"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Feynman
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
On May 3, 2005, at 7:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)?
I think he means what we mean -- roughly, a co-moving array of detectors AKA "moving observer" -- but he doesn't tie this definition *a priori* to spacetime coordinate systems as in Einstein's approach, for reasons I've partly explained.
I do not understand what he means until I see a detailed explanation. I find the following sentences he wrote puzzling:
"the use of the Levi-Civita connection in lieu of the gravitational field in GR leads to a loss of general covariance"
Huh?
Does he simply mean for the GCT X
(LC) -> (LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
i.e. when Y =/= 0?
"We show that in the presence of an arbitrary affine connection, the gravitational field in GR may be described as nonmetricity of the affine connection." Huh?
The connections come from the principle of local gauge invariance relative to definite groups!
1916 GR is from locally gauging RIGID GLOBAL T4 down to local GCT Diff(4) with elements Xu'^u to get
Bu^a as the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad eu^a where
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
Where EEP is
guv(Curved) = eu^a(Flat)abev^b
guv,w (Curved) = (LC)uvw + (LC)vuw
,w = ordinary partial derivative
guv,w = Bu^a,w(Flat)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b) + (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Flat)abBv^b,w
Therefore, obviously
(LC)uvw = Bu^a,w(Flat)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
(LC)vuw = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Flat)abBv^b,w
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)arg(Vacuum ODLRO)
Under GCT's Xu'^u
Bu -> Bu' = Xu'^uBu
Under O(1,3)'s /\a^a' in tangent space
Bu^a -> Bu^a' = /\a^a'Bu^a
EEP implies
ea^ueb^vec^wguv,w = 0
Note that this constraint is a Galois solvable polynomial of 4th order in the B-field and is linear in B's first-order partial derivatives.
Metricity is
guv;w = 0
i.e.
;w = ,w + (LC)^a^bw
That is, we are not free to impose connection fields willy-nilly & higgledy-piggledy & topsy-turvy. They are DYNAMICAL FIELDS! They must come from the principle of local gauge invariance!
Therefore, I do not understand Alex's
"An affine connection can be interpreted as induced by a frame of reference (FR), in which the gravitational field is considered ..."
Many other sentences in Alex's paper I simply do not understand. More on that anon.
I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
I think the key here is to understand that "locality" of coordinate frames arises at a different stage of analysis and interpretation in Alex's model.
Unintelligible.
In the orthodox theory this has everything to do with the localized nature of coordinate patches on curved manifolds
Of course.
(there is no such restriction on a flat manifold), and this has to do with the mathematical technicalities of homeomorphisms from opens sets on the manifold to R^4.
Unintelligible. Physical space-time is not flat. It is curved. That is directly observed LOCALLY as geodesic deviation for a pair of test particles at neighboring positions X & X'! Tidal distortion is
D^2(X^u - X'^u)/ds^2 = R^uvwl(Xl - X'l)(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds)
Physics is more constrained than pure math. What you write is unintelligible.
Alex's model of observer reference frames -- as I understand it -- comes before all this.
Unintelligible.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
OK...
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
I'm not sure this argument is correct. Obviously LC can be a zero matrix at some point in an "LIF" without
ceasing to be defined there.
Unintelligible.
That it is zero in a particular system of coordinates doesn't change the algebraic
relationship of (LC) with A, S, and Q.
So what?
A = (LC) + Q + S
Is this an empty definition of A like
F = ma
is an empty definition by itself? You need more information like
F = GMm/r^2 to break out of the empty definition.
Similarly, t_uv(vacuum) in Yilmaz is an empty definition.
(LC) = 0 in ALL LIF's at P means a critical point for guv,w as a functional of worldlines through intermediate event P. Those world lines for the LOCUS of critical points connecting P(initial) to P(final) are the "straightest" timelike geodesics of MAXIMAL proper time in the curved space-time. This is essentially the action principle for a neutral point test particle applied to geometrodynamics. It is the path of constructive interference of the complex quantum Feynman amplitudes e^iClassical Action/h for the point test particle.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
For simplicity Alex actually sets torsion to zero for his development in the GR-17 paper -- although he says this is not necessary.
So what? You evade the point.
My analogy with the A&P Weitzenboeck connection has nothing to do with torsion. It has only to do with defining alternate connections over a raw manifold and then writing algebraic relations between them -- which is exactly what Alex and also A&P do in their respective papers.
Unintelligible.
Look torsion is from locally gauging O(1,3).
Nonmetricity is from locally gauging GL(n) where n = number of extra bosonic space dimensions of hyperspace.
Otherwise, what Alex is doing is empty definitions with no physical meaning.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that.
It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
Are you saying you can't define a metric-free connection (with a non-zero tensor of non-metricity) on a differentiable manifold?
You can define anything you like, but it has nothing to do with the physics of gravity! You do not seem to understand the difference between theoretical physics and purely formal games.
And, alternately, the metric-compatible LC connection (with a zero non-metricity tensor) on same? Or that you can but you cannot formulate algebraic relationships between them?
Unintelligible.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
I have no interest in purely mathematical models if they have no connection to physics.
My interest is VERY NARROW and FOCUSED i.e.
practical low power metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon
as seen in the flying saucer evidence!
That is reverse engineering the Kaku Type IV Superior Military Super-Technology of the alleged time travelers - the "Masters of Hyperspaced" visiting Earth for at least the past 10,000 years according to Professor Scott Littleton (Anthropologist) from Claremont Colleges - not a Diploma Mill BTW!
BTW
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw
manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel
Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Message from the Q-Masters of Hyperspace ;-)
PS
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard P. Feynman
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
The relationship between the two levels (torsion tetrad substratum & curved geometrodynamics) is BILINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(P&a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
y is essentially the dimensionless energy gap scale for lepto-quark rest masses.
It is also the binding energy of a single virtual pair boundstate. The energy released in the chaotic inflation of the multiverse (of parallel universes sprouting baby universes) to heat up the Big Bang in our Level 1 (Max Tegmark) Hubble Bubble Universe isyhc/Lp, where is the mean number per unit area of condensed bound state virtual pairs in the post-inflationary macro-quantum Vacuum ODLRO vacuum, whose single-valued order parameter is for local physical event P
Psi(P) = ||^1/2e^i[Goldstone-Phase(P)]
[|Psi|^2] = 1/Area
if we normalize, as a toy model only, to the World Hologram Horizon of t'Hooft-Susskind (other variations on the theme are possible)
{P^a} is the Lie algebra of the T4 translation group in 4D GR tangent fiber space
Xa is canonically conjugate to Pa, the DIMENSIONLESS creation and destruction operators are
A = X/Lp + iPLp/h
A* = X/Lp - iPLp/h
The SQUEEZED (Bogoliubov pairing) post-inflationary SYMPLECTIC Wigner Phase Space Density Macro-Quantum Vacuum ODLRO LOCAL ORDER PARAMETER with ZERO ENTROPY is
= e^[z(P)A* - z*A]e^[(1/2)(s*(P)A^2 - s(P)A*^2)]|False Pre-Inflationary Vacuum>
s(P) = |s(P)|e^2iTheta(P)
z(P) = |z(P)|e^iPhi(P)
= |z| ~ ^1/2
= z^2 - cosh(|s|)sinh(|s|)
= |z|^2 + sinh^2(|s|)
|z|^2 = intensity of unsqueezed Glauber state
Theta is orientation of squeezing axis in Wigner Phase Space
|s| is the degree of squeezing.
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - (|z|^2 + sinh^2|s|)]
Ordinary vacuum is
/\zpf = 0
i.e.
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| = 1 "unit circle"
Repulsive Dark Energy w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Negative Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| < 1
Attractive Dark Matter w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Positive Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| > 1
Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda "origin of inertia" of lepto-quarks is only a small random drag correction on this coherent Higgs mechanism origin of inertia.
The path to practical metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon of Michio Kaku's "Type IV" Civilization "Masters of Hyperspace", i.e. The Q of Star Trek as it were, is from:
&/\zpf ~ chiLp^-1|Anyon Surface Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon))}
Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon)) = 2pi[Na(Phi(B)/Phi(A)) - Nb]
Na = number of magnetic A flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer".
Nb = number of torsion tetrad substratum B flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer"
Phi(B)/Phi(A) = dimensionless ratio of the two types of flux quanta from single-valuedness of Psi(P).
chi = dimensionless (Ray Chiao) impedance match ODLRO Goldstone SBS phases of active high Tc anyon layer to the vacuum it shares space with.
chi << 1
B torsion tetrad substratum flux quanta from
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is Iu^a + Bu^a
Iu^a is identity Kronecker-Delta
Bu^a = BuP^aLp/ih operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Bu = Bu^aXa/Lp operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Make distorted A & A* operators
A' = Bu^aXa/Lp + i(BuP^aLp/ih)
etc.
On May 3, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Synopsis
Math Corrected 2nd Draft
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
PS
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard P. Feynman
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
The relationship between the two levels (torsion tetrad substratum & curved geometrodynamics) is BILINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(P&a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
y is essentially the dimensionless energy gap scale for lepto-quark rest masses.
It is also the binding energy of a single virtual pair boundstate. The energy released in the chaotic inflation of the multiverse (of parallel universes sprouting baby universes) to heat up the Big Bang in our Level 1 (Max Tegmark) Hubble Bubble Universe is
Psi(P) = |
[|Psi|^2] = 1/Area
if we normalize, as a toy model only, to the World Hologram Horizon of t'Hooft-Susskind (other variations on the theme are possible)
{P^a} is the Lie algebra of the T4 translation group in 4D GR tangent fiber space
Xa is canonically conjugate to Pa, the DIMENSIONLESS creation and destruction operators are
A = X/Lp + iPLp/h
A* = X/Lp - iPLp/h
The SQUEEZED (Bogoliubov pairing) post-inflationary SYMPLECTIC Wigner Phase Space Density Macro-Quantum Vacuum ODLRO LOCAL ORDER PARAMETER with ZERO ENTROPY is
s(P) = |s(P)|e^2iTheta(P)
z(P) = |z(P)|e^iPhi(P)
|z|^2 = intensity of unsqueezed Glauber state
Theta is orientation of squeezing axis in Wigner Phase Space
|s| is the degree of squeezing.
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - (|z|^2 + sinh^2|s|)]
Ordinary vacuum is
/\zpf = 0
i.e.
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| = 1 "unit circle"
Repulsive Dark Energy w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Negative Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| < 1
Attractive Dark Matter w = -1 Exotic Macro-Quantum Vacuum with RESIDUAL Positive Micro-Quantum Zero Point Pressure is
|z|^2 + sinh^2|s| > 1
Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda "origin of inertia" of lepto-quarks is only a small random drag correction on this coherent Higgs mechanism origin of inertia.
The path to practical metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon of Michio Kaku's "Type IV" Civilization "Masters of Hyperspace", i.e. The Q of Star Trek as it were, is from:
&/\zpf ~ chiLp^-1|Anyon Surface Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon))}
Loop Integral(B(vacuum) - A(anyon)) = 2pi[Na(Phi(B)/Phi(A)) - Nb]
Na = number of magnetic A flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer".
Nb = number of torsion tetrad substratum B flux quanta trapped in the tiny nano-loop at event P on fuselage of "flying saucer"
Phi(B)/Phi(A) = dimensionless ratio of the two types of flux quanta from single-valuedness of Psi(P).
chi = dimensionless (Ray Chiao) impedance match ODLRO Goldstone SBS phases of active high Tc anyon layer to the vacuum it shares space with.
chi << 1
B torsion tetrad substratum flux quanta from
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is Iu^a + Bu^a
Iu^a is identity Kronecker-Delta
Bu^a = BuP^aLp/ih operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Bu = Bu^aXa/Lp operating on Goldstone Phase of Vacuum ODLRO
Make distorted A & A* operators
A' = Bu^aXa/Lp + i(BuP^aLp/ih)
etc.
On May 3, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Synopsis
Math Corrected 2nd Draft
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Lost Horizons
Synopsis
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Synopsis
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc -> 0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr - 2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini "Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J & m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity - negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)? I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges. Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez -- you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to the LC connection.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Flying Saucer Spray Paint?
On May 2, 2005, at 2:14 PM, art wagner wrote:
Exempt from Disclosure: The Disturbing Case About the UFO Coverup by Robert M. Collins and Richard C. Doty: Christopher Green MD, PhD in Neurophysiology now at Wayne State Medical Center in Michigan relates that many years ago one of his friends Richard Helms ex CIA Director at the time told him, "Always believe what Richard Doty tells you about UFOs."
Dr. Green was high up in the CIA. He still maintains high security clearances. Whatever The Truth here may be, it is very weird and bizarre.
The fact however is that the progress of mainstream physics has shed a bright light on the UFO phenomenon since the 1999 discovery of the key to the puzzle - Dark Energy!
The key equations for metric engineering Warp, Wormhole & Weapon are:
Guv + &/\zpfguv = 0
&/\zpf = (x/Lp)|Anyon Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)}
cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)} = cos[2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)]
2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)) is the dimensionless relative phase between the Vacuum ODLRO and the Anyon OLDRO in a small nano-LC loop etched on the high Tc thin active layer spray painted on the saucer fuselage.
x << 1 = Vacuum - Anyon impedance match coupling coefficient
Geodesic flight near Earth's surface at distance r from center of Earth requires
GM(Earth)/c^2r^3 ~ &/\zpf
Richard Helms was briefed into the subject of UFOs in the early days. He knew about Roswell and knew the involvement of the CIA from around 1950 to the 1970s. Helms knew the NSA involvement with programs to capture ET signals.
-Rick Doty
From: Bruce Maccabee
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:51:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:26:55 -0400
Subject: Wow! Exempt & Beta Together
Wow!
Hard to know what else to say.
I just read Exempt from Disclosure (Collins and Doty) and then
Project Beta (Bishop).
My head is swimming. Definitely a brain-scambling event! What to
believe? Whom to believe?
Are these guys crazy, or is they actually putting a hole in the
"iron (cover-up) curtain?"
Where these books intersect (Bennewitz, Moore) there are slight
differences in the history, but the quandary come clear in both:
who is telling the truth? And, if someone is, can we handle the
truth? Actually the typical reader will be in more of a quandary
after reading EfD (Exempt....) because it goes far beyond PB
(Beta).....
Here, for the first time anywhere (in publication, as far as I
know) are the names and activities of _living_ men who claim to
have first hand knowledge of AFC (alien flying craft) and alien
technology and alien bodies and... live aliens!
On the first page of the book (pg 3) the reader gets a flavor of
the openness of the presentation in the lst f names associated
to the investigation as it began almost 20 years ago. Some names
are recognized immediately, along with their Aviary (bird)
names:
Bill Moore
Jaime Shandara
Two names are less well known (the book authors)
Richard Doty (Falcon stand-in)
Robert Collins (Condor)
Three names that are known from a totally different history
(deceased):
James J.Angleton
I was contacted some years ago by someone who claimed to be Angleton's grandson and who I know was working with Collins. Allegedly Angleton's grandson said he knew I was shown a retrieved saucer in 1973-6. I denied that of course. I wish it were true. Either that or my memory of it was erased. See Saul-Paul Sirag's chapter in my autobiography Destiny Matrix on George Koopman for the real story that the above garbled story may be based upon.
Allen Dulles
Richard Helms
And a name unknown to most UFO investigators:
Ernie Kellerstrauss (Hawk).
Ernie Kellerstrauss? Who ordered him, you say? He is a source
for a sizeable fraction of what is in the book.
And then a few pages later we find:
Dale Graff (Falcon?)
Kit Green (Blue Jay)
Other people play a faint supporting role as compared to that of
Doty and Kellerstrauss in terms of providing information that
indicates a cover-up.
One, of many name(s,) not in the book - except as co-author of
the "Inflation..." paper that was published in JBIS used as a
reference - is Bruce Maccabee (Seagull)
But I have a part of it, small though it may be. I was probably
the first person to interview Hawk at length after he was
"discovered" by Collins. This was in the Nov-Dec 1985. I met him
in Feb 1986. By that time I had from him an amazing story which,
however, I now realize was only part of what he, apparently,
knew. I also was on the periphery of the Bennewitz saga, having
spoken to him once while investigating the Kirtland Landing
documents - when I met Doty for the first and last time.
In the following weeks and months I expect this book to stir up
a controversy comparable to that over the Roswell case, but with
a difference: now there are people who have gone public - and
some that have been 'outed' whether they want it or not - so now
we will see who has the fortitude to stand behind their claims
or will collapse in the barrage of attacks that are sure to
come.
But, more on that later. For now, to whet your appetite, just
let me say that in this book you will find the back story
leading up to "Cover Up Live" and much more. (It's not just
about strawberry ice cream and Tibetan music.)
To get the full understanding of what is coming down the pike I
recommend reading both these books, perhaps in this order.
Project Beta ( Amazon or bookstore)
Exempt from Disclosure can be obtained at:
www.ufoconspiracy.com
On May 2, 2005, at 2:14 PM, art wagner wrote:
Exempt from Disclosure: The Disturbing Case About the UFO Coverup by Robert M. Collins and Richard C. Doty: Christopher Green MD, PhD in Neurophysiology now at Wayne State Medical Center in Michigan relates that many years ago one of his friends Richard Helms ex CIA Director at the time told him, "Always believe what Richard Doty tells you about UFOs."
Dr. Green was high up in the CIA. He still maintains high security clearances. Whatever The Truth here may be, it is very weird and bizarre.
The fact however is that the progress of mainstream physics has shed a bright light on the UFO phenomenon since the 1999 discovery of the key to the puzzle - Dark Energy!
The key equations for metric engineering Warp, Wormhole & Weapon are:
Guv + &/\zpfguv = 0
&/\zpf = (x/Lp)|Anyon Density|^1/2cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)}
cos{Loop Integral[B(Vacuum ODLRO) - A(Anyon)} = cos[2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)]
2pi(Nb(Flux Quantum of B/Flux Quantum of A) - Na)) is the dimensionless relative phase between the Vacuum ODLRO and the Anyon OLDRO in a small nano-LC loop etched on the high Tc thin active layer spray painted on the saucer fuselage.
x << 1 = Vacuum - Anyon impedance match coupling coefficient
Geodesic flight near Earth's surface at distance r from center of Earth requires
GM(Earth)/c^2r^3 ~ &/\zpf
Richard Helms was briefed into the subject of UFOs in the early days. He knew about Roswell and knew the involvement of the CIA from around 1950 to the 1970s. Helms knew the NSA involvement with programs to capture ET signals.
-Rick Doty
From: Bruce Maccabee
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:51:35 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:26:55 -0400
Subject: Wow! Exempt & Beta Together
Wow!
Hard to know what else to say.
I just read Exempt from Disclosure (Collins and Doty) and then
Project Beta (Bishop).
My head is swimming. Definitely a brain-scambling event! What to
believe? Whom to believe?
Are these guys crazy, or is they actually putting a hole in the
"iron (cover-up) curtain?"
Where these books intersect (Bennewitz, Moore) there are slight
differences in the history, but the quandary come clear in both:
who is telling the truth? And, if someone is, can we handle the
truth? Actually the typical reader will be in more of a quandary
after reading EfD (Exempt....) because it goes far beyond PB
(Beta).....
Here, for the first time anywhere (in publication, as far as I
know) are the names and activities of _living_ men who claim to
have first hand knowledge of AFC (alien flying craft) and alien
technology and alien bodies and... live aliens!
On the first page of the book (pg 3) the reader gets a flavor of
the openness of the presentation in the lst f names associated
to the investigation as it began almost 20 years ago. Some names
are recognized immediately, along with their Aviary (bird)
names:
Bill Moore
Jaime Shandara
Two names are less well known (the book authors)
Richard Doty (Falcon stand-in)
Robert Collins (Condor)
Three names that are known from a totally different history
(deceased):
James J.Angleton
I was contacted some years ago by someone who claimed to be Angleton's grandson and who I know was working with Collins. Allegedly Angleton's grandson said he knew I was shown a retrieved saucer in 1973-6. I denied that of course. I wish it were true. Either that or my memory of it was erased. See Saul-Paul Sirag's chapter in my autobiography Destiny Matrix on George Koopman for the real story that the above garbled story may be based upon.
Allen Dulles
Richard Helms
And a name unknown to most UFO investigators:
Ernie Kellerstrauss (Hawk).
Ernie Kellerstrauss? Who ordered him, you say? He is a source
for a sizeable fraction of what is in the book.
And then a few pages later we find:
Dale Graff (Falcon?)
Kit Green (Blue Jay)
Other people play a faint supporting role as compared to that of
Doty and Kellerstrauss in terms of providing information that
indicates a cover-up.
One, of many name(s,) not in the book - except as co-author of
the "Inflation..." paper that was published in JBIS used as a
reference - is Bruce Maccabee (Seagull)
But I have a part of it, small though it may be. I was probably
the first person to interview Hawk at length after he was
"discovered" by Collins. This was in the Nov-Dec 1985. I met him
in Feb 1986. By that time I had from him an amazing story which,
however, I now realize was only part of what he, apparently,
knew. I also was on the periphery of the Bennewitz saga, having
spoken to him once while investigating the Kirtland Landing
documents - when I met Doty for the first and last time.
In the following weeks and months I expect this book to stir up
a controversy comparable to that over the Roswell case, but with
a difference: now there are people who have gone public - and
some that have been 'outed' whether they want it or not - so now
we will see who has the fortitude to stand behind their claims
or will collapse in the barrage of attacks that are sure to
come.
But, more on that later. For now, to whet your appetite, just
let me say that in this book you will find the back story
leading up to "Cover Up Live" and much more. (It's not just
about strawberry ice cream and Tibetan music.)
To get the full understanding of what is coming down the pike I
recommend reading both these books, perhaps in this order.
Project Beta ( Amazon or bookstore)
Exempt from Disclosure can be obtained at:
www.ufoconspiracy.com
Sunday, May 01, 2005
My comments on Michio Kaku
On May 1, 2005, at 7:45 AM, antigray@cs.com wrote:
MICHIO KAKU talks parallel universes
Marco: How do you see the experimental confirmation on superstring theory ? How long will it remain an unproven theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future, However, indirect measurements may come fairly soon. Most science, in fact, is done with indirect experiments. For example, we have never visited the Sun but we know that is made out of Hydrogen because we have echoes from the Sun called sunlight. Similarly, we hope to find echoes from the tenth dimension. For example, in Geneva Switzerland, a large Hadron Collider will be turned on and we hope to find particles or super-particles which would be the next lowest vibration of the superstring. Furthermore, dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe maybe made up of super-particles.
Here is where my theory disagrees with Kaku's and all of string theory.
Dark energy/matter is not made up of real particles OUTSIDE the vacuum. It is all virtual particles INSIDE the vacuum. The 96% missing mass of universe (73% dark energy + 23% dark matter) is all zero point energy density too(zpf) given by Einstein's exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - Lp^n|VacuumODLRO|^2]
n = 2 for world hologram i.e. 3D space replaced by a 2D "horizon"
Dark energy repulsive blue shift field has positive zero point energy density t00(zpf) > 0 with equal and opposite negative pressure.
Dark matter attractive red shift field has negative zero point energy density t00(zpf) < 0 with equal and opposite positive pressure.
Putting both dark energy and dark matter together in the right way gives Alcubierre's zero time dilation weightless globally faster-than-light locally slower-than-light controlled-inflation warp drive seen in the flying saucers.
Starting from /\zpf = 0, the Type IV Civilization metric engineered induced warp field is
&/\zpf = x|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B - A)}
B = tetrad torsion 1-form connection of Vacuum ODLRO
A = control condensate 1-form connection
k = dimensionless impedance match of vacuum to control.
in a 2D anyon control condensate
|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2 = 1/Lp
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Loop Integral(B - A) = [NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
Nb = number of Vacuum ODLRO torsion flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
Na = number of Control ODLRO flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
For external curvature scale GM/c^2r^3, cancellation of this gravity by the zero point energy requires
GM/c^2r^3 ~ /\zpf = (x/Lp)|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos[NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
x << 1
Keith Marsden: Could I exist in a parallel universe and if so would my life take a different course?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many kinds of parallel universes. If we speak of quantum parallel universe then there may be resemblance to our Universe, except with one quantum difference. For example, if a cosmic ray went through Hitler's mother's womb and Hitler was never born, we could be one quantum event away from a parallel universe without World War 2. However, if the parallel universe is in another dimension then the laws of Physics themselves will change and atoms maybe unstable. And two kinds of matter exist - in those universes, Physics may look entirely different from our own.
Josh Conway: How important is time to the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is defined in eleven dimensional space time with ten dimensions of space and one dimension of time. So M-Theory only has one time. However, there is some speculation that F-Theory may contain two dimensions of time and ten dimensions of space. So that there would be two times in a twelve dimensional universe. However, F-Theory is only held by a minority of physicists.
Mike Garman: Your theory explains the start of our Universe, but where do the membranes come from that started it?
Dr Michio Kaku: We believe that a multiverse of universes exist like bubbles floating in Nothing. Each bubble forms as a quantum fluctuation in Nothing. We feel that as this bubble forms its matter is dominated by strings and membranes which create musical notes which we see as particles of the universe.
Ross McManus: Can dark matter and black holes be explained using the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: Partially yes. In M-Theory, black hole solutions exist not only as a remnant of a dying star; they also exist as subatomic particles.
This is in my book Space-Time & Beyond 1975, also in paper published in Collective Phenomena ed. H. Frohlich & FW Cummings published in 1973, which caused Abdus Salam to invite me to ICTP Trieste, Italy as Jagdish Mehra can confirm. A. Burinski is working on this in Moscow today. That is I explained the universal slope of the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as spin J ~ (1/Gev)^2E^2 tiny Kerr solutions with G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.
So there is an unity between black holes and elementary particles. Also, the next vibration of the string includes a photino or particle which may make up most of the dark matter in the Universe. So dark matter maybe a higher musical note on the string.
Pieter Verhoeven: What is meant by "Bubbles of Nothing"?
Dr Michio Kaku: Boiling water is a purely quantum mechanical event. If water molecules were like billiard balls, water would never boil. Water boils and a tiny fluctuation occurs in water. Similarly, universes maybe created all the time, even as we speak, due to fluctuation in Nothing. In other words, universes maybe for free and Big Bangs, happen all the time like in boiling water.
Peter Wentworth: What are the possibilities for a second Big Bang collision? Is it theoretically possible?
Dr Michio Kaku: There is some speculation that gamma-ray bursters release the greatest amounts of energy since the Big Bang. There is some speculation that they maybe powerful enough to open a hole in our bubble Universe, so that our Universe buds into two universes, creating a baby universe which leaves the mother universe. However, until M-Theory becomes better understood we cannot prove that baby universes can be created from our Universe.
John Reyes: Dr Kaku, how can one travel in time when time does not exist? And if it did, would you know which way to point your ship?
Dr Michio Kaku: Time is like a river. It bends and flows around the Universe. Time may also have whirlpools and also may fork into two rivers. In this way, time travel might be possible. However, you have to have the Planck energy to create a time machine or the energy of a Black Hole. That is far beyond our technology.
Kaku is wrong there IMHO. You can do low-power star gate/time travel IMHO. UFOs do it.
Dr: Do eleven dimensions mean there are other life forms of any kind?
Dr Michio Kaku: We do not know if life-forms can exist in another dimension. However, atoms as we know them may not be stable in other dimensions. If we replace Newton's Inverse square law with an inverse tube law then solar systems and atoms fall apart. However, new forms of matter may exist in higher dimensions.
Viva Wright: Is there the possibility that unconscious knowledge is transferred between universes?
Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicists believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain so telepathy between universes may not be possible.
I disagree with Kaku here.
However, the problem of consciousness in a quantum-theory is still an unresolved problem.
Consciousness is impossible in micro-quantum theory. Consciousness is a macro-quantum property of systems in non-equilibrium at all levels. Signal nonlocality (presponse) is necessary.
M-Theory is still a quantum-theory.
Nick Rimmington Do you think this theory may explain why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing?
Dr Michio Kaku: Nobody knows how to calculate dark energy which is causing the Universe to accelerate.
Wrong.
The best hope is M-Theory, but no-one knows how to solve M-Theory or the Big Bang. Maybe one of the viewers of this programme will be inspired to use M-Theory to explain the accelerating Universe.
We do not need M theory for that.
Adam Kirsch: If space is the 5th dimension what are the 6th or 7th?
Dr Michio Kaku: If the fifth dimension vibrates, then ripples on the fifth dimension are visible as light. If the other dimensions vibrate, then the ripples are seen as the nuclear force, so the forces of the universe can be viewed as ripples in hyper-space.
Christopher Sayer: Can a new membrane be created from two membranes colliding?
Dr Michio Kaku: When two membranes or two strings collide, they create new membranes and new strings. The diagrams which tell us how membranes and strings collide are like the Feynman diagrams that we see in quantum-theory. Our bodies are symphonies of vibrating strings and membranes. The chemistry of our body is a consequence of the collision of these membranes and strings.
Simon Lawrence: If the Universe is constantly expanding, when does this sign the end of our known Universe?
Dr Michio Kaku: Our Universe will die in ice rather than fire. Our Universe eventually, trillions and trillions of years away from now, will reach near absolute zero making intelligent life impossible. Therefore, we may have to escape into hyper-space if we are to survive the death of the Universe.
Tom Brown: In theory, is it possible to use the space between the Universes, leaving and re-entering, in order to travel many light years within our Universe, but without time having passed?
Dr Michio Kaku: Einstein's equations give us a possibility to leap into hyper-space through a worm-hole to reach another universe. However, we don't have enough energy to open up such a hole and we don't know how stable such a hole might be.
Kaku wrong there as well IMHO.
Brian Whaley: If time has only one dimension how can one deal with the issue of how "fast" time passes - and the difference between "time of day" and time as duration?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is only mathematically consistent with one dimension of time and ten dimensions of space. M-Theory is mathematically inconsistent for any other combination.
Sam Jenkins: if our Universe is contained within a "bubble", what makes up the surface?
Dr Michio Kaku: The surface of this bubble is the Universe itself. People often ask where did the Big Bang take place? The Big Bang did not take place on the surface of the bubble, it took place inside the bubble, i.e. in hyper-space.
Phil Williams: What is hyper-space?
Dr Michio Kaku: Hyper-space is space beyond three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Historically, scientists thought that hyper-space could not exist, now we believe that in hyper-space there is enough room to unify all fundamental forces. Four dimensions of space time are too small to unify the four fundamental forces
Chris Norrie: Do you believe in infinity?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many types of infinity. The age of our universe may increase without limit because our universe is accelerating. In space, however, our universe may be finite in hyper-space but infinite in three dimension just like a bubble. So the farthest object in the universe would be the back of your head.
Patrick Clarke: Are there infinite particles with the same x,y,z & time values as those in my body?
Dr Michio Kaku: Well, in M-Theory there are an infinite number of particles. Each one represents a musical note on a string or membrane, so the atoms of our body are like those of a string. Chemistry is the melodies on these membranes and the universe is a symphony of vibrating membranes and string.
William Joseph: Does M-theory say anything about the idea that the speed of light in our universe may be slowing down?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory reproduces all of Einstein's theory and more. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
Tony Hall: Does string theory incorporate number theory in its structure?
Dr Michio Kaku: String theory has gobbled up many branches of Mathematics which has astounded mathematicians. However, there is one branch of Mathematics that seems beyond the reach of string theory which is number theory. For example, we do not find Fermat's last theorem in string theory.
Jean: Could black holes be routes from our Universe to the other parallel universes? Could than be why nothing comes out of them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Yes, there is a theory that says that universes may have children, via a budding process in which a universe splits into two smaller universes. However this is just a theory, and we will have to wait until M-Theory is further developed to decide whether universes can have children.
Kip Thorne showed the difference between black holes and star gates held open by anti-gravitating dark zero point energy density of negative pressure (w = -1)
Universe Next Door
Patrick Clarke: Is the Big Bang where all eleven dimensions have a value of zero?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one solution of M-Theory, our Universe is a four-dimensional ball floating in eleven dimensions. In the other seven dimensions, there could be other bubbles floating. One theory says that the nearest bubble to our Universe maybe one millimetre away from us. This theory will be tested in Geneva in a few more years.
Nigel: Does the rate of vibration of membranes offer a possible connection between them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Large membranes may resemble universes like our own floating in eleven dimensional hyper-space. However, tiny membranes can be viewed as subatomic particles whose vibration and interaction give us the laws of Chemistry. Therefore M-Theory unifies subatomic particles and universes.
Trici Shaw: What is the "F" from F-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: F for F-Theory stands for Father. M for M-Theory may stand for Mother, Mystery or Membrane.
Alan Trevitt: If universes are parallel to each other, why does gravity run in only one direction i.e., downwards?
Dr Michio Kaku: Gravity is caused by the warping of space-time. Therefore, if we have two bubbles close to each other they will distort the space-time surrounding them and feel each others gravity. Therefore, dark matter may be the presence of a neighbouring universe that we cannot see.
This is wrong in my theory.
Alex Greybrook: How was hyper space discovered?
Dr Michio Kaku: The Greeks tried to prove 2000 years ago that hyper-space was impossible. However, Vernhard Riemann proved in the 1870s that hyper-space was possible. Then Kaluza in 1921 showed that universes may exist in hyper-space.
Richie Lunt: Although atoms are stable in our dimension would this be this case in others?
Dr Michio Kaku: Atoms in other dimensions may be unstable because the inverse square law does not hold. However, two forms of stable matter may exist in hyper universes, which are not based on atoms. But, physicists do not know any more than this.
Funky Monkey: Why are the other parallel universe's membranes different shapes. Shouldn't they be the same? Does what happens on the inside effects the universe's physical shape?
Dr Michio Kaku: Membranes can come in many sizes and many shapes. For example, a zero-brane is a particle, a one-brane is a string, a two-brane may be a membrane and a three-brane maybe a universe.
Zhou Fang: M-Theory may be shown to be mathematically possible, but would we ever be able to prove that it is actually the case?
Dr Michio Kaku: Experimentally, we hope to find super particles in the next few years with our atom-smashers.
I bet they do not find them.
However, I believe that if we are smart enough we could solve the theory and then derive all the laws of Chemistry and Physics. That to me would be a proof that M-Theory is correct. So, those experiments are not really necessary. Theory is enough.
Ross Campbell: Where did the energy required to produce membranes in the first instance come from?
Dr Michio Kaku: The amount of energy necessary to create a bubbled universe is zero. Matter has positive energy, but gravity has negative energy. The sum of the two might be zero. This means that bubbled universes can be created all the time. So the Universe is for free.
This is an important idea for low-power warp drive as we see in the flying saucers.
Kevin Wan: If the fabric of the Universe is being stretched, does this also mean that the membrane is also being stretched? If so, when will the stretching cease?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one theory, our Universe is a membrane. We live on the skin of this membrane which is constantly expanding because of dark energy. We think this expansion is accelerating and may go on for ever without limit.
Pimmy: Have any major "flaws" or "gaps" been found in M-theory so far which makes it unable to explain something?
Dr Michio Kaku: So far, M-Theory has withstood every mathematical challenge. In the past, previous attempts at a theory of everything could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent. M-Theory is the only theory which seems to be mathematically consistent. However, there are many solutions to M-Theory, one of which may be our Universe. No-one has found that one solution yet.
Adrian: I've heard that in other universes time might flow backwards! Is this true?
Dr Michio Kaku: Not long ago, Stephen Hawking thought that time may go backwards. If the Universe pulsated then during the contraction he thought that time might run backward. However, he has since admitted that he was wrong. Therefore, most physicists do not believe that time will reverse itself in our Universe. If there are time machines, you might be able to reverse time in a small area, but not for the entire Universe.
Trekkie: Is there a possibility of a 12th dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: In F-Theory the physicists at Harvard University have proposed a universe with two-times, so that you would have to have two watches on your wrist to tell you what time it is. However, most physicists today do not take F-Theory seriously although it seems compatible with M-Theory. This is still a mystery.
Rob Wood: How does M-theory explain quantum entanglement - is it via the collapsed dimensions?
Dr Michio Kaku: Quantum entanglement is a problem for all quantum theories including M-Theory. Quantum entanglement says that the Universe is non-local and that information may travel faster than light,. However, no useful information can be sent faster than light by means of quantum entanglement so there are no paradoxes in time.
True no paradoxes, untrue that FTL communication is impossible. It is impossible in micro-quantum theory, but it is possible in macro-quantum theory. See the papers of Antony Valentini on "sub-quantal non-equilibrium".
Bernard Hunt: Is time just the human awareness; a thing that isn't really a dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: Space time is an arena on which matter can exist. Therefore, time is a co-ordinate that measures the passing or evolution of an object. Some people have said that time does not exist, which confuses the perception of time with time as a co-ordinate on this arena.
Max Guglia: Apart from empirical speculation, what could be the benefits for humanity of proving the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: In the short term, nothing. But when Newton worked out the Force of Gravity, he helped to set into motion the industrial revolution. When Faraday worked out electricity and magnetism he set into motion the electric age. When Einstein wrote down E=MC2 he unleashed the nuclear age. Now, we are on the verge of a theory of all forces which may, one day, determine the fate of the human species. Centuries from now, M-Theory, I feel, may eventually determine the destiny of all intelligent life in the Universe.
UFOs show the super-technology.
Horizon Host: Here's our special guest with a final word:
Dr Michio Kaku: I am proud to be part of this BBC documentary, on the cutting edge of my field - M-Theory. It is absolutely essential that scientists speak to the public about the exciting and revolutionary developments rocking the foundations of modern Physics. Hopefully, one of you viewers will be inspired by this programme to become a physicist, who will eventually complete the M-Theory and answer questions like: 'Is time travel possible?' 'Can we journey to another dimension?' and 'What happened before The Big Bang?'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml
On May 1, 2005, at 7:45 AM, antigray@cs.com wrote:
MICHIO KAKU talks parallel universes
Marco: How do you see the experimental confirmation on superstring theory ? How long will it remain an unproven theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future, However, indirect measurements may come fairly soon. Most science, in fact, is done with indirect experiments. For example, we have never visited the Sun but we know that is made out of Hydrogen because we have echoes from the Sun called sunlight. Similarly, we hope to find echoes from the tenth dimension. For example, in Geneva Switzerland, a large Hadron Collider will be turned on and we hope to find particles or super-particles which would be the next lowest vibration of the superstring. Furthermore, dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe maybe made up of super-particles.
Here is where my theory disagrees with Kaku's and all of string theory.
Dark energy/matter is not made up of real particles OUTSIDE the vacuum. It is all virtual particles INSIDE the vacuum. The 96% missing mass of universe (73% dark energy + 23% dark matter) is all zero point energy density too(zpf) given by Einstein's exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
/\zpf ~ Lp^-2[1 - Lp^n|VacuumODLRO|^2]
n = 2 for world hologram i.e. 3D space replaced by a 2D "horizon"
Dark energy repulsive blue shift field has positive zero point energy density t00(zpf) > 0 with equal and opposite negative pressure.
Dark matter attractive red shift field has negative zero point energy density t00(zpf) < 0 with equal and opposite positive pressure.
Putting both dark energy and dark matter together in the right way gives Alcubierre's zero time dilation weightless globally faster-than-light locally slower-than-light controlled-inflation warp drive seen in the flying saucers.
Starting from /\zpf = 0, the Type IV Civilization metric engineered induced warp field is
&/\zpf = x|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos{Loop Integral(B - A)}
B = tetrad torsion 1-form connection of Vacuum ODLRO
A = control condensate 1-form connection
k = dimensionless impedance match of vacuum to control.
in a 2D anyon control condensate
|Vacuum ODLRO|^1/2 = 1/Lp
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Loop Integral(B - A) = [NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
Nb = number of Vacuum ODLRO torsion flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
Na = number of Control ODLRO flux quanta inside tiny nano-loop at event P on saucer fuselage
For external curvature scale GM/c^2r^3, cancellation of this gravity by the zero point energy requires
GM/c^2r^3 ~ /\zpf = (x/Lp)|Control Condensate ODLRO|^1/2cos[NbPhi(B) - NaPhi(A)]
x << 1
Keith Marsden: Could I exist in a parallel universe and if so would my life take a different course?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many kinds of parallel universes. If we speak of quantum parallel universe then there may be resemblance to our Universe, except with one quantum difference. For example, if a cosmic ray went through Hitler's mother's womb and Hitler was never born, we could be one quantum event away from a parallel universe without World War 2. However, if the parallel universe is in another dimension then the laws of Physics themselves will change and atoms maybe unstable. And two kinds of matter exist - in those universes, Physics may look entirely different from our own.
Josh Conway: How important is time to the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is defined in eleven dimensional space time with ten dimensions of space and one dimension of time. So M-Theory only has one time. However, there is some speculation that F-Theory may contain two dimensions of time and ten dimensions of space. So that there would be two times in a twelve dimensional universe. However, F-Theory is only held by a minority of physicists.
Mike Garman: Your theory explains the start of our Universe, but where do the membranes come from that started it?
Dr Michio Kaku: We believe that a multiverse of universes exist like bubbles floating in Nothing. Each bubble forms as a quantum fluctuation in Nothing. We feel that as this bubble forms its matter is dominated by strings and membranes which create musical notes which we see as particles of the universe.
Ross McManus: Can dark matter and black holes be explained using the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: Partially yes. In M-Theory, black hole solutions exist not only as a remnant of a dying star; they also exist as subatomic particles.
This is in my book Space-Time & Beyond 1975, also in paper published in Collective Phenomena ed. H. Frohlich & FW Cummings published in 1973, which caused Abdus Salam to invite me to ICTP Trieste, Italy as Jagdish Mehra can confirm. A. Burinski is working on this in Moscow today. That is I explained the universal slope of the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances as spin J ~ (1/Gev)^2E^2 tiny Kerr solutions with G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.
So there is an unity between black holes and elementary particles. Also, the next vibration of the string includes a photino or particle which may make up most of the dark matter in the Universe. So dark matter maybe a higher musical note on the string.
Pieter Verhoeven: What is meant by "Bubbles of Nothing"?
Dr Michio Kaku: Boiling water is a purely quantum mechanical event. If water molecules were like billiard balls, water would never boil. Water boils and a tiny fluctuation occurs in water. Similarly, universes maybe created all the time, even as we speak, due to fluctuation in Nothing. In other words, universes maybe for free and Big Bangs, happen all the time like in boiling water.
Peter Wentworth: What are the possibilities for a second Big Bang collision? Is it theoretically possible?
Dr Michio Kaku: There is some speculation that gamma-ray bursters release the greatest amounts of energy since the Big Bang. There is some speculation that they maybe powerful enough to open a hole in our bubble Universe, so that our Universe buds into two universes, creating a baby universe which leaves the mother universe. However, until M-Theory becomes better understood we cannot prove that baby universes can be created from our Universe.
John Reyes: Dr Kaku, how can one travel in time when time does not exist? And if it did, would you know which way to point your ship?
Dr Michio Kaku: Time is like a river. It bends and flows around the Universe. Time may also have whirlpools and also may fork into two rivers. In this way, time travel might be possible. However, you have to have the Planck energy to create a time machine or the energy of a Black Hole. That is far beyond our technology.
Kaku is wrong there IMHO. You can do low-power star gate/time travel IMHO. UFOs do it.
Dr: Do eleven dimensions mean there are other life forms of any kind?
Dr Michio Kaku: We do not know if life-forms can exist in another dimension. However, atoms as we know them may not be stable in other dimensions. If we replace Newton's Inverse square law with an inverse tube law then solar systems and atoms fall apart. However, new forms of matter may exist in higher dimensions.
Viva Wright: Is there the possibility that unconscious knowledge is transferred between universes?
Dr Michio Kaku: At the present time, physicists believe that consciousness is confined to the human brain so telepathy between universes may not be possible.
I disagree with Kaku here.
However, the problem of consciousness in a quantum-theory is still an unresolved problem.
Consciousness is impossible in micro-quantum theory. Consciousness is a macro-quantum property of systems in non-equilibrium at all levels. Signal nonlocality (presponse) is necessary.
M-Theory is still a quantum-theory.
Nick Rimmington Do you think this theory may explain why the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing?
Dr Michio Kaku: Nobody knows how to calculate dark energy which is causing the Universe to accelerate.
Wrong.
The best hope is M-Theory, but no-one knows how to solve M-Theory or the Big Bang. Maybe one of the viewers of this programme will be inspired to use M-Theory to explain the accelerating Universe.
We do not need M theory for that.
Adam Kirsch: If space is the 5th dimension what are the 6th or 7th?
Dr Michio Kaku: If the fifth dimension vibrates, then ripples on the fifth dimension are visible as light. If the other dimensions vibrate, then the ripples are seen as the nuclear force, so the forces of the universe can be viewed as ripples in hyper-space.
Christopher Sayer: Can a new membrane be created from two membranes colliding?
Dr Michio Kaku: When two membranes or two strings collide, they create new membranes and new strings. The diagrams which tell us how membranes and strings collide are like the Feynman diagrams that we see in quantum-theory. Our bodies are symphonies of vibrating strings and membranes. The chemistry of our body is a consequence of the collision of these membranes and strings.
Simon Lawrence: If the Universe is constantly expanding, when does this sign the end of our known Universe?
Dr Michio Kaku: Our Universe will die in ice rather than fire. Our Universe eventually, trillions and trillions of years away from now, will reach near absolute zero making intelligent life impossible. Therefore, we may have to escape into hyper-space if we are to survive the death of the Universe.
Tom Brown: In theory, is it possible to use the space between the Universes, leaving and re-entering, in order to travel many light years within our Universe, but without time having passed?
Dr Michio Kaku: Einstein's equations give us a possibility to leap into hyper-space through a worm-hole to reach another universe. However, we don't have enough energy to open up such a hole and we don't know how stable such a hole might be.
Kaku wrong there as well IMHO.
Brian Whaley: If time has only one dimension how can one deal with the issue of how "fast" time passes - and the difference between "time of day" and time as duration?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory is only mathematically consistent with one dimension of time and ten dimensions of space. M-Theory is mathematically inconsistent for any other combination.
Sam Jenkins: if our Universe is contained within a "bubble", what makes up the surface?
Dr Michio Kaku: The surface of this bubble is the Universe itself. People often ask where did the Big Bang take place? The Big Bang did not take place on the surface of the bubble, it took place inside the bubble, i.e. in hyper-space.
Phil Williams: What is hyper-space?
Dr Michio Kaku: Hyper-space is space beyond three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Historically, scientists thought that hyper-space could not exist, now we believe that in hyper-space there is enough room to unify all fundamental forces. Four dimensions of space time are too small to unify the four fundamental forces
Chris Norrie: Do you believe in infinity?
Dr Michio Kaku: There are many types of infinity. The age of our universe may increase without limit because our universe is accelerating. In space, however, our universe may be finite in hyper-space but infinite in three dimension just like a bubble. So the farthest object in the universe would be the back of your head.
Patrick Clarke: Are there infinite particles with the same x,y,z & time values as those in my body?
Dr Michio Kaku: Well, in M-Theory there are an infinite number of particles. Each one represents a musical note on a string or membrane, so the atoms of our body are like those of a string. Chemistry is the melodies on these membranes and the universe is a symphony of vibrating membranes and string.
William Joseph: Does M-theory say anything about the idea that the speed of light in our universe may be slowing down?
Dr Michio Kaku: M-Theory reproduces all of Einstein's theory and more. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum never changes.
Tony Hall: Does string theory incorporate number theory in its structure?
Dr Michio Kaku: String theory has gobbled up many branches of Mathematics which has astounded mathematicians. However, there is one branch of Mathematics that seems beyond the reach of string theory which is number theory. For example, we do not find Fermat's last theorem in string theory.
Jean: Could black holes be routes from our Universe to the other parallel universes? Could than be why nothing comes out of them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Yes, there is a theory that says that universes may have children, via a budding process in which a universe splits into two smaller universes. However this is just a theory, and we will have to wait until M-Theory is further developed to decide whether universes can have children.
Kip Thorne showed the difference between black holes and star gates held open by anti-gravitating dark zero point energy density of negative pressure (w = -1)
Universe Next Door
Patrick Clarke: Is the Big Bang where all eleven dimensions have a value of zero?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one solution of M-Theory, our Universe is a four-dimensional ball floating in eleven dimensions. In the other seven dimensions, there could be other bubbles floating. One theory says that the nearest bubble to our Universe maybe one millimetre away from us. This theory will be tested in Geneva in a few more years.
Nigel: Does the rate of vibration of membranes offer a possible connection between them?
Dr Michio Kaku: Large membranes may resemble universes like our own floating in eleven dimensional hyper-space. However, tiny membranes can be viewed as subatomic particles whose vibration and interaction give us the laws of Chemistry. Therefore M-Theory unifies subatomic particles and universes.
Trici Shaw: What is the "F" from F-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: F for F-Theory stands for Father. M for M-Theory may stand for Mother, Mystery or Membrane.
Alan Trevitt: If universes are parallel to each other, why does gravity run in only one direction i.e., downwards?
Dr Michio Kaku: Gravity is caused by the warping of space-time. Therefore, if we have two bubbles close to each other they will distort the space-time surrounding them and feel each others gravity. Therefore, dark matter may be the presence of a neighbouring universe that we cannot see.
This is wrong in my theory.
Alex Greybrook: How was hyper space discovered?
Dr Michio Kaku: The Greeks tried to prove 2000 years ago that hyper-space was impossible. However, Vernhard Riemann proved in the 1870s that hyper-space was possible. Then Kaluza in 1921 showed that universes may exist in hyper-space.
Richie Lunt: Although atoms are stable in our dimension would this be this case in others?
Dr Michio Kaku: Atoms in other dimensions may be unstable because the inverse square law does not hold. However, two forms of stable matter may exist in hyper universes, which are not based on atoms. But, physicists do not know any more than this.
Funky Monkey: Why are the other parallel universe's membranes different shapes. Shouldn't they be the same? Does what happens on the inside effects the universe's physical shape?
Dr Michio Kaku: Membranes can come in many sizes and many shapes. For example, a zero-brane is a particle, a one-brane is a string, a two-brane may be a membrane and a three-brane maybe a universe.
Zhou Fang: M-Theory may be shown to be mathematically possible, but would we ever be able to prove that it is actually the case?
Dr Michio Kaku: Experimentally, we hope to find super particles in the next few years with our atom-smashers.
I bet they do not find them.
However, I believe that if we are smart enough we could solve the theory and then derive all the laws of Chemistry and Physics. That to me would be a proof that M-Theory is correct. So, those experiments are not really necessary. Theory is enough.
Ross Campbell: Where did the energy required to produce membranes in the first instance come from?
Dr Michio Kaku: The amount of energy necessary to create a bubbled universe is zero. Matter has positive energy, but gravity has negative energy. The sum of the two might be zero. This means that bubbled universes can be created all the time. So the Universe is for free.
This is an important idea for low-power warp drive as we see in the flying saucers.
Kevin Wan: If the fabric of the Universe is being stretched, does this also mean that the membrane is also being stretched? If so, when will the stretching cease?
Dr Michio Kaku: In one theory, our Universe is a membrane. We live on the skin of this membrane which is constantly expanding because of dark energy. We think this expansion is accelerating and may go on for ever without limit.
Pimmy: Have any major "flaws" or "gaps" been found in M-theory so far which makes it unable to explain something?
Dr Michio Kaku: So far, M-Theory has withstood every mathematical challenge. In the past, previous attempts at a theory of everything could be shown to be mathematically inconsistent. M-Theory is the only theory which seems to be mathematically consistent. However, there are many solutions to M-Theory, one of which may be our Universe. No-one has found that one solution yet.
Adrian: I've heard that in other universes time might flow backwards! Is this true?
Dr Michio Kaku: Not long ago, Stephen Hawking thought that time may go backwards. If the Universe pulsated then during the contraction he thought that time might run backward. However, he has since admitted that he was wrong. Therefore, most physicists do not believe that time will reverse itself in our Universe. If there are time machines, you might be able to reverse time in a small area, but not for the entire Universe.
Trekkie: Is there a possibility of a 12th dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: In F-Theory the physicists at Harvard University have proposed a universe with two-times, so that you would have to have two watches on your wrist to tell you what time it is. However, most physicists today do not take F-Theory seriously although it seems compatible with M-Theory. This is still a mystery.
Rob Wood: How does M-theory explain quantum entanglement - is it via the collapsed dimensions?
Dr Michio Kaku: Quantum entanglement is a problem for all quantum theories including M-Theory. Quantum entanglement says that the Universe is non-local and that information may travel faster than light,. However, no useful information can be sent faster than light by means of quantum entanglement so there are no paradoxes in time.
True no paradoxes, untrue that FTL communication is impossible. It is impossible in micro-quantum theory, but it is possible in macro-quantum theory. See the papers of Antony Valentini on "sub-quantal non-equilibrium".
Bernard Hunt: Is time just the human awareness; a thing that isn't really a dimension?
Dr Michio Kaku: Space time is an arena on which matter can exist. Therefore, time is a co-ordinate that measures the passing or evolution of an object. Some people have said that time does not exist, which confuses the perception of time with time as a co-ordinate on this arena.
Max Guglia: Apart from empirical speculation, what could be the benefits for humanity of proving the M-Theory?
Dr Michio Kaku: In the short term, nothing. But when Newton worked out the Force of Gravity, he helped to set into motion the industrial revolution. When Faraday worked out electricity and magnetism he set into motion the electric age. When Einstein wrote down E=MC2 he unleashed the nuclear age. Now, we are on the verge of a theory of all forces which may, one day, determine the fate of the human species. Centuries from now, M-Theory, I feel, may eventually determine the destiny of all intelligent life in the Universe.
UFOs show the super-technology.
Horizon Host: Here's our special guest with a final word:
Dr Michio Kaku: I am proud to be part of this BBC documentary, on the cutting edge of my field - M-Theory. It is absolutely essential that scientists speak to the public about the exciting and revolutionary developments rocking the foundations of modern Physics. Hopefully, one of you viewers will be inspired by this programme to become a physicist, who will eventually complete the M-Theory and answer questions like: 'Is time travel possible?' 'Can we journey to another dimension?' and 'What happened before The Big Bang?'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/spacechat/livechat/michio_kaku.shtml
On May 1, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
go to http://stardrive.org/title.shtml
moderated discussion forum for technical details
On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, about the entangled Josephson Junction stuff in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153 cited by Gary,
I agree with you when you say
"... this is a VERY useful paper! ... I can apply [it] to my macro-quantum vacuum ... treated like ... "effective" coupled JJs.
I see all sorts of possibilities here. ... ... Obviously the high Tc thin skin NANO-NETWORK of the saucer is simultaneously a propulsion unit and a macro-quantum computer ... around the fuselage of the saucer. ...".
Further, resonant connections between the fuselage quantum computer network of JJs and the tubulin quantum computer of the brain of the pilot is probably what enables the pilot to control the craft, and it is probable that each craft is resonantly tuned to the brain of its pilot, so that anyone not knowing that particular resonant pattern cannot control the craft.
With 10^18 tubulins, the resonant "key" is probably hard to crack, even for NSA, and therefore it may be difficult
for anyone (such as a USAF test pilot) who does not have the (alien?) key to make it fly.
Yes, something like that is what I am thinking. This idea is completely crazy, is it crazy enough to be true? :-)
If the craft is roughly a flat saucer with top and bottom surface area each about 70 m x 70 m = 4,900 m^2, or total surface of about 10^4 m^2 = 10^8 cm^2, then, in order to have about 10^18 JJ to match the 10^18 brain tubulins,
the area of each JJ would have to be about 10^(8-18) = 10^(-10) cm^2, or in other words a little square about 10^(-5) cm = 10^(-7) m = 100 nm on a side, which is on the same order of magnitude as the 25 nm diameter of a microtubule and is something that could reasonably be synthesized with advanced nanotechnology.
It is interesting that the authors of the paper at
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
are Israeli and Russian.
The Russians and Ukranians are more open to adventurous ideas than our guys.
If you are not able to convince the USA black projects community to do serious work on this stuff, then (unless the Israelis help the USA) it may be that Russia/China will beat the USA to that level of technology, and they will defeat the USA, and
New York will become a backwater with Shanghai the new World Ruling City, with Havana as its Western Hemisphere headquarters. I do hope that you can make responsible people aware of the seriousness of the situation.
I may be meeting a lot of those people at a dinner in NYC on June 16. :-)
On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks, this is interesting and I have been independently thinking about this sort of thing i.e. entanglement and teleportation in macro-quantum systems as distinct from micro-quantum systems.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Entanglement and teleportation of macroscopic continuous variables by
superconducting devices
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
Here we consider a hitherto unexplored quantum aspect of coupled
Josephson Junctions:
the ability to produce Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) entanglement of
their continuous variables, namely, their magnetic fluxes and induced
charges. Such entanglement, apart from its conceptual novelty, is the
prerequisite for a far-reaching goal: teleportation of the flux and
charge variables between JJs, implementing the transfer of an unknown
quantum state along a network of such devices.
--
Gary S Bekkum
Starstream Research
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
garysbekkum@gmail.com
On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Gladstone wrote:
At the time of the 1991 Solar Eclipse, which triggered a string of 11:11 synchronicities for me, a lot of what I was processing involved pillars - El Pilar, Boaz and Jachin, and so on. The body of info involved the progression from 11:11 to 12:12 and the construction of the temple in the New Jerusalem. 12:12 is also the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe who is linked to Mexico City which was buzzed by UFOs on the day of the eclipse. The holographic pillars I was seeing at that time triggered kundalini. The twin pillars are a visible representation of the number eleven, and I was shown how the passages regarding these pillars were deliberately marked by the number 11. Rev 11 for instance. The imagery is a visual depiction of the numbers 11:11: These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
From:
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/BoazandJachinPillars.html
But in the End-Time these pillars of the Temple shall be literally manifested as two witnesses....And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
A Study on Hebrews Chapter Nine
... and Boaz' pillar was the location next to which kings were anointed, ...
Israels spiritual and political leaders, Lev. 8:3ff; 2.Ki. 11:14; Psalms 99:7. ...
www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrews_chapter_9.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Beside the pillar...as the manner was
... Beside the pillar... as the manner was'. (2 Kings 11,14) ... whereas the
North-East part with its Boaz pillar belonged to the territory of Benjamin, ...
freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/pillars.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Gail Whittaker
"Let's hope that UFOs are real and that
they are time-travelling ships from friendly ETs,
or time travellers from our future - because if they
are not real, it looks pretty grim for your children
and their children."
-Jack Sarfatti
-----Original Message-----
From: d14947
To: Susan Waitt
Subject: Re: Meaning of 11-11 & Uri Geller--singing with the devil
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee. Jack has shown that the string theory is *not* a viable theory as it stands, not based on observation, so the stuff about the Sephirot doesn't connect either.
Well, I am skeptical of string theory. Kaku of course is selling string theory with Brian Greene. Roger Penrose is skeptical. I certainly don't need string theory to explain:
1. WHY gravity and inertia?
i.e. emergence of Einstein's 1916 GR geometrodynamics directly as an effective smooth classical field theory from the macro-quantum coherence of the post-inflation Higgs field!
2. Why both dark energy and dark matter?
3. The stability of the electron as an extended "micro-geon" Kerr-Newman-Burinski object in the sense of Bohm's hidden variables.
4. Why galactic halos
/\zpf = (v/c)(1/r^2)
v = constant stellar tangential circulating speed in flat portion of galaxy rotation curve along axis perpendicular to the galactic plane.
& dark galaxies.
5. Why dark matter detectors can't click with the right stuff ever!
6. Why there ain't any "quantum foam" in principle.
7. NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 anomalous blue shifts of 1 nanometer per sec per sec a_g = -cH(t) as a hedgehog topological defect of the post-inflationary Higgs Ocean vacuum coherence order parameter S^2 space centered at Sun, i.e. UNIFORM radial a_g confined between two spheres concentric with Sun with the dark energy distribution between the spherical boundaries
/\zpf = (H(t)/c)(1/r)
V(zpf) = c^2/\zpfr^2
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr = -cH(t) = 1 nanometer per second per second as observed!
8. How Michio Kaku's Type IV Masters of Hyperspace of the Q-Continuum really metric engineer their warps, wormholes and weapons!
On 4/29/05, Susan Waitt wrote: This reminds me of another recent discussion....
>>(Jack Sarfatti) Kaku also said that the Indian mystic
mathematician Ramanujan... who wrote to Hardy
was doing string theory in 1910 that the elliptic modular functions are
only in 10 and 26 dimensions, which agree with Qabala?<<
The Cabalah and Superstrings
"....The fundamental building blocks of the universe are vibrating strings that can only exist in 10 or 26 dimensions.
....The gematria of the most sacred name of G-d (yod-hey-vav-hey) is 26, and Cabalistic teachings explain that the universe was created through 10 utterances, the ten sephiroth....There are two ways in which a string can vibrate, either clockwise or counter-clockwise. Clockwise vibrations utilize 10-dimensional space and counterclockwise 26 dimensional space....the ten dimensions are, of course, associated with the ten sephiroth....the twenty six dimensions break down into our four space-time dimensions and 22 hidden ones that can be related to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the paths of the Tree of Life.....This is not just a remarkable "string" of coincidences...." Best, Susan Waitt
On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I looked the paper. It's no good at all for the "100 rotating black holes seen with Hubble telescope" (M. Kaku) because its starting point eq (1) is same as Hal's scalar PV i.e. NO ROTATION! There are no gravimagnetic rotation terms g0i as in GR Kerr metric. I am amazed that paper got published. I bet Bernie Haisch sent it through since he is an editor of that journal. It's obvious from the git-go that Martin Rees & Co would never have allowed it to be published. I don't know what the author from Oklahoma State is doing with all that data analysis, but spending time on that paper is a bad bet IMHO.
Unless Yilmaz theory is "rotation without rotation"? ;-)
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Martin Rees (2003, "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology", Cambridge) writes "the evidence points insistently towards the presence of dark objects, with deep potential wells and 'horizons' through which matter can pass into invisibility"
There you have it, "horizons" contradicts Yilmaz's "exponential metric". But what does Martin know? He is only the British Astronomer Royal, FRS, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, and Hawking's boss! ;-)
"however, the evidence does not yet allow observers to confirm the form of the metric in the strong gravity region" p. 218
p. 224 12.6 Rees admits there is not conclusive evidence "for black holes with the precise Kerr metric", but he does think there is enough evidence for "horizons" which exclude the Yilmaz/scalar PV "exponential metrics". Indeed Cliff Will, Matt Visser & Bill Unruh all told me they do not believe such an exponential metric is any good last July 2004 at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland! Therefore, whether or not the Kerr metric, the Yilmaz/Puthoff model is unacceptable to these Top Gun experts in experimental general relativity.
The data from emission from accretion flows is still "imprecise and messy" p. 225 and the gas dynamics is too complex "There are however several encouraging new possibilities"
X rays! MAXIM detector! ASCA X-ray satellite "There is already one convincing case of a broad asymmetric emission line indicative of a relativistic disk" - that data is 10 years old 1995 Tanaka Nature 375, 659 - must be new data in 2005?
go to http://stardrive.org/title.shtml
moderated discussion forum for technical details
On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, about the entangled Josephson Junction stuff in
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153 cited by Gary,
I agree with you when you say
"... this is a VERY useful paper! ... I can apply [it] to my macro-quantum vacuum ... treated like ... "effective" coupled JJs.
I see all sorts of possibilities here. ... ... Obviously the high Tc thin skin NANO-NETWORK of the saucer is simultaneously a propulsion unit and a macro-quantum computer ... around the fuselage of the saucer. ...".
Further, resonant connections between the fuselage quantum computer network of JJs and the tubulin quantum computer of the brain of the pilot is probably what enables the pilot to control the craft, and it is probable that each craft is resonantly tuned to the brain of its pilot, so that anyone not knowing that particular resonant pattern cannot control the craft.
With 10^18 tubulins, the resonant "key" is probably hard to crack, even for NSA, and therefore it may be difficult
for anyone (such as a USAF test pilot) who does not have the (alien?) key to make it fly.
Yes, something like that is what I am thinking. This idea is completely crazy, is it crazy enough to be true? :-)
If the craft is roughly a flat saucer with top and bottom surface area each about 70 m x 70 m = 4,900 m^2, or total surface of about 10^4 m^2 = 10^8 cm^2, then, in order to have about 10^18 JJ to match the 10^18 brain tubulins,
the area of each JJ would have to be about 10^(8-18) = 10^(-10) cm^2, or in other words a little square about 10^(-5) cm = 10^(-7) m = 100 nm on a side, which is on the same order of magnitude as the 25 nm diameter of a microtubule and is something that could reasonably be synthesized with advanced nanotechnology.
It is interesting that the authors of the paper at
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
are Israeli and Russian.
The Russians and Ukranians are more open to adventurous ideas than our guys.
If you are not able to convince the USA black projects community to do serious work on this stuff, then (unless the Israelis help the USA) it may be that Russia/China will beat the USA to that level of technology, and they will defeat the USA, and
New York will become a backwater with Shanghai the new World Ruling City, with Havana as its Western Hemisphere headquarters. I do hope that you can make responsible people aware of the seriousness of the situation.
I may be meeting a lot of those people at a dinner in NYC on June 16. :-)
On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks, this is interesting and I have been independently thinking about this sort of thing i.e. entanglement and teleportation in macro-quantum systems as distinct from micro-quantum systems.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Entanglement and teleportation of macroscopic continuous variables by
superconducting devices
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0504153
Here we consider a hitherto unexplored quantum aspect of coupled
Josephson Junctions:
the ability to produce Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) entanglement of
their continuous variables, namely, their magnetic fluxes and induced
charges. Such entanglement, apart from its conceptual novelty, is the
prerequisite for a far-reaching goal: teleportation of the flux and
charge variables between JJs, implementing the transfer of an unknown
quantum state along a network of such devices.
--
Gary S Bekkum
Starstream Research
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
garysbekkum@gmail.com
On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Gladstone wrote:
At the time of the 1991 Solar Eclipse, which triggered a string of 11:11 synchronicities for me, a lot of what I was processing involved pillars - El Pilar, Boaz and Jachin, and so on. The body of info involved the progression from 11:11 to 12:12 and the construction of the temple in the New Jerusalem. 12:12 is also the feast day of the Virgin of Guadalupe who is linked to Mexico City which was buzzed by UFOs on the day of the eclipse. The holographic pillars I was seeing at that time triggered kundalini. The twin pillars are a visible representation of the number eleven, and I was shown how the passages regarding these pillars were deliberately marked by the number 11. Rev 11 for instance. The imagery is a visual depiction of the numbers 11:11: These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
From:
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/BoazandJachinPillars.html
But in the End-Time these pillars of the Temple shall be literally manifested as two witnesses....And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. (Revelation 11:1-4)
A Study on Hebrews Chapter Nine
... and Boaz' pillar was the location next to which kings were anointed, ...
Israels spiritual and political leaders, Lev. 8:3ff; 2.Ki. 11:14; Psalms 99:7. ...
www.specialtyinterests.net/hebrews_chapter_9.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Beside the pillar...as the manner was
... Beside the pillar... as the manner was'. (2 Kings 11,14) ... whereas the
North-East part with its Boaz pillar belonged to the territory of Benjamin, ...
freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/pillars.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
Gail Whittaker
"Let's hope that UFOs are real and that
they are time-travelling ships from friendly ETs,
or time travellers from our future - because if they
are not real, it looks pretty grim for your children
and their children."
-Jack Sarfatti
-----Original Message-----
From: d14947
To: Susan Waitt
Subject: Re: Meaning of 11-11 & Uri Geller--singing with the devil
It's time you guys wake up and smell the coffee. Jack has shown that the string theory is *not* a viable theory as it stands, not based on observation, so the stuff about the Sephirot doesn't connect either.
Well, I am skeptical of string theory. Kaku of course is selling string theory with Brian Greene. Roger Penrose is skeptical. I certainly don't need string theory to explain:
1. WHY gravity and inertia?
i.e. emergence of Einstein's 1916 GR geometrodynamics directly as an effective smooth classical field theory from the macro-quantum coherence of the post-inflation Higgs field!
2. Why both dark energy and dark matter?
3. The stability of the electron as an extended "micro-geon" Kerr-Newman-Burinski object in the sense of Bohm's hidden variables.
4. Why galactic halos
/\zpf = (v/c)(1/r^2)
v = constant stellar tangential circulating speed in flat portion of galaxy rotation curve along axis perpendicular to the galactic plane.
& dark galaxies.
5. Why dark matter detectors can't click with the right stuff ever!
6. Why there ain't any "quantum foam" in principle.
7. NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 anomalous blue shifts of 1 nanometer per sec per sec a_g = -cH(t) as a hedgehog topological defect of the post-inflationary Higgs Ocean vacuum coherence order parameter S^2 space centered at Sun, i.e. UNIFORM radial a_g confined between two spheres concentric with Sun with the dark energy distribution between the spherical boundaries
/\zpf = (H(t)/c)(1/r)
V(zpf) = c^2/\zpfr^2
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr = -cH(t) = 1 nanometer per second per second as observed!
8. How Michio Kaku's Type IV Masters of Hyperspace of the Q-Continuum really metric engineer their warps, wormholes and weapons!
On 4/29/05, Susan Waitt
>>(Jack Sarfatti) Kaku also said that the Indian mystic
mathematician Ramanujan... who wrote to Hardy
was doing string theory in 1910 that the elliptic modular functions are
only in 10 and 26 dimensions, which agree with Qabala?<<
The Cabalah and Superstrings
"....The fundamental building blocks of the universe are vibrating strings that can only exist in 10 or 26 dimensions.
....The gematria of the most sacred name of G-d (yod-hey-vav-hey) is 26, and Cabalistic teachings explain that the universe was created through 10 utterances, the ten sephiroth....There are two ways in which a string can vibrate, either clockwise or counter-clockwise. Clockwise vibrations utilize 10-dimensional space and counterclockwise 26 dimensional space....the ten dimensions are, of course, associated with the ten sephiroth....the twenty six dimensions break down into our four space-time dimensions and 22 hidden ones that can be related to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the paths of the Tree of Life.....This is not just a remarkable "string" of coincidences...." Best, Susan Waitt
On Apr 29, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
OK I looked the paper. It's no good at all for the "100 rotating black holes seen with Hubble telescope" (M. Kaku) because its starting point eq (1) is same as Hal's scalar PV i.e. NO ROTATION! There are no gravimagnetic rotation terms g0i as in GR Kerr metric. I am amazed that paper got published. I bet Bernie Haisch sent it through since he is an editor of that journal. It's obvious from the git-go that Martin Rees & Co would never have allowed it to be published. I don't know what the author from Oklahoma State is doing with all that data analysis, but spending time on that paper is a bad bet IMHO.
Unless Yilmaz theory is "rotation without rotation"? ;-)
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Martin Rees (2003, "The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology", Cambridge) writes "the evidence points insistently towards the presence of dark objects, with deep potential wells and 'horizons' through which matter can pass into invisibility"
There you have it, "horizons" contradicts Yilmaz's "exponential metric". But what does Martin know? He is only the British Astronomer Royal, FRS, Master of Trinity College Cambridge, and Hawking's boss! ;-)
"however, the evidence does not yet allow observers to confirm the form of the metric in the strong gravity region" p. 218
p. 224 12.6 Rees admits there is not conclusive evidence "for black holes with the precise Kerr metric", but he does think there is enough evidence for "horizons" which exclude the Yilmaz/scalar PV "exponential metrics". Indeed Cliff Will, Matt Visser & Bill Unruh all told me they do not believe such an exponential metric is any good last July 2004 at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland! Therefore, whether or not the Kerr metric, the Yilmaz/Puthoff model is unacceptable to these Top Gun experts in experimental general relativity.
The data from emission from accretion flows is still "imprecise and messy" p. 225 and the gas dynamics is too complex "There are however several encouraging new possibilities"
X rays! MAXIM detector! ASCA X-ray satellite "There is already one convincing case of a broad asymmetric emission line indicative of a relativistic disk" - that data is 10 years old 1995 Tanaka Nature 375, 659 - must be new data in 2005?
Friday, April 15, 2005
The Theory of Everything for Everyone
bcc
On Apr 15, 2005, at 3:13 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
If you read the Arcos & Pereira paper, how do you understand the authors' position regarding the extraction of a localizable tensor vacuum stress-energy density
from the net gravitational-inertial stress-energy of the Einstein field in (1) their own teleparallel formalism; and (2) in the conventional curved-manifold formalism?
Jack, this question was specifically addressed to Art.
J: Yes, I know.
What A&P do, very nicely is to show the B field!
Z: In the context of a *teleparallel* theory.
J: They do not have my Vacuum ODLRO SBS idea, i.e. they do not write
B = (Lp/2pi)"dargVacuumODLRO"
argVacuumODLRO = Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field (post-inflation).
Z: Right. Of course not.
J: If B is closed non-exact 1-form that's A&P torsion "flux without flux".
Z: So you are saying that your "tetrad" B can be modeled as a torsion field?
J: Yes, it's the "potential" for the A&P torsion field not the Shipov torsion field. B is like A in EM, F = dB is like the EM field tensor, but here it is the A&P tetrad substratum torsion field tensor.
As R. Kiehn points out the most general p-form has 3 possible independent components
form = exact + closed not-exact + non-closed
If B has a non-closed piece I call that "flux with flux" i.e.
F = dB
If B is only closed and not-exact
Stokes theorem says |B = 0 on a bounding cycle but need not be zero on a non-bounding cycle that is only a piece of the total boundary that consists of several cycles when the manifold of integration of dB is not simply-connected.
If, in addition, there is macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO (a new independent physical idea)
B = (Lp/2pi)"dtheta" in sense described in John Baez's book on Gauge Fields, Knots & Gravity, then the "period integral" of 1-form over the boundary fragment, which is nevertheless a closed loop (nonbounding 1-cycle) is, from single-valuedness of the ODLRO order parameter
|B = NLp
N is integer winding number
This leads me to define another "Ghost of a departed quantity" (Bishop Berkeley)
NLp = (Area)dB'
Mean value theorem for integrals.
I put the ' to denote "flux without flux". The "Area" is inside the non-bounding cycle and all the other inner non-bounding cycles isolating phase singularities where |ODLRO| = 0 (like vortex cores in Type II superconductor of real EM flux with flux) shrink to zero (I mean small). Actually HeII quantized circulations may be "flux without flux" in this sense.
Thus in cylindrical coordinates for |ODLRO| = 0 along z-axis
dB' = NLp/pir^2
Even though technically dB = 0.
NLp is like a finite integral of a zero integrand only because we have ignored the inner cycles that add up to -NLp of course. But as physicists we can do that since we only actually measure the outer non-bounding cycle in the case of quantized vortices in superfluid HeII.
So this is an archetype analogy for the complete nonlocality of gravity energy in ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 i.e. gravity vacuum energy without gravity vacuum energy.
Integrating a local "zero" to get a "finite" total is not so crazy when the manifolds of integration are not simply-connected and the "holes" correspond to phase singularities, i.e. zeros in the ODLRO intensity.
The situation is like that of infinitesimals in calculus that are both zero and not zero in the heuristic sense. As physicists we don't care about what Feynman called "rigor mortis". For example the Feynman path integrals are mathematically non-rigorous yet we get good results from them.
If B is not closed that's torsion "flux with flux"
i.e.
F = dB is the A&P torsion field (not same as Shipov's).
I assume here G/H = S1 like Abelian Maxwell E&M, this is only a toy model
dF = 0
d*F = *J
The local stress-energy tensor of this torsion field is
~ F/\*F i.e. a 4-form
But NOTE if B is closed and non-exact, then strictly speaking LOCALLY
F = dB = 0
Yet, from "flux without flux" the global integral is not zero even though the local density is!
WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THAT BEFORE? :-)
Z: OK, I think I get it.
J: Yes, this is an interesting strategy. Penrose gives a good heuristic why total gravity ordinary vacuum energy really must be nonlocal so that Yilmaz's theory is asking the wrong question and so is Alex's. Valentini's new papers on the creative tension between locality & nonlocality add fuel to that fire. There are other arguments as well.
"Flux without flux" means
|B = ||dB = NLp, N an integer
Strictly of course |B = 0 over a boundary, but here we take the incomplete integral over a non-bounding cycle and ignore the inner cycle that gives -NLp (Stoke's theorem) that shrinks to the topological defect Goldstone phase singularity where |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in the G/H order parameter space. Note, unlike micro-quantum theory, in macro-quantum theory the radius of S1 has independent physical meaning. Also see A. Valentini's latest papers on sub-quantum non-equilibrium signal nonlocality. Let P be the non-equilibrium distribution, the non-local signal is an integral with kernel P - |psi|^2, in macro-quantum theory, I think this becomes ~ |ODLRO|^2, which of course is zero in nonlocal micro-quantum theory with "presponse" signal locality. That is, any system with ODLRO (in vacuum for virtual quanta E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2, in ground states E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 for real quanta) is "sub-quantal non-equilibrium". Call this the "Sarfatti Conjecture" since our conscious minds are pumped open giant quantum robust ODLRO systems immune to warm wet environmental decoherence of the Zurek-Tegmark kind.
Z: OK, looks good. Very interesting idea.
J: Valentini has a formula in one of his new papers
Nonlocal signal ~ Integral of stuff [P(sub-quantum non-equil) - P(sub-quantal equil)]
I think I can argue as a sufficient, though maybe not necessary, condition for signal nonlocality in macro-quantum theory
|OLDRO|^2 = [P(sub-quantum non-equil) - P(sub-quantal equil)]
I get this from theory of reduced density matrices as given by L. Onsager & O. Penrose.
P(sub-quantal equil) = "normal fluid" single-particle reduced density matrix in diagonal limit = Born probability density! (pair density matrix in case of fermions)
The macroscopic eigenvalue of first-order reduced density matrix is "sub-quantal non-equilibrium" in A. Valentini's sense and it is immune to warm wet decoherence. This is WHY Dick Bierman sees "presponse" in his data.
Z: I'm also curious about how you understand A&P's claim that that the teleparallel formalism is "physically equivalent" to the curved manifold formalism?
Again, this was addressed to Wagner.
In answer to R.Kiehn today
On Apr 15, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Clarification of notation
When I write
g(curved) =[(I + B)^T][(flat)]([I + B)]
That is just my lazy notation. I do not mean that as an equation in Cartan forms. All I mean by that is the well known
guv = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b
where
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
Iu^a is Kronecker Delta
B = dx^uBu^a(Pa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)
{Pa} is Lie Algebra of T4
It means simply one version of EEP
g(curved) = (I + B)(flat)(I + B)
Z: So you think that by "physical equivalence" A&P simply mean that they recover standard EEP? You think they mean "equivalence" as in "equivalence principle"? In other words -- "pun intended"?
J: Pun intended sure. What they mean is simply that starting from the zero curvature torsion tetrad substratum, one can use the formal EEP to derive standard vanilla 1916 GR curved torsionless model.
There is a kind of curvature/torsion duality here between the local gauge force and geometrodynamical pictures.
The torsion flat gauge force picture is the "square root" of the curved torsionless geometrodynamic picture.
So, the torsion picture is a covering theory of the geometrodynamics. It is closed to the Ashtekar picture!
That is, in the torsion tetrad substratum it is obvious how gravity is really simply the local gauge theory of T4 -> Diff(4.
In 1905 special relativity
x -> x' = x + xo -> conservation of total linear momentum px
t -> t' = t + to -> conservation of total energy E
These are GLOBAL displacements in Minkowski space-time making up the RIGID group T4 (with x & y).
It is completely trivially obvious that Diff(4) GCT's
x^u(P) -> x^u'(x^u(P))
at a fixed PHYSICAL EVENT P = equivalence class of manifold points p ~ p', p =/= p'
is by definition the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4) with compensating gauge force potential Bu^a where
guv(curved) = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b
Z: I think they mean something much broader -- more like matrix mechanics vs. wave mechanics.
J: Frankly I don't care what they mean. What I care about here is what I mean. However, I suspect that what I mean and they mean are not that far apart.
This is exactly how curved space-time is Vacuum ODLRO emergent bottom -> up.
Back-of-the-envelope heuristics
The quantized Goldstone vibrations in argVacuum ODLRO are not spin 2 gravitons.
OK.
Are they like phonons?
More like phonons yes. They are not spin 2 at least not when G/H = S1 where
Vacuum ODLRO = PSI = Re^iS (Bohm Pilot Wave notation)
If Bu^a = X^a(PuS/ih) = X^aS,u
X^a is "position operator" conjugate to Pa in Minkowski space
i.e. X^a makes displacement in momentum Minkowksi space
Z = (X + Lp^2P/ih) & Z* =(X - Lp^2P/ih)
Give Wigner Phase Space Density Representation of Glauber & Squeezed macro-quantum coherent states
Z|z> = z|z>
z = re^itheta
Use the formalism of quantum optics
D(z) = e^(zA* - z*A) Glauber coherent states
S(w) = e^(wA*A* - w*AA) Bogoliubov pairing transformation for squeezed states.
w vacuum ODLRO squeezing parameter ~ BCS Nambu/Jona-Lasino gap function, i.e. rest masses of lepto-quarks?
No gravitons. No quantum foam. No quantum gravity.
Z: Well, you do have a true QFT layer beneath your BEC macro-condensate, don't you? That describes the micro-behavior of "off-mass-shell" electrons and positrons?
Yes, it's their pairing that is the "chaotic" inflation phase transition. The pairing binding energy powers the hot phase of the Big Bang. It's all pretty obvious intuitively. It fits Lenny Susskind's "landscape" with WEP and also Max Tegmark's Level I & Level II (see his homepage for pretty pictures)
Who ordered that?
What about Duff's argument for quantum gravity?
What happens when you reach rock bottom?
Z: Yes, of course this is the Sakharov emergent-gravity thesis. Same in Hu's papers, for example.
J: Same in general philosophy not in detail. This stuff is in the air. Mine is the simplest of em all. Are all the rest over-complicated or is my model simpler than is possible like Puthoff's PV and Haisch's EM SED ZPE "origin of inertia".
Is a theory of everything for everyone impossible? Do you have to be a fancy mathematician to grok it? Calabi-Yau and all that really needed? Too soon to tell.
You return to the false globally flat massless conformal vacuum of spin1/2 & spin 1 QFT with no gravity and no inertia, i.e. all rest m = 0
Z: But is it kinematically false?
J: I do not know what that even means. The center of the cyclone where |ODLRO| = R = 0 thats FALSE VACUUM. So it's physical as real as anything is.
Z: Or just unstable if construed as a physical vacuum?
J: It's real and unstable. It's as real as riding a unicycle.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html
Z: I still sense Einsteinian ambiguity and even confusion here.
J: The fault dear Z is in your mind and not beyond the stars.
Z: What did Sakharov say about this "emergence"?
J: Not much. Like Bohr he mumbled some things about "metric elasticity" and if you read Adler Rev Mod Phys 1982 you will see more very complicated stuff. It's not clear which comes first however. It's Chicken & Egg. Been up so long it looks like down to them. Adler seems to get Einstein-Hilbert action from SBS & estimates of G & /\, but it's far from obvious what he is doing. Also I don't see no tetrads there.
Z: What's wrong with a bi-metric approach at the macro-level? I can imagine that a bi-metric approach would fit your BEC model quite well if you were open to it.
J: Occam's razor. Parsimony. More with less. Excess Baggage. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Who ordered a second metric. That's an unimaginative act of desperation - not at all like Max Planck's.
Z.
E = pc for all real quanta
This is what you get for |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in the core of a topological defect in G/H order parameter space.
Note that the non-perturbative lepto-quark mass scale is
m ~ (hwD/c^2)e^1/rho(Ef)<0|V|0>Theta(-V)
i.e.
1 Mev ~ 10^19Geve^-1/|x|
e^-1/|x| ~ 10^-22
Theta(x) = step function
V is the attractive interaction potential between the virtual electrons and positrons at the edge of the negative energy Dirac Sea with Fermi energy Ef = 0, but pf ~ h/L
Let V -> 0 from negative values where it is attractive i.e. V ~ -e^2/r, this gives m = 0 at V = 0-, m stays zero for repulsive V > 0.
rho is density of states of massless negative energy virtual electrons Fermi liquid at Ef per unit energy.
Subject: Z's confounding of tetrads with Diff(4) GCTs
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:06:26 -0700
Admittedly Paul I suspect you are not the only one confused by this issue of how to separate intrinsic geometry from non-inertial local frame inertial g-forces especially since one cannot tell the difference without making local tidal geodesic deviation measurements.
On Apr 14, 2005, at 12:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
[JS] What I am telling you is that you cannot use a GCT X when B =/= 0 to make (LC)' = 0.
[Z] Then there is something wrong with your B. Of course you can always cancel net g-forces with a GCT.
[J] There is nothing wrong with B. In fact it is what you were looking for, but you looked in the wrong place - at the wrong level. Math is math. Diff(4) GCT non-dynamical Xu'^u connects non-geodesic LNIFu with non-geodesic LNIFu'. Indeed, you can always locally cancel the g inertial force of an LNIF by jumping to a coincident LIF, but you do that with a tetrad eu^a not with a GCT Xu'^u. The globally flat Minkowski space-time is degenerate i.e. eu^a = Kronecker delta Iu^a so that the u/a distinction vanishes and, indeed, in that case only, you can use GCT to get from an inertial frame to a non-inertial frame. Your intuition on Minkowski space-time does not carry over to curved space-time. Can I teach this Lazy Dog a new trick?
e.g. x -> x' - (1/2)gt^2
t -> t' = t
in Newtonian limit.
In the B = 0 degenerate case where a = u so to speak
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
Now, take any Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u at all to get the PHONY 100% inertial force zero tidal warp pseudo-curved metric
gu'v'(Minkowski) = Xu'^u(Minkowski)uvXv'^v
B = 0
Ruvwl = Ru'v'w'l' = 0 everywhere-when in Minkowski
These Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u describe infinite sets of pairs of coincident possible local observers u & u' in arbitrary relative motion at event P. Mathematically Xu'^u is the overlap transition function of two local coordinate charts x^u & x^u' in same neighborhood of event P. P is an equivalence ~ class of bare manifold points p i.e. P is the coset of ~ p's. The space of events P is a coset quotient space under gauge equivalent active Diff(4) p -> p'.
There is a qualitative phase transition from the bottom -> up non-perturbative inflationary emergence of
B = (Lp/2pi)d(argVacuum ODLRO)
closed non-exact 1-form means period integrals of 1-form B on non-bounding 1-chain cycle need not vanish, but is NLp hence "flux without flux"? The boundary round a |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 "hole" is two concentric opposite running cycles and we ignore the inner one to get "flux without flux" that is, in fact, measured by observers on the outer non-bounding 1-cycle. Goldstone phase = argVacuum ODLRO is not a unique 0-form (it is a set of partially overlapping functions) because of |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 topological defects in the G/H quotient order parameter space of the inflationary vacuum phase transition. The defects give non-trivial cohomology/homology/homotopies for all the p-forms, p = 0,1,2,3,4 in 4D space-time. The macro-quantum order parameters out of which curved space-time emerges must be single-valued. It's not enough that |Vacuum ODLRO| match. The phases must match mod 2piN round a closed circuit in G/H that corresponds to some path in ordinary 3D-space. The number of circuits in each space need not be identical.
[JS] that Taylor series procedure
[Z]: What "Taylor series procedure"?
[JS]: guv(P') = guv(P) + guv,w(P)(P'-P)^w + (1/2)guv,w,l(P)(P'-P)^w(P'-P)^l
Use the non-trivial tetrads e = (I + B)
Finding the local dynamical tetrad eu^a(P) requires the critical point
guv,w = (LC)uv,w - (LC)vu,w = 0 ? (from memory - error?)
This seems to require zero torsion to get orthodox EEP?
So what we really want is
gab,c = ea^ueb^vec^wguv,w = 0
P'is now in the tangent space
gab(P') ~ (Minkowski)ab + (1/2)gab,c,d(P)(P'-P)^c(P'-P)^d + ...
where second term on RHS is the actual tidal geodesic deviation (curvature) in the LIF.
Note also
guv(P) = (Iu^a + Bu^a(P))(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b(P))
and inversely
(Minkowski)ab = (Ia^u + Ba^u(P))guv(P)(Ib^v + Bb^v(P))
local all at same P
Therefore, the Taylor series can be reduced to expansions of the dynamical B field.
bcc
On Apr 15, 2005, at 3:13 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
If you read the Arcos & Pereira paper, how do you understand the authors' position regarding the extraction of a localizable tensor vacuum stress-energy density
from the net gravitational-inertial stress-energy of the Einstein field in (1) their own teleparallel formalism; and (2) in the conventional curved-manifold formalism?
Jack, this question was specifically addressed to Art.
J: Yes, I know.
What A&P do, very nicely is to show the B field!
Z: In the context of a *teleparallel* theory.
J: They do not have my Vacuum ODLRO SBS idea, i.e. they do not write
B = (Lp/2pi)"dargVacuumODLRO"
argVacuumODLRO = Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field (post-inflation).
Z: Right. Of course not.
J: If B is closed non-exact 1-form that's A&P torsion "flux without flux".
Z: So you are saying that your "tetrad" B can be modeled as a torsion field?
J: Yes, it's the "potential" for the A&P torsion field not the Shipov torsion field. B is like A in EM, F = dB is like the EM field tensor, but here it is the A&P tetrad substratum torsion field tensor.
As R. Kiehn points out the most general p-form has 3 possible independent components
form = exact + closed not-exact + non-closed
If B has a non-closed piece I call that "flux with flux" i.e.
F = dB
If B is only closed and not-exact
Stokes theorem says |B = 0 on a bounding cycle but need not be zero on a non-bounding cycle that is only a piece of the total boundary that consists of several cycles when the manifold of integration of dB is not simply-connected.
If, in addition, there is macro-quantum vacuum ODLRO (a new independent physical idea)
B = (Lp/2pi)"dtheta" in sense described in John Baez's book on Gauge Fields, Knots & Gravity, then the "period integral" of 1-form over the boundary fragment, which is nevertheless a closed loop (nonbounding 1-cycle) is, from single-valuedness of the ODLRO order parameter
|B = NLp
N is integer winding number
This leads me to define another "Ghost of a departed quantity" (Bishop Berkeley)
NLp = (Area)dB'
Mean value theorem for integrals.
I put the ' to denote "flux without flux". The "Area" is inside the non-bounding cycle and all the other inner non-bounding cycles isolating phase singularities where |ODLRO| = 0 (like vortex cores in Type II superconductor of real EM flux with flux) shrink to zero (I mean small). Actually HeII quantized circulations may be "flux without flux" in this sense.
Thus in cylindrical coordinates for |ODLRO| = 0 along z-axis
dB' = NLp/pir^2
Even though technically dB = 0.
NLp is like a finite integral of a zero integrand only because we have ignored the inner cycles that add up to -NLp of course. But as physicists we can do that since we only actually measure the outer non-bounding cycle in the case of quantized vortices in superfluid HeII.
So this is an archetype analogy for the complete nonlocality of gravity energy in ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 i.e. gravity vacuum energy without gravity vacuum energy.
Integrating a local "zero" to get a "finite" total is not so crazy when the manifolds of integration are not simply-connected and the "holes" correspond to phase singularities, i.e. zeros in the ODLRO intensity.
The situation is like that of infinitesimals in calculus that are both zero and not zero in the heuristic sense. As physicists we don't care about what Feynman called "rigor mortis". For example the Feynman path integrals are mathematically non-rigorous yet we get good results from them.
If B is not closed that's torsion "flux with flux"
i.e.
F = dB is the A&P torsion field (not same as Shipov's).
I assume here G/H = S1 like Abelian Maxwell E&M, this is only a toy model
dF = 0
d*F = *J
The local stress-energy tensor of this torsion field is
~ F/\*F i.e. a 4-form
But NOTE if B is closed and non-exact, then strictly speaking LOCALLY
F = dB = 0
Yet, from "flux without flux" the global integral is not zero even though the local density is!
WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THAT BEFORE? :-)
Z: OK, I think I get it.
J: Yes, this is an interesting strategy. Penrose gives a good heuristic why total gravity ordinary vacuum energy really must be nonlocal so that Yilmaz's theory is asking the wrong question and so is Alex's. Valentini's new papers on the creative tension between locality & nonlocality add fuel to that fire. There are other arguments as well.
"Flux without flux" means
|B = ||dB = NLp, N an integer
Strictly of course |B = 0 over a boundary, but here we take the incomplete integral over a non-bounding cycle and ignore the inner cycle that gives -NLp (Stoke's theorem) that shrinks to the topological defect Goldstone phase singularity where |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in the G/H order parameter space. Note, unlike micro-quantum theory, in macro-quantum theory the radius of S1 has independent physical meaning. Also see A. Valentini's latest papers on sub-quantum non-equilibrium signal nonlocality. Let P be the non-equilibrium distribution, the non-local signal is an integral with kernel P - |psi|^2, in macro-quantum theory, I think this becomes ~ |ODLRO|^2, which of course is zero in nonlocal micro-quantum theory with "presponse" signal locality. That is, any system with ODLRO (in vacuum for virtual quanta E^2 =/= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2, in ground states E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 for real quanta) is "sub-quantal non-equilibrium". Call this the "Sarfatti Conjecture" since our conscious minds are pumped open giant quantum robust ODLRO systems immune to warm wet environmental decoherence of the Zurek-Tegmark kind.
Z: OK, looks good. Very interesting idea.
J: Valentini has a formula in one of his new papers
Nonlocal signal ~ Integral of stuff [P(sub-quantum non-equil) - P(sub-quantal equil)]
I think I can argue as a sufficient, though maybe not necessary, condition for signal nonlocality in macro-quantum theory
|OLDRO|^2 = [P(sub-quantum non-equil) - P(sub-quantal equil)]
I get this from theory of reduced density matrices as given by L. Onsager & O. Penrose.
P(sub-quantal equil) = "normal fluid" single-particle reduced density matrix in diagonal limit = Born probability density! (pair density matrix in case of fermions)
The macroscopic eigenvalue of first-order reduced density matrix is "sub-quantal non-equilibrium" in A. Valentini's sense and it is immune to warm wet decoherence. This is WHY Dick Bierman sees "presponse" in his data.
Z: I'm also curious about how you understand A&P's claim that that the teleparallel formalism is "physically equivalent" to the curved manifold formalism?
Again, this was addressed to Wagner.
In answer to R.Kiehn today
On Apr 15, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Clarification of notation
When I write
g(curved) =[(I + B)^T][(flat)]([I + B)]
That is just my lazy notation. I do not mean that as an equation in Cartan forms. All I mean by that is the well known
guv = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b
where
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
Iu^a is Kronecker Delta
B = dx^uBu^a(Pa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)
{Pa} is Lie Algebra of T4
It means simply one version of EEP
g(curved) = (I + B)(flat)(I + B)
Z: So you think that by "physical equivalence" A&P simply mean that they recover standard EEP? You think they mean "equivalence" as in "equivalence principle"? In other words -- "pun intended"?
J: Pun intended sure. What they mean is simply that starting from the zero curvature torsion tetrad substratum, one can use the formal EEP to derive standard vanilla 1916 GR curved torsionless model.
There is a kind of curvature/torsion duality here between the local gauge force and geometrodynamical pictures.
The torsion flat gauge force picture is the "square root" of the curved torsionless geometrodynamic picture.
So, the torsion picture is a covering theory of the geometrodynamics. It is closed to the Ashtekar picture!
That is, in the torsion tetrad substratum it is obvious how gravity is really simply the local gauge theory of T4 -> Diff(4.
In 1905 special relativity
x -> x' = x + xo -> conservation of total linear momentum px
t -> t' = t + to -> conservation of total energy E
These are GLOBAL displacements in Minkowski space-time making up the RIGID group T4 (with x & y).
It is completely trivially obvious that Diff(4) GCT's
x^u(P) -> x^u'(x^u(P))
at a fixed PHYSICAL EVENT P = equivalence class of manifold points p ~ p', p =/= p'
is by definition the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4) with compensating gauge force potential Bu^a where
guv(curved) = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b
Z: I think they mean something much broader -- more like matrix mechanics vs. wave mechanics.
J: Frankly I don't care what they mean. What I care about here is what I mean. However, I suspect that what I mean and they mean are not that far apart.
This is exactly how curved space-time is Vacuum ODLRO emergent bottom -> up.
Back-of-the-envelope heuristics
The quantized Goldstone vibrations in argVacuum ODLRO are not spin 2 gravitons.
OK.
Are they like phonons?
More like phonons yes. They are not spin 2 at least not when G/H = S1 where
Vacuum ODLRO = PSI = Re^iS (Bohm Pilot Wave notation)
If Bu^a = X^a(PuS/ih) = X^aS,u
X^a is "position operator" conjugate to Pa in Minkowski space
i.e. X^a makes displacement in momentum Minkowksi space
Z = (X + Lp^2P/ih) & Z* =(X - Lp^2P/ih)
Give Wigner Phase Space Density Representation of Glauber & Squeezed macro-quantum coherent states
Z|z> = z|z>
z = re^itheta
Use the formalism of quantum optics
D(z) = e^(zA* - z*A) Glauber coherent states
S(w) = e^(wA*A* - w*AA) Bogoliubov pairing transformation for squeezed states.
w vacuum ODLRO squeezing parameter ~ BCS Nambu/Jona-Lasino gap function, i.e. rest masses of lepto-quarks?
No gravitons. No quantum foam. No quantum gravity.
Z: Well, you do have a true QFT layer beneath your BEC macro-condensate, don't you? That describes the micro-behavior of "off-mass-shell" electrons and positrons?
Yes, it's their pairing that is the "chaotic" inflation phase transition. The pairing binding energy powers the hot phase of the Big Bang. It's all pretty obvious intuitively. It fits Lenny Susskind's "landscape" with WEP and also Max Tegmark's Level I & Level II (see his homepage for pretty pictures)
Who ordered that?
What about Duff's argument for quantum gravity?
What happens when you reach rock bottom?
Z: Yes, of course this is the Sakharov emergent-gravity thesis. Same in Hu's papers, for example.
J: Same in general philosophy not in detail. This stuff is in the air. Mine is the simplest of em all. Are all the rest over-complicated or is my model simpler than is possible like Puthoff's PV and Haisch's EM SED ZPE "origin of inertia".
Is a theory of everything for everyone impossible? Do you have to be a fancy mathematician to grok it? Calabi-Yau and all that really needed? Too soon to tell.
You return to the false globally flat massless conformal vacuum of spin1/2 & spin 1 QFT with no gravity and no inertia, i.e. all rest m = 0
Z: But is it kinematically false?
J: I do not know what that even means. The center of the cyclone where |ODLRO| = R = 0 thats FALSE VACUUM. So it's physical as real as anything is.
Z: Or just unstable if construed as a physical vacuum?
J: It's real and unstable. It's as real as riding a unicycle.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html
Z: I still sense Einsteinian ambiguity and even confusion here.
J: The fault dear Z is in your mind and not beyond the stars.
Z: What did Sakharov say about this "emergence"?
J: Not much. Like Bohr he mumbled some things about "metric elasticity" and if you read Adler Rev Mod Phys 1982 you will see more very complicated stuff. It's not clear which comes first however. It's Chicken & Egg. Been up so long it looks like down to them. Adler seems to get Einstein-Hilbert action from SBS & estimates of G & /\, but it's far from obvious what he is doing. Also I don't see no tetrads there.
Z: What's wrong with a bi-metric approach at the macro-level? I can imagine that a bi-metric approach would fit your BEC model quite well if you were open to it.
J: Occam's razor. Parsimony. More with less. Excess Baggage. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Who ordered a second metric. That's an unimaginative act of desperation - not at all like Max Planck's.
Z.
E = pc for all real quanta
This is what you get for |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in the core of a topological defect in G/H order parameter space.
Note that the non-perturbative lepto-quark mass scale is
m ~ (hwD/c^2)e^1/rho(Ef)<0|V|0>Theta(-V)
i.e.
1 Mev ~ 10^19Geve^-1/|x|
e^-1/|x| ~ 10^-22
Theta(x) = step function
V is the attractive interaction potential between the virtual electrons and positrons at the edge of the negative energy Dirac Sea with Fermi energy Ef = 0, but pf ~ h/L
Let V -> 0 from negative values where it is attractive i.e. V ~ -e^2/r, this gives m = 0 at V = 0-, m stays zero for repulsive V > 0.
rho is density of states of massless negative energy virtual electrons Fermi liquid at Ef per unit energy.
Subject: Z's confounding of tetrads with Diff(4) GCTs
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:06:26 -0700
Admittedly Paul I suspect you are not the only one confused by this issue of how to separate intrinsic geometry from non-inertial local frame inertial g-forces especially since one cannot tell the difference without making local tidal geodesic deviation measurements.
On Apr 14, 2005, at 12:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
[JS] What I am telling you is that you cannot use a GCT X when B =/= 0 to make (LC)' = 0.
[Z] Then there is something wrong with your B. Of course you can always cancel net g-forces with a GCT.
[J] There is nothing wrong with B. In fact it is what you were looking for, but you looked in the wrong place - at the wrong level. Math is math. Diff(4) GCT non-dynamical Xu'^u connects non-geodesic LNIFu with non-geodesic LNIFu'. Indeed, you can always locally cancel the g inertial force of an LNIF by jumping to a coincident LIF, but you do that with a tetrad eu^a not with a GCT Xu'^u. The globally flat Minkowski space-time is degenerate i.e. eu^a = Kronecker delta Iu^a so that the u/a distinction vanishes and, indeed, in that case only, you can use GCT to get from an inertial frame to a non-inertial frame. Your intuition on Minkowski space-time does not carry over to curved space-time. Can I teach this Lazy Dog a new trick?
e.g. x -> x' - (1/2)gt^2
t -> t' = t
in Newtonian limit.
In the B = 0 degenerate case where a = u so to speak
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
Now, take any Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u at all to get the PHONY 100% inertial force zero tidal warp pseudo-curved metric
gu'v'(Minkowski) = Xu'^u(Minkowski)uvXv'^v
B = 0
Ruvwl = Ru'v'w'l' = 0 everywhere-when in Minkowski
These Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u describe infinite sets of pairs of coincident possible local observers u & u' in arbitrary relative motion at event P. Mathematically Xu'^u is the overlap transition function of two local coordinate charts x^u & x^u' in same neighborhood of event P. P is an equivalence ~ class of bare manifold points p i.e. P is the coset of ~ p's. The space of events P is a coset quotient space under gauge equivalent active Diff(4) p -> p'.
There is a qualitative phase transition from the bottom -> up non-perturbative inflationary emergence of
B = (Lp/2pi)d(argVacuum ODLRO)
closed non-exact 1-form means period integrals of 1-form B on non-bounding 1-chain cycle need not vanish, but is NLp hence "flux without flux"? The boundary round a |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 "hole" is two concentric opposite running cycles and we ignore the inner one to get "flux without flux" that is, in fact, measured by observers on the outer non-bounding 1-cycle. Goldstone phase = argVacuum ODLRO is not a unique 0-form (it is a set of partially overlapping functions) because of |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 topological defects in the G/H quotient order parameter space of the inflationary vacuum phase transition. The defects give non-trivial cohomology/homology/homotopies for all the p-forms, p = 0,1,2,3,4 in 4D space-time. The macro-quantum order parameters out of which curved space-time emerges must be single-valued. It's not enough that |Vacuum ODLRO| match. The phases must match mod 2piN round a closed circuit in G/H that corresponds to some path in ordinary 3D-space. The number of circuits in each space need not be identical.
[JS] that Taylor series procedure
[Z]: What "Taylor series procedure"?
[JS]: guv(P') = guv(P) + guv,w(P)(P'-P)^w + (1/2)guv,w,l(P)(P'-P)^w(P'-P)^l
Use the non-trivial tetrads e = (I + B)
Finding the local dynamical tetrad eu^a(P) requires the critical point
guv,w = (LC)uv,w - (LC)vu,w = 0 ? (from memory - error?)
This seems to require zero torsion to get orthodox EEP?
So what we really want is
gab,c = ea^ueb^vec^wguv,w = 0
P'is now in the tangent space
gab(P') ~ (Minkowski)ab + (1/2)gab,c,d(P)(P'-P)^c(P'-P)^d + ...
where second term on RHS is the actual tidal geodesic deviation (curvature) in the LIF.
Note also
guv(P) = (Iu^a + Bu^a(P))(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b(P))
and inversely
(Minkowski)ab = (Ia^u + Ba^u(P))guv(P)(Ib^v + Bb^v(P))
local all at same P
Therefore, the Taylor series can be reduced to expansions of the dynamical B field.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
The Origin of Everything
Keep up with discussion forum at http://stardrive.org/
for fast-breaking news!
TOPOS is prior to Geometrodynamica!
What I cannot create on the spot spontaneously ab-initio I certainly do not understand. It's the "non-mechanical" Bohmian unfolding of a compressed implicate algorithm that we call "intuition" with a dash of "presponse".
The idea of John Archibald Wheeler in the late 1950's & early 60's was to fulfil "Einstein's Vision" that only made sense in terms of David Bohm's pilot wave/ hidden variable theory because Einstein envisioned elementary particles as pure vacuum tiny wormholes with quantized trapped gauge force fluxes. The idea, like Andrei Sakharov's vision of emergent gravity from the "metric elasticity" of zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations, was very incomplete.
1. Gravity is too weak by 40 powers of ten unless it gets stronger on the scale of 1 fermi. Abdus Salam suggested that in early 70's "f-meson" and I showed it explained the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances J ~ alpha'E^2 + ... where alpha' = (1Gev)^-2. Salam invited me to ICTP Trieste in 1973-4 because of that.
2. Wheeler had no explanation of quantized flux because he did not have idea of vacuum ODLRO. The Penrose-Onsager idea of ODLRO was new. The Higgs mechanism was not understood. (Bernie Haisch et-al still doesn't get it that it falsified his random ZPF approach to the "origin of inertia". :-)) Yang-Mills local gauging of global to local symmetries was new. The Bohm-Aharonov effect was not well understood. The time was not ripe. Also no one even conceived of anti-gravity "dark energy" except Hermann Bondi & Stalin's physics spymaster, Y. Terletskii in a very vague way as "negative mass propulsion". No one understood the exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
with /\zpf a local scalar field FROM vacuum ODLRO that in Newtonian limit is the Poisson equation for isotropic source
Grad^2V(source) = 4piG(mass density)(1 + 3w)
Ordinary matter w = 0
Radiation w = +1/3
All random zero point fluctuations from all quantum fields w = -1
"mass density" of ZPF can be both > 0 and < 0!
Virtual electron-positron pairs have negative effective mass density.
Virtual photons have positive effective mass density.
Virtual QED quanta cannot directly make QED counters click, but they DO directly warp space-time as "dark energy" and "dark matter" are BOTH telling us!
The post-inflation field is essentially the vacuum ODLRO field.
3. Laughlin-Chapline and myself independently have been working on the idea that it is in the ODLRO cohering of the ZPF that gravity emerges bottom->up and that all top->down versions of "quantum gravity" are the "wrong question". No gravitons, no quantum foam is the message from top->down quantization of guv is unrenormalizable. [Ashtekar's loop variables seem to be a version of my B warp tetrad torsion field?]
4. The idea that black holes may be prevented by repulsive dark energy cores (dark energy stars) is also immediately obvious, though it is too early to tell if it is correct. Laughlin & Chapline do argue from actual evidence however. I thought of the general idea in 2002, but did not do anything with it. Ken Shoulders "EVOs" may be a mesoscopic charged analog to the "dark stars" in that exotic vacuum cores can stabilize the N electrons, indeed the single electron solving the Lorentz problem of the "stresses" from 100 years ago, i.e. what prevents a shell of charge from exploding. Simplest example is
V = +(Ne^2)/mr + c^2/\zpfr^2
dV/dr = -(Ne^2)/mr^2 + 2c^2/\zpfr = 0
Therefore a UNIFORM DARK ENERGY core obviously stabilizes the shell of electric charge. The problem becomes trivial!
d^2V/dr^2 = +2(Ne^2)/mr^3 + 2c^2/\zpf
Static stability is d^2V/dr^2 > 0 at the critical point dV/dr = 0
OBVIOUSLY TRUE when /\zpf > 0, i.e. dark energy w = -1 negative pressure
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:40:52 -0700
From: iksnileiz@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Flux without flux
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
A funny thing happened to me on my way around the singularity.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the reason the A&P vacuum
"torsion" stress-energy tensor is allegedly "local" in the usual
sense you describe above is that in my theory it is only second
order in derivatives of the vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase of the
post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene's term). Similarly,
the reason why Yilmaz theory is fundamentally wrong, and that the
geometrodynamic gravity energy is FUNDAMENTALLY NONLOCAL, so what
Alex P does should not be done, is that using EEP ("Grad" in 4D sense)
g(Einstein Curved ST) = [I + B(torsion)Grad(Phase)](Flat False
Vacuum)[I + B(torsion)Grad(Phase)]
The Einstein 4th rank tidal geodesic deviation curvature tensor is
third order in the derivatives of the Goldstone phase, and even when
you contract it to second order Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv you have those
3rd order "jerk" field theory terms very much like the "radiation
reaction" in which you need nonlocal presponse from the future to
avoid runaway solutions in the charged particle mechanics case. Same
thing going on here. Of course Roger Penrose is unaware of this new
way of looking at the problem, which is why he is vague about it -
at least in Road to Reality. But MTW are essentially correct EEP
demands nonlocal gravity energy. They did not give the correct
argument however. Z has a point there.
Z: Two points.
(1) The reason why the vacuum stress-energy is local in A&P is that
they use a "physically equivalent" teleparallel formalism that
dispenses with manifold curvature, allowing an objective local
decomposition of the inertial and gravitational parts; and
J: Perhap. But that says nothing about the problem in the geometrodynamic
picture.
Z: Remember that A&P also insist that their teleparallel formalism is
"physically equivalent" to standard curved-manifold GR.
J: See my remarks on implicate/explicate Fourier transform hologram relation between the two pictures rather than 1-1 mechanical mapping of parts to parts, it's parts to wholes & vice versa.
I am willing to grant a local "torsion field" stress-energy tensor in
the teleparallel SUBSTRATUM to the Einstein curved geometrodynamic field.
Z: OK.
J: Intuitively this tetrad substratum is the "square root" of the
geometry. The tetrad field is essentially the distortion field of the
vacuum ODLRO 4D "supersolid" (Diff(4) covariant "aether") world
crystal Planck lattice.
Z: OK, but am I correct in thinking that your "B" transformation always
represents an actual deformation of the manifold that results in a change in the intrinsic geometry, while your "I" transformation represents *only* a change of local coordinates (transformation of coordinate bases) that can occur even while the
geometry of the manifold is fixed?
J: YES! That's my idea here.
Z: The point here is that a mere change of coordinates in itself has no
effect on intrinsic geometry.
J: Obviously. Also the Cartan forms are manifestly coordinate-independent.
The non-trivial warp part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field is the
Cartan 1-form
B ~ (Lp/2pi)d(Goldstone Phase of vacuum ODLRO Higgs Field)
where d is the Cartan exterior derivative.
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is e = I + B, where I = Identity
Z: If I = Identity, exactly what does I transform?
J: Paul, you really should understand this by now! It's obvious. When B = 0 the intrinsic geometry is globally flat Minkowski. Therefore the tangent bundle is degenerate i.e. the tangent fiber space is IDENTICAL to the BASE SPACE
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
a,b are tangent space indices
u,v are base space indices
Nevertheless you still can IMPOSE GCT's i.e. Xu^u' arbitrary LNIF observer fields. When you do that EVERYTHING that results is PHONY GLOBAL GRAVITY in Landau & Lifshitz sense, even though LOCALLY in sense of "correspondance" if you like you cannot tell if you do not try too hard with tidal geodesic deviation measurements.
That is
gu'v' = Xu'u(Minkowski)uvXv^v is a GLOBAL PHONY GRAVITY g-FIELD, i.e. pure inertial force field from the LNIF observers firing their rockets in space.
As Kiehn points out one must be careful to distinguish exact forms
from closed forms. All exact forms are closed but not vice versa.
Integrating a closed form around a hole can give a non-vanishing
result even when there is no dynamical local gauge field present.
Z: OK.
J: In more detail, the most general decomposition for a p-form that is the DeRahm "integrand"
p-form = exact p-form + closed non-exact p-form + non-closed p-form
The cohomology factor group is
closed means d(p-form) = 0
Note the gravity energy nonlocality is connected with inability to generalize Stoke's theorem:
Integral over a bounding set of p-cycles of any p-form = Integral over the bounded p+1 manifold of d(p-form)
to replacing d by the gauge covariant D = d + B
where B is a connection 1-form.
H^p = (All closed p-forms/exact p-forms) = p-th cohomology group
dimH^p = integer number of p-hole topological obstructions
dimH^p = 0 means simply-connected NO p-holes, i.e. every closed p-form is exact.
Similarly
Hp = (cycles/bounding cycles) = Dual pth homology group for the domain manifold of integration.
Obviously dimHp = dimH^p
On a simply-connected manifold where
Exact p-form = d(p-1 form)
The "potential" p-1 form is a state function, the integrals of exact p-form over p-co-forms are path-independent.
Examples: 1. Conservative force fields in Newton's particle mechanics.
2. Reversible thermodynamics of iso-entropic Carnot Heat Engines.
3. Non-closed forms mean irreversibility & TURBULENCE (R. Kiehn)
So God DID answer von Neumann at the Pearly Gate after all!
4. Classical Action Principle of Quantum Field Theory uses closed 1-form.
Conservative force fields are exact action Lagrangian 1-forms in configuration space.
Hamiltonian is in symplectic phase space where we need to use Wigner phase space functions for the quantum histories!
Non-closed Action 1-form must be the vacuum/ground state zero point fluctuations of paths away from classical limit of constructive interference of Feynman histories.
In contrast take the archetypal 1-form that is closed, but not exact. Given any abstract flat x-y plane with polar coordinates
1-form = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2) = "d(Theta)"
I will put quotes to indicate that, despite the d, this closed 1-form is not exact. That is, the "0-form" Theta is NOT UNIQUE (R. Kiehn), but is at least 2 overlapping functions, same as covering the 2-sphere where polar axis is a topological obstruction.
Think of this as a local coordinate chart with origin at x^2 + y^2 = 0, this is a topological obstruction. So, in this abstract plane
Imagine points A = (x = -1,0) and B = (x = +1,0) integrate the 1-form "dTheta" CW from A to B around upper semi-unit circle x^2 + y^2 = 1 to get +pi.
Similarly, integrate the same 1-form from CW A to B along lower semi-unit circle to get -pi. Obviously, integrating around the NON-BOUNDING closed circle gives 2pi, i.e. winding number = + 1. So Stoke's theorem is suspended for it!
In this simple world dimH^1 = 1
However that unit circle is not a boundary! So the period integral of "dTheta" does not vanish! Imagine an inner circle of radius epsilon -> 0 that we traverse CCW to get -2pi. The boundary is BOTH circles and for the interior of the boundary d^2Theta = 0 shows that the sum of the two integrals over the actual boundary isolating the topological Theta phase singularity is ZERO.
But now notice we never really need to imagine some kind of second source flux at the hole! We can shrink epsilon to zero!
This is "flux without flux".
No quantization yet because no single-valued ODLRO as yet!
Also we get dimH^p = N by sewing N copies of above together in a quilt of overlapping coordinate patches similar to making N-tori S^1xS^1 x ... N times.
In general "x,y" above are abstract. In ODLRO they live in G/H SBS order parameter space, where physical space x^u or x^a are CONTROL PARAMETERS (Catastrophe theory & V.I. Arnold?)
In Bohm's language for a single component complex order parameter G/H = U(1)
x = RcosS
y = RsinS
PSI = Re^iS
R(x^u) S(x^u).
Therefore, the topological obstructions (S phase singularities) are the loci of x^u where R(x^u) = 0. For G/H = U(1) these loci are "strings" or vortex lines where R -> 0. Each contiguous string or vortex is a single obstruction. That is
DimH^1 = number of vortices in the system in the emergent gravity problem
B = (Lp/2pi)"dTheta" for the non-trivial intrinsic gravity warp piece of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad, where "Theta" is the set of 0-form branches of the Goldstone Phase of the vacuum ODLRO that cover the entire G/H order parameter space for a given space-time region x^u.
e = (I + B)
The EEP is
g(Einstein real gravity) = (I + B)(Minkowski)(I + B)
This splits into 3 qualitatively different pieces
I(Minkowski)I globally flat component
B(Minkowski)I + I(Minkowski)B = weak field linear elastic Diff(4) covariant ODLRO supersolid
B(Minkowski)B = strong field "geon" nonlinear plastic component
Note that B is the compensating connection 1-form from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4),
but IF FLUX WITHOUT FLUX is true, that comes entirely from the Wheeler "wormholes" i.e. non-trivial cohomology
DimH^p =/= 0 in the torsion tetrad SUBSTRATUM of curved geometrodynamics!
Therefore,
I. Flux without flux.
->
II Charge without charge
III Mass without mass.
Also
IV Spin without spin?
e.g. Spinor ODLRO from boson condensate?
i.e. make a closed non-bounding loop around singularity in ordinary space (e.g. vortex line) that induces in order parameter space U(1) in this case
Theta = argODLRO
Theta -> Theta' = Theta + pi
|ODLRO|^2 -> |ODLRO|'^2 = -i(ODLRO)*i(ODLRO) = +|ODLRO|^2
away from the singularity |ODLRO|^2 = 0 globally along a given string in ordinary space.
This is "Flux without flux" - Ghost of a departed quantity.
Not only "Mass without mass", "Spin without spin", "Charge without
charge" (Real Flux), BUT EVEN "Flux without flux"? This is really
getting something from nothing. Actually it's cohomology on
multiply-connected manifolds.
Z: Name of the game. :-)
J: The A&P torsion field F uses the gauge covariant exterior derivative
D = d + B
F = DB = dB + B/\B a 2-form
The issue now is dB
dB = Lpd^2B = 0
since d^2 = 0
That is B is a closed 1-form.
However, because of "Flux without flux" we cannot simply conclude that
F = B/\B under all conditions.
Why? Because the physical quantities are always global loop integrals
of the closed forms even in the limit that the loops shrink to get
"local observables". Anandan and others have shown this. There is a
nice article by Wheeler explaining this point. Basically everything is
related to the Bohm-Aharonov effect and it's "inverse".
"Ghosts of departed quantities"
Z: "Ghosts of the departed aether".
It seems now, if "Flux without flux" is a genuine discovery and not a delusion, not a false attractor on my mental PSI ODLRO landscape like your "(LC) = Tensor + Non-Tensor & Tensor =/= 0" delusion Paul! ;-), then the REASON for gravity as T4 locally gauged to Diff(4) is completely TOPOLOGICAL in the sense of non-trivial cohomology of the Cartan p-forms that ultimately express ALL of physics.
That is TOPOS is prior to Geometrodynamica!
Consider a tightly wound thin solenoid with an actual electric current
spiraling around the coil and the uniform magnetic flux along the axis
of the coil. A single electron passes a beam splitter with two paths
around the coil. The electron feels a local A-field where B = curlA =
0. Nevertheless, changing the magnetic flux through the coil will
shift the probability "fringe" pattern of where the electron is likely
to be detected. The relative phase between the Feynman amplitudes for
the two indistinguishable alternative single-electron paths is the
loop integral of p/h - (e/hc)A where dA = 0 everywhere along all
possible paths for the electron. Nevertheless, the nonlocal influence
of the isolated dA =/= 0 region where there is an actual B field from
the spiraling currents is felt quantum mechanically. But this is
nonlocal action at a distance of "Flux with flux" and there is no
macro-quantum ODLRO in this micro-quantum nonlocality of the
Bohm-Aharonov effect, which generalizes.
Now consider ODLRO. We have, in simplest case a complex local order
parameter Psi(r,z,phi,t), i.e a GIANT quantum wave function. This is
different from MIDGET quantum wave functions. Orthodox quantum theory
is only about the Dwarves and Midgets, the Little People as it were. :-)
I use cylindrical coordinates. Imagine now a closed loop in ordinary
space around a line defect (z-axis) where the ODLRO parameter vanishes.
That is
|Psi(0,z,phi,t)| = 0
Psi = |Psi|e^iTheta
Therefore, although Theta(0,z,phi,t) =/= 0 it is ill-defined in the
complex Psi plane where the "origin" is at |Psi| = 0.
Psi must be single-valued. At least |Psi|^2 must return to itself in
any closed loop in ordinary space. This does not preclude a giant
ODLRO SPINOR (made from bosons). For now exclude the GIANT SPINOR
emergent from boson ODLRO condensate and only consider the case
Theta(r,z,0,t) = Theta(r,z,2pi) + N2pi = Goldstone phase change round
a closed loop in ordinary space
N = +- 1, +- 2, .... around the phase singularity where |Psi| = 0
B = (Lp/2pi)dTheta
Therefore, integral of closed 1-form B round the closed ordinary space
loop is
|B = NLp = ||dB =/= 0 .
This is "Flux without flux"
The effective mean ghostly torsion field in the teleparallel
substratum is then ~ NLp/4pir^2
Therefore, around a Goldstone phase singularity in the substratum
F = DB = NLp/4pir^2 + B/\B
What this portends in curved geometrodynamics needs to be studied.
This is TOTALLY NEW!
g(Curved) = (I + B)(Minkowksi)(I + B)
The LOCAL stress-energy tensor in the substratum ~ (1/8pi)F/\*F
(something like that), but this says nothing directly about the
corresponding problem in curved geometrodynamics.
Z: OK. Not directly. Agreed it is not yet clear exactly how this relates mathematically to the corresponding problem in curved-manifold theory.
(2) The presence of cross terms in the formal tetrad expression for
the LC connection does not necessarily prevent a local linear
decomposition of the Christoffel symbols into tensor and non-tensor
parts.
J: Yes, it does. Your idea there is clearly wrong. The Christoffel symbol
is a non-tensor period (except for linear GCT's where it is a tensor
under that restriction only)
Z: Of course I agree that the Christoffel symbol is a non-tensor under GCTs. You haven't explained exactly why it is a non-tensor under non-linear
transformations, while it is a tensor under linear transformations.
J: Paul that IS trivial!
GCT = Group{X}
GCT:(LC) = (LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
where from the construction
Y = 0 for ALL linear GCT's.
Y =/= 0 in essence defines a necessary property for nonlinear GCT.
Z: What is it exactly about *non-linear* coordinate transformations that
spoil the tensor property of the Christoffel symbols?
J: Uh Oh Paul it's Alzheimers! Do you remember your name? What planet is this? Look's like The Grays are working on you at night when you think you are in bed.:-)
Keep up with discussion forum at http://stardrive.org/
for fast-breaking news!
TOPOS is prior to Geometrodynamica!
What I cannot create on the spot spontaneously ab-initio I certainly do not understand. It's the "non-mechanical" Bohmian unfolding of a compressed implicate algorithm that we call "intuition" with a dash of "presponse".
The idea of John Archibald Wheeler in the late 1950's & early 60's was to fulfil "Einstein's Vision" that only made sense in terms of David Bohm's pilot wave/ hidden variable theory because Einstein envisioned elementary particles as pure vacuum tiny wormholes with quantized trapped gauge force fluxes. The idea, like Andrei Sakharov's vision of emergent gravity from the "metric elasticity" of zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations, was very incomplete.
1. Gravity is too weak by 40 powers of ten unless it gets stronger on the scale of 1 fermi. Abdus Salam suggested that in early 70's "f-meson" and I showed it explained the Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances J ~ alpha'E^2 + ... where alpha' = (1Gev)^-2. Salam invited me to ICTP Trieste in 1973-4 because of that.
2. Wheeler had no explanation of quantized flux because he did not have idea of vacuum ODLRO. The Penrose-Onsager idea of ODLRO was new. The Higgs mechanism was not understood. (Bernie Haisch et-al still doesn't get it that it falsified his random ZPF approach to the "origin of inertia". :-)) Yang-Mills local gauging of global to local symmetries was new. The Bohm-Aharonov effect was not well understood. The time was not ripe. Also no one even conceived of anti-gravity "dark energy" except Hermann Bondi & Stalin's physics spymaster, Y. Terletskii in a very vague way as "negative mass propulsion". No one understood the exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
with /\zpf a local scalar field FROM vacuum ODLRO that in Newtonian limit is the Poisson equation for isotropic source
Grad^2V(source) = 4piG(mass density)(1 + 3w)
Ordinary matter w = 0
Radiation w = +1/3
All random zero point fluctuations from all quantum fields w = -1
"mass density" of ZPF can be both > 0 and < 0!
Virtual electron-positron pairs have negative effective mass density.
Virtual photons have positive effective mass density.
Virtual QED quanta cannot directly make QED counters click, but they DO directly warp space-time as "dark energy" and "dark matter" are BOTH telling us!
The post-inflation field is essentially the vacuum ODLRO field.
3. Laughlin-Chapline and myself independently have been working on the idea that it is in the ODLRO cohering of the ZPF that gravity emerges bottom->up and that all top->down versions of "quantum gravity" are the "wrong question". No gravitons, no quantum foam is the message from top->down quantization of guv is unrenormalizable. [Ashtekar's loop variables seem to be a version of my B warp tetrad torsion field?]
4. The idea that black holes may be prevented by repulsive dark energy cores (dark energy stars) is also immediately obvious, though it is too early to tell if it is correct. Laughlin & Chapline do argue from actual evidence however. I thought of the general idea in 2002, but did not do anything with it. Ken Shoulders "EVOs" may be a mesoscopic charged analog to the "dark stars" in that exotic vacuum cores can stabilize the N electrons, indeed the single electron solving the Lorentz problem of the "stresses" from 100 years ago, i.e. what prevents a shell of charge from exploding. Simplest example is
V = +(Ne^2)/mr + c^2/\zpfr^2
dV/dr = -(Ne^2)/mr^2 + 2c^2/\zpfr = 0
Therefore a UNIFORM DARK ENERGY core obviously stabilizes the shell of electric charge. The problem becomes trivial!
d^2V/dr^2 = +2(Ne^2)/mr^3 + 2c^2/\zpf
Static stability is d^2V/dr^2 > 0 at the critical point dV/dr = 0
OBVIOUSLY TRUE when /\zpf > 0, i.e. dark energy w = -1 negative pressure
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:40:52 -0700
From: iksnileiz@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Flux without flux
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
A funny thing happened to me on my way around the singularity.
It is intuitively obvious to me that the reason the A&P vacuum
"torsion" stress-energy tensor is allegedly "local" in the usual
sense you describe above is that in my theory it is only second
order in derivatives of the vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase of the
post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene's term). Similarly,
the reason why Yilmaz theory is fundamentally wrong, and that the
geometrodynamic gravity energy is FUNDAMENTALLY NONLOCAL, so what
Alex P does should not be done, is that using EEP ("Grad" in 4D sense)
g(Einstein Curved ST) = [I + B(torsion)Grad(Phase)](Flat False
Vacuum)[I + B(torsion)Grad(Phase)]
The Einstein 4th rank tidal geodesic deviation curvature tensor is
third order in the derivatives of the Goldstone phase, and even when
you contract it to second order Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv you have those
3rd order "jerk" field theory terms very much like the "radiation
reaction" in which you need nonlocal presponse from the future to
avoid runaway solutions in the charged particle mechanics case. Same
thing going on here. Of course Roger Penrose is unaware of this new
way of looking at the problem, which is why he is vague about it -
at least in Road to Reality. But MTW are essentially correct EEP
demands nonlocal gravity energy. They did not give the correct
argument however. Z has a point there.
Z: Two points.
(1) The reason why the vacuum stress-energy is local in A&P is that
they use a "physically equivalent" teleparallel formalism that
dispenses with manifold curvature, allowing an objective local
decomposition of the inertial and gravitational parts; and
J: Perhap. But that says nothing about the problem in the geometrodynamic
picture.
Z: Remember that A&P also insist that their teleparallel formalism is
"physically equivalent" to standard curved-manifold GR.
J: See my remarks on implicate/explicate Fourier transform hologram relation between the two pictures rather than 1-1 mechanical mapping of parts to parts, it's parts to wholes & vice versa.
I am willing to grant a local "torsion field" stress-energy tensor in
the teleparallel SUBSTRATUM to the Einstein curved geometrodynamic field.
Z: OK.
J: Intuitively this tetrad substratum is the "square root" of the
geometry. The tetrad field is essentially the distortion field of the
vacuum ODLRO 4D "supersolid" (Diff(4) covariant "aether") world
crystal Planck lattice.
Z: OK, but am I correct in thinking that your "B" transformation always
represents an actual deformation of the manifold that results in a change in the intrinsic geometry, while your "I" transformation represents *only* a change of local coordinates (transformation of coordinate bases) that can occur even while the
geometry of the manifold is fixed?
J: YES! That's my idea here.
Z: The point here is that a mere change of coordinates in itself has no
effect on intrinsic geometry.
J: Obviously. Also the Cartan forms are manifestly coordinate-independent.
The non-trivial warp part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field is the
Cartan 1-form
B ~ (Lp/2pi)d(Goldstone Phase of vacuum ODLRO Higgs Field)
where d is the Cartan exterior derivative.
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Complete Einstein-Cartan tetrad is e = I + B, where I = Identity
Z: If I = Identity, exactly what does I transform?
J: Paul, you really should understand this by now! It's obvious. When B = 0 the intrinsic geometry is globally flat Minkowski. Therefore the tangent bundle is degenerate i.e. the tangent fiber space is IDENTICAL to the BASE SPACE
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
a,b are tangent space indices
u,v are base space indices
Nevertheless you still can IMPOSE GCT's i.e. Xu^u' arbitrary LNIF observer fields. When you do that EVERYTHING that results is PHONY GLOBAL GRAVITY in Landau & Lifshitz sense, even though LOCALLY in sense of "correspondance" if you like you cannot tell if you do not try too hard with tidal geodesic deviation measurements.
That is
gu'v' = Xu'u(Minkowski)uvXv^v is a GLOBAL PHONY GRAVITY g-FIELD, i.e. pure inertial force field from the LNIF observers firing their rockets in space.
As Kiehn points out one must be careful to distinguish exact forms
from closed forms. All exact forms are closed but not vice versa.
Integrating a closed form around a hole can give a non-vanishing
result even when there is no dynamical local gauge field present.
Z: OK.
J: In more detail, the most general decomposition for a p-form that is the DeRahm "integrand"
p-form = exact p-form + closed non-exact p-form + non-closed p-form
The cohomology factor group is
closed means d(p-form) = 0
Note the gravity energy nonlocality is connected with inability to generalize Stoke's theorem:
Integral over a bounding set of p-cycles of any p-form = Integral over the bounded p+1 manifold of d(p-form)
to replacing d by the gauge covariant D = d + B
where B is a connection 1-form.
H^p = (All closed p-forms/exact p-forms) = p-th cohomology group
dimH^p = integer number of p-hole topological obstructions
dimH^p = 0 means simply-connected NO p-holes, i.e. every closed p-form is exact.
Similarly
Hp = (cycles/bounding cycles) = Dual pth homology group for the domain manifold of integration.
Obviously dimHp = dimH^p
On a simply-connected manifold where
Exact p-form = d(p-1 form)
The "potential" p-1 form is a state function, the integrals of exact p-form over p-co-forms are path-independent.
Examples: 1. Conservative force fields in Newton's particle mechanics.
2. Reversible thermodynamics of iso-entropic Carnot Heat Engines.
3. Non-closed forms mean irreversibility & TURBULENCE (R. Kiehn)
So God DID answer von Neumann at the Pearly Gate after all!
4. Classical Action Principle of Quantum Field Theory uses closed 1-form.
Conservative force fields are exact action Lagrangian 1-forms in configuration space.
Hamiltonian is in symplectic phase space where we need to use Wigner phase space functions for the quantum histories!
Non-closed Action 1-form must be the vacuum/ground state zero point fluctuations of paths away from classical limit of constructive interference of Feynman histories.
In contrast take the archetypal 1-form that is closed, but not exact. Given any abstract flat x-y plane with polar coordinates
1-form = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2) = "d(Theta)"
I will put quotes to indicate that, despite the d, this closed 1-form is not exact. That is, the "0-form" Theta is NOT UNIQUE (R. Kiehn), but is at least 2 overlapping functions, same as covering the 2-sphere where polar axis is a topological obstruction.
Think of this as a local coordinate chart with origin at x^2 + y^2 = 0, this is a topological obstruction. So, in this abstract plane
Imagine points A = (x = -1,0) and B = (x = +1,0) integrate the 1-form "dTheta" CW from A to B around upper semi-unit circle x^2 + y^2 = 1 to get +pi.
Similarly, integrate the same 1-form from CW A to B along lower semi-unit circle to get -pi. Obviously, integrating around the NON-BOUNDING closed circle gives 2pi, i.e. winding number = + 1. So Stoke's theorem is suspended for it!
In this simple world dimH^1 = 1
However that unit circle is not a boundary! So the period integral of "dTheta" does not vanish! Imagine an inner circle of radius epsilon -> 0 that we traverse CCW to get -2pi. The boundary is BOTH circles and for the interior of the boundary d^2Theta = 0 shows that the sum of the two integrals over the actual boundary isolating the topological Theta phase singularity is ZERO.
But now notice we never really need to imagine some kind of second source flux at the hole! We can shrink epsilon to zero!
This is "flux without flux".
No quantization yet because no single-valued ODLRO as yet!
Also we get dimH^p = N by sewing N copies of above together in a quilt of overlapping coordinate patches similar to making N-tori S^1xS^1 x ... N times.
In general "x,y" above are abstract. In ODLRO they live in G/H SBS order parameter space, where physical space x^u or x^a are CONTROL PARAMETERS (Catastrophe theory & V.I. Arnold?)
In Bohm's language for a single component complex order parameter G/H = U(1)
x = RcosS
y = RsinS
PSI = Re^iS
R(x^u) S(x^u).
Therefore, the topological obstructions (S phase singularities) are the loci of x^u where R(x^u) = 0. For G/H = U(1) these loci are "strings" or vortex lines where R -> 0. Each contiguous string or vortex is a single obstruction. That is
DimH^1 = number of vortices in the system in the emergent gravity problem
B = (Lp/2pi)"dTheta" for the non-trivial intrinsic gravity warp piece of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad, where "Theta" is the set of 0-form branches of the Goldstone Phase of the vacuum ODLRO that cover the entire G/H order parameter space for a given space-time region x^u.
e = (I + B)
The EEP is
g(Einstein real gravity) = (I + B)(Minkowski)(I + B)
This splits into 3 qualitatively different pieces
I(Minkowski)I globally flat component
B(Minkowski)I + I(Minkowski)B = weak field linear elastic Diff(4) covariant ODLRO supersolid
B(Minkowski)B = strong field "geon" nonlinear plastic component
Note that B is the compensating connection 1-form from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4),
but IF FLUX WITHOUT FLUX is true, that comes entirely from the Wheeler "wormholes" i.e. non-trivial cohomology
DimH^p =/= 0 in the torsion tetrad SUBSTRATUM of curved geometrodynamics!
Therefore,
I. Flux without flux.
->
II Charge without charge
III Mass without mass.
Also
IV Spin without spin?
e.g. Spinor ODLRO from boson condensate?
i.e. make a closed non-bounding loop around singularity in ordinary space (e.g. vortex line) that induces in order parameter space U(1) in this case
Theta = argODLRO
Theta -> Theta' = Theta + pi
|ODLRO|^2 -> |ODLRO|'^2 = -i(ODLRO)*i(ODLRO) = +|ODLRO|^2
away from the singularity |ODLRO|^2 = 0 globally along a given string in ordinary space.
This is "Flux without flux" - Ghost of a departed quantity.
Not only "Mass without mass", "Spin without spin", "Charge without
charge" (Real Flux), BUT EVEN "Flux without flux"? This is really
getting something from nothing. Actually it's cohomology on
multiply-connected manifolds.
Z: Name of the game. :-)
J: The A&P torsion field F uses the gauge covariant exterior derivative
D = d + B
F = DB = dB + B/\B a 2-form
The issue now is dB
dB = Lpd^2B = 0
since d^2 = 0
That is B is a closed 1-form.
However, because of "Flux without flux" we cannot simply conclude that
F = B/\B under all conditions.
Why? Because the physical quantities are always global loop integrals
of the closed forms even in the limit that the loops shrink to get
"local observables". Anandan and others have shown this. There is a
nice article by Wheeler explaining this point. Basically everything is
related to the Bohm-Aharonov effect and it's "inverse".
"Ghosts of departed quantities"
Z: "Ghosts of the departed aether".
It seems now, if "Flux without flux" is a genuine discovery and not a delusion, not a false attractor on my mental PSI ODLRO landscape like your "(LC) = Tensor + Non-Tensor & Tensor =/= 0" delusion Paul! ;-), then the REASON for gravity as T4 locally gauged to Diff(4) is completely TOPOLOGICAL in the sense of non-trivial cohomology of the Cartan p-forms that ultimately express ALL of physics.
That is TOPOS is prior to Geometrodynamica!
Consider a tightly wound thin solenoid with an actual electric current
spiraling around the coil and the uniform magnetic flux along the axis
of the coil. A single electron passes a beam splitter with two paths
around the coil. The electron feels a local A-field where B = curlA =
0. Nevertheless, changing the magnetic flux through the coil will
shift the probability "fringe" pattern of where the electron is likely
to be detected. The relative phase between the Feynman amplitudes for
the two indistinguishable alternative single-electron paths is the
loop integral of p/h - (e/hc)A where dA = 0 everywhere along all
possible paths for the electron. Nevertheless, the nonlocal influence
of the isolated dA =/= 0 region where there is an actual B field from
the spiraling currents is felt quantum mechanically. But this is
nonlocal action at a distance of "Flux with flux" and there is no
macro-quantum ODLRO in this micro-quantum nonlocality of the
Bohm-Aharonov effect, which generalizes.
Now consider ODLRO. We have, in simplest case a complex local order
parameter Psi(r,z,phi,t), i.e a GIANT quantum wave function. This is
different from MIDGET quantum wave functions. Orthodox quantum theory
is only about the Dwarves and Midgets, the Little People as it were. :-)
I use cylindrical coordinates. Imagine now a closed loop in ordinary
space around a line defect (z-axis) where the ODLRO parameter vanishes.
That is
|Psi(0,z,phi,t)| = 0
Psi = |Psi|e^iTheta
Therefore, although Theta(0,z,phi,t) =/= 0 it is ill-defined in the
complex Psi plane where the "origin" is at |Psi| = 0.
Psi must be single-valued. At least |Psi|^2 must return to itself in
any closed loop in ordinary space. This does not preclude a giant
ODLRO SPINOR (made from bosons). For now exclude the GIANT SPINOR
emergent from boson ODLRO condensate and only consider the case
Theta(r,z,0,t) = Theta(r,z,2pi) + N2pi = Goldstone phase change round
a closed loop in ordinary space
N = +- 1, +- 2, .... around the phase singularity where |Psi| = 0
B = (Lp/2pi)dTheta
Therefore, integral of closed 1-form B round the closed ordinary space
loop is
|B = NLp = ||dB =/= 0 .
This is "Flux without flux"
The effective
substratum is then
Therefore, around a Goldstone phase singularity in the substratum
F = DB = NLp/4pir^2 + B/\B
What this portends in curved geometrodynamics needs to be studied.
This is TOTALLY NEW!
g(Curved) = (I + B)(Minkowksi)(I + B)
The LOCAL stress-energy tensor in the substratum ~ (1/8pi)F/\*F
(something like that), but this says nothing directly about the
corresponding problem in curved geometrodynamics.
Z: OK. Not directly. Agreed it is not yet clear exactly how this relates mathematically to the corresponding problem in curved-manifold theory.
(2) The presence of cross terms in the formal tetrad expression for
the LC connection does not necessarily prevent a local linear
decomposition of the Christoffel symbols into tensor and non-tensor
parts.
J: Yes, it does. Your idea there is clearly wrong. The Christoffel symbol
is a non-tensor period (except for linear GCT's where it is a tensor
under that restriction only)
Z: Of course I agree that the Christoffel symbol is a non-tensor under GCTs. You haven't explained exactly why it is a non-tensor under non-linear
transformations, while it is a tensor under linear transformations.
J: Paul that IS trivial!
GCT = Group{X}
GCT:(LC) = (LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
where from the construction
Y = 0 for ALL linear GCT's.
Y =/= 0 in essence defines a necessary property for nonlinear GCT.
Z: What is it exactly about *non-linear* coordinate transformations that
spoil the tensor property of the Christoffel symbols?
J: Uh Oh Paul it's Alzheimers! Do you remember your name? What planet is this? Look's like The Grays are working on you at night when you think you are in bed.:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
