hand he has the extra 6 anholonomic dimensions similar to what string theory has.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Shipov.jpg

6. However, my own approach is that the new torsion fields S(1,3) are simply added to the warp tetrads A(T4) as compensating gauge fields to the apriori spinor lepton/quark fields and their compensating gauge force bosons.

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

No, the following is a wrong idea:

"Like I said before, I just tried to make sense of what I saw, the math is beyond me. But it seemed obvious that these objects were able to negate or cancel mass and/or inertia in order to make the kinds of dramatic turns I saw. The lack of a sonic boom began to make sense when I imagined a propulsive field that cancelled mass and inertia and might do the same for any air molecules enterring the affected region inside the event horizon of the field. If rendered massless, then displacing them results in little or no energy transfer from the hull of the craft resulting in no super-sonic shock wave."

You never want to tweak the mass even if you can. If you do, you will explode the system in a WMD! (Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers"). The whole idea of weightless warp drive is that the mass of the ship cancels out of the problem! That's the equivalence principle. The ship free falls on the geodesic of its own making and shaping - no interior g-forces hence the sharp high-speed turns. Puthoff, Davis, Woodward NEVER make that explicit - at least not before my books and papers at the end of 2002 and later.


On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

There is also a fudge factor Z.

I assumed equal G on both sides, but G(Newton) on scale of astronomy may be smaller than G on nanoscale.

G(Newton) = ZG(nanoscale)

Z << 1

such is the case in some of the string theories from extra dimensions (e.g. Lisa Randall "Warped Passages")


ZMc^2/r^3 ~ (hc/a^4)

Z 10^28 10^21/( 10^9)^3 ~ 10^-27 3 10^10/a^4 cgs

Z10^22 ~ 10^-17/a^4

Z 10^40 ~ 1/na^4

a^4 ~ 10^-40/nZ

a ~ 10^-10/(nZ)^1/4 cm

which is, it appears, too small by at least a factor of 10^4 if Z = 1.

However we expect here Z << 1, which is good.

But this is very crude off the cuff without including the QED vacuum polarization coefficient in hc/a^4.

i.e. c -> c/n

n = index of refraction

but a resonant peak n >> 1 goes the wrong way in an AC effect.

On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
Do you have anything in writing from then. I suppose they would have printed transcripts?
I think it is remote viewing on your part because you are not a trained physicist - not even Puthoff was thinking in those terms back then and he still isn't! He has not published anything remotely like what you seem to have anticipated back then. Did you say anything then about Bruce Cornet's "reverse Doppler effect" from UFOs that comes from that, anything about Jacques Vallee's "Fastwalker" related to it? See my book Super Cosmos for those details explained.

Basic ZPF energy density-pressure ~ hc/L^3

L is scale of "capacitor" "quantum well" whatever

so L ~ tens to hundreds of nanometers

I don't give a damn about the quantum-electrical Casimir force F here that Hal is focused on - it's too small for realistic propulsion and it would not be warp drive anyway.

F ~ hcA/a^4

A = area of 2D plates, a = separation of plates

The direct bending of space-time by the ZPF in a Casimir situation is

R ~ (G/c^4)(hc/a^4)

R is Ricci curvature scalar

to get "lift," i.e. to change the geodesic of the ship requires

R = 1/r*^2 ~ (G/c^4)(hc/a^4) ~ (G-Superstring Tension)^-1(ZPF energy density)

Where for say Earth mass M at surface of Earth r (to fly in near-Earth environment)

1/r*^2 ~ GM/c^2r^3

Note that G cancels!

r*(Earth at surface) ~ 1 AU (Earth-Sun distance 10^8 miles).

M/c^2r^3 ~ (1/c^4)(hc/a^4)

Mc^2/r^3 ~ (hc/a^4)

Homework Problem

On Jan 7, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:

Hi Jack-- (See my responses below.)


On Jan 7, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:


Hi Jack;
While I may not have the math quite right, I believe I did
mention a
"positive and negative ZPF pressure", but my perspective was based
on the
(then) recent paper in Physics Essays, by Miguel Alcubierri, whose
paper I cited described the modification of the local spacetime metric
as and "expansion" and "contraction" of the metric to produce a vector
upon which the vehicle creating the distortion would move-- all
without
violating GR.

Well that would be great if you did. Can you confirm
that with some authenticated documentation? If so, then you beat me
to it by 8 years! Precognitive remote viewing on your part? I will
cite you on this if you can send me some proof as I have been
saying this in my books and papers only since 2002 spurred by the
discovery of dark energy starting in 1999.

Yeah, I'll have to go back through my audiotapes that Coast To Coast was
nice enough to supply me after the show. There were several programs within
a couple of months of one another. I'm not sure on the dates, though. Something
like Noveber of 1994 and December or January of the following year. I'll have
to find a way to dub you a copy. My audio cassette machine with dubbing capability
quit on me about two years ago, and I never got it repaired with the new audio formats
that have developed recently.

I would not call it precognitive remote viewing, although I have had several noteable
premonitions over the years. The Challenger disaster-- (right down to the starboard
SRB failing) and the fact that there was a black astronaut on board with a "Mc--" last
name like mine, (Ron McNair), an accident that nearly killed Hal's son one weekend,
(I left a warning on his office phone message machine after he had left the lab for the
weekend; he picked it up the following week after the accident had already happened),
and several, smaller, personally significant events which I saw in advance. More on that,
if you're interested-- later.

How come Puthoff never
mentioned it?

Well, I have had many discussions with Hal about the topic, as I said;
in fact, I often wondered myself why he never delved into it more deeply after
he began to digest what I was telling him about Brad's experience and some
of the other witnesses I encountered later. My own sightings of intelligently
controlled objects probably were the greatest inspiration for conjecture on
what kind of physics it would take to accomplish what I saw. One that I
saw covering nine miles of airspace in under a second and a half
making two right-angle turns in the process and then maneuvering up through a
canyon going in the general direction of Edwards AFB at about 11:44 PM on
December 13, 1989 was probably the most dramatic. It produced no sonic
boom and at that [visual] speed was obviously moving over Mach. It also had a
pronounced ionization trail that reminded me of the image streaking seen in
Space Shuttle videos documenting various objects above Earth. The trail persisted
for several seconds afterward then faded slowly, clearly delineating the flightpath.
It was a brilliant blue-white sphere shape, nearly as bright as the tip of an arc welding
rod in operation.

But getting back to Hal's odd lack of written theorization on the
matter, I think I once asked him why he never developed any papers on this.
In fact, I think he did; there was one that was kind of a response to Alcubierri's
paper in Physics Essays, it may have been part of a presentation at an IEEE
conference of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Technology Forum. I don't
recall. Does the word AD-ASTRA ring a bell?

Like I said before, I just tried to make sense of what I saw, the math is beyond me.
But it seemed obvious that these objects were able to negate or cancel mass and/or
inertia in order to make the kinds of dramatic turns I saw. The lack of a sonic boom
began to make sense when I imagined a propulsive field that cancelled mass and inertia
and might do the same for any air molecules enterring the affected region inside the
event horizon of the field. If rendered massless, then displacing them results in little or
no energy transfer from the hull of the craft resulting in no super-sonic shock wave.
If these molecules are momentarily de-massed, perhaps resulting in reduced electron spin,
then exitting the field would cause them to reacquire their interaction with the ZPF
causing a "bounce" as they return to their ground state spin energy with the excess
energy being re-radiated as photons. Thus the ionization trail. At least this is how I
visuallized it in my mind's eye.


What did it for me is my realization that not only is
73% of the universe negative pressure dark zero point energy
virtual quanta, but that 23% is positive pressure zero point energy
virtual quanta and only 4% is on-mass-shell real quanta of leptons,
quarks and gauge bosons.

That's Great, Jack, but you're already talkin' over my head here! LOL.

I have several reliable leads on significant, recent UFO activity up here in Northern
California I'll be checking out as time permits. I'll keep you advised. It has
been frequent enough according to witnesses that you might want to drive
up here for a couple of days and check it out! One area appears to be a new
"flight test" area for the boys out of Area-51.


All My Best,
Mark

I already know they are Out There. I am simply reverse engineering.

Click on

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html

"In any event, we may summarize Einstein's equation as follows:
(2)

This equation says that positive energy density and positive pressure curve spacetime in a way that makes a freely falling ball of point particles tend to shrink. Since E = mc^2 and we are working in units where c = 1, ordinary mass density counts as a form of energy density. Thus a massive object will make a swarm of freely falling particles at rest around it start to shrink. In short: gravity attracts."

Written in 1996 before the discovery of exotic dark energy dominating the cosmos.

"We promised to state Einstein's equation in plain English, but have not done so yet. Here it is:

Given a small ball of freely falling test particles initially at rest with respect to each other, the rate at which it begins to shrink is proportional to its volume times: the energy density at the center of the ball, plus the pressure in the x direction at that point, plus the pressure in the y direction, plus the pressure in the z direction."

OK, now for any quantum field in absence of Casimir plates to begin with:

ZPF energy density = - pressure in any Cartesian direction

this comes from

1. special relativity Lorentz covariance

2. Einstein's equivalence principle that, in this case may be conveniently, though technically arcane, restated as: non-geodesic g-forces in observer-detector LNIF non-inertial frames (created by non-gravity forces) are 100% inertial geometrodynamic level connection fields without any non-zero tensor part in the absence of torsion fields.
i.e. anti-Z formulation! ;-)

so that w = -1

In general we want w < - 1/3 in presence of Casimir type boundary constraints. In that case positive source energy density is "exotic" creating anti-gravity repulsion.

On Jan 7, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jan 7, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:
Hi Jack;
While I may not have the math quite right, I believe I did mention a
"positive and negative ZPF pressure", but my perspective was based on the
(then) recent paper in Physics Essays, by Miguel Alcubierri, whose
paper I cited described the modification of the local spacetime metric
as and "expansion" and "contraction" of the metric to produce a vector
upon which the vehicle creating the distortion would move-- all without
violating GR.

I replied to Mark:

Well that would be great if you did. Can you confirm that with some authenticated documentation? If so, then you beat me to it by 8 years! Precognitive remote viewing on your part? I will cite you on this if you can send me some proof as I have been saying this in my books and papers only since 2002 spurred by the discovery of dark energy starting in 1999. How come Puthoff never mentioned it? What did it for me is my realization that not only is 73% of the universe negative pressure dark zero point energy virtual quanta, but that 23% is positive pressure zero point energy virtual quanta and only 4% is on-mass-shell real quanta of leptons, quarks and gauge bosons.



http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/Kolb2_Page_12_jpg.htm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm

On Jan 7, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:

"Hi Jack;
While I may not have the math quite right, I believe I did mention a "positive and negative ZPF pressure", but my perspective was based on the (then) recent paper in Physics Essays, by Miguel Alcubierri, whose
paper I cited described the modification of the local spacetime metric
as and "expansion" and "contraction" of the metric to produce a vector
upon which the vehicle creating the distortion would move-- all without
violating GR. My personal view is that the application of the plate capacitors as in the ARV layout is only incidental to this distortion of the metric and only serves to "shape" the propulsive effect for directional changes, much like the swash plate on the main rotor of a helicopter."

I replied:

I don't understand how your plate capacitors will generate the different pressures in different parts of the fuselage needed for the drive to work.

Essentially we have "ZPF energy density" plotted on vertical in picture below. Without Russian torsionics from localizing the Poincare group to
get string theorie's 10D manifold, we could not have variations in
space and time of Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda
essential to how the alien ET flying saucers work!
htttp://shipov.com



http://www.usask.ca/psychology/sarty/warp/warp.gif


http://www.astrosciences.info/WarpDrive_files/image024.jpg
This last image is best as it shows the blue shift of repulsive dark ZPF energy negative pressure and the red shift of attractive dark ZPF "matter" positive pressure. Here it is the quantum vacuum pressure that is plotted. The ship moves to left creating its own geodesic.

However, I also have something like capacitors i.e. nano quantum wells with 2D anyon condensates phase locked to the coherent vacuum ODLRO Goldstone phases in my theory of emergent tetrads and spin connections.

McClandish: "You have to remember my viewpoint is only based on eye-witness testimony,"

Me: Nothing better than that, e.g. Paul Hill's deductions in "UFOs" best book in the field.

McClandish: "my own study of the peer-reviewed papers, my once-frequent
discussions with Hal (Puthoff) and personal observations of these craft in action on multiple occasions. If you asked me to solve a physics equation, I would be completely lost."

Me: Again how come Hal has never published anything like this before I did in 2002? Does Hal have a secret set of papers for Black Ops and he only shows the ZPF Haisch stuff and his PV stuff as a smoke screen to throw competitors off the track? I mean disinformation.

Regards,
Mark

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "Mark McCandlish"
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Hubble makes 3D dark matter map & flying saucer propulsion


I mean since I have been listening. Also exactly how to control ZPF was not known back then in 1994. Did you mention the key notion how one needs both ZPF of positive and negative pressure to get weightless warp drive without g-forces? That's the key insight from me, to my knowledge, that Hal Puthoff has never even acknowledged. If you have that on record back in 1994 show me and I will cite it. It's not enough to say simply "ZPF" without some at least qualitative details.
Jack Sarfatti


On Jan 7, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:
Hi, Jack;
The suggestion that no discussion about real UFO propulsion technology has occurred on Coast To Coast AM is not true. I spoke about a ZPF connection to this technology starting in late 1994, and while the aspects that you are dealing with are far beyond the comprehension of 99% of the audience, there are those with some understanding of the physics who WILL listen, and listen closely. I know; I have corresponded with many of them. Since '94 I have been on the program about six times.

... deleted sensitive content on Black Ops ...




Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 7, 2007 2:36:31 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars

Subject: Hubble makes 3D dark matter map & flying saucer propulsion

Most people in UFOlogy and at NASA/STAIF advanced concepts in
propulsion are simply not able to follow the physics I am talking
about here. It falls on deaf ears in America but not in Russia and
not in other places hostile to America. Even on Coast to Coast AM
they have not at all talked about the real UFO technology but have
only had disinformation on The Right Stuff presented.

Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: January 7, 2007 2:17:27 PM PST
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars

Subject: Re: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Hubble makes 3D dark
matter map

This is consistent with my theory that both dark energy and dark
matter are w = -1 zero point quantum fluctuation energy of
negative and positive pressure respectively. The w = -1 positive
pressure of negative energy density mimics w = 0 Cold Dark Matter
(CDM) for distant observers because it clumps under its own self-
attraction opposite to dark energy that tends to spread from its
self-repulsion. However, put the two together properly (needs
Russian torsion fields) to get weightless warp drive

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784



On Jan 7, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6235751.stm

Back from the future creation of the universe
http://qedcorp.com/APS/desitter.jpg

Our future dark-energy dominated deSitter "observer horizons" have a scale ~ 10^22 miles ~ 14 billion light years - analogous to us falling into a black hole with effective FRW Newtonian potential c^2/\r^2 (3D harmonic oscillator)

The averaged dark zero point energy density coarse-grained over a very large scale in those weird units is

Einstein's Lambda ~ 10^-44 square miles^-1 ~ 10^122 BITS

The space-time curvature radius made by the Earth at its surface is ~ 1 AU ~ 10^8 miles.

The space-time curvature radius made by a neutron star at its surface is ~ 1 AU ~ 10^2 miles.

Note in SSS Ruv = 0 for static non-geodesic "shell" LNIF observers accelerating whilst standing still in intrinsically curved tensor spacetime

g00 = -1/grr = 1 - rs/r

rs = 2GM/c^2 = 2(Gh/c^3)(Mc/h) = 2(Planck Area)(Compton Wavelength of source M)^-1

Effective horizon Unruh-Hawking black body temperature is

T ~ hc/krs

k = Boltzmann's constant.

The cosmic dark energy then has a black body temperature from the deSitter horizon of

T(Dark Energy) ~ (Einstein's Lambda)^1/2(hc/k)

The flow of advanced waves back from the future Omega Point deSitter horizon to the past Alpha Point of inflation leading to hot Big Bang with WMAP at ~ 380,000 years afterward, is a Novikov consistent loop in time that explains how the early universe has low entropy and why the thermodynamic arrow of time is aligned with the accelerated expansion of 3D space in our pocket universe on the populated cosmic landscape of the megaverse.

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Teleparallelism as Clifford Parallelism

I seem to have rediscovered what Whittaker knew in 1930
http://jlms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/s1-5/1/68
I suppose it's obvious but I have not seen this connection made in the little I have read in this subject.

I follow here Roger Penrose in "The Road to Reality" though he does not mention what I am about to show you. In S^2, P^2, S^3 and P^3 two straight lines (geodesics) that start out parallel will converge. This is "geodesic deviation" or "curvature." In L^2 & L^3 the opposite like parallel rays on a converging lens with real focus in geometrical optics - diverge like parallel rays through a convex lens on the emerging side flat on the entering side with a virtual focus. Imagine a straight line l in Euclidean 3D space. Displace line l parallel to itself along direction vector d perpendicular to line l. Rotate line l to line m slightly as the perpendicular displacement d increases. The result is line m skew to original line l. The distance between lines l and m will increase if we move outwards along them in either direction. Now apply this same process to either 3D spherical space S^3 or 3D projective space P^3, but adjust the rate of skewing rotation causing increasing separation such that it exactly compensates the natural convergence in spherical and projective non-Euclidean geometries. This is the Clifford parallelism.

"Teleparallelism" = "Clifford parallelism"

The "skewing" is the Shipov torsion field (in 3+1). Clearly if you try to make a closed loop it will have a torsion gap (dislocation in world crystal lattice).

The 6D "Calabi-Yau" O(1,3) torsion compensates the 4D T4 curvature (note the non-dyamical spin connections for zero torsion make rotational disclination defects round closed loops without torsion gaps to second order Taylor series expansions).

So Shipov's idea is that the torsion field is really the source of the curvature field.

Guv(curvature) = kTuv(torsion)

Therefore, he has to get all of matter from torsion fields in a spinor formalism. Since he has a 6D Calabi-Yau space naturally sitting there perhaps that can be done i.e. superstring theory with Shipov's torsion as the missing organizing idea?

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784

Measurement in General Relativity


Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784



L&L do not contradict Einstein at all. They agree that locally
you cannot distinguish a real gravity field from a "fake" one.
However, the meaning of "real gravity field" in L&L's usage
is not the same the way Einstein uses the same words.
Einstein only means "g-force" by "gravity field" - he does not
mean "curvature." If by "real gravity field" one means curvature
then of course one must correlate separated local measurements
in some way in order to measure the "geodesic deviation."
Note for a clean curvature geodesic deviation measurement you need
2 geodesic test particles that do not themselves feel any g-forces or any non-gravity forces
even though the non-geodesic LNIF observer doing the measurement
will feel g-forces! That is (LC|LNIF) =/= 0. Note that the connection field, emergent from locally gauging the Poincare group,
is a property not of the observed test particle but of the observing detector!
Using Bohr's method of the "total experimental arrangement" and Einstein's method
of the gedankenexperiment is also useful in classical measurement theory in
GR and will help in quantum gravity issues as well.

The geodesic equation on the observed test particle's point center of mass only is

d^2x^u(Observed)/dt^2 + (LC|Observer)^uvw(dx^v(Observed)/ds)(dx^w(Observed)/ds) = 0

Where in the rest LNIF frame of the observer

(LC)00^i=1,2,3 ~ (non-gravity force on the observer-detector)^i

One dramatic illustration of why we need Einstein's curved space-time is the fact that if Alice and Bob stand still at North Pole and South Pole respectively they radially accelerate away from each other each with

g ~ c^2rs/r^2

in opposite directions at fixed distance from each other!

This is a paradox in Euclidean geometry, but not so in non-Euclidean geometries!

This nice example from Stephen Hawking shows the intimate intuitive connection of curvature to the equivalence principle together with the need to look globally in a topological way. This is the method of Roger Penrose, which showed why there must be light-like surrounding surfaces or event horizons that you will not find using only local algebra! This is similar to superconductivity in which you will not find the ground state ODLRO coherence using only local perturbation theory to finite order. You have to make an infinite sum and when you do that you have an emergent qualitatively new phenomenon such as "consciousness" in living matter - "More is different" (P.W. Anderson).

On Jan 7, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Z wrote:
But most of this is taken almost directly from Einstein, Pauli, and
Landau & Lifshitz.

Pauli wrote explicitly in his Encyclopedia article on relativity that
in Einstein's model the pseudo-field produced by frame acceleration is
"no more or less real" than a homogeneous gravitational field produced
by matter.

Landau and Lifshitz reintroduced the physical distinction between the
two fields, and refer to the "actual" gravitational field, as opposed
to the effects of frame acceleration. Other authors, such as Eddington
and Tolman, referred to the "permanent" gravitational field. This is
what I'm calling the "true" gravitational field.

Discussion at American Zoetrope Virtual Studio
"Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal yet opposite reaction. Frankly, I believe that this law applies to all aspects of life, not just motion."

Yes, true. I have a PhD in physics from the University of California BTW. The third law technically comes from a symmetry principle, displacements in space leading to conservation of total linear momentum - a vector. You generalize it to include time in Einstein's 1905 special relativity and you get besides conservation of energy also E = mc^2. It doesn't stop there, you then use the "local gauge principle" plus Einstein's "equivalence principle" to get Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity where gravity is the bending of space-time and we have black holes and the expanding universe out of the Big Bang. Then we notice what the Russian military has been working on called torsion fields that are a kind of twist in space-time with cracks or dislocations in the "world crystal" in addition to the bending of space-tiime. This gives us the dark energy where the expansion of 3D space out of the Big Bang is accelerating rather than slowing down. It also gives us time travel to the past and between parallel universes in Star Gates like SG 1 and it explains how the Extra Terrestrials get here to abduct us and play with our genes. In fact I am working on how their saucers actually fly with Russian torsion field weightless warp drive. Now when you apply action-reaction to quantum theory you get our inner consciousness emerging from the two-way flow between the mental quantum waves of telepathy and matter in David Bohm's hidden variable theory when you also add another physical principle called "More is different" by Princeton Nobel Laureate P.W. Anderson. Details are in my book "Super Cosmos" on Amazon. I also give short talks on this in Paramount Pictures DVD Star Trek IV Disk 2 and on Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science." Now when we get to "entropy" we have the "holographic universe" in Lenny Susskind's book "The Cosmic Landscape" in which physical reality really is virtual and digital like in the movies "The Matrix" and "The Thirteenth Floor." We live in De Sitter's universe of dark energy with negative entropy flowing backwards in time from the far future observer de Sitter horizon Omega Point of Tielhard de Chardin back to the past Alpha Point of inflation from false to true vacuum at a point on the cosmic landscape in a self-consistent loop in time - the Oroborus.

In Defense of Einstein
Very rough draft from my new book "Star Gate" under construction. "Z" will be a "fictional character" as in Plato's and Galileo's "Dialogues." The UFO and paranormal fields are littered with unreliable bad and bogus physics information that even affects US Defense policy along the lines of Sharon Weinberger's "Imaginary Weapons" and its sequel(s). This book, as are my other books, are intended to correct this deplorable situation.

Einstein allegedly wrote the following:
2.
"XX. The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity


WE imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from stars and other appreciable masses that we have before us approximately the conditions required by the fundamental law of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a Galileian reference-body for this part of space (world), relative to which points at rest remain at rest and points in motion continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion. As reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer inside who is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation naturally does not exist for this observer. He must fasten himself with strings to the floor, otherwise the slightest impact against the floor will cause him to rise slowly towards the ceiling of the room.
1
To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook with rope attached, and now a “being” (what kind of a being is immaterial to us) begins pulling at this with a constant force. The chest together with the observer then begin to move “upwards” with a uniformly accelerated motion. In course of time their velocity will reach unheard-of values—provided that we are viewing all this from another reference-body which is not being pulled with a rope.
"

Note that the "ET" is exerting a non-gravity force on the chest, which then creates the gravitational field inside the chest that is objectively detected by an ordinary scale that the man in the chest stands on watching the pointer displace exactly as it would doing the same experiment locally on the surface of the Earth. Detecting intrinsic curvature as non-gravity force-free "geodesic deviation," i.e., Weyl stretch-squeeze & Ricci compressions/expansions from head to toe are irrelevant here even if they were large enough to notice. Z, and others simply garbles this key distinction raising an irrelevant bogus Red Herring objection to Einstein's "informal language" (David Bohm) on the physical meaning of general relativity.

2
"But how does the man in the chest regard the process? The acceleration of the chest will be transmitted to him by the reaction of the floor of the chest. He must therefore take up this pressure by means of his legs if he does not wish to be laid out full length on the floor. He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way as anyone stands in a room of a house on our earth. If he releases a body which he previously had in his hand, the acceleration of the chest will no longer be transmitted to this body, and for this reason the body will approach the floor of the chest with an accelerated relative motion. The observer will further convince himself that the acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is always of the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the experiment.
3
Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was discussed in the preceding section), the man in the chest will thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in a gravitational field which is constant with regard to time. Of course he will be puzzled for a moment as to why the chest does not fall in this gravitational field. Just then, however, he discovers the hook in the middle of the lid of the chest and the rope which is attached to it, and he consequently comes to the conclusion that the chest is suspended at rest in the gravitational field."

By the actual non-gravity force provided by the "rope" that is equivalent to firing a rocket in space to keep at a fixed distance from a large gravitating mass like the Sun or the Earth or the Moon. We misinterpret this "non-gravity force" as the "gravity field" pushing us off the zero-g geodesic path that we would take in its absence. The heaviness we feel standing still on Earth is exactly equivalent to the astronaut firing his rocket engine to stay in fixed position above the surface of the rotating Earth below. In both cases there is a non-gravity external applied force, different in each instance, maintaining the non-geodesic path relative to the local curved space-time geometrodynamic field causing the heaviness that we inaccurately call "gravity force" as if it were an intrinsic force when in fact it is an "inertial force", i.e., an artifact of the off-geodesic non-inertial local reference frame we are at rest in. What confuses Z and others is the garbling of the informal language from Newton and Einstein that like oil and water do not mix even though they lead to the same mathematics and predictions in the appropriate limiting case of weak gravity fields (i.e., large radii of intrinsic curvature) and relative speeds of test particles to detectors small compared to the vacuum speed of light c. Z incorrectly objects to the following remark of Einstein's - The Grand Master of The Gedankenexperiment -- an art lost by mathematicians in theoretical physicist's costume tying themselves up in Gordian knots.

4
" Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his conclusion? I do not believe we ought if we wish to remain consistent; we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation violates neither reason nor known mechanical laws. Even though it is being accelerated with respect to the “Galileian space” first considered, we can nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest. We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful argument for a generalised postulate of relativity.
5
We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. If this natural law did not exist, the man in the accelerated chest would not be able to interpret the behaviour of the bodies around him on the supposition of a gravitational field, and he would not be justified on the grounds of experience in supposing his reference-body to be “at rest.”
6
Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner side of the lid, and that he attaches a body to the free end of the rope. The result of this will be to stretch the rope so that it will hang “vertically” downwards. If we ask for an opinion of the cause of tension in the rope, the man in the chest will say: “The suspended body experiences a downward force in the gravitational field, and this is neutralised by the tension of the rope; what determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the gravitational mass of the suspended body.” On the other hand, an observer who is poised freely in space will interpret the condition of things thus: “The rope must perforce take part in the accelerated motion of the chest, and it transmits this motion to the body attached to it. The tension of the rope is just large enough to effect the acceleration of the body. That which determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is the inertial mass of the body.” Guided by this example, we see that our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we have obtained a physical interpretation of this law.
7
From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a general theory of relativity must yield important results on the laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic pursuit of the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws satisfied by the gravitational field. Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn the reader against a misconception suggested by these considerations. A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We might also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present, we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its entirety) vanishes.

Einstein here means over a region of space-time not at an isolated point.

8
"We can now appreciate why that argument is not convincing, which we brought forward against the general principle of relativity at the end of Section XVIII. It is certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a result of the application of the brake, and that he recognises in this the non-uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage. But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a “real” acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: “My body of reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced.”
http://www.bartleby.com/173/20.html

It's quite obvious in the above paragraph, that Einstein's use of "gravitational field" is conceptually independent of intrinsic curvature and Z's attempt to fuse them is a fundamental misunderstanding leading to bogus objections against what Einstein is saying above. Appeals to pure mathematics of "differential geometry" with alternate connections are equally beside the point.

On Jan 5, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

1. Z has used this forum to make allegations about defects in Einstein's theory of gravity (AKA General Relativity or GR) about the equivalence principle that are Red Herrings and really have nothing to do with what Einstein actually wrote when trying to explain his ideas to the public.

I will quote directly from Einstein's popular essays.
e.g., http://www.bartleby.com/173/

Part of Z's garbled not-even-wrong thesis revolves around the term "gravitational field." It is obvious from Einstein's actual words below that he does not mean "curvature" when he uses "gravitational field." Roughly speaking, in popular terms, the "curvature" is the inhomogeneity or variation in the gravitational field from place and time to another place at another time not too far away. Einstein's theory of gravity depends on "differential geometry", i.e., relationships between events not too far away. How far? Well that does depend inversely on the intensity of the curvature. Formally speaking for the mathematicians, Einstein by "gravity field" derives from the zero torsion symmetric "Levi-Civita connection field" (LC) for the self-parallel transport of vectors along paths or world lines in 4D space-time. Imagine an arrow in plane Euclidean geometry displaced by a small amount parallel to itself to get an initial rough intuitive idea of the concept.

The equivalence principle:

In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance for what follows. Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or on the physical state of the body. For instance, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall in exactly the same manner in a gravitational field (in vacuo), when they start off from rest or with the same initial velocity. This law, which holds most accurately, can be expressed in a different form in the light of the following consideration.

Here Einstein is using the more familiar "common sense" Newtonian concepts where gravity is a force. In geometrodynamics the intrinsic gravity force is eliminated along the timelike geodesic paths of curved spacetime. What we experience as "gravity force" i.e. "heaviness" or "weight" is always 100% inertial force caused by some non-gravity force pushing the detector off its natural free float subluminal geodesic path. This is completely independent of the presence of intrinsic local curvature as we only focus on the exact point-like motion of the center of mass of the detector and choose not to measure the relative motions of the different parts of the detector so as not to add irrelevant noise to the signal i.e. Einstein's key organizing idea. The core method of theoretical physics, as explained by David Bohm, is the art of making significant abstractions weeding out secondary and/or orthogonal concepts interesting in their own right as they may be.

If now, as we find from experience, the acceleration is to be independent of the nature and the condition of the body and always the same for a given gravitational field, then the ratio of the gravitational to the inertial mass must likewise be the same for all bodies.

Therefore, the non-geodesic gravitational force must be, within Einstein's 1915 theory, 100% inertial in curved space-time always caused by some non-gravity force. For example, Alice and The Mad Hatter are at the North and South Poles of the Earth respectively. They are both accelerating radially away from the center of Earth in opposite directions at g ~ 9.8 meters/sec^2 yet they are standing still relative to each other! This would be a paradox in globally flat Euclidean space-time, but it is exactly what we expect in the topsy turvy uncommon-sensical curved space-time of Riemann, Lewis Carroll and Albert Einstein! In fact, the quantum electrical forces in the ground at the Earth's surface continually push Alice and The Mad Hatter away from each other off their otherwise weightless free-float local geodesic "straightest paths" in the curved local geometrodynamic field. Do not confound the intrinsic geometrodynamic field, the folded wrinkled cosmic fabric of space-time with Einstein's misnamed "gravitational force" - a remnant from Newtonian thinking where gravity is a conservative path-independent force field with an action-at-a-distance scalar potential similar to the electrical Coulomb potential with mass as gravity charge. This "common sense" analogy used by amateurs is very limited and quickly leads to false and not even wrong conclusions by the uninitiated into the real mysteries of Super Cosmos.

By a suitable choice of units we can thus make this ratio equal to unity. We then have the following law: The gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass.
5
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognise the following fact: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as “inertia” or as “weight” (lit. “heaviness”). In the following section we shall show to what extent this is actually the case, and how this question is connected with the general postulate of relativity.

Given an extended test body whose self-gravity field can be ignored, what Einstein means here is the motion of its point center of mass. The complex possible relative motions of vibration and rotation and distortion of the parts of the extended body are ignored in this approximation. Therefore, the presence of local intrinsic curvature fields is completely irrelevant to the way Einstein uses "gravitational field" and applies it to formulate the equivalence principle. Because of this fact, Z's crank thesis that the gravitational field has a non-zero intrinsic tensor part plus the inertial force part is completely false within the 1915 Einstein theory without the Russian torsion field of Gennady Shipov first properly explained in 1961 by T.W.B. Kibble of Imperial College, University of London in terms of the local gauging of the 10-parameter Poincare group of Einstein's 1905 theory of special relativity for all source non-gravity field dynamical actions. Silly arguments by mathematicians that one can formally do so has no physical meaning and is simply "excess baggage" (J.A. Wheeler) of "less with more" rather than the other way round much preferred.

Z has made much noise with little signal about "uniform gravity fields." Here is what is what Einstein actually wrote about "the uniformly accelerated coordinate system (instead of an inertial system)" in the globally flat spacetime of 1905 special relativity:

"This gravitational field 'generated' by the acceleration of the coordinate system would of course be of unlimited extent in such a way that it could not be caused by gravitational masses in a finite region; however, if we are looking for a field-like theory, this fact need not deter us."

Z pulls this out of context completely and uses it to manufacture a bogus objection to Einstein's theory that there is some fundamental defect in Einstein's heuristic formulations of the equivalence principle that is the corner stone of the physical meaning of his theory.

An accelerated coordinate system in globally flat Minkowski spacetime requires a non-gravity force to accelerate it. This is Newton's 2nd Law F = ma. The "force of gravity" in Newton's sense is always in reality caused by some non-gravity force. That is, the "force of gravity" is really a kind of misnomer because it is only felt as "weight" or "heaviness" in non-inertial, i.e. "non-geodesic" frames of reference where "geodesic" means the straightest possible path in 4D spacetime relative to the symmetric Levi-Civita connection field, whether flat or curved makes no difference. All of this is only in the absence of the Russian torsion fields of course. Curvature is only detected in the relative motions of the different parts of the extended test body and that is completely irrelevant to the key idea which only describes the precise point motion of the center of mass of that test body. Relative motions about that center of mass are a different problem and there the curvature will play a key role. Z garbles this distinction to make irrelevant bogus objections.

to be continued

Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784