Hmm I will need to think about this in the coming weeks.
You recall that if we plug Lenny Susskind's world hologram idea into my theory we
get a time dependent Witten parameter
alpha' = (string tension)^-1 = G*/c^4 = hcLp*^2
If the Universe is a hologram
Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3(c/H(t))^2/3 ~ (1 fermi)^2 at present epoch.
H(t) = R(t),t/R(t)
R(t) = FRW metric space expansion scale factor.
O(2) symmetry Vacuum Coherence --> 0 inside vortex string core
Therefore, inside the string core
/\zpf *~ Lp*^-2
The rest mass of the lepto-quark is of order
mc^2 = e^2/\zpf*^1/2
If, in addition, the Blackett Effect is true
e^2 = alphaG*m^2
Therefore
mc^2 = alphaG*m^2/\zpf*^1/2 = alphaG*m^2/Lp*
Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
G* = c^3Lp*^2/h
c^2 = alphac^3Lp*^2m/hLp*
1 = alphamcLp*/h
m = h/alphacLp* ~ (h/alphac)(Lp^2/3(c/H)^1/3)^-1
i.e. m is decreasing as the Universe expands.
e^2/hc ~ alphaG*m^2/hc = alpha(c^3Lp*^2/h)(h/cLp*)^2(1/hc) = alpha
since G*m/hc = 1
Therefore the electron-photon coupling alpha is not cosmologically dependent in this model.
What about
e/m = alphaG*^1/2 = alphac^3/2Lp*/h^1/2 ~ (c/H(t))^1/3 ?
Is this last formula consistent with the information below?
This says that the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron should increase, scaling as the cube root of the size of the Universe ( i.e. Hubble horizon)
Look at the hydrogen atom
reduced mass is
memp/(me + mp) ~ me
since me/mp << 1
The force between electron and proton depends on charge of electron e, and the acceleration on the mass m.
The inward acceleration scales as e/m so it looks like the electrons should cling more tightly to protons as the 1/3 power [R(now)/R(past)]^1/3.
I am rushed to get to dinner. This is all done in haste off the top of my head and may be crazy. Is it crazy enough to be true?
I don't know off hand.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, November 24, 2003
Northeastern University
As Universe Comes Undone, Electrons Cling More Tightly to Protons
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13101
Northeastern scientists question the fundamental constants of nature
BOSTON, Mass. In this topsy-turvy world of changing trends and stormy
alliances, two Northeastern University scientists propose an answer to why
even the fundamental constants of nature don't seem constant anymore. The
bond between electrons and protons, called the fine structure constant, or
alpha, may not be constant and may have been 200,000 times weaker about ten
billion years ago. This is a recent astronomy finding that is hotly debated
because it departs from the standard model of physics and may point to
modifications introduced by string theory -- the modern "Theory of
Everything" which attempts to unify all forces in nature.
According to Drs. Luis Anchordoqui and Haim Goldberg of the Department of
Physics at Northeastern University in Boston, Mass., this apparent tiny
change in alpha through the years may mirror the apparent accelerating
expansion rate of the Universe, as if electrons and protons clung ever more
tightly together as the Universe began to fly apart. The scientists describe
this process in a recent issue of Physical Review D: Vol. 68, 083513 (2003).
"The apparent change in the fine structure constant remains controversial,
partly because it stands in contrast to standard field theory, the basis of
all the successes in atomic and nuclear physics, in which this constant is
an unvarying input to all calculations," said Anchordoqui. "We find,
however, that the apparent change agrees with a variety of different types
of observations."
Light signals from exceedingly bright and distant galaxies called quasars
seem to indicate that the bond between electrons and protons was weaker in
the early universe. Light left these galaxies about 10 billion years ago and
thus reflects the state of matter (and the laws of nature) from that epoch.
This apparent change in the fine structure constant has been observed in
several independent measurements.
On Earth, however, studies of a natural nuclear fission reactor which
operated in Gabon two billion years ago reveal no change in the fine
structure constant, down to an accuracy of one part in ten million. Thus, if
the fine structure constant has changed, it did not do so evenly through the
years. Anchordoqui and Goldberg attempt to reconcile this discrepancy.
They propose that the apparent change in the fine structure constant is
coupled to "quintessence." This is a theory of dark energy in which a
mysterious universal repulsive force, once weaker long ago, now dominates
over the force of gravity and is causing the universe to fly apart at an
ever-expanding rate. Anchordoqui and Goldberg worked with one particular
model of quintessence proposed by Drs. Andreas Albrecht and Constantinos
Skordis of the University of California, Davis, in 2000. They found that
their own theory of the fine structure constant, when viewed in the context
of this quintessence model, provides agreement between the quasar data and
the Gabon data.
That is, the fine structure constant was measurably weaker ten billion years
ago, but as quintessence assumed dominance about eight billion years ago,
the force between electrons and protons became stronger and "more constant."
The strength of the electron-proton bond from any matter created anytime
within the last several billion years is essentially indistinguishable.
The reason for this lies in the peculiar behavior of the Albrecht-Skordis
model, in which the quintessence field has all but ceased its variation
during the present era. The model is also consistent with landmark data
collected by the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which has
determined fundamental properties of the universe, such as its age and
shape, an announcement made in February 2003. Anchordoqui and Goldberg said
analyzing the light from even more distant quasars will reveal a steady
decrease in electron-proton binding strength.
Also, they said their theory could be tested soon with just a ten-fold
improvement in sensitivity in measuring the acceleration of different
objects in free fall. This is because a variation in the fine structure
constant would imply a variation of this type of acceleration as the
chemical makeup varied, a violation in the equivalence principle introduced
by Albert Einstein in his general theory of relativity. Two proposed
space-based mission will have this sensitivity: the MICROSCOPE mission from
France's Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, expected to fly in 2005; and a
NASA-ESA mission called STEP, Satellite Test of the Equivalence Principle.
"We may be able to test this model of a 'changing' fine structure constant
within a couple of years with instruments on satellites," said Goldberg.
"Or, we could continue observing alpha in lab experiments for another
several billion years to see changes on the order of the quasar values. I'm
counting on the satellites." For more information, refer to Anchordoqui and
Goldberg's journal article, "Time Variations of the Fine Structure Constant
Driven by Quintessence," available at http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306084.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
K = e^[(8pi/3)[(string tension)/hc][NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum) - 1]R^3/r]
The Ns in the Josephson junction coupling of a real superconductor to the vacuum should be replaced by [Ns(virtual)N's(real)]^1/2 with an "impedance matching" coefficient similar to what Ray Chiao has in his "Gravity Radio" idea.
K = e^[(8pi/3)[(string tension)/hc][NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum) - 1]R^3/r]
The Ns in the Josephson junction coupling of a real superconductor to the vacuum should be replaced by [Ns(virtual)N's(real)]^1/2 with an "impedance matching" coefficient similar to what Ray Chiao has in his "Gravity Radio" idea.
On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 09:23 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
> <
> Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
> mathematics.>>
>
>
> HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a
> change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks
> degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
> coherence. You've missed the whole point!
>
> Hal
JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am
talking about?
"HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum when we use the word "stiffness." You use it to characterize how difficult it is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime. I'm using it to characterize how difficult it is to polarize virtual vacuum electron-positron pairs with an electric field. When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a mass, it means that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an electric field to separate charge. It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects in the charge distribution are induced."
I would like you to show the mathematics that justifies what you just wrote. How exactly is it "easier"? How easy? Let's see the numbers.
Your K = e^2GM/c^2r = e^2Mc^2/(String Tension)r
How does the electric field come in? Are you saying the source M needs to carry an unbalanced charge Q?
What is your K(M,Q) explicitly? How big must Q be to explain flying saucers? Is there any evidence to suggest that the saucers are carrying a large enough Q for your scheme to work?
You are not using the term "vacuum coherence" the way all elementary particle and condensed matter physicists use the term, i.e. local coherent order parameters from spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the vacuum or ground state respectively.
It is quite obvious that there is no practical effective way to use electric fields to directly induce a large enough vacuum polarization for any metric engineering application in the way you mean. It is even more obvious that the "flying saucers", assuming the data in Eric Davis's 2001 MUFON as a real database that we can both agree on, do not work according to the schemes you have made public.
The standard vacuum polarization QED calculations of Schwinger and Feynman et-al only work when "vacuum coherence" in the precise sense I use it vanishes.
Just playing your game for the moment, noting I do not agree with your exponential metric, nevertheless, suppose M is not a real on-mass-shell sphere but is a sphere of exotic vacuum i.e. a "ball of zero point energy density" = (string tension)/\zpf of uniform density and radius R.
GM is then replaced by (4pi/3)c^2/\zpR^3
K = e^[(8pi/3)/\zpfR^3/r]
where
/\zpf = [(string tension)/hc][(hc/string tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Note that when /\zpf > 0 we have a ball of "dark energy" exotic vacuum with STRONGLY anti-gravitating negative zero point energy pressure.
When /\zpf < 0 we have a ball of "dark matter" exotic vacuum with STRONGLY gravitating positive zero point energy pressure.
I do admit it would be very nice indeed if we had an exponential dependence.
Am I getting through to you yet Hal? Do you see my point here?
I have an explicit formula relating effective "vacuum stiffness" in sense of your K (which I do not really believe) and what everyone else means by "vacuum coherence".
My equations here are definite. I have never seen even one equation from you making these connections. Feel free to use my equations in the future and properly cite my name and http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
Now if you have equations that do the job as well as the ones I just showed lets see them? Also how do your equations use "zero point energy" explicitly the way mine obviously do? It seems that while you speculate vaguely about metric engineering I have come up with some definite math with a model made more plausible by the recent observational breakthroughs in precision cosmology. Indeed, I would not have stumbled on this were it not for these recent observations since 1999 that you make no mention of at all in any of your publications up to this moment.
Do you understand and acknowledge what I am showing you here?
"There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.
Depends what you mean by "wrong". We both speak "math". What is the "math" meaning of your ordinary language "this special 'electrical' relationship with spacetime effects." ? Show me your formulae for this.
Look at my
K = e^[(8pi/3)/\zpfR^3/r]
where
/\zpf = [(string tension)/hc][(hc/string tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Remember the "Vacuum Coherence" is for the "BEC Condensate" of virtual electron-positron pairs in a macroscopically occupied "bound state" whose center of mass wave packet is psi(x) with Macro-Quantum Order Parameter
Vacuum Coherence = rhos^1/2e^i(Goldstone Phase) = Ns^1/2 psi(x)
Higgs = rhos^1/2
rhos = density of virtual electron-positron pairs with the same BCS center of mass wave packet psi(x). Ns is the total number of condensed virtual pairs.
My "special electrical relationship with space-time effects" is the "soft" Tai Chi, so to speak, Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson coupling of the vacuum to a real superconductor giving a
(hc/string tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum)
around the /\zpf = 0 non-exotic vacuum state.
Therefore
/\zpf = [(string tension)/hc][NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum) - 1]
Unlike your scheme, STIFF string tension helps here because it's in the numerator!
So your K in my theory is
K = e^[(8pi/3)[(string tension)/hc][NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum) - 1]R^3/r]
K > 1 or K < 1 is a phase modulation effect.
Have you ever seen these equations before from anyone else but me?
"BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute replacement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me. (For example, in PV analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate only 2/3rds of the radiation power calculated from standard GR and inferred from observation of PSR 1913 + 16.) My interest is PV has to do with exploring certain geometries and consequences from an engineering standpoint. A corollary of this is that I also do not approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force" stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me. Rather, I am interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of spacetime that undergird the PV (but not usual GR) approach.
Hal Puthoff"
Fine I will cite you on that point in my future writings. Some of your past published writing gives the opposite impression. But I ask you. Do you have anything better or nearly as good as what I just showed you?
In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
> <
> Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
> mathematics.>>
>
>
> HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a
> change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks
> degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
> coherence. You've missed the whole point!
>
> Hal
JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am
talking about?
"HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum when we use the word "stiffness." You use it to characterize how difficult it is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime. I'm using it to characterize how difficult it is to polarize virtual vacuum electron-positron pairs with an electric field. When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a mass, it means that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an electric field to separate charge. It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects in the charge distribution are induced."
I would like you to show the mathematics that justifies what you just wrote. How exactly is it "easier"? How easy? Let's see the numbers.
Your K = e^2GM/c^2r = e^2Mc^2/(String Tension)r
How does the electric field come in? Are you saying the source M needs to carry an unbalanced charge Q?
What is your K(M,Q) explicitly? How big must Q be to explain flying saucers? Is there any evidence to suggest that the saucers are carrying a large enough Q for your scheme to work?
You are not using the term "vacuum coherence" the way all elementary particle and condensed matter physicists use the term, i.e. local coherent order parameters from spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the vacuum or ground state respectively.
It is quite obvious that there is no practical effective way to use electric fields to directly induce a large enough vacuum polarization for any metric engineering application in the way you mean. It is even more obvious that the "flying saucers", assuming the data in Eric Davis's 2001 MUFON as a real database that we can both agree on, do not work according to the schemes you have made public.
The standard vacuum polarization QED calculations of Schwinger and Feynman et-al only work when "vacuum coherence" in the precise sense I use it vanishes.
Just playing your game for the moment, noting I do not agree with your exponential metric, nevertheless, suppose M is not a real on-mass-shell sphere but is a sphere of exotic vacuum i.e. a "ball of zero point energy density" = (string tension)/\zpf of uniform density and radius R.
GM is then replaced by (4pi/3)c^2/\zpR^3
K = e^[(8pi/3)/\zpfR^3/r]
where
/\zpf = [(string tension)/hc][(hc/string tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Note that when /\zpf > 0 we have a ball of "dark energy" exotic vacuum with STRONGLY anti-gravitating negative zero point energy pressure.
When /\zpf < 0 we have a ball of "dark matter" exotic vacuum with STRONGLY gravitating positive zero point energy pressure.
I do admit it would be very nice indeed if we had an exponential dependence.
Am I getting through to you yet Hal? Do you see my point here?
I have an explicit formula relating effective "vacuum stiffness" in sense of your K (which I do not really believe) and what everyone else means by "vacuum coherence".
My equations here are definite. I have never seen even one equation from you making these connections. Feel free to use my equations in the future and properly cite my name and http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
Now if you have equations that do the job as well as the ones I just showed lets see them? Also how do your equations use "zero point energy" explicitly the way mine obviously do? It seems that while you speculate vaguely about metric engineering I have come up with some definite math with a model made more plausible by the recent observational breakthroughs in precision cosmology. Indeed, I would not have stumbled on this were it not for these recent observations since 1999 that you make no mention of at all in any of your publications up to this moment.
Do you understand and acknowledge what I am showing you here?
"There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.
Depends what you mean by "wrong". We both speak "math". What is the "math" meaning of your ordinary language "this special 'electrical' relationship with spacetime effects." ? Show me your formulae for this.
Look at my
K = e^[(8pi/3)/\zpfR^3/r]
where
/\zpf = [(string tension)/hc][(hc/string tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Remember the "Vacuum Coherence" is for the "BEC Condensate" of virtual electron-positron pairs in a macroscopically occupied "bound state" whose center of mass wave packet is psi(x) with Macro-Quantum Order Parameter
Vacuum Coherence = rhos^1/2e^i(Goldstone Phase) = Ns^1/2 psi(x)
Higgs = rhos^1/2
rhos = density of virtual electron-positron pairs with the same BCS center of mass wave packet psi(x). Ns is the total number of condensed virtual pairs.
My "special electrical relationship with space-time effects" is the "soft" Tai Chi, so to speak, Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson coupling of the vacuum to a real superconductor giving a
(hc/string tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum)
around the /\zpf = 0 non-exotic vacuum state.
Therefore
/\zpf = [(string tension)/hc][NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum) - 1]
Unlike your scheme, STIFF string tension helps here because it's in the numerator!
So your K in my theory is
K = e^[(8pi/3)[(string tension)/hc][NsCos(Applied Magnetic Flux/Flux Quantum) - 1]R^3/r]
K > 1 or K < 1 is a phase modulation effect.
Have you ever seen these equations before from anyone else but me?
"BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute replacement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me. (For example, in PV analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate only 2/3rds of the radiation power calculated from standard GR and inferred from observation of PSR 1913 + 16.) My interest is PV has to do with exploring certain geometries and consequences from an engineering standpoint. A corollary of this is that I also do not approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force" stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me. Rather, I am interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of spacetime that undergird the PV (but not usual GR) approach.
Hal Puthoff"
Fine I will cite you on that point in my future writings. Some of your past published writing gives the opposite impression. But I ask you. Do you have anything better or nearly as good as what I just showed you?
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Consider an infinitesimal isotropic dilation.
We are doing global special relativity
The elastic strain is then
dX(x)u,v + dX(x)v,u = nuv(x)dphi(x)
Schwinger proves dphi is a linear form
dphi(x) = 2da + 4dbvx^v
The scalar dilation da
plus 4 special conformal translations bv in
dX(x)^u = dax^u + dbv(x^ux^v - n^u^vx^2)
The special conformal translations are nonlinear in x^u.
added to Poincare group is the 15 parameter Conformal Group beloved of Roger Penrose in his Twistor theory.
Conformal Group is isomorphic to O(2,4) i.e. RIGID ROTATIONS in 2 times and 4 space dimensions.
Special relativity is from semi-direct product of T4 with O(1,3).
Einstein's gravity is compensating local gauge field from T4 only.
So add one space dimension y5 and one time dimension y6.
This is like adding a "string space" fiber to each point of 4D space-time.
Define homogeneous coordinates
x^u = y^u/(y5 + y6)
u = 0,1,2,3
y^2 = yuy^u
Define the null 5D hyper-sphere in O(2,4) 6D space
y^2 + y5^2 - y6^2 = 0
10 parameter Poincare group of global Special Relativity is the subgroup of homogeneous transformations of the null 5D hypersphere that leaves advanced light cone string coordinate y5 + y6 invariant.
The "Wavelet Transform" scale changes ZOOM IN and ZOOM OUT in 3+1 space-time are ROTATIONS in the STRING SPACE FIBER!
dy5 = -day6
dy6 = -day5
dy^u = 0
The special conformal translations keep y5 - y6 fixed, i.e. retarded light cone string coordinates fixed.
The 5D null hyper-sphere admits a discrete string space parity mirror reflection
y5 -> -y5
that INDUCES A DUALITY
x^u --> x^u/x^2
i.e. x^2 -> x^2/x^4
analogous to
r' = Lp^2/r
INVERSION THROUGH ORIGIN in ordinary 4D space-time.
We are doing global special relativity
The elastic strain is then
dX(x)u,v + dX(x)v,u = nuv(x)dphi(x)
Schwinger proves dphi is a linear form
dphi(x) = 2da + 4dbvx^v
The scalar dilation da
plus 4 special conformal translations bv in
dX(x)^u = dax^u + dbv(x^ux^v - n^u^vx^2)
The special conformal translations are nonlinear in x^u.
added to Poincare group is the 15 parameter Conformal Group beloved of Roger Penrose in his Twistor theory.
Conformal Group is isomorphic to O(2,4) i.e. RIGID ROTATIONS in 2 times and 4 space dimensions.
Special relativity is from semi-direct product of T4 with O(1,3).
Einstein's gravity is compensating local gauge field from T4 only.
So add one space dimension y5 and one time dimension y6.
This is like adding a "string space" fiber to each point of 4D space-time.
Define homogeneous coordinates
x^u = y^u/(y5 + y6)
u = 0,1,2,3
y^2 = yuy^u
Define the null 5D hyper-sphere in O(2,4) 6D space
y^2 + y5^2 - y6^2 = 0
10 parameter Poincare group of global Special Relativity is the subgroup of homogeneous transformations of the null 5D hypersphere that leaves advanced light cone string coordinate y5 + y6 invariant.
The "Wavelet Transform" scale changes ZOOM IN and ZOOM OUT in 3+1 space-time are ROTATIONS in the STRING SPACE FIBER!
dy5 = -day6
dy6 = -day5
dy^u = 0
The special conformal translations keep y5 - y6 fixed, i.e. retarded light cone string coordinates fixed.
The 5D null hyper-sphere admits a discrete string space parity mirror reflection
y5 -> -y5
that INDUCES A DUALITY
x^u --> x^u/x^2
i.e. x^2 -> x^2/x^4
analogous to
r' = Lp^2/r
INVERSION THROUGH ORIGIN in ordinary 4D space-time.
Subject: Re: Deconstructing Hal Puthoff's Metric Engineering II
Julian Schwinger has a good discussion of Conformal Group in his Source Fields text book. More anon.
On Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/03 8:31:12 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
"What is wrong with Puthoff's paradigm is that he has no idea of "Vacuum
Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his mathematics."
The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence. You've missed the whole point!
Hal
I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am talking about?
Let's look at your K in your SSS model where
K = e^2GM/c^2r = e^Mc^2/(string tension)r = e^Mc^2/(vacuum stiffness)r
That is, the "vacuum stiffness", the way I mean it, is
Ed Witten's alpha' = 8piG/c^4 = 1/(string tension)
"Vacuum stiffness" = "string tension"
I also define
Vacuum Coherence = Higgs e^iGoldstone
describing a vacuum condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs (at least in low energy limit).
What is your definition of the terms "Vacuum stiffness" and "vacuum coherence"?
I do not see that we are talking about the same thing?
How do you connect your K to what I mean by Vacuum Coherence?
Also, how do you propose to make large changes in K in any practical application?
Planck Area = hc(String Tension)^-1 {i.e. Energy Time Length^2/Time Energy}
In my theory
Zero Point Energy Density = (String Tension)/\zpf
= [(String Tension)^2/hc][(hcString Tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
You say
"K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence."
Now I have shown you precise formulas.
More details are in my http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Where is your formula relating "vacuum stiffness" to "degree of vacuum coherence"?
I see no such formulae in your published work, nor do I see the words "vacuum stiffness" or "vacuum coherence" in
any of your published work.
You say I have missed the point. Perhaps. But can you name anyone else who has seen your point on this question and
has published anything about it?
As far as I know, you never wrote about "vacuum stiffness" and "vacuum coherence" in relation to "metric engineering" at
all, or if you did, only in response to my sending you my ideas on them. Is this accurate? If not please produce documentation
so that I can include the proper citations in my book "Super Cosmos" and future papers.
Thanks :-)
PS It would be great Hal if we could get on same wavelength here re: "vacuum stiffness" and "vacuum coherence" in relation to each other and to "metric engineering". BTW I think I am quite complimentary in what I wrote about you for "Super Cosmos."
Julian Schwinger has a good discussion of Conformal Group in his Source Fields text book. More anon.
On Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/03 8:31:12 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
"What is wrong with Puthoff's paradigm is that he has no idea of "Vacuum
Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his mathematics."
The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence. You've missed the whole point!
Hal
I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am talking about?
Let's look at your K in your SSS model where
K = e^2GM/c^2r = e^Mc^2/(string tension)r = e^Mc^2/(vacuum stiffness)r
That is, the "vacuum stiffness", the way I mean it, is
Ed Witten's alpha' = 8piG/c^4 = 1/(string tension)
"Vacuum stiffness" = "string tension"
I also define
Vacuum Coherence = Higgs e^iGoldstone
describing a vacuum condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs (at least in low energy limit).
What is your definition of the terms "Vacuum stiffness" and "vacuum coherence"?
I do not see that we are talking about the same thing?
How do you connect your K to what I mean by Vacuum Coherence?
Also, how do you propose to make large changes in K in any practical application?
Planck Area = hc(String Tension)^-1 {i.e. Energy Time Length^2/Time Energy}
In my theory
Zero Point Energy Density = (String Tension)/\zpf
= [(String Tension)^2/hc][(hcString Tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
You say
"K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence."
Now I have shown you precise formulas.
More details are in my http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Where is your formula relating "vacuum stiffness" to "degree of vacuum coherence"?
I see no such formulae in your published work, nor do I see the words "vacuum stiffness" or "vacuum coherence" in
any of your published work.
You say I have missed the point. Perhaps. But can you name anyone else who has seen your point on this question and
has published anything about it?
As far as I know, you never wrote about "vacuum stiffness" and "vacuum coherence" in relation to "metric engineering" at
all, or if you did, only in response to my sending you my ideas on them. Is this accurate? If not please produce documentation
so that I can include the proper citations in my book "Super Cosmos" and future papers.
Thanks :-)
PS It would be great Hal if we could get on same wavelength here re: "vacuum stiffness" and "vacuum coherence" in relation to each other and to "metric engineering". BTW I think I am quite complimentary in what I wrote about you for "Super Cosmos."
Monday, November 24, 2003
Part II
Note this is all constructive criticism of Hal's ideas on metric engineering.
On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Excerpts from Puthoff & Ibison’s
H.E. PUTHOFF*, S.R. LITTLE AND M. IBISON
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 4030 West Braker Lane, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78759-5329, USA.
*Email: puthoff@earthtech.org
with my comments.
"3. The Quantum Vacuum
3.1 Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) Background
Quantum theory tells us that so-called "empty space" is not truly empty, but is the seat of myriad energetic quantum processes. Specifically, quantum field theory tells us that, even in empty space, fields (e.g., the electromagnetic field) continuously fluctuate about their zero baseline values."
So far, so good. However IMHO it is the QED PV virtual electron-positron zero point vacuum fluctuations that dominate the low energy effective macro-quantum field theory out of which Einstein's gravity together with exotic vacuum unified "dark energy/matter" fields co-emerge like love and marriage all together as phase and amplitude modulation patterns, respectively, of the vacuum coherence field that is formed by the attractive "BCS" exchange of virtual photons between the virtual electron-positron pairs all inside the vacuum. Note that Hal makes no reference at all to the new discovery in precision cosmology of "dark energy" as being relevant to his Quixotic Ahabian quest in search of Giants and White Wales. His Star Ship lies dead in the water waiting for the vacuum wind. :-)
"The energy associated with these fluctuations is called zero point energy (ZPE), reflecting the fact that such activity remains even at a temperature of absolute zero. Such a concept is almost certain to have profound implications for future space travel, as we will now discuss."
Agreed.
"When a hypothetical ZPE-powered spaceship strains against gravity and inertia ..."
That's a strange way of putting it. The local net random micro-quantu zero point stress-energy density tensor field is
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\ZPEguv
using Ed Witten's "natural units" h = c = k(Boltzmann) = 1
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)^2[(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 -1]guv
What is wrong with Puthoff's paradigm is that he has no idea of "Vacuum Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his mathematics.
The zero point energy density is Too and I use the 3 GR sign conventions in which
Too(Exotic Vacuum) > 0 means strongly anti-gravity "negative pressure" "dark energy" since the general equation of state
(pressure) = w(energy density)
reduces to w = -1 for ALL zero point quantum fields of all spins.
Too(Exotic Vacuum) < 0 means strongly gravitating "positive pressure" "dark matter."
Therefore dark energy needs
(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 > 1
Dark matter needs
(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 < 1
Where the critical Vacuum Coherence corresponding to zero Einstein Cosmological Constant of the non-exotic vacuum in the large-scale FRW metric is
(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = 1
Or
|Vacuum Coherence|*^2 = (String Tension)^-3/2
The Einstein exotic vacuum local geometrodynamic field equation is then
Tuv(Induced Time and Space Warps) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) ~ 0
The total covariant 4-divergence vanishes conserving total local stress-energy Einstein current density.
Unlike 1915 geometrodynamics, the Bianchi identities break down so that the two pieces of the divergence are not separately zero!
Only the sum is zero. This is necessary for practical "soft" metric engineering of the Tech Gnostic "Underground Stream" inside the vacuum.
That is,
Tuv(Induced Space and Time Warps)^;v + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v = 0
This is the first small step for Mankind leading to The Right Stuff to Make Star Trek Real.
See my lecture in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" Disk 2 of Paramount Pictures DVD
"Special Collector's Edition" of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" indeed! ;-)
*Before you read on click on this! Turn the volume up on your sound.
Sarfatti pitches to Puthoff at bat in the World Series :-)
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/ballgame.htm
"there are three elements of the equation that the ZPE technology could in principle address: (1) a decoupling from gravity,"
NO! We want just the opposite! Big error of strategic thinking!
"The Question is: What is The Question?"
John Archibald Wheeler, 2003
Here Hal & Co ask a wrong question IMHO.
STRIKE ONE!
"(2) a reduction of inertia"
NO! Ditto. That's like preventing your car from being stolen by blowing it up if it is broken into!
STRIKE TWO!
or (3) the generation of energy to overcome both.
NO, NO, NO a zillion times NO! ;-)
That's the Brute Force approach.
That is not
The Tao Chi of ET!
STRIKE THREE!
You're Out!
"Take me out to the ball game ...."
"3.2 Gravity
With regard to a ZPE basis for gravity, the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov was the first to propose that in a certain sense gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an induced effect brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present"
Yes, this is essentially correct and is precisely what my theory is all about. The details are in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc or http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc (smaller file)
to be continued.
Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight
“1. Introduction
The concept of “engineering the vacuum” found its first expression in the mainstream physics literature when it was introduced by T. D. Lee in his textbook Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory [2]. There he stated:
‘The experimental method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engineering.... If indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena, totally unexpected.’
This legitimization of the vacuum engineering concept was based on the recognition that the vacuum is characterized by parameters and structure that leave no doubt that it constitutes an energetic medium in its own right. Foremost among these are its properties that (1) within the context of quantum theory the vacuum is the seat of energetic particle and field fluctuations, and (2) within the context of general relativity the vacuum is the seat of a spacetime structure (metric) that encodes the distribution of matter and energy. Indeed, on the flyleaf of a book of essays by Einstein and others on the properties of the vacuum we find the statement “The vacuum is fast emerging as the central structure of modern physics” [3].
Given the known characteristics of the vacuum, one might reasonably inquire as to why it is not immediately obvious how to catalyze robust interactions of the type sought for space-flight applications. To begin, in the case of quantum fluctuations there are uncertainties that remain to be clarified regarding global thermodynamic and energy constraints. Furthermore, the energetic components of potential utility involve very small-wavelength, high-frequency fields and thus resist facile engineering solutions.”
This last remark may not be correct in general, although it is correct within the framework Puthoff is pursuing i.e. using the stress-energy density of the electromagnetic field to attempt to directly warp space-time geometry with practical utility. Such a brute-force approach is hopeless and a waste of effort IMHO because Einstein’s equation in this case is simply
Induced Space-Time Warp = (Applied EM Stress-Energy Density)/(G-String Tension)
The G-String Tension is 10^19Gev per 10^-33 cm, which is simply too stiff! One would need a way to lower the G-String-Tension, for example an “M Theory” that yields something like:
G*-String Tension = e^-(r*/Lp)^?(G-String Tension)
Where r* = compactification scale of extra-dimensions of hyperspace beyond 4-D space-time and
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1/(G-String Tension) for h = c = 1
Puthoff alludes to this barrier in his next remark:
“With regard to perturbation of the space-time metric, the required energy densities exceed by many orders of magnitude values achievable with existing engineering techniques. Nonetheless, we can examine the constraints, possibilities and implications under the expectation that as technology matures, felicitous means may be found that permit the exploitation of the enormous, as-yet-untapped potential of so-called “empty space”.
This is the problem that Hal goes into denial and wishing about. There is no way that will brute-force approach will work in any practical way. The UFOs do not use high-energy EM field densities and Hal is primarily interested in the UFOs. That should tell him right away that he is pursuing the wrong path to solve the problem.
“2. Propellantless Propulsion
2.1 Global Constraint
Regardless of the mechanisms that might be entertained with regard to “propellantless” or “field” propulsion of a spaceship, there exist certain constraints that can be easily overlooked but must be taken into consideration. A central one is that, because of the law of conservation of momentum, the center of mass-energy (CM) of an initially stationary isolated system cannot change its position if not acted upon by outside forces. This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, is constrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that the displacement Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight”
It has been known since the late 1950’s how to circumvent this problem provided one has “exotic stuff” with a strong enough “negative pressure” to provide what Herman Bondi called “negative matter” in the late 1950’s and Kip Thorne called “exotic matter” in the late 1980’s in his “traversable wormhole time travel” papers with additional work by Igor Novikov and others. Robert Forward summarized Bondi’s early work in a paper written in the early 1990’s. More details are to be found in
We now know since 1999 from Type 1a supernova data showing the acceleration of the expansion speed of the Universe that approximately 3/4 of all the large-scale stuff of the Universe is exotic vacuum anti-gravitating “dark energy” with a strong negative zero point pressure that is equal and opposite to the positive zero point energy density. This fact is the key to practical metric engineering of the vacuum that Puthoff et-al completely misses. The modified vacuum Einstein equation is
Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = 0
Where Tuv is the local stress-energy density tensor under the Einstein DIFF(4) symmetry group.
Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry)
Where
Guv(Geometry) = Ruv – (1/2)Rguv
And
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (String Tension)^-1[(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 – 1]
/\zpf > 0 is negative pressure “dark energy” exotic vacuum that is ~ 3/4 of large-scale stuff of the Universe.
/\zpf < 0 is positive pressure “dark matter” exotic vacuum that is ~ 1/4 of the large scale stuff of the Universe.
Gravity effect of exotic vacuum “stuff” ~ c^2/\zpf
Where + sign on RHS is universally repelling anti-gravity and a – sign is universally attracting gravity with effective short scale coupling strengths much larger than Newton’s.
The key idea not found in any of Puthoff’s papers on the subject of metric engineering is the local Einstein stress-energy tensor current density’s covariant divergence Tuv^;v where ;v is the Diff(4) covariant derivative relative to the metric torsion free connection field for parallel transport of tensors along tangent vector fields in curved space-time.
When there is no exotic vacuum, i.e., /\zpf = 0 corresponding to optimal vacuum coherence, the Bianchi identities work and we have closed current conservation of the pure geometrodynamic stress-energy tensor local currents, i.e.
Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
This prevents any practical metric engineering! In contrast, when there is exotic vacuum then
Tuv(Geometry)^;v =/= 0
Instead
Tuv(Geometry)^;v + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v = 0
Where the common string-tension factor cancels out of this current conservation equation. This essentially solves the problem for practical metric engineering bypassing the string tension problem completely! One uses the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect to tweak Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) in a “soft” way.
To be continued.
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 04:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The Physical Principles of Metric Engineering
by Jack Sarfatti
5th draft
Thanks to Bruce Maccabee for finding more typo errors.
excerpt from the book "Super Cosmos"
The term "metric engineering" was coined by Dr. Harold Puthoff. Hal, as he prefers to be called, was a US Naval Officer who then worked for the National Security Agency before going to the Stanford Research Institute where he conducted the famous "Remote Viewing" experiments with Russell Targ testing Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and other psychics in a project paid for by the CIA and Department of Defense Intelligence Agencies. I first met Hal and Russell at SRI in 1973 and that story is told in my book "Destiny Matrix." Hal has held very high USG security clearances and it is well known that he is obsessed with the UFO mystery. Hal, like his co-worker Bernie Haisch, who is an editor of the Astrophysical Journal, both strongly believe in the physical reality of flying saucers. They, with Jacques Vallee, have been active in the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program and in UFO groups some financed by Laurance Rockefeller and the "Howard Hughes" clone Las Vegas Hotel Tycoon Robert Bigelow who owns Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Since they take the reality of the flying saucers seriously so do I. The two lines of theoretical physics research that Hal has pursued for several decades now, zero point energy and a polarized vacuum model of gravity, is primarily motivated by the quest to understand how the saucers fly. The alleged reality of such advanced alien technology is clearly of immense importance to US National Security and beyond. The recent developments in physics shown in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell", Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and Igor Novikov's "The River of Time" makes time traveling alien interference in our history more probable not less probable. This is all an aspect of "metric engineering" defined as the practical control of space and time warps. I have discussed this in Paramount Pictures DVD Special Collector's Edition of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" and in Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science: Time Travel." The ultimate form of metric engineering is seen in "Q" in "Star Trek" where a Super Mind is able to warp space-time. We also need a physics of consciousness to see if that fiction can be realized in fact. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees who runs the laboratory where Stephen Hawking works and who is the new Master of Trinity College, Cambridge has added the dimension of "Doomsday WMD" to the quest for a metric engineering breakthrough in his Chapter 9 of his pessimistic "Our Final Hour" on the "Ice Nine" "rip-in-space" propagating at the speed of light that could literally destroy our universe. We are now at that turning point in our history where, like Mickey Mouse in Walt Disney's "Fantasia" we could, in our incompetence, destroy the entire Universe just as we are now surely destroying Earth's Biosphere. Therefore, any aliens out there with Star Gate Time Travel and Warp Drive Super Technology are already here in order to stop us from killing them as well as ourselves. The American Christian Fundamentalist Right has a strong belief in Apocalypse Now and there is real danger that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a precognitive remote viewing of our future by Saint John in The Bible's "Revelations." All the more reason for me, like Paul Revere, to alert the public to these new developments in physics because only real knowledge can possibly save us and even then there is no guarantee.
What does mainstream physics tell us about the possibility of metric engineering? The relevant parts of mainstream physics for metric engineering are Einstein's general theory of relativity and micro-quantum mechanics including the "More is Different" emergence of "macro-quantum" superfluid order in ground state and vacuum instabilities developed by condensed matter Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson also seen in high-energy physics in the "Higgs mechanism" and in the "inflationary chaotic cosmology of A. Linde consistent with the "parallel universes" nicely described by Max Tegmark in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American.
Let's start with Einstein's gravity field equation of ~ 1915. Einstein viewed pure space-time geometry like the marble in a statue by Michelangelo with gross matter and radiation as "wood." Einstein's equation, in the 21st Century language, is
Space-Time Curvature = (Stress-Energy Density)/(String Tension)
Curvature has the physical dimensions of 1/Area, String Tension has Energy/Length and Stress-Energy Density has Energy/Volume. Simple algebra confirms that this way of writing Einstein's equation is correct dimensionally. The "String Tension" is the basic parameter that Ed Witten of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study uses in his discussions of "M theory" that unifies the five limiting cases of "super string theory" in which the elementary leptons, quarks and gauge force bosons are "vibrating strings of pure energy" pulsating in the extra space dimensions of "Calabi-Yau" hyperspace. The ordinary matter and radiation on the right hand side of Einstein's equation are open strings whose ends are stuck to 3Dim brane worlds of which our universe is one. You can picture a string as a tiny wormhole whose two ends need not be on the same brane world because only then can you not have equal numbers of particles and antiparticles in the same brane world.
Another equivalent way to look at Einstein's 1915 equation from our post-modern 2003 point of view is as a perfect balance on The Scale of Cosmic Justice peeking through the blindfold. That is, the stress-energy density "tensor" of pure marble geometry is
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Pure Geometry = (String Tension)(Space-Time Curvature) (2)
Einstein's equation is then like the static equilibrium balance of forces in architecture in which the sum of all the contributions to the stress-energy density tensor add up to a perfect zero! In this simplest of cases
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Geometry + Stress-Energy Density of Matter etc. = 0 (3)
All physically real objects are either tensors, spinors or twistors in the theory of relativity. This is because the coordinate map is not the physical territory. The form of the laws of physics must be the same locally no matter how the coordinate map is morphed. To this we must add the Einstein Equivalence Principle or EEP which says that even in a curved space-time, we can use the special theory of relativity locally for a special class of LIF observers to describe what is happening to a good approximation. The EEP is only meant to apply in this approximate way and it will break down if one is falling into a black hole singularity or if the microscope magnification is so large that quantum gravity zero point energy density fluctuations in the space-time geometry itself get large. There may also be torsion fields not included in Einstein's 1915 "geometrodynamics" that may require a modification of the EEP. The spinor is a square root of a tensor and the Penrose twistor is a spinor in a complex space-time. The physics of point particles in real space-time when extended to complex and hyper-complex matrix space-time is in reality the physics of extended strings and membranes in real space-time. Hawking's "imaginary time" and its connection to inverse temperature is part of that same story.
The key concept for metric engineering is the Einstein current! Einstein's field equation is always the statement that the sum of all the stress-energy density tensors when put on the same side of the equation all balance out to exactly zero. We then take a "covariant divergence" of the equation to get the Einstein currents, which are conserved when added together. The covariant divergence depends on something called a "connection field", which tells us how to "parallel transport" tensors and spinors along paths or "histories" in space-time and beyond including the extra dimensions of hyperspace. Every time a gauge force field is added, like a torsion field, there is an additional piece added to this connection field. Einstein's 1915 theory is a degenerate case of the bigger unified field theory just like a circle is a degenerate case of an ellipse. An ellipse has two centers or "foci". When the two foci merge together the ellipse degenerates into a circle. Einstein's 1915 theory in the form of the "Bianchi identities" forbids practical metric engineering because it has an impenetrable barrier completely separating the marble geometric current from the wood matter current. Both kinds of currents must be able to intermingle to transform into each other in order to have "soft" practical metric engineering of Star Gate Time Travel traversable wormholes and weightless superluminal warp drives using the anti-gravitating exotic vacuum "dark energy" with negative zero point exotic vacuum pressure that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the zero point energy density. The new Type Ia super novae data showing that our brane world Universe is accelerating in its rate of expansion, i.e. speeding up rather than slowing down. Indeed approximately 3/4 of all the stuff of our Universe on the large scale is made out of "dark energy." Therefore, the idea of ancient traversable Star Gate wormholes stabilized by dark energy is not so far fetched. The brute force approach to metric engineering taken by Hal Puthoff now for at least two decades can never work because space-time is too stiff to bend directly with electromagnetic field energy density to do anything worth doing because the string tension is too large. In contrast, we can used the quantum interference of the Einstein stress-energy density currents via the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect for practical metric engineering provided that the pure geometric currents are not separately conserved like they are in Einstein's original theory. One way to do that is to "bottle" or "harness" the "dark energy" as General Douglas Mac Arthur precognitively remote viewed in his "Duty, Honor, Country" Farewell Speech to the Cadets at West Point in 1962 in a speech made even more remarkable for its reference to the coming war in space with extra-terrestrials. Michael Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, says in April 2003 Physics Today that it is impossible to "bottle dark energy" and if Einstein's 1915 theory is the final theory he is correct. However, the real UFO evidence that drives Hal Puthoff like Captain Ahab after The White Wale, Moby Dick, is the evidence that suggests Professor Turner will be proved wrong in that prediction.
ref.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
Note this is all constructive criticism of Hal's ideas on metric engineering.
On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 12:46 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Excerpts from Puthoff & Ibison’s
H.E. PUTHOFF*, S.R. LITTLE AND M. IBISON
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 4030 West Braker Lane, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78759-5329, USA.
*Email: puthoff@earthtech.org
with my comments.
"3. The Quantum Vacuum
3.1 Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) Background
Quantum theory tells us that so-called "empty space" is not truly empty, but is the seat of myriad energetic quantum processes. Specifically, quantum field theory tells us that, even in empty space, fields (e.g., the electromagnetic field) continuously fluctuate about their zero baseline values."
So far, so good. However IMHO it is the QED PV virtual electron-positron zero point vacuum fluctuations that dominate the low energy effective macro-quantum field theory out of which Einstein's gravity together with exotic vacuum unified "dark energy/matter" fields co-emerge like love and marriage all together as phase and amplitude modulation patterns, respectively, of the vacuum coherence field that is formed by the attractive "BCS" exchange of virtual photons between the virtual electron-positron pairs all inside the vacuum. Note that Hal makes no reference at all to the new discovery in precision cosmology of "dark energy" as being relevant to his Quixotic Ahabian quest in search of Giants and White Wales. His Star Ship lies dead in the water waiting for the vacuum wind. :-)
"The energy associated with these fluctuations is called zero point energy (ZPE), reflecting the fact that such activity remains even at a temperature of absolute zero. Such a concept is almost certain to have profound implications for future space travel, as we will now discuss."
Agreed.
"When a hypothetical ZPE-powered spaceship strains against gravity and inertia ..."
That's a strange way of putting it. The local net random micro-quantu zero point stress-energy density tensor field is
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\ZPEguv
using Ed Witten's "natural units" h = c = k(Boltzmann) = 1
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)^2[(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 -1]guv
What is wrong with Puthoff's paradigm is that he has no idea of "Vacuum Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his mathematics.
The zero point energy density is Too and I use the 3 GR sign conventions in which
Too(Exotic Vacuum) > 0 means strongly anti-gravity "negative pressure" "dark energy" since the general equation of state
(pressure) = w(energy density)
reduces to w = -1 for ALL zero point quantum fields of all spins.
Too(Exotic Vacuum) < 0 means strongly gravitating "positive pressure" "dark matter."
Therefore dark energy needs
(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 > 1
Dark matter needs
(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 < 1
Where the critical Vacuum Coherence corresponding to zero Einstein Cosmological Constant of the non-exotic vacuum in the large-scale FRW metric is
(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = 1
Or
|Vacuum Coherence|*^2 = (String Tension)^-3/2
The Einstein exotic vacuum local geometrodynamic field equation is then
Tuv(Induced Time and Space Warps) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) ~ 0
The total covariant 4-divergence vanishes conserving total local stress-energy Einstein current density.
Unlike 1915 geometrodynamics, the Bianchi identities break down so that the two pieces of the divergence are not separately zero!
Only the sum is zero. This is necessary for practical "soft" metric engineering of the Tech Gnostic "Underground Stream" inside the vacuum.
That is,
Tuv(Induced Space and Time Warps)^;v + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v = 0
This is the first small step for Mankind leading to The Right Stuff to Make Star Trek Real.
See my lecture in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" Disk 2 of Paramount Pictures DVD
"Special Collector's Edition" of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" indeed! ;-)
*Before you read on click on this! Turn the volume up on your sound.
Sarfatti pitches to Puthoff at bat in the World Series :-)
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/ballgame.htm
"there are three elements of the equation that the ZPE technology could in principle address: (1) a decoupling from gravity,"
NO! We want just the opposite! Big error of strategic thinking!
"The Question is: What is The Question?"
John Archibald Wheeler, 2003
Here Hal & Co ask a wrong question IMHO.
STRIKE ONE!
"(2) a reduction of inertia"
NO! Ditto. That's like preventing your car from being stolen by blowing it up if it is broken into!
STRIKE TWO!
or (3) the generation of energy to overcome both.
NO, NO, NO a zillion times NO! ;-)
That's the Brute Force approach.
That is not
The Tao Chi of ET!
STRIKE THREE!
You're Out!
"Take me out to the ball game ...."
"3.2 Gravity
With regard to a ZPE basis for gravity, the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov was the first to propose that in a certain sense gravitation is not a fundamental interaction at all, but rather an induced effect brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation energy of the vacuum when matter is present"
Yes, this is essentially correct and is precisely what my theory is all about. The details are in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc or http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc (smaller file)
to be continued.
Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight
“1. Introduction
The concept of “engineering the vacuum” found its first expression in the mainstream physics literature when it was introduced by T. D. Lee in his textbook Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory [2]. There he stated:
‘The experimental method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engineering.... If indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena, totally unexpected.’
This legitimization of the vacuum engineering concept was based on the recognition that the vacuum is characterized by parameters and structure that leave no doubt that it constitutes an energetic medium in its own right. Foremost among these are its properties that (1) within the context of quantum theory the vacuum is the seat of energetic particle and field fluctuations, and (2) within the context of general relativity the vacuum is the seat of a spacetime structure (metric) that encodes the distribution of matter and energy. Indeed, on the flyleaf of a book of essays by Einstein and others on the properties of the vacuum we find the statement “The vacuum is fast emerging as the central structure of modern physics” [3].
Given the known characteristics of the vacuum, one might reasonably inquire as to why it is not immediately obvious how to catalyze robust interactions of the type sought for space-flight applications. To begin, in the case of quantum fluctuations there are uncertainties that remain to be clarified regarding global thermodynamic and energy constraints. Furthermore, the energetic components of potential utility involve very small-wavelength, high-frequency fields and thus resist facile engineering solutions.”
This last remark may not be correct in general, although it is correct within the framework Puthoff is pursuing i.e. using the stress-energy density of the electromagnetic field to attempt to directly warp space-time geometry with practical utility. Such a brute-force approach is hopeless and a waste of effort IMHO because Einstein’s equation in this case is simply
Induced Space-Time Warp = (Applied EM Stress-Energy Density)/(G-String Tension)
The G-String Tension is 10^19Gev per 10^-33 cm, which is simply too stiff! One would need a way to lower the G-String-Tension, for example an “M Theory” that yields something like:
G*-String Tension = e^-(r*/Lp)^?(G-String Tension)
Where r* = compactification scale of extra-dimensions of hyperspace beyond 4-D space-time and
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1/(G-String Tension) for h = c = 1
Puthoff alludes to this barrier in his next remark:
“With regard to perturbation of the space-time metric, the required energy densities exceed by many orders of magnitude values achievable with existing engineering techniques. Nonetheless, we can examine the constraints, possibilities and implications under the expectation that as technology matures, felicitous means may be found that permit the exploitation of the enormous, as-yet-untapped potential of so-called “empty space”.
This is the problem that Hal goes into denial and wishing about. There is no way that will brute-force approach will work in any practical way. The UFOs do not use high-energy EM field densities and Hal is primarily interested in the UFOs. That should tell him right away that he is pursuing the wrong path to solve the problem.
“2. Propellantless Propulsion
2.1 Global Constraint
Regardless of the mechanisms that might be entertained with regard to “propellantless” or “field” propulsion of a spaceship, there exist certain constraints that can be easily overlooked but must be taken into consideration. A central one is that, because of the law of conservation of momentum, the center of mass-energy (CM) of an initially stationary isolated system cannot change its position if not acted upon by outside forces. This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, is constrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that the displacement Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight”
It has been known since the late 1950’s how to circumvent this problem provided one has “exotic stuff” with a strong enough “negative pressure” to provide what Herman Bondi called “negative matter” in the late 1950’s and Kip Thorne called “exotic matter” in the late 1980’s in his “traversable wormhole time travel” papers with additional work by Igor Novikov and others. Robert Forward summarized Bondi’s early work in a paper written in the early 1990’s. More details are to be found in
We now know since 1999 from Type 1a supernova data showing the acceleration of the expansion speed of the Universe that approximately 3/4 of all the large-scale stuff of the Universe is exotic vacuum anti-gravitating “dark energy” with a strong negative zero point pressure that is equal and opposite to the positive zero point energy density. This fact is the key to practical metric engineering of the vacuum that Puthoff et-al completely misses. The modified vacuum Einstein equation is
Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = 0
Where Tuv is the local stress-energy density tensor under the Einstein DIFF(4) symmetry group.
Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry)
Where
Guv(Geometry) = Ruv – (1/2)Rguv
And
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (String Tension)^-1[(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 – 1]
/\zpf > 0 is negative pressure “dark energy” exotic vacuum that is ~ 3/4 of large-scale stuff of the Universe.
/\zpf < 0 is positive pressure “dark matter” exotic vacuum that is ~ 1/4 of the large scale stuff of the Universe.
Gravity effect of exotic vacuum “stuff” ~ c^2/\zpf
Where + sign on RHS is universally repelling anti-gravity and a – sign is universally attracting gravity with effective short scale coupling strengths much larger than Newton’s.
The key idea not found in any of Puthoff’s papers on the subject of metric engineering is the local Einstein stress-energy tensor current density’s covariant divergence Tuv^;v where ;v is the Diff(4) covariant derivative relative to the metric torsion free connection field for parallel transport of tensors along tangent vector fields in curved space-time.
When there is no exotic vacuum, i.e., /\zpf = 0 corresponding to optimal vacuum coherence, the Bianchi identities work and we have closed current conservation of the pure geometrodynamic stress-energy tensor local currents, i.e.
Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
This prevents any practical metric engineering! In contrast, when there is exotic vacuum then
Tuv(Geometry)^;v =/= 0
Instead
Tuv(Geometry)^;v + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v = 0
Where the common string-tension factor cancels out of this current conservation equation. This essentially solves the problem for practical metric engineering bypassing the string tension problem completely! One uses the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect to tweak Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) in a “soft” way.
To be continued.
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 04:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The Physical Principles of Metric Engineering
by Jack Sarfatti
5th draft
Thanks to Bruce Maccabee for finding more typo errors.
excerpt from the book "Super Cosmos"
The term "metric engineering" was coined by Dr. Harold Puthoff. Hal, as he prefers to be called, was a US Naval Officer who then worked for the National Security Agency before going to the Stanford Research Institute where he conducted the famous "Remote Viewing" experiments with Russell Targ testing Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and other psychics in a project paid for by the CIA and Department of Defense Intelligence Agencies. I first met Hal and Russell at SRI in 1973 and that story is told in my book "Destiny Matrix." Hal has held very high USG security clearances and it is well known that he is obsessed with the UFO mystery. Hal, like his co-worker Bernie Haisch, who is an editor of the Astrophysical Journal, both strongly believe in the physical reality of flying saucers. They, with Jacques Vallee, have been active in the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program and in UFO groups some financed by Laurance Rockefeller and the "Howard Hughes" clone Las Vegas Hotel Tycoon Robert Bigelow who owns Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Since they take the reality of the flying saucers seriously so do I. The two lines of theoretical physics research that Hal has pursued for several decades now, zero point energy and a polarized vacuum model of gravity, is primarily motivated by the quest to understand how the saucers fly. The alleged reality of such advanced alien technology is clearly of immense importance to US National Security and beyond. The recent developments in physics shown in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell", Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and Igor Novikov's "The River of Time" makes time traveling alien interference in our history more probable not less probable. This is all an aspect of "metric engineering" defined as the practical control of space and time warps. I have discussed this in Paramount Pictures DVD Special Collector's Edition of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" and in Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science: Time Travel." The ultimate form of metric engineering is seen in "Q" in "Star Trek" where a Super Mind is able to warp space-time. We also need a physics of consciousness to see if that fiction can be realized in fact. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees who runs the laboratory where Stephen Hawking works and who is the new Master of Trinity College, Cambridge has added the dimension of "Doomsday WMD" to the quest for a metric engineering breakthrough in his Chapter 9 of his pessimistic "Our Final Hour" on the "Ice Nine" "rip-in-space" propagating at the speed of light that could literally destroy our universe. We are now at that turning point in our history where, like Mickey Mouse in Walt Disney's "Fantasia" we could, in our incompetence, destroy the entire Universe just as we are now surely destroying Earth's Biosphere. Therefore, any aliens out there with Star Gate Time Travel and Warp Drive Super Technology are already here in order to stop us from killing them as well as ourselves. The American Christian Fundamentalist Right has a strong belief in Apocalypse Now and there is real danger that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a precognitive remote viewing of our future by Saint John in The Bible's "Revelations." All the more reason for me, like Paul Revere, to alert the public to these new developments in physics because only real knowledge can possibly save us and even then there is no guarantee.
What does mainstream physics tell us about the possibility of metric engineering? The relevant parts of mainstream physics for metric engineering are Einstein's general theory of relativity and micro-quantum mechanics including the "More is Different" emergence of "macro-quantum" superfluid order in ground state and vacuum instabilities developed by condensed matter Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson also seen in high-energy physics in the "Higgs mechanism" and in the "inflationary chaotic cosmology of A. Linde consistent with the "parallel universes" nicely described by Max Tegmark in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American.
Let's start with Einstein's gravity field equation of ~ 1915. Einstein viewed pure space-time geometry like the marble in a statue by Michelangelo with gross matter and radiation as "wood." Einstein's equation, in the 21st Century language, is
Space-Time Curvature = (Stress-Energy Density)/(String Tension)
Curvature has the physical dimensions of 1/Area, String Tension has Energy/Length and Stress-Energy Density has Energy/Volume. Simple algebra confirms that this way of writing Einstein's equation is correct dimensionally. The "String Tension" is the basic parameter that Ed Witten of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study uses in his discussions of "M theory" that unifies the five limiting cases of "super string theory" in which the elementary leptons, quarks and gauge force bosons are "vibrating strings of pure energy" pulsating in the extra space dimensions of "Calabi-Yau" hyperspace. The ordinary matter and radiation on the right hand side of Einstein's equation are open strings whose ends are stuck to 3Dim brane worlds of which our universe is one. You can picture a string as a tiny wormhole whose two ends need not be on the same brane world because only then can you not have equal numbers of particles and antiparticles in the same brane world.
Another equivalent way to look at Einstein's 1915 equation from our post-modern 2003 point of view is as a perfect balance on The Scale of Cosmic Justice peeking through the blindfold. That is, the stress-energy density "tensor" of pure marble geometry is
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Pure Geometry = (String Tension)(Space-Time Curvature) (2)
Einstein's equation is then like the static equilibrium balance of forces in architecture in which the sum of all the contributions to the stress-energy density tensor add up to a perfect zero! In this simplest of cases
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Geometry + Stress-Energy Density of Matter etc. = 0 (3)
All physically real objects are either tensors, spinors or twistors in the theory of relativity. This is because the coordinate map is not the physical territory. The form of the laws of physics must be the same locally no matter how the coordinate map is morphed. To this we must add the Einstein Equivalence Principle or EEP which says that even in a curved space-time, we can use the special theory of relativity locally for a special class of LIF observers to describe what is happening to a good approximation. The EEP is only meant to apply in this approximate way and it will break down if one is falling into a black hole singularity or if the microscope magnification is so large that quantum gravity zero point energy density fluctuations in the space-time geometry itself get large. There may also be torsion fields not included in Einstein's 1915 "geometrodynamics" that may require a modification of the EEP. The spinor is a square root of a tensor and the Penrose twistor is a spinor in a complex space-time. The physics of point particles in real space-time when extended to complex and hyper-complex matrix space-time is in reality the physics of extended strings and membranes in real space-time. Hawking's "imaginary time" and its connection to inverse temperature is part of that same story.
The key concept for metric engineering is the Einstein current! Einstein's field equation is always the statement that the sum of all the stress-energy density tensors when put on the same side of the equation all balance out to exactly zero. We then take a "covariant divergence" of the equation to get the Einstein currents, which are conserved when added together. The covariant divergence depends on something called a "connection field", which tells us how to "parallel transport" tensors and spinors along paths or "histories" in space-time and beyond including the extra dimensions of hyperspace. Every time a gauge force field is added, like a torsion field, there is an additional piece added to this connection field. Einstein's 1915 theory is a degenerate case of the bigger unified field theory just like a circle is a degenerate case of an ellipse. An ellipse has two centers or "foci". When the two foci merge together the ellipse degenerates into a circle. Einstein's 1915 theory in the form of the "Bianchi identities" forbids practical metric engineering because it has an impenetrable barrier completely separating the marble geometric current from the wood matter current. Both kinds of currents must be able to intermingle to transform into each other in order to have "soft" practical metric engineering of Star Gate Time Travel traversable wormholes and weightless superluminal warp drives using the anti-gravitating exotic vacuum "dark energy" with negative zero point exotic vacuum pressure that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the zero point energy density. The new Type Ia super novae data showing that our brane world Universe is accelerating in its rate of expansion, i.e. speeding up rather than slowing down. Indeed approximately 3/4 of all the stuff of our Universe on the large scale is made out of "dark energy." Therefore, the idea of ancient traversable Star Gate wormholes stabilized by dark energy is not so far fetched. The brute force approach to metric engineering taken by Hal Puthoff now for at least two decades can never work because space-time is too stiff to bend directly with electromagnetic field energy density to do anything worth doing because the string tension is too large. In contrast, we can used the quantum interference of the Einstein stress-energy density currents via the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect for practical metric engineering provided that the pure geometric currents are not separately conserved like they are in Einstein's original theory. One way to do that is to "bottle" or "harness" the "dark energy" as General Douglas Mac Arthur precognitively remote viewed in his "Duty, Honor, Country" Farewell Speech to the Cadets at West Point in 1962 in a speech made even more remarkable for its reference to the coming war in space with extra-terrestrials. Michael Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, says in April 2003 Physics Today that it is impossible to "bottle dark energy" and if Einstein's 1915 theory is the final theory he is correct. However, the real UFO evidence that drives Hal Puthoff like Captain Ahab after The White Wale, Moby Dick, is the evidence that suggests Professor Turner will be proved wrong in that prediction.
ref.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
Excerpts from Puthoff & Ibison’s
H.E. PUTHOFF*, S.R. LITTLE AND M. IBISON
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 4030 West Braker Lane, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78759-5329, USA.
*Email: puthoff@earthtech.org
with my comments.
Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight
“1. Introduction
The concept of “engineering the vacuum” found its first expression in the mainstream physics literature when it was introduced by T. D. Lee in his textbook Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory [2]. There he stated:
‘The experimental method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engineering.... If indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena, totally unexpected.’
This legitimization of the vacuum engineering concept was based on the recognition that the vacuum is characterized by parameters and structure that leave no doubt that it constitutes an energetic medium in its own right. Foremost among these are its properties that (1) within the context of quantum theory the vacuum is the seat of energetic particle and field fluctuations, and (2) within the context of general relativity the vacuum is the seat of a spacetime structure (metric) that encodes the distribution of matter and energy. Indeed, on the flyleaf of a book of essays by Einstein and others on the properties of the vacuum we find the statement “The vacuum is fast emerging as the central structure of modern physics” [3].
Given the known characteristics of the vacuum, one might reasonably inquire as to why it is not immediately obvious how to catalyze robust interactions of the type sought for space-flight applications. To begin, in the case of quantum fluctuations there are uncertainties that remain to be clarified regarding global thermodynamic and energy constraints. Furthermore, the energetic components of potential utility involve very small-wavelength, high-frequency fields and thus resist facile engineering solutions.”
This last remark may not be correct in general, although it is correct within the framework Puthoff is pursuing i.e. using the stress-energy density of the electromagnetic field to attempt to directly warp space-time geometry with practical utility. Such a brute-force approach is hopeless and a waste of effort IMHO because Einstein’s equation in this case is simply
Induced Space-Time Warp = (Applied EM Stress-Energy Density)/(G-String Tension)
The G-String Tension is 10^19Gev per 10^-33 cm, which is simply too stiff! One would need a way to lower the G-String-Tension, for example an “M Theory” that yields something like:
G*-String Tension = e^-(r*/Lp)^?(G-String Tension)
Where r* = compactification scale of extra-dimensions of hyperspace beyond 4-D space-time and
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1/(G-String Tension) for h = c = 1
Puthoff alludes to this barrier in his next remark:
“With regard to perturbation of the space-time metric, the required energy densities exceed by many orders of magnitude values achievable with existing engineering techniques. Nonetheless, we can examine the constraints, possibilities and implications under the expectation that as technology matures, felicitous means may be found that permit the exploitation of the enormous, as-yet-untapped potential of so-called “empty space”.
This is the problem that Hal goes into denial and wishing about. There is no way that will brute-force approach will work in any practical way. The UFOs do not use high-energy EM field densities and Hal is primarily interested in the UFOs. That should tell him right away that he is pursuing the wrong path to solve the problem.
“2. Propellantless Propulsion
2.1 Global Constraint
Regardless of the mechanisms that might be entertained with regard to “propellantless” or “field” propulsion of a spaceship, there exist certain constraints that can be easily overlooked but must be taken into consideration. A central one is that, because of the law of conservation of momentum, the center of mass-energy (CM) of an initially stationary isolated system cannot change its position if not acted upon by outside forces. This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, is constrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that the displacement Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight”
It has been known since the late 1950’s how to circumvent this problem provided one has “exotic stuff” with a strong enough “negative pressure” to provide what Herman Bondi called “negative matter” in the late 1950’s and Kip Thorne called “exotic matter” in the late 1980’s in his “traversable wormhole time travel” papers with additional work by Igor Novikov and others. Robert Forward summarized Bondi’s early work in a paper written in the early 1990’s. More details are to be found in
We now know since 1999 from Type 1a supernova data showing the acceleration of the expansion speed of the Universe that approximately 3/4 of all the large-scale stuff of the Universe is exotic vacuum anti-gravitating “dark energy” with a strong negative zero point pressure that is equal and opposite to the positive zero point energy density. This fact is the key to practical metric engineering of the vacuum that Puthoff et-al completely misses. The modified vacuum Einstein equation is
Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = 0
Where Tuv is the local stress-energy density tensor under the Einstein DIFF(4) symmetry group.
Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry)
Where
Guv(Geometry) = Ruv – (1/2)Rguv
And
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (String Tension)^-1[(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 – 1]
/\zpf > 0 is negative pressure “dark energy” exotic vacuum that is ~ 3/4 of large-scale stuff of the Universe.
/\zpf < 0 is positive pressure “dark matter” exotic vacuum that is ~ 1/4 of the large scale stuff of the Universe.
Gravity effect of exotic vacuum “stuff” ~ c^2/\zpf
Where + sign on RHS is universally repelling anti-gravity and a – sign is universally attracting gravity with effective short scale coupling strengths much larger than Newton’s.
The key idea not found in any of Puthoff’s papers on the subject of metric engineering is the local Einstein stress-energy tensor current density’s covariant divergence Tuv^;v where ;v is the Diff(4) covariant derivative relative to the metric torsion free connection field for parallel transport of tensors along tangent vector fields in curved space-time.
When there is no exotic vacuum, i.e., /\zpf = 0 corresponding to optimal vacuum coherence, the Bianchi identities work and we have closed current conservation of the pure geometrodynamic stress-energy tensor local currents, i.e.
Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
This prevents any practical metric engineering! In contrast, when there is exotic vacuum then
Tuv(Geometry)^;v =/= 0
Instead
Tuv(Geometry)^;v + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v = 0
Where the common string-tension factor cancels out of this current conservation equation. This essentially solves the problem for practical metric engineering bypassing the string tension problem completely! One uses the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect to tweak Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) in a “soft” way.
To be continued.
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 04:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The Physical Principles of Metric Engineering
by Jack Sarfatti
4th draft
excerpt from the book "Super Cosmos"
The term "metric engineering" was coined by Dr. Harold Puthoff. Hal, as he prefers to be called, was a US Naval Officer who then worked for the National Security Agency before going to the Stanford Research Institute where he conducted the famous "Remote Viewing" experiments with Russell Targ testing Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and other psychics in a project paid for by the CIA and Department of Defense Intelligence Agencies. I first met Hal and Russell at SRI in 1973 and that story is told in my book "Destiny Matrix." Hal has held very high USG security clearances and it is well known that he is obsessed with the UFO mystery. Hal, like his co-worker Bernie Haisch, who is an editor of the Astrophysical Journal, both strongly believe in the physical reality of flying saucers. They, with Jacques Vallee, have been active in UFO groups, including the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program, some financed by Laurance Rockefeller and the "Howard Hughes" clone Las Vegas Hotel Tycoon Robert Bigelow who owns Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Since they take the reality of the flying saucers seriously so do I. The two lines of theoretical physics research that Hal has pursued for several decades now, zero point energy and a polarized vacuum model of gravity, is primarily motivated by the quest to understand how the saucers fly. The alleged reality of such advanced alien technology is clearly of immense importance to US National Security and beyond. The recent developments in physics shown in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell", Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and Igor Novikov's "The River of Time" makes time traveling alien interference in our history more probable not less probable. This is all an aspect of "metric engineering" defined as the practical control of space and time warps. I have discussed this in Paramount Pictures DVD Special Collector's Edition of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" and in Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science: Time Travel." The ultimate form of metric engineering is seen in "Q" in "Star Trek" where a Super Mind is able to warp space-time. We also need a physics of consciousness to see if that fiction can be realized in fact. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees who runs the laboratory where Stephen Hawking works and who is the new Master of Trinity College, Cambridge has added the dimension of "Doomsday WMD" to the quest for a metric engineering breakthrough in his Chapter 9 of his pessimistic "Our Final Hour" on the "Ice Nine" "rip-in-space" propagating at the speed of light that could literally destroy our universe. We are now at that turning point in our history where, like Mickey Mouse in Walt Disney's "Fantasia" we could, in our incompetence, destroy the entire Universe just as we are now surely destroying Earth's Biosphere. Therefore, any aliens out there with Star Gate Time Travel and Warp Drive Super Technology are already here in order to stop us from killing them as well as ourselves. The American Christian Fundamentalist Right has a strong belief in Apocalypse Now and there is real danger that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a precognitive remote viewing of our future by Saint John in The Bible's "Revelations." All the more reason for me, like Paul Revere, to alert the public to these new developments in physics because only real knowledge can possibly save us and even then there is no guarantee.
What does mainstream physics tell us about the possibility of metric engineering? The relevant parts of mainstream physics for metric engineering are Einstein's general theory of relativity and micro-quantum mechanics including the "More is Different" emergence of "macro-quantum" superfluid order in ground state and vacuum instabilities developed by condensed matter Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson also seen in high-energy physics in the "Higgs mechanism" and in the "inflationary chaotic cosmology of A. Linde consistent with the "parallel universes" nicely described by Max Tegmark in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American.
Let's start with Einstein's gravity field equation of ~ 1915. Einstein viewed pure space-time geometry like the marble in a statue by Michelangelo with gross matter and radiation as "wood." Einstein's equation, in the 21st Century language, is
Space-Time Curvature = (Stress-Energy Density)/(String Tension)
Curvature has the physical dimensions of 1/Area, String Tension has Energy/Length and Stress-Enegy Density has Energy/Volume. Simple algebra confirms that this way of writing Einstein's equation is correct dimensionally. The "String Tension" is the basic parameter that Ed Witten of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study uses in his discussions of "M theory" that unifies the five limiting cases of "super string theory" in which the elementary leptons, quarks and gauge force bosons are "vibrating strings of pure energy" pulsating in the extra space dimensions of "Calabi-Yau" hyperspace. The ordinary matter and radiation on the right hand side of Einstein's equation are open strings whose ends are stuck to 3Dim brane worlds of which our universe is one. You can picture a string as a tiny wormhole whose two ends need not be on the same brane world because only then can you not have equal numbers of particles and antiparticles in the same brane world.
Another equivalent way to look at Einstein's 1915 equation from our post-modern 2003 point of view is as a perfect balance on The Scale of Cosmic Justice peeking through the blindfold. That is, the stress-energy density "tensor" of pure marble geometry is
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Pure Geometry = (String Tension)(Space-Time Curvature) (2)
Einstein's equation is then like the static equilibrium balance of forces in architecture in which the sum of all the contributions to the stress-energy density tensor add up to a perfect zero! In this simplest of cases
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Geometry + Stress-Energy Density of Matter etc. = 0 (3)
All physically real objects are either tensors, spinors or twistors in the theory of relativity. This is because the coordinate map is not the physical territory. The form of the laws of physics must be the same locally no matter how the coordinate map is morphed. To this we must add the Einstein Equivalence Principle or EEP which says that even in a curved space-time, we can use the special theory of relativity locally for a special class of LIF observers to describe what is happening to a good approximation. The EEP is only meant to apply in this approximate way and it will break down if one is falling into a black hole singularity of if the microscope magnification is so large that quantum gravity zero point energy density fluctuations in the space-time geometry itself get large. There may also be torsion fields not included in Einstein's 1915 "geometrodynamics" that may require a modification of the EEP. The spinor is a square root of a tensor and the Penrose twistor is a spinor in a complex space-time. The physics of point particles in real space-time when extended to complex and hyper-complex matrix space-time is in reality the physics of extended strings and membranes in real space-time. Hawking's "imaginary time" and its connection to inverse temperature is part of that same story.
The key concept for metric engineering is the Einstein current! Einstein's field equation is always the statement that the sum of all the stress-energy density tensors when put on the same side of the equation all balance out to exactly zero. We then take a "covariant divergence" of the equation to get the Einstein currents, which are conserved when added together. The covariant divergence depends on something called a "connection field", which tells us how to "parallel transport" tensors and spinors along paths or "histories" in space-time and beyond including the extra dimensions of hyperspace. Every time a gauge force field is added, like a torsion field, there is an additional piece added to this connection field. Einstein's 1915 theory is a degenerate case of the bigger unified field theory just like a circle is a degenerate case of an ellipse. An ellipse has two centers or "foci". When the two foci merge together the ellipse degenerates into a circle. Einstein's 1915 theory in the form of the "Bianchi identities" forbids practical metric engineering because it has an impenetrable barrier completely separating the marble geometric current from the wood matter current. Both kinds of currents must be able to intermingle to transform into each other in order to have "soft" practical metric engineering of Star Gate Time Travel traversable wormholes and weightless superluminal warp drives using the anti-gravitating exotic vacuum "dark energy" with negative zero point exotic vacuum pressure that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the zero point energy density. The new Type Ia super novae data showing that our brane world Universe is accelerating in its rate of expansion, i.e. speeding up rather than slowing down. Indeed approximately 3/4 of all the stuff of our Universe on the large scale is made out of "dark energy." Therefore, the idea of ancient traversable Star Gate wormholes stabilized by dark energy is not so far fetched. The brute force approach to metric engineering taken by Hal Puthoff now for at least two decades can never work because space-time is too stiff to bend directly with electromagnetic field energy density to do anything worth doing because the string tension is too large. In contrast, we can used the quantum interference of the Einstein stress-energy density currents via the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect for practical metric engineering provided that the pure geometric currents are not separately conserved like they are in Einstein's original theory. One way to do that is to "bottle" or "harness" the "dark energy" as General Douglas Mac Arthur precognitively remote viewed in his "Duty, Honor, Country" Farewell Speech to the Cadets at West Point in 1962 in a speech made even more remarkable for its reference to the coming war in space with extra-terrestrials. Michael Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, says in April 2003 Physics Today that it is impossible to "bottle dark energy" and if Einstein's 1915 theory is the final theory he is correct. However, the real UFO evidence that drives Hal Puthoff like Captain Ahab after The White Wale, Moby Dick, is the evidence that suggests Professor Turner will be proved wrong in that prediction.
ref.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
H.E. PUTHOFF*, S.R. LITTLE AND M. IBISON
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 4030 West Braker Lane, Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78759-5329, USA.
*Email: puthoff@earthtech.org
with my comments.
Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight
“1. Introduction
The concept of “engineering the vacuum” found its first expression in the mainstream physics literature when it was introduced by T. D. Lee in his textbook Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory [2]. There he stated:
‘The experimental method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engineering.... If indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena, totally unexpected.’
This legitimization of the vacuum engineering concept was based on the recognition that the vacuum is characterized by parameters and structure that leave no doubt that it constitutes an energetic medium in its own right. Foremost among these are its properties that (1) within the context of quantum theory the vacuum is the seat of energetic particle and field fluctuations, and (2) within the context of general relativity the vacuum is the seat of a spacetime structure (metric) that encodes the distribution of matter and energy. Indeed, on the flyleaf of a book of essays by Einstein and others on the properties of the vacuum we find the statement “The vacuum is fast emerging as the central structure of modern physics” [3].
Given the known characteristics of the vacuum, one might reasonably inquire as to why it is not immediately obvious how to catalyze robust interactions of the type sought for space-flight applications. To begin, in the case of quantum fluctuations there are uncertainties that remain to be clarified regarding global thermodynamic and energy constraints. Furthermore, the energetic components of potential utility involve very small-wavelength, high-frequency fields and thus resist facile engineering solutions.”
This last remark may not be correct in general, although it is correct within the framework Puthoff is pursuing i.e. using the stress-energy density of the electromagnetic field to attempt to directly warp space-time geometry with practical utility. Such a brute-force approach is hopeless and a waste of effort IMHO because Einstein’s equation in this case is simply
Induced Space-Time Warp = (Applied EM Stress-Energy Density)/(G-String Tension)
The G-String Tension is 10^19Gev per 10^-33 cm, which is simply too stiff! One would need a way to lower the G-String-Tension, for example an “M Theory” that yields something like:
G*-String Tension = e^-(r*/Lp)^?(G-String Tension)
Where r* = compactification scale of extra-dimensions of hyperspace beyond 4-D space-time and
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1/(G-String Tension) for h = c = 1
Puthoff alludes to this barrier in his next remark:
“With regard to perturbation of the space-time metric, the required energy densities exceed by many orders of magnitude values achievable with existing engineering techniques. Nonetheless, we can examine the constraints, possibilities and implications under the expectation that as technology matures, felicitous means may be found that permit the exploitation of the enormous, as-yet-untapped potential of so-called “empty space”.
This is the problem that Hal goes into denial and wishing about. There is no way that will brute-force approach will work in any practical way. The UFOs do not use high-energy EM field densities and Hal is primarily interested in the UFOs. That should tell him right away that he is pursuing the wrong path to solve the problem.
“2. Propellantless Propulsion
2.1 Global Constraint
Regardless of the mechanisms that might be entertained with regard to “propellantless” or “field” propulsion of a spaceship, there exist certain constraints that can be easily overlooked but must be taken into consideration. A central one is that, because of the law of conservation of momentum, the center of mass-energy (CM) of an initially stationary isolated system cannot change its position if not acted upon by outside forces. This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, is constrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that the displacement Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Interstellar Flight”
It has been known since the late 1950’s how to circumvent this problem provided one has “exotic stuff” with a strong enough “negative pressure” to provide what Herman Bondi called “negative matter” in the late 1950’s and Kip Thorne called “exotic matter” in the late 1980’s in his “traversable wormhole time travel” papers with additional work by Igor Novikov and others. Robert Forward summarized Bondi’s early work in a paper written in the early 1990’s. More details are to be found in
We now know since 1999 from Type 1a supernova data showing the acceleration of the expansion speed of the Universe that approximately 3/4 of all the large-scale stuff of the Universe is exotic vacuum anti-gravitating “dark energy” with a strong negative zero point pressure that is equal and opposite to the positive zero point energy density. This fact is the key to practical metric engineering of the vacuum that Puthoff et-al completely misses. The modified vacuum Einstein equation is
Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = 0
Where Tuv is the local stress-energy density tensor under the Einstein DIFF(4) symmetry group.
Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry)
Where
Guv(Geometry) = Ruv – (1/2)Rguv
And
Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (String Tension)^-1[(String Tension)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 – 1]
/\zpf > 0 is negative pressure “dark energy” exotic vacuum that is ~ 3/4 of large-scale stuff of the Universe.
/\zpf < 0 is positive pressure “dark matter” exotic vacuum that is ~ 1/4 of the large scale stuff of the Universe.
Gravity effect of exotic vacuum “stuff” ~ c^2/\zpf
Where + sign on RHS is universally repelling anti-gravity and a – sign is universally attracting gravity with effective short scale coupling strengths much larger than Newton’s.
The key idea not found in any of Puthoff’s papers on the subject of metric engineering is the local Einstein stress-energy tensor current density’s covariant divergence Tuv^;v where ;v is the Diff(4) covariant derivative relative to the metric torsion free connection field for parallel transport of tensors along tangent vector fields in curved space-time.
When there is no exotic vacuum, i.e., /\zpf = 0 corresponding to optimal vacuum coherence, the Bianchi identities work and we have closed current conservation of the pure geometrodynamic stress-energy tensor local currents, i.e.
Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0
This prevents any practical metric engineering! In contrast, when there is exotic vacuum then
Tuv(Geometry)^;v =/= 0
Instead
Tuv(Geometry)^;v + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum)^;v = 0
Where the common string-tension factor cancels out of this current conservation equation. This essentially solves the problem for practical metric engineering bypassing the string tension problem completely! One uses the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect to tweak Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) in a “soft” way.
To be continued.
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 04:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The Physical Principles of Metric Engineering
by Jack Sarfatti
4th draft
excerpt from the book "Super Cosmos"
The term "metric engineering" was coined by Dr. Harold Puthoff. Hal, as he prefers to be called, was a US Naval Officer who then worked for the National Security Agency before going to the Stanford Research Institute where he conducted the famous "Remote Viewing" experiments with Russell Targ testing Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and other psychics in a project paid for by the CIA and Department of Defense Intelligence Agencies. I first met Hal and Russell at SRI in 1973 and that story is told in my book "Destiny Matrix." Hal has held very high USG security clearances and it is well known that he is obsessed with the UFO mystery. Hal, like his co-worker Bernie Haisch, who is an editor of the Astrophysical Journal, both strongly believe in the physical reality of flying saucers. They, with Jacques Vallee, have been active in UFO groups, including the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program, some financed by Laurance Rockefeller and the "Howard Hughes" clone Las Vegas Hotel Tycoon Robert Bigelow who owns Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Since they take the reality of the flying saucers seriously so do I. The two lines of theoretical physics research that Hal has pursued for several decades now, zero point energy and a polarized vacuum model of gravity, is primarily motivated by the quest to understand how the saucers fly. The alleged reality of such advanced alien technology is clearly of immense importance to US National Security and beyond. The recent developments in physics shown in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell", Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and Igor Novikov's "The River of Time" makes time traveling alien interference in our history more probable not less probable. This is all an aspect of "metric engineering" defined as the practical control of space and time warps. I have discussed this in Paramount Pictures DVD Special Collector's Edition of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" and in Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science: Time Travel." The ultimate form of metric engineering is seen in "Q" in "Star Trek" where a Super Mind is able to warp space-time. We also need a physics of consciousness to see if that fiction can be realized in fact. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees who runs the laboratory where Stephen Hawking works and who is the new Master of Trinity College, Cambridge has added the dimension of "Doomsday WMD" to the quest for a metric engineering breakthrough in his Chapter 9 of his pessimistic "Our Final Hour" on the "Ice Nine" "rip-in-space" propagating at the speed of light that could literally destroy our universe. We are now at that turning point in our history where, like Mickey Mouse in Walt Disney's "Fantasia" we could, in our incompetence, destroy the entire Universe just as we are now surely destroying Earth's Biosphere. Therefore, any aliens out there with Star Gate Time Travel and Warp Drive Super Technology are already here in order to stop us from killing them as well as ourselves. The American Christian Fundamentalist Right has a strong belief in Apocalypse Now and there is real danger that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a precognitive remote viewing of our future by Saint John in The Bible's "Revelations." All the more reason for me, like Paul Revere, to alert the public to these new developments in physics because only real knowledge can possibly save us and even then there is no guarantee.
What does mainstream physics tell us about the possibility of metric engineering? The relevant parts of mainstream physics for metric engineering are Einstein's general theory of relativity and micro-quantum mechanics including the "More is Different" emergence of "macro-quantum" superfluid order in ground state and vacuum instabilities developed by condensed matter Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson also seen in high-energy physics in the "Higgs mechanism" and in the "inflationary chaotic cosmology of A. Linde consistent with the "parallel universes" nicely described by Max Tegmark in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American.
Let's start with Einstein's gravity field equation of ~ 1915. Einstein viewed pure space-time geometry like the marble in a statue by Michelangelo with gross matter and radiation as "wood." Einstein's equation, in the 21st Century language, is
Space-Time Curvature = (Stress-Energy Density)/(String Tension)
Curvature has the physical dimensions of 1/Area, String Tension has Energy/Length and Stress-Enegy Density has Energy/Volume. Simple algebra confirms that this way of writing Einstein's equation is correct dimensionally. The "String Tension" is the basic parameter that Ed Witten of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study uses in his discussions of "M theory" that unifies the five limiting cases of "super string theory" in which the elementary leptons, quarks and gauge force bosons are "vibrating strings of pure energy" pulsating in the extra space dimensions of "Calabi-Yau" hyperspace. The ordinary matter and radiation on the right hand side of Einstein's equation are open strings whose ends are stuck to 3Dim brane worlds of which our universe is one. You can picture a string as a tiny wormhole whose two ends need not be on the same brane world because only then can you not have equal numbers of particles and antiparticles in the same brane world.
Another equivalent way to look at Einstein's 1915 equation from our post-modern 2003 point of view is as a perfect balance on The Scale of Cosmic Justice peeking through the blindfold. That is, the stress-energy density "tensor" of pure marble geometry is
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Pure Geometry = (String Tension)(Space-Time Curvature) (2)
Einstein's equation is then like the static equilibrium balance of forces in architecture in which the sum of all the contributions to the stress-energy density tensor add up to a perfect zero! In this simplest of cases
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Geometry + Stress-Energy Density of Matter etc. = 0 (3)
All physically real objects are either tensors, spinors or twistors in the theory of relativity. This is because the coordinate map is not the physical territory. The form of the laws of physics must be the same locally no matter how the coordinate map is morphed. To this we must add the Einstein Equivalence Principle or EEP which says that even in a curved space-time, we can use the special theory of relativity locally for a special class of LIF observers to describe what is happening to a good approximation. The EEP is only meant to apply in this approximate way and it will break down if one is falling into a black hole singularity of if the microscope magnification is so large that quantum gravity zero point energy density fluctuations in the space-time geometry itself get large. There may also be torsion fields not included in Einstein's 1915 "geometrodynamics" that may require a modification of the EEP. The spinor is a square root of a tensor and the Penrose twistor is a spinor in a complex space-time. The physics of point particles in real space-time when extended to complex and hyper-complex matrix space-time is in reality the physics of extended strings and membranes in real space-time. Hawking's "imaginary time" and its connection to inverse temperature is part of that same story.
The key concept for metric engineering is the Einstein current! Einstein's field equation is always the statement that the sum of all the stress-energy density tensors when put on the same side of the equation all balance out to exactly zero. We then take a "covariant divergence" of the equation to get the Einstein currents, which are conserved when added together. The covariant divergence depends on something called a "connection field", which tells us how to "parallel transport" tensors and spinors along paths or "histories" in space-time and beyond including the extra dimensions of hyperspace. Every time a gauge force field is added, like a torsion field, there is an additional piece added to this connection field. Einstein's 1915 theory is a degenerate case of the bigger unified field theory just like a circle is a degenerate case of an ellipse. An ellipse has two centers or "foci". When the two foci merge together the ellipse degenerates into a circle. Einstein's 1915 theory in the form of the "Bianchi identities" forbids practical metric engineering because it has an impenetrable barrier completely separating the marble geometric current from the wood matter current. Both kinds of currents must be able to intermingle to transform into each other in order to have "soft" practical metric engineering of Star Gate Time Travel traversable wormholes and weightless superluminal warp drives using the anti-gravitating exotic vacuum "dark energy" with negative zero point exotic vacuum pressure that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the zero point energy density. The new Type Ia super novae data showing that our brane world Universe is accelerating in its rate of expansion, i.e. speeding up rather than slowing down. Indeed approximately 3/4 of all the stuff of our Universe on the large scale is made out of "dark energy." Therefore, the idea of ancient traversable Star Gate wormholes stabilized by dark energy is not so far fetched. The brute force approach to metric engineering taken by Hal Puthoff now for at least two decades can never work because space-time is too stiff to bend directly with electromagnetic field energy density to do anything worth doing because the string tension is too large. In contrast, we can used the quantum interference of the Einstein stress-energy density currents via the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect for practical metric engineering provided that the pure geometric currents are not separately conserved like they are in Einstein's original theory. One way to do that is to "bottle" or "harness" the "dark energy" as General Douglas Mac Arthur precognitively remote viewed in his "Duty, Honor, Country" Farewell Speech to the Cadets at West Point in 1962 in a speech made even more remarkable for its reference to the coming war in space with extra-terrestrials. Michael Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, says in April 2003 Physics Today that it is impossible to "bottle dark energy" and if Einstein's 1915 theory is the final theory he is correct. However, the real UFO evidence that drives Hal Puthoff like Captain Ahab after The White Wale, Moby Dick, is the evidence that suggests Professor Turner will be proved wrong in that prediction.
ref.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf
Sunday, November 23, 2003
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Well, most people to try to attack canonical relativity from outside
the institutional matrix are generally pretty crankish.
The problem is this same brush is used to tar *anyone* outside the establishment
who attempts to advance fundamental objections to or criticisms of the canonical
theory, no matter how rational and articulate
It's a standard ideological response.
A good example of this attitude is an article written for Salon.com by the aggressively
clueless science-groupie, John Farrell:
http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
(in his defense, I would point out that in my experience Farrell is just a "useful
idiot" who actually believes his own junk propaganda).
Paul I just read Farrell's article and I think it is excellent. I agree with all of it.
I do not understand your negative reaction to it? Can you be specific? BTW
Van Flandern visited us at ISSO and presented a really flaky model of
"Shadow Gravity" as well as making false statements that GPS does not
require GR.
Well, most people to try to attack canonical relativity from outside
the institutional matrix are generally pretty crankish.
The problem is this same brush is used to tar *anyone* outside the establishment
who attempts to advance fundamental objections to or criticisms of the canonical
theory, no matter how rational and articulate
It's a standard ideological response.
A good example of this attitude is an article written for Salon.com by the aggressively
clueless science-groupie, John Farrell:
http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
(in his defense, I would point out that in my experience Farrell is just a "useful
idiot" who actually believes his own junk propaganda).
Paul I just read Farrell's article and I think it is excellent. I agree with all of it.
I do not understand your negative reaction to it? Can you be specific? BTW
Van Flandern visited us at ISSO and presented a really flaky model of
"Shadow Gravity" as well as making false statements that GPS does not
require GR.
bcc
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
andrew laidlaw wrote:
Dear Paul,
A few months ago, I came across one of Jack Sarfatti's
critiques on Hal Puthoff's PV article. Feeling that
the criticism was less than fair (and given the fairly
close correspondence between Yilmaz and PV), I wrote
to him saying he was missing the point, namely that
(whether PV is true or false) between Yilmaz and PV we
could begin to see gravity as emerging from an
intelligible physical system. That email was quite
widely distributed, and I received a total of seven
replies, including one from a davidg, who strongly
suggested that I should talk to you (I think someone
may even have sent you a copy of the original
correspondence?). He wrote:
Andrew,
You should definitely talk to Paul Zelinsky,
pzielins@ix.netcom.com , he has given alot of thought
to this issue.
I was especially interested in why folk reject Yilmaz
so readily.
I have a theory about this. It's partly socio-psychological, but mainly technically
internal to the subject.
You are talking about the content in Ch 20 of MTW "Flux Integrals for 4-momentum and angular momentum" agreed?
For the record my remarks on "metric engineering" have little to do with that issue. All of my remarks have to do with
bona-fide local tensors within GR in which the local stress-energy density tensor for pure space-time geometry is trivially
Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry).
In the non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf = 0
Tuv(Geometry) = 0
As I recall the "Freud Identity" has to do with defining the geometrodynamic flux integrals in specifically asymptotically flat space-times only?
MTW make no mention of the "Freud Identity" crisis although Pauli does - but then again he worked with Jung! :-)
You have to understand that when Einstein publicly repudiated almost his entire
heuristic and epistemological position on relativity around 1920-1926, no
one who was anybody in modern physics wanted to hear it.
Einstein, quite understandably, ended up targeting his born-again realist fire on
quantum mechanics and Copenhagenism.
In 1926 Einstein privately told a perplexed Heisenberg that much of what he had
written on the foundations of special relativity was "rubbish". By this time I am told
he was reading Blavatsky on the occult aether.
Can you prove that last sentence? Einstein did write a forward to "Mental Radio" I think by some famous American writer.
Scratch a visionary theoretical physicist and find a Tech Gnostic. ;-)
Reminding JS of the fact that GR fails to
conserve the 4-momentum,
That statement is so vague as to be meaningless.
and why Yilmaz insists on the
Freud identity, I sent him the relevant equations from
Yilmaz's letter to nuovo cimento.
The situation with the vacuum stress-energy density in canonical GR is unbelievably
screwed up. We are not supposed to be able to define a localizable frame-independent
quantity, for reasons that are arguably incoherent with the rest of the canonical theory.
There is in canonical theory no analog of classical field potential energy.
A gravitational pulse has a curvature component that travels at an objective
velocity of propagation, and a linear component whose velocity of propagation
is frame-dependent (as pointed out by Eddington in 1923).
Now that is "incoherent" on more than one level.
No comment until I do some serious homework on that. By "linear" you mean linear in the "connection field"?
He "couldn't read"
them from my emailed script. So I asked for his fax
number - nothing comes back. So I scan and send him
the article. Now he is "overseas". At the end of the
day, what I received back from a dozen emails all
raising actual content was, in effect, a bunch of
marketing content surrounding a muddled and
meaningless "Yilmaz is asking the wrong questions".
This is not just about Jack. This is the "received" view of the matter. Jack is relying on
the authority of the luminaries of the contemporary gravitational physics establishment.
To keep Jack honest, I was dialectically "affirming the weaker case" that that the canonical
MTW gloss is internally incoherent, since it contains a vestigial residue of the original
Einstein theory of strict gravitational-inertial equivalence, which I and many others say is
not tenable.
Again I say this "strict gravitational-inertial equivalence" is a not a real issue since no one professes it,
certainly not MTW in the "strict" sense. Since the 4th rank curvature tensor is a local tensor if it is non-zero
in one frame, it is non-zero in ALL frames. The EEP never asserts that the local curvature can be set to zero.
It only says the connection can be set to zero locally in an LIF which still has local curvature. The tidal
geodesic deviation relative acceleration between 2 neighboring test particles can be made small provided
we are not near a black hole and not down at the Planck scale.
It all started out as a light-hearted exercise in post-modernistic deconstruction, but I ended up
taking it quite seriously.
If this is right, it still doesn't necessarily mean that Yilmaz's theory is correct, or preferable
to GR; it just removes a fundamental objection to a Yilmaz-type theory.
Which is? I see no need for a "bimetric theory" apart from standard GR where the LIF local metric is approximately flat and the LNIF metric at the same event P is not. The physical difference is the weightless free float of the LIF observer and the onerous weight felt by the LNIF observer.
If my arguments are right, in the absence of additional fundamental objections,
the question of which alternative theory is preferable then largely reduces to an empirical
question.
Let Yilmaz explain the pulsar gravity waves to the great accuracy that Penrose showed in I think it's "Shadows of the Mind" for which a Nobel Prize was awarded. Let Yilmaz duplicate all the checks that Cliff Will writes about.
At that time, I wasn't taking PV all that seriously
and even agreed with some of JS technical criticisms
(that HP was playing fast and loose with Lorentz
factors in a dielectric).
Yes, those ill-posed "Tables I & II."
Again my interest is not in Yilmaz only in the claims by Puthoff et-al that PV is a
"metric engineering" model of significance being the Right Stuff to Make Star Trek Real.
For example:
Engineering the Zero Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum
for Interstellar Flight - KeelyNet 04/06/02
Introduction
A paper that I presented at the First International Workshop on Field Propulsion in the UK a little over a year ago has now been published (after peer review and changes) in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS), copy enclosed. We are very pleased with this publication, as it presents a very balanced view.
First, we cover the potential promise of manipulating vacuum energy for spaceflight energy/propulsion, while also presenting a very sober analysis of the daunting problems involved.
Second, we take a look at the so-called “EXH electromagnetic field propulsion” of interest to many, only to find (unfortunately) that it is flawed at its roots because of rather arcane reasons. Hopefully this latter finding will encourage other researchers to redirect their efforts along more fruitful lines.
Finally, in Table 2 we present the basics of truly exotic propulsion based on a “metric engineering” approach to general relativity that hopefully some day will result in engineering embodiments.
Best regards,
wrote Hal Puthoff in http://www.keelynet.com/energy/engzpf.htm
BTW Hal is essentially correct on the “EXH electromagnetic field propulsion”, which has nothing to do with PV, but with Jim Corum's work at SARA and ISR into which we at ISSO pumped about a million dollars into SARA only to conclude that Hal was correct on that one.
Perfectly legitimate criticisms of HP's particular version of PV.
Since then I've looked into
the references in Hal's article and concluded that,
inter alia, his usage of the Lorentz factors is fine.
Maybe, maybe not. But either way it is a legitimate criticism IMO.
It is quite obvious IMHO that Laidlaw is not qualifed to make that remark about the Lorentz factors.
It also turns out that the physical analogy I'm
investigating is, for better or worse, much closer to
PV than I'd understood.
That's basically background. Just this morning I've
been looking at a bunch more correspondence between JS
and HP, and also between JS and you. No wonder I
couldn't get any sense out of the man! In effect, his
discussion of why Yilmaz is so wrong can be thought of
in two parts: first it is wrong because it does not
conform to certain implications of the original GT,
If "GT" (I call it GR) is "true", then such an inconsistency would mean that Yilmaz
is wrong.
But it would IMO be hopelessly naive to suppose that canonical GR is "true".
Even Einstein didn't think that.
I don't know what "true" means here. No physics theory is "true" only "falsifiable" in
Popper's sense - you agree? All good physics theories are eventually falsified outside
their proper domains of validity.
The undeniable empirical accuracy of formal-empirical GR does not and cannot
in itself decide the issue, obviously -- since Yilmaz is at this stage is in practice
empirically indistinguishable from GR -- although in principle distinguishable
I am not sure if that is true. In that case, GR wins by Occam's Razor, more with less.
Yilmaz introduces an obscure interpretation that is not needed as far as I was able to tell.
and second it is wrong because (list of names
including MTW) agree with the "battle tested" status
quo.
Well, that is a pragmatic argument -- stick with the devil you know. I think that
is a legitimate position to take, since Yilmaz's theory is still at this point a can
of worms.
But I have found that, from the standpoint of objective criticism, canonically
interpreted GR is *also* a can of worms.
Again, let's pin this down. Do you mean Ch 20 in MTW? What else?
To the point that I am now arguing that "general relativity" as originally
conceived by Einstein was in fact abandoned by 1920 at the latest.
Perhaps you are correct, I have not done the historical research. But let's be clear what you are saying here.
The formal structure did not change, what shifted was the interpretive informal language explaining the meaning
of the theory mainly to students and laymen. Agreed? Most theorists only care about the math and connecting the
math to data. We see that especially in quantum physics. Hawking proudly says he is a positivist. He is quite candid
about that.
The term is still used, but it now has a fundamentally different meaning and, literally
construed, is not "general relativity" at all.
Again this is invalid from a Wittgensteinian view. The meaning is in the use. Mainstream consensus, like democracy, is an
essential core of science although it can be corrupted as it was under Hitler and Stalin and now, some say
under Ginsparg who controls the e-print archive. ;-)
Therefore, "GR" mean the set of rules formal and informal that top physicists like MTW use. That these rules may have shifted between 1920 and 2003 is normal progress! The problem is that ignorant crackpots run wild in the cyber-streets like the Red Brigades pointing to over-stated remarks like you make.
PZ wrote:
From my POV GR is merely a formally covariant metric-tensor theory of the gravitational field that entails a *limited structural analogy* between inertial and gravitational effects, based on a partial mathematical analogy (derived from an abstract model of a deformable pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that is open to *multiple physical interpretations*.
Yes, that's my position all along.
But there is IMO now little question that the physical ("permanent") gravity field is
in its entirety *absolute* (as opposed to frame-dependent).
Yes, all that means "4th rank curvature tensor" =/= 0.
(Jack -- this is not "absolute" in the sense that the metric structure of the vacuum
does not depend on the distribution of matter, but in the sense of "frame-independent").
Local tensors all the way.
Sum of all stress-energy density tensor fields at a point P add to zero.
That's the meaning of Einstein's field equation in ALL local frames.
The word "all" includes pure geometry and the rate of exchange between geometry and stress-energy density is "string tension" which is for fields what c^2 is for real particles in the mass shell constraint E = Mc^2, where m is the rest mass, M = (Lorentz Factor)m when m =/= 0
i.e. E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
when m =/= 0
E = +-[(pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2]^1/2 = [1 + (pc/mc^2)^2]^1/2mc^2
p = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2mv
1 + [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1(v/c)^2 = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1
Therefore,
E = +- [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2mc^2
for a REAL on-mass-shell particle when m =/ = 0, otherwise E = pc when m = 0.
All this breaks down for off-mass-shell VIRTUAL particles that are either inside the vacuum, or in the case of near EM fields are trapped energy in MACRO-QUANTUM induction fields like in electric motors and magnetic materials.
This is all for particles, i.e. poles of single-particle Feynman propagators in the complex energy plane for Fourier transforms of space-time field correlation functions.
Now in the case of the analogy to the geometrodynamic field, "E" is replaced by the local stress-energy density tensor Tuv. c^2 is replaced by "string tension" and m is replaced by 2nd rank tensor curvature Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv.
E = mc^2 for REAL particles
Tuv(Geometry) = Guv(Geometry)(string tension) for the pure "marble" geometrodynamic LOCAL field
Where the 1915 field equation is
Tuv(Marble) + Tuv(Wood) = 0
After all, the Einstein-Hilbert field equations were arrived at in a hypothetico-deductive
trial-and-error process that relied largely on purely formal considerations, including
mathematical elegance and simplicity, together with fundamental requirements based on
correspondence considerations with respect to Newtonian physics and SR.
They were not carried down chiseled in stone by Moses from Mt. Sinai.
Oh yeah? Wanna bet? :-)
Einstein wanted to know "God's thoughts" and made a bargain that left us with nuclear fission and fusion WMD. ;-)
Is The Lord subtle and not malicious?
Even Einstein talked of "one wing of marble, and one of wood". One side is
still up for grabs even in canonical GR, and the validity of a particular set of field
equations is ultimately an empirical matter as long as they are internally consistent
and we get a satisfactory empirical correspondence with Newtonian gravity and SR.
In short, I'd brand JS's entire error ridden
position as disingenous tosh.
But then you would have to say the same of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
This is not just about Jack.
I can't see any problem
with Yilmaz's derivation of the equivalence principle
What is "wrong" with it is that it reverts to the pre-relativistic concept of *inertial
compensation*, which conflicts with the vestigial Trinitarian dogma of Einstein
equivalence (strict gravitational-inertial equivalence) which is the original heuristic
basis for the unified gravitational-inertial metric.
OK what I think those words mean is simply.
connection field = tensor part + non-tensor part
tensor part = real gravity
non-tensor part = phony "inertial force" gravity.
In a small enough region of space-time, even with non-vanishing curvature tensor
we can find LIFs on timelike geodesics such that in those LIFS
connection field = 0
Therefore,
phony inertial gravity g-force field ~ - real curvature gravity g-force field
total g-force in LIF ~ 0
as any astronaut who has been out in space will tell you and as the films of them in free float tell you.
This is the EEP CRYSTAL CLEAR and we do not need any "Less with more" Yilmaz "two metrics" or
Puthoff's "Tables I & II" which are" elliptical billiard balls" spoiling a very pretty game.
Yilmaz & PV together remind me of Professor Irwin Corey doing a shtick at Enrico
Banducci's table for Marshall Naify as we ate Angel Wings and Enrico played the violin
while Lucky threw a drunk out on the street. :-)
That is a dagger at the heart of the entire curved-air technotheocracy.
I do not think so.
I am reminded of the unfortunate Pythagorean who proved the existence of irrational
numbers.
I just gave my counter example above. What could be simpler and clearer?
They had to kill him.
However, if you read the fine print disclaimers, you discover that in the opinion of
none other than MTW co-author Kip Thorne, the question as to whether spacetime is
actually "curved" is *scientifically meaningless* (Black Holes and Time Warps).
Correct. Therefore, for Hal to argue that it is not really curved IS scientifically meaningless - exactly my point.
nor with his argument that it is actually impossible
to demonstrate the full principle from within the GT.
The problems he raises about the GT failure to reduce
to ST, about its overdetermination and so on are deep
and unequivocal. It is quite clear from our
correspondence that JS has never actually read the
Yilmaz source material.
I gave it to him.
I tried to read it. It looked like bad physics. In any case
I gave up trying to wade through the overly obscure presentation.
I don't want to be so
impolite, but so many impolite JS allegations (you
guys don't understand the physics, are arguing
nonmathematically and are indeed crackpots)
Well, most people to try to attack canonical relativity from outside
the institutional matrix are generally pretty crankish.
The problem is this same brush is used to tar *anyone* outside the establishment
who attempts to advance fundamental objections to or criticisms of the canonical
theory, no matter how rational and articulate
It's a standard ideological response.
A good example of this attitude is an article written for Salon.com by the aggressively
clueless science-groupie, John Farrell:
http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
(in his defense, I would point out that in my experience Farrell is just a "useful
idiot" who actually believes his own junk propaganda).
render him
fair game in my book. He should reserve such language
for people like me. (I'm copying this to JS, by the
way.)
When I came to gravity (just a couple of years ago) I
had not thought to look beyond the GT, and would
definitely have considered myself very much
pro-einstein,
Whatever *that* means.
Will the real Albert Einstein please stand up?
but just looking for a different, more
physical method to complement the status quo rather
than to replace it. It rapidly become clear that there
are no physical systems corresponding to the GT,
Post-1916 Einstein thought otherwise. If you haven't yet, you might want to look
at his 1920 talk given at the University of Leyden, which is available online.
Let me grant you this for the moment. So what's the big deal? This is the way
the understanding of all theories progresses.
whilst there is a host of technical problems no one
talks about outside the field. Although I can no
longer accept the GT, this in no way diminishes
Einstein's seminal contribution to the subject.
Again, *Einstein himself* repudiated the iconic Einstein of special relativity
fame, so beloved of noisy idiot-groupies like Farrell.
A lot of people -- including some physicists -- don't seem to understand that
canonical GR supersedes canonical SR and is fundamentally inconsistent with it.
Not when you properly interpret it like I just did above.
Yes, there is a *correspondence relationship* that accounts for the limited prior
empirical success of SR -- but that's all.
That's more than enough!
I'm a long way from saying here that either Yilmaz or
PV is the final word for even a classical theory of
gravity, and at present I'm trying to understand an
area where these two otherwise similar structures
diverge i.e. N-body metrics.
I would sharply distinguish between the interpretive question of inertial compensation
that is raised by Yilmaz, and the question of which theory is empirically correct.
I just showed you above how to think about that. It's simple. No big deal really.
The mass transformation
in a gravitational field seems to make the source
terms in yilmaz's exponential metric, sum(m_i/r_i),
non-superposable in the PV context. HP (and Dicke and
others working in related veins) talks about his ideas
extending to symmetries other than the spherical, but
seems to concede in saying that that there is no
general N-body metric for PV.
At one point Yilmaz claimed that there are no true n-body solutions in GR -- although
I think this claim has been refuted.
I'd like to understand better why, even given that his
masses don't transform, Yilmaz is able to superpose
the various m_i/r_i terms in spite of the metric
changes along radii in the N-body context. Has he
discussed this point in any published article, or
perhaps would you be able to explain it?
As I recall, he says that this is because his n-body field equations are linear
and the solutions are consequently superposable.
It's much more like a classical field theory.
If you look at the standard Yilmaz references I think it's in there.
Then I'd like to ask a question: After coming to the
exponential metric, why did Dicke and Puthoff each do
the parameter fitting so as to put the mass into the
constant in the exponent? It seems to me that these
theories necessitate a distinction between the two
concepts, mass and energy, that we use in physics to
put "stuff" into equations.
"Mass" being a quantitative measure of inertia and also of gravitational
influence, which are now thought to be characteristics of both "matter"
and "energy".
For these theories M and
E are not simply connected by c^2, a constant, but
rather the relationship depends on the space within
which a system is instantiated.
Right.
Right? Why right? Justify that with an example. What does
"M and E are not simply connected by c^2, a constant, but
rather the relationship depends on the space within
which a system is instantiated."
mean to you Paul? It sounds like gibberish to me.
Classical SR is wrong "almost everywhere" (its domain of validity is
a spacetime point, in free-fall).
A point does not fall. You mean an "observer."
In any case, even according to Einstein, there is really no relativistic
mass even in canonical SR. The primary definition of relativistic mass
in SR is not even isotropic -- you have a longitudinal "mass" and a
separate transverse "mass".
Save this one for another day. See my mass shell argument above.
Yet the amount of matter in a speeding particle is a single determinate
quantity.
It's a kinematical illusion.
So we must be careful
to choose the correct variable: is it exp(2GM/rc^2) or
exp(2GE/rc^4), where c goes in as a constant?
Again I say this distinction in the above context is bogus.
I am surprised Paul that you let him get away with that one.
A related question might be, is the Yilmaz field self-gravitating? Does
gravitational energy itself act as a gravitating "mass"?
If Yilmaz can get an accurate theory out of a linear classical-like n-body
field, with no self-gravitation, that would raise some interesting questions in
my mind.
In the
second expression, E and r both transform the same, so
the ratio E/r is at least observer independent, right?
I appreciate, from the correspondence between JS and
HP, that Hal's r is "the value we would get if we
could carry undistorted rulers into the field", and
would like to extend that to say that, for any
observer, r is the value he would get if he could use
his rulers for the measurement. Is that even possibly
reasonable?
Interesting questions. I'd have to spend some time looking into the details
(I'm not really a physicist), so I've copied this reply to HP so that maybe
we can get answers straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. :-)
IMHO it's all Laputan gibberish with no important operational meaning - no interesting gedankenexperiments.
Apart from those, you do seem to be somewhat open to
Yilmaz gravity without being an advocate.
I like banging theories into each other.
I also think that there is quite a lot of "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra"
surrounding canonical relativity theory that badly needs to see the light of
day.
Perhaps you
would be able to provide some insights into the
original questions I had been addressing to JS? If
you would be prepared to do so, I'll send over some of
the old correspondence.
Send it and, for what it's worth, I'll have a look at it.
Z.
Many thanks in advance.
regards.... andrew.
Back to http://www.keelynet.com/energy/engzpf.htm PV "metric engineering" another day.
On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
andrew laidlaw wrote:
Dear Paul,
A few months ago, I came across one of Jack Sarfatti's
critiques on Hal Puthoff's PV article. Feeling that
the criticism was less than fair (and given the fairly
close correspondence between Yilmaz and PV), I wrote
to him saying he was missing the point, namely that
(whether PV is true or false) between Yilmaz and PV we
could begin to see gravity as emerging from an
intelligible physical system. That email was quite
widely distributed, and I received a total of seven
replies, including one from a davidg, who strongly
suggested that I should talk to you (I think someone
may even have sent you a copy of the original
correspondence?). He wrote:
Andrew,
You should definitely talk to Paul Zelinsky,
pzielins@ix.netcom.com , he has given alot of thought
to this issue.
I was especially interested in why folk reject Yilmaz
so readily.
I have a theory about this. It's partly socio-psychological, but mainly technically
internal to the subject.
You are talking about the content in Ch 20 of MTW "Flux Integrals for 4-momentum and angular momentum" agreed?
For the record my remarks on "metric engineering" have little to do with that issue. All of my remarks have to do with
bona-fide local tensors within GR in which the local stress-energy density tensor for pure space-time geometry is trivially
Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry).
In the non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf = 0
Tuv(Geometry) = 0
As I recall the "Freud Identity" has to do with defining the geometrodynamic flux integrals in specifically asymptotically flat space-times only?
MTW make no mention of the "Freud Identity" crisis although Pauli does - but then again he worked with Jung! :-)
You have to understand that when Einstein publicly repudiated almost his entire
heuristic and epistemological position on relativity around 1920-1926, no
one who was anybody in modern physics wanted to hear it.
Einstein, quite understandably, ended up targeting his born-again realist fire on
quantum mechanics and Copenhagenism.
In 1926 Einstein privately told a perplexed Heisenberg that much of what he had
written on the foundations of special relativity was "rubbish". By this time I am told
he was reading Blavatsky on the occult aether.
Can you prove that last sentence? Einstein did write a forward to "Mental Radio" I think by some famous American writer.
Scratch a visionary theoretical physicist and find a Tech Gnostic. ;-)
Reminding JS of the fact that GR fails to
conserve the 4-momentum,
That statement is so vague as to be meaningless.
and why Yilmaz insists on the
Freud identity, I sent him the relevant equations from
Yilmaz's letter to nuovo cimento.
The situation with the vacuum stress-energy density in canonical GR is unbelievably
screwed up. We are not supposed to be able to define a localizable frame-independent
quantity, for reasons that are arguably incoherent with the rest of the canonical theory.
There is in canonical theory no analog of classical field potential energy.
A gravitational pulse has a curvature component that travels at an objective
velocity of propagation, and a linear component whose velocity of propagation
is frame-dependent (as pointed out by Eddington in 1923).
Now that is "incoherent" on more than one level.
No comment until I do some serious homework on that. By "linear" you mean linear in the "connection field"?
He "couldn't read"
them from my emailed script. So I asked for his fax
number - nothing comes back. So I scan and send him
the article. Now he is "overseas". At the end of the
day, what I received back from a dozen emails all
raising actual content was, in effect, a bunch of
marketing content surrounding a muddled and
meaningless "Yilmaz is asking the wrong questions".
This is not just about Jack. This is the "received" view of the matter. Jack is relying on
the authority of the luminaries of the contemporary gravitational physics establishment.
To keep Jack honest, I was dialectically "affirming the weaker case" that that the canonical
MTW gloss is internally incoherent, since it contains a vestigial residue of the original
Einstein theory of strict gravitational-inertial equivalence, which I and many others say is
not tenable.
Again I say this "strict gravitational-inertial equivalence" is a not a real issue since no one professes it,
certainly not MTW in the "strict" sense. Since the 4th rank curvature tensor is a local tensor if it is non-zero
in one frame, it is non-zero in ALL frames. The EEP never asserts that the local curvature can be set to zero.
It only says the connection can be set to zero locally in an LIF which still has local curvature. The tidal
geodesic deviation relative acceleration between 2 neighboring test particles can be made small provided
we are not near a black hole and not down at the Planck scale.
It all started out as a light-hearted exercise in post-modernistic deconstruction, but I ended up
taking it quite seriously.
If this is right, it still doesn't necessarily mean that Yilmaz's theory is correct, or preferable
to GR; it just removes a fundamental objection to a Yilmaz-type theory.
Which is? I see no need for a "bimetric theory" apart from standard GR where the LIF local metric is approximately flat and the LNIF metric at the same event P is not. The physical difference is the weightless free float of the LIF observer and the onerous weight felt by the LNIF observer.
If my arguments are right, in the absence of additional fundamental objections,
the question of which alternative theory is preferable then largely reduces to an empirical
question.
Let Yilmaz explain the pulsar gravity waves to the great accuracy that Penrose showed in I think it's "Shadows of the Mind" for which a Nobel Prize was awarded. Let Yilmaz duplicate all the checks that Cliff Will writes about.
At that time, I wasn't taking PV all that seriously
and even agreed with some of JS technical criticisms
(that HP was playing fast and loose with Lorentz
factors in a dielectric).
Yes, those ill-posed "Tables I & II."
Again my interest is not in Yilmaz only in the claims by Puthoff et-al that PV is a
"metric engineering" model of significance being the Right Stuff to Make Star Trek Real.
For example:
Engineering the Zero Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum
for Interstellar Flight - KeelyNet 04/06/02
Introduction
A paper that I presented at the First International Workshop on Field Propulsion in the UK a little over a year ago has now been published (after peer review and changes) in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS), copy enclosed. We are very pleased with this publication, as it presents a very balanced view.
First, we cover the potential promise of manipulating vacuum energy for spaceflight energy/propulsion, while also presenting a very sober analysis of the daunting problems involved.
Second, we take a look at the so-called “EXH electromagnetic field propulsion” of interest to many, only to find (unfortunately) that it is flawed at its roots because of rather arcane reasons. Hopefully this latter finding will encourage other researchers to redirect their efforts along more fruitful lines.
Finally, in Table 2 we present the basics of truly exotic propulsion based on a “metric engineering” approach to general relativity that hopefully some day will result in engineering embodiments.
Best regards,
wrote Hal Puthoff in http://www.keelynet.com/energy/engzpf.htm
BTW Hal is essentially correct on the “EXH electromagnetic field propulsion”, which has nothing to do with PV, but with Jim Corum's work at SARA and ISR into which we at ISSO pumped about a million dollars into SARA only to conclude that Hal was correct on that one.
Perfectly legitimate criticisms of HP's particular version of PV.
Since then I've looked into
the references in Hal's article and concluded that,
inter alia, his usage of the Lorentz factors is fine.
Maybe, maybe not. But either way it is a legitimate criticism IMO.
It is quite obvious IMHO that Laidlaw is not qualifed to make that remark about the Lorentz factors.
It also turns out that the physical analogy I'm
investigating is, for better or worse, much closer to
PV than I'd understood.
That's basically background. Just this morning I've
been looking at a bunch more correspondence between JS
and HP, and also between JS and you. No wonder I
couldn't get any sense out of the man! In effect, his
discussion of why Yilmaz is so wrong can be thought of
in two parts: first it is wrong because it does not
conform to certain implications of the original GT,
If "GT" (I call it GR) is "true", then such an inconsistency would mean that Yilmaz
is wrong.
But it would IMO be hopelessly naive to suppose that canonical GR is "true".
Even Einstein didn't think that.
I don't know what "true" means here. No physics theory is "true" only "falsifiable" in
Popper's sense - you agree? All good physics theories are eventually falsified outside
their proper domains of validity.
The undeniable empirical accuracy of formal-empirical GR does not and cannot
in itself decide the issue, obviously -- since Yilmaz is at this stage is in practice
empirically indistinguishable from GR -- although in principle distinguishable
I am not sure if that is true. In that case, GR wins by Occam's Razor, more with less.
Yilmaz introduces an obscure interpretation that is not needed as far as I was able to tell.
and second it is wrong because (list of names
including MTW) agree with the "battle tested" status
quo.
Well, that is a pragmatic argument -- stick with the devil you know. I think that
is a legitimate position to take, since Yilmaz's theory is still at this point a can
of worms.
But I have found that, from the standpoint of objective criticism, canonically
interpreted GR is *also* a can of worms.
Again, let's pin this down. Do you mean Ch 20 in MTW? What else?
To the point that I am now arguing that "general relativity" as originally
conceived by Einstein was in fact abandoned by 1920 at the latest.
Perhaps you are correct, I have not done the historical research. But let's be clear what you are saying here.
The formal structure did not change, what shifted was the interpretive informal language explaining the meaning
of the theory mainly to students and laymen. Agreed? Most theorists only care about the math and connecting the
math to data. We see that especially in quantum physics. Hawking proudly says he is a positivist. He is quite candid
about that.
The term is still used, but it now has a fundamentally different meaning and, literally
construed, is not "general relativity" at all.
Again this is invalid from a Wittgensteinian view. The meaning is in the use. Mainstream consensus, like democracy, is an
essential core of science although it can be corrupted as it was under Hitler and Stalin and now, some say
under Ginsparg who controls the e-print archive. ;-)
Therefore, "GR" mean the set of rules formal and informal that top physicists like MTW use. That these rules may have shifted between 1920 and 2003 is normal progress! The problem is that ignorant crackpots run wild in the cyber-streets like the Red Brigades pointing to over-stated remarks like you make.
PZ wrote:
From my POV GR is merely a formally covariant metric-tensor theory of the gravitational field that entails a *limited structural analogy* between inertial and gravitational effects, based on a partial mathematical analogy (derived from an abstract model of a deformable pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that is open to *multiple physical interpretations*.
Yes, that's my position all along.
But there is IMO now little question that the physical ("permanent") gravity field is
in its entirety *absolute* (as opposed to frame-dependent).
Yes, all that means "4th rank curvature tensor" =/= 0.
(Jack -- this is not "absolute" in the sense that the metric structure of the vacuum
does not depend on the distribution of matter, but in the sense of "frame-independent").
Local tensors all the way.
Sum of all stress-energy density tensor fields at a point P add to zero.
That's the meaning of Einstein's field equation in ALL local frames.
The word "all" includes pure geometry and the rate of exchange between geometry and stress-energy density is "string tension" which is for fields what c^2 is for real particles in the mass shell constraint E = Mc^2, where m is the rest mass, M = (Lorentz Factor)m when m =/= 0
i.e. E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
when m =/= 0
E = +-[(pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2]^1/2 = [1 + (pc/mc^2)^2]^1/2mc^2
p = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2mv
1 + [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1(v/c)^2 = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1
Therefore,
E = +- [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2mc^2
for a REAL on-mass-shell particle when m =/ = 0, otherwise E = pc when m = 0.
All this breaks down for off-mass-shell VIRTUAL particles that are either inside the vacuum, or in the case of near EM fields are trapped energy in MACRO-QUANTUM induction fields like in electric motors and magnetic materials.
This is all for particles, i.e. poles of single-particle Feynman propagators in the complex energy plane for Fourier transforms of space-time field correlation functions.
Now in the case of the analogy to the geometrodynamic field, "E" is replaced by the local stress-energy density tensor Tuv. c^2 is replaced by "string tension" and m is replaced by 2nd rank tensor curvature Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv.
E = mc^2 for REAL particles
Tuv(Geometry) = Guv(Geometry)(string tension) for the pure "marble" geometrodynamic LOCAL field
Where the 1915 field equation is
Tuv(Marble) + Tuv(Wood) = 0
After all, the Einstein-Hilbert field equations were arrived at in a hypothetico-deductive
trial-and-error process that relied largely on purely formal considerations, including
mathematical elegance and simplicity, together with fundamental requirements based on
correspondence considerations with respect to Newtonian physics and SR.
They were not carried down chiseled in stone by Moses from Mt. Sinai.
Oh yeah? Wanna bet? :-)
Einstein wanted to know "God's thoughts" and made a bargain that left us with nuclear fission and fusion WMD. ;-)
Is The Lord subtle and not malicious?
Even Einstein talked of "one wing of marble, and one of wood". One side is
still up for grabs even in canonical GR, and the validity of a particular set of field
equations is ultimately an empirical matter as long as they are internally consistent
and we get a satisfactory empirical correspondence with Newtonian gravity and SR.
In short, I'd brand JS's entire error ridden
position as disingenous tosh.
But then you would have to say the same of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
This is not just about Jack.
I can't see any problem
with Yilmaz's derivation of the equivalence principle
What is "wrong" with it is that it reverts to the pre-relativistic concept of *inertial
compensation*, which conflicts with the vestigial Trinitarian dogma of Einstein
equivalence (strict gravitational-inertial equivalence) which is the original heuristic
basis for the unified gravitational-inertial metric.
OK what I think those words mean is simply.
connection field = tensor part + non-tensor part
tensor part = real gravity
non-tensor part = phony "inertial force" gravity.
In a small enough region of space-time, even with non-vanishing curvature tensor
we can find LIFs on timelike geodesics such that in those LIFS
connection field = 0
Therefore,
phony inertial gravity g-force field ~ - real curvature gravity g-force field
total g-force in LIF ~ 0
as any astronaut who has been out in space will tell you and as the films of them in free float tell you.
This is the EEP CRYSTAL CLEAR and we do not need any "Less with more" Yilmaz "two metrics" or
Puthoff's "Tables I & II" which are" elliptical billiard balls" spoiling a very pretty game.
Yilmaz & PV together remind me of Professor Irwin Corey doing a shtick at Enrico
Banducci's table for Marshall Naify as we ate Angel Wings and Enrico played the violin
while Lucky threw a drunk out on the street. :-)
That is a dagger at the heart of the entire curved-air technotheocracy.
I do not think so.
I am reminded of the unfortunate Pythagorean who proved the existence of irrational
numbers.
I just gave my counter example above. What could be simpler and clearer?
They had to kill him.
However, if you read the fine print disclaimers, you discover that in the opinion of
none other than MTW co-author Kip Thorne, the question as to whether spacetime is
actually "curved" is *scientifically meaningless* (Black Holes and Time Warps).
Correct. Therefore, for Hal to argue that it is not really curved IS scientifically meaningless - exactly my point.
nor with his argument that it is actually impossible
to demonstrate the full principle from within the GT.
The problems he raises about the GT failure to reduce
to ST, about its overdetermination and so on are deep
and unequivocal. It is quite clear from our
correspondence that JS has never actually read the
Yilmaz source material.
I gave it to him.
I tried to read it. It looked like bad physics. In any case
I gave up trying to wade through the overly obscure presentation.
I don't want to be so
impolite, but so many impolite JS allegations (you
guys don't understand the physics, are arguing
nonmathematically and are indeed crackpots)
Well, most people to try to attack canonical relativity from outside
the institutional matrix are generally pretty crankish.
The problem is this same brush is used to tar *anyone* outside the establishment
who attempts to advance fundamental objections to or criticisms of the canonical
theory, no matter how rational and articulate
It's a standard ideological response.
A good example of this attitude is an article written for Salon.com by the aggressively
clueless science-groupie, John Farrell:
http://dir.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
(in his defense, I would point out that in my experience Farrell is just a "useful
idiot" who actually believes his own junk propaganda).
render him
fair game in my book. He should reserve such language
for people like me. (I'm copying this to JS, by the
way.)
When I came to gravity (just a couple of years ago) I
had not thought to look beyond the GT, and would
definitely have considered myself very much
pro-einstein,
Whatever *that* means.
Will the real Albert Einstein please stand up?
but just looking for a different, more
physical method to complement the status quo rather
than to replace it. It rapidly become clear that there
are no physical systems corresponding to the GT,
Post-1916 Einstein thought otherwise. If you haven't yet, you might want to look
at his 1920 talk given at the University of Leyden, which is available online.
Let me grant you this for the moment. So what's the big deal? This is the way
the understanding of all theories progresses.
whilst there is a host of technical problems no one
talks about outside the field. Although I can no
longer accept the GT, this in no way diminishes
Einstein's seminal contribution to the subject.
Again, *Einstein himself* repudiated the iconic Einstein of special relativity
fame, so beloved of noisy idiot-groupies like Farrell.
A lot of people -- including some physicists -- don't seem to understand that
canonical GR supersedes canonical SR and is fundamentally inconsistent with it.
Not when you properly interpret it like I just did above.
Yes, there is a *correspondence relationship* that accounts for the limited prior
empirical success of SR -- but that's all.
That's more than enough!
I'm a long way from saying here that either Yilmaz or
PV is the final word for even a classical theory of
gravity, and at present I'm trying to understand an
area where these two otherwise similar structures
diverge i.e. N-body metrics.
I would sharply distinguish between the interpretive question of inertial compensation
that is raised by Yilmaz, and the question of which theory is empirically correct.
I just showed you above how to think about that. It's simple. No big deal really.
The mass transformation
in a gravitational field seems to make the source
terms in yilmaz's exponential metric, sum(m_i/r_i),
non-superposable in the PV context. HP (and Dicke and
others working in related veins) talks about his ideas
extending to symmetries other than the spherical, but
seems to concede in saying that that there is no
general N-body metric for PV.
At one point Yilmaz claimed that there are no true n-body solutions in GR -- although
I think this claim has been refuted.
I'd like to understand better why, even given that his
masses don't transform, Yilmaz is able to superpose
the various m_i/r_i terms in spite of the metric
changes along radii in the N-body context. Has he
discussed this point in any published article, or
perhaps would you be able to explain it?
As I recall, he says that this is because his n-body field equations are linear
and the solutions are consequently superposable.
It's much more like a classical field theory.
If you look at the standard Yilmaz references I think it's in there.
Then I'd like to ask a question: After coming to the
exponential metric, why did Dicke and Puthoff each do
the parameter fitting so as to put the mass into the
constant in the exponent? It seems to me that these
theories necessitate a distinction between the two
concepts, mass and energy, that we use in physics to
put "stuff" into equations.
"Mass" being a quantitative measure of inertia and also of gravitational
influence, which are now thought to be characteristics of both "matter"
and "energy".
For these theories M and
E are not simply connected by c^2, a constant, but
rather the relationship depends on the space within
which a system is instantiated.
Right.
Right? Why right? Justify that with an example. What does
"M and E are not simply connected by c^2, a constant, but
rather the relationship depends on the space within
which a system is instantiated."
mean to you Paul? It sounds like gibberish to me.
Classical SR is wrong "almost everywhere" (its domain of validity is
a spacetime point, in free-fall).
A point does not fall. You mean an "observer."
In any case, even according to Einstein, there is really no relativistic
mass even in canonical SR. The primary definition of relativistic mass
in SR is not even isotropic -- you have a longitudinal "mass" and a
separate transverse "mass".
Save this one for another day. See my mass shell argument above.
Yet the amount of matter in a speeding particle is a single determinate
quantity.
It's a kinematical illusion.
So we must be careful
to choose the correct variable: is it exp(2GM/rc^2) or
exp(2GE/rc^4), where c goes in as a constant?
Again I say this distinction in the above context is bogus.
I am surprised Paul that you let him get away with that one.
A related question might be, is the Yilmaz field self-gravitating? Does
gravitational energy itself act as a gravitating "mass"?
If Yilmaz can get an accurate theory out of a linear classical-like n-body
field, with no self-gravitation, that would raise some interesting questions in
my mind.
In the
second expression, E and r both transform the same, so
the ratio E/r is at least observer independent, right?
I appreciate, from the correspondence between JS and
HP, that Hal's r is "the value we would get if we
could carry undistorted rulers into the field", and
would like to extend that to say that, for any
observer, r is the value he would get if he could use
his rulers for the measurement. Is that even possibly
reasonable?
Interesting questions. I'd have to spend some time looking into the details
(I'm not really a physicist), so I've copied this reply to HP so that maybe
we can get answers straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. :-)
IMHO it's all Laputan gibberish with no important operational meaning - no interesting gedankenexperiments.
Apart from those, you do seem to be somewhat open to
Yilmaz gravity without being an advocate.
I like banging theories into each other.
I also think that there is quite a lot of "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra"
surrounding canonical relativity theory that badly needs to see the light of
day.
Perhaps you
would be able to provide some insights into the
original questions I had been addressing to JS? If
you would be prepared to do so, I'll send over some of
the old correspondence.
Send it and, for what it's worth, I'll have a look at it.
Z.
Many thanks in advance.
regards.... andrew.
Back to http://www.keelynet.com/energy/engzpf.htm PV "metric engineering" another day.
re: http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
Copyright 2003 by Jack Sarfatti, All Rights Reserved. May be quoted with proper citation of identity of author.
This is an excerpt from the book "Super Cosmos" I am writing now, the third in the Space-Time and Beyond Series.
The Physical Principles of Metric Engineering
The term "metric engineering" was coined by Dr. Harold Puthoff. Hal, as he prefers to be called, was a US Naval Officer who then worked for the National Security Agency before going to the Stanford Research Institute where he conducted the famous "Remote Viewing" experiments with Russell Targ testing Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and other psychics in a project paid for by the CIA and Department of Defense Intelligence Agencies. I first met Hal and Russell at SRI in 1973 and that story is told in my book "Destiny Matrix." Hal has held very high USG security clearances and it is well known that he is obsessed with the UFO mystery. Hal, like his co-worker Bernie Haisch, who is an editor of the Astrophysical Journal, both strongly believe in the physical reality of flying saucers. They, with Jacques Vallee, have been active in UFO groups, including the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program, some financed by Laurance Rockefeller and the "Howard Hughes" clone Las Vegas Hotel Tycoon Robert Bigelow who owns Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Since they take the reality of the flying saucers seriously so do I. The two lines of theoretical physics research that Hal has pursued for several decades now, zero point energy and a polarized vacuum model of gravity, is primarily motivated by the quest to understand how the saucers fly. The alleged reality of such advanced alien technology is clearly of immense importance to US National Security and beyond. The recent development in physics shown in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell", Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and Igor Novikov's "The River of Time" makes time traveling alien interference in our history more probable not less probable. This is all an aspect of "metric engineering" defined as the practical control of space and time warps. I have discussed this in Paramount Pictures DVD Special Collector's Edition of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" and in Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science: Time Travel." The ultimate form of metric engineering is seen in "Q" in "Star Trek" where a Super Mind is able to warp space-time. We also need a physics of consciousness to see if that fiction can be realized in fact. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees who runs the laboratory where Stephen Hawking works and who is the new Master of Trinity College, Cambridge has added the dimension of "Doomsday WMD" to the quest for a metric engineering breakthrough in his Chapter 9 of his pessimistic "Our Final Hour" on the "Ice Nine" "rip-in-space" propagating at the speed of light that could literally destroy our universe. We are now at that turning point in our history where, like Mickey Mouse in Walt Disney's "Fantasia" we could, in our incompetence, destroy the entire Universe just as we are now surely destroying Earth's Biosphere. Therefore, any aliens out there with Star Gate Time Travel and Warp Drive Super Technology are already here in order to stop us from killing them as well as ourselves. The American Christian Fundamentalist Right has a strong belief in Apocalypse Now and there is real danger that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a precognitive remote viewing of our future by Saint John in The Bible's "Revelations." All the more reason for me like Paul Revere to alert the public to these new developments in physics because only real knowledge can possibly save us and even then there is no guarantee.
What does mainstream physics tell us about the possibility of metric engineering? The relevant parts of mainstream physics for metric engineering are of Einstein's general theory of relativity and micro-quantum mechanics including the "More is Different" emergence of "macro-quantum" coherent superfluid order in ground state and vacuum instabilities developed by condensed matter Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson also seen in high-energy physics in the "Higgs mechanism" and in the "inflationary chaotic cosmology of A. Linde consistent with the "parallel universes" nicely described by Max Tegmark in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American.
Let's start with Einstein's gravity field equation of ~ 1915. Einstein viewed pure space-time geometry like the marble in a statue by Michelangelo with gross matter and radiation as "wood." Einstein's equation, in the 21st Century language, is
Space-Time Curvature = - (Stress-Energy Density)/(String Tension) (1)
Curvature has the physical dimensions of 1/Area, String Tension has Energy/Length and Stress-Enegy Density has Energy/Volume. Simple algebra confirms that this way of writing Einstein's equation is correct dimensionally. The "String Tension" is the basic parameter that Ed Witten of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study uses in his discussions of "M theory" that unifies the five limiting cases of "super string theory" in which the elementary leptons, quarks and gauge force bosons are "vibrating strings of pure energy" pulsating in the extra space dimensions of "Calabi-Yau" hyperspace. The ordinary matter and radiation on the right hand side of Einstein's equation are open strings whose ends are stuck to 3Dim brane worlds of which our universe is one. You can picture a string as a tiny wormhole whose two ends need not be on the same brane world because only then can you not have equal numbers of particles and antiparticles in the same brane world.
Another equivalent way to look at Einstein's 1915 equation from our post-modern 2003 point of view is as a perfect balance on The Scale of Cosmic Justice peeking through the blindfold. That is, the stress-energy density "tensor" of pure marble geometry is
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Pure Geometry = (String Tension)(Space-Time Curvature) (2)
Einstein's equation is then like the static equilibrium balance of forces in architecture in which the sum of all the contributions to the stress-energy density tensor add up to a perfect zero! In this simplest of cases
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Geometry + Stress-Energy Density of Matter etc. = 0 (3)
All physically real objects are either tensors, spinors or twistors in the theory of relativity. This is because the coordinate map is not the physical territory. The form of the laws of physics must be the same locally no matter how the coordinate map is morphed. To this we must add the Einstein Equivalence Principle or EEP which says that even in a curved space-time, we can use the special theory of relativity locally for a special class of LIF observers to describe what is happening to a good approximation. The EEP is only meant to apply in this approximate way and it will break down if one is falling into a black hole singularity of if the microscope magnification is so large that quantum gravity zero point energy density fluctuations in the space-time geometry itself get large. There may also be torsion fields not included in Einstein's 1915 "geometrodynamics" that may require a modification of the EEP. The spinor is a square root of a tensor and the Penrose twistor is a spinor in a complex space-time. The physics of point particles in real space-time when extended to complex and hyper-complex matrix space-time is in reality the physics of extended strings and membranes in real space-time.
Hawking's "imaginary time" and its connection to inverse temperature is part of that same story.
The key concept for metric engineering is the Einstein currents! Einstein's field equation is always the statement that the sum of all the stress-energy density tensors when put on the same side of the equation all balance out to exactly zero. We then take a "covariant divergence" of the equation to get the Einstein currents, which are conserved when added together.
The covariant divergence depends on something called a "connection field", which tells us how to "parallel transport" tensors and spinors along paths or "histories" in space-time and beyond including the extra dimensions of hyperspace. Every time a gauge force field is added, like a torsion field, there is an additional piece added to this connection field. Einstein's 1915 theory is a degenerate case of the bigger unified field theory just like a circle is a degenerate case of an ellipse. An ellipse has two centers or "foci". When the two foci merge together the ellipse degenerates into a circle. Einstein's 1915 theory in the form of the "Bianchi identities" forbids practical metric engineering because it has an impenetrable barrier completely separating the marble geometric current from the wood matter current. Both kinds of currents must be able to intermingle to transform into each other in order to have "soft" practical metric engineering of Star Gate Time Travel traversable wormholes and weightless superluminal warp drives using the anti-gravitating exotic vacuum "dark energy" with negative zero point exotic vacuum pressure that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the zero point energy density. The new Type Ia super novae data showing that our brane world Universe is accelerating in its rate of expansion, i.e. speeding up rather than slowing down. Indeed approximately 3/4 of all the stuff of our Universe on the large scale is made out of "dark energy." Therefore, the idea of ancient traversable Star Gate wormholes stabilized by dark energy is not so far fetched. The brute force approach to metric engineering taken by Hal Puthoff now for at least two decades can never work because space-time is too stiff to bend directly with electromagnetic field energy density to do anything worth doing because the string tension is too large. In contrast, we can used the quantum interference of the Einstein stress-energy density currents via the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect for practical metric engineering provided that the pure geometric currents are not separately conserved like they are in Einstein's original theory. One way to do that is to "bottle" or "harness" the "dark energy" as General Douglas Mac Arthur precognitively remote viewed in his "Duty, Honor, Country" Farewell Speech to the Cadets at West Point in 1962 in a speech made even more remarkable for its reference to the coming war in space with extra-terrestrials. Michael Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, says in April 2003 Physics Today that it is impossible to "bottle dark energy" and if Einstein's 1915 theory is the final theory he is correct. However, the real UFO evidence that drives Hal Puthoff like Captain Ahab after The White Wale, Moby Dick, is the evidence that suggests Professor Turner will be proved wrong in that prediction.
Copyright 2003 by Jack Sarfatti, All Rights Reserved. May be quoted with proper citation of identity of author.
This is an excerpt from the book "Super Cosmos" I am writing now, the third in the Space-Time and Beyond Series.
The Physical Principles of Metric Engineering
The term "metric engineering" was coined by Dr. Harold Puthoff. Hal, as he prefers to be called, was a US Naval Officer who then worked for the National Security Agency before going to the Stanford Research Institute where he conducted the famous "Remote Viewing" experiments with Russell Targ testing Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and other psychics in a project paid for by the CIA and Department of Defense Intelligence Agencies. I first met Hal and Russell at SRI in 1973 and that story is told in my book "Destiny Matrix." Hal has held very high USG security clearances and it is well known that he is obsessed with the UFO mystery. Hal, like his co-worker Bernie Haisch, who is an editor of the Astrophysical Journal, both strongly believe in the physical reality of flying saucers. They, with Jacques Vallee, have been active in UFO groups, including the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Program, some financed by Laurance Rockefeller and the "Howard Hughes" clone Las Vegas Hotel Tycoon Robert Bigelow who owns Bigelow Aerospace Corporation. Since they take the reality of the flying saucers seriously so do I. The two lines of theoretical physics research that Hal has pursued for several decades now, zero point energy and a polarized vacuum model of gravity, is primarily motivated by the quest to understand how the saucers fly. The alleged reality of such advanced alien technology is clearly of immense importance to US National Security and beyond. The recent development in physics shown in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene, in Stephen Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell", Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and Igor Novikov's "The River of Time" makes time traveling alien interference in our history more probable not less probable. This is all an aspect of "metric engineering" defined as the practical control of space and time warps. I have discussed this in Paramount Pictures DVD Special Collector's Edition of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" in "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible" and in Learning Channel's "Ultra-Science: Time Travel." The ultimate form of metric engineering is seen in "Q" in "Star Trek" where a Super Mind is able to warp space-time. We also need a physics of consciousness to see if that fiction can be realized in fact. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees who runs the laboratory where Stephen Hawking works and who is the new Master of Trinity College, Cambridge has added the dimension of "Doomsday WMD" to the quest for a metric engineering breakthrough in his Chapter 9 of his pessimistic "Our Final Hour" on the "Ice Nine" "rip-in-space" propagating at the speed of light that could literally destroy our universe. We are now at that turning point in our history where, like Mickey Mouse in Walt Disney's "Fantasia" we could, in our incompetence, destroy the entire Universe just as we are now surely destroying Earth's Biosphere. Therefore, any aliens out there with Star Gate Time Travel and Warp Drive Super Technology are already here in order to stop us from killing them as well as ourselves. The American Christian Fundamentalist Right has a strong belief in Apocalypse Now and there is real danger that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in a precognitive remote viewing of our future by Saint John in The Bible's "Revelations." All the more reason for me like Paul Revere to alert the public to these new developments in physics because only real knowledge can possibly save us and even then there is no guarantee.
What does mainstream physics tell us about the possibility of metric engineering? The relevant parts of mainstream physics for metric engineering are of Einstein's general theory of relativity and micro-quantum mechanics including the "More is Different" emergence of "macro-quantum" coherent superfluid order in ground state and vacuum instabilities developed by condensed matter Princeton physicist P.W. Anderson also seen in high-energy physics in the "Higgs mechanism" and in the "inflationary chaotic cosmology of A. Linde consistent with the "parallel universes" nicely described by Max Tegmark in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American.
Let's start with Einstein's gravity field equation of ~ 1915. Einstein viewed pure space-time geometry like the marble in a statue by Michelangelo with gross matter and radiation as "wood." Einstein's equation, in the 21st Century language, is
Space-Time Curvature = - (Stress-Energy Density)/(String Tension) (1)
Curvature has the physical dimensions of 1/Area, String Tension has Energy/Length and Stress-Enegy Density has Energy/Volume. Simple algebra confirms that this way of writing Einstein's equation is correct dimensionally. The "String Tension" is the basic parameter that Ed Witten of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study uses in his discussions of "M theory" that unifies the five limiting cases of "super string theory" in which the elementary leptons, quarks and gauge force bosons are "vibrating strings of pure energy" pulsating in the extra space dimensions of "Calabi-Yau" hyperspace. The ordinary matter and radiation on the right hand side of Einstein's equation are open strings whose ends are stuck to 3Dim brane worlds of which our universe is one. You can picture a string as a tiny wormhole whose two ends need not be on the same brane world because only then can you not have equal numbers of particles and antiparticles in the same brane world.
Another equivalent way to look at Einstein's 1915 equation from our post-modern 2003 point of view is as a perfect balance on The Scale of Cosmic Justice peeking through the blindfold. That is, the stress-energy density "tensor" of pure marble geometry is
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Pure Geometry = (String Tension)(Space-Time Curvature) (2)
Einstein's equation is then like the static equilibrium balance of forces in architecture in which the sum of all the contributions to the stress-energy density tensor add up to a perfect zero! In this simplest of cases
Stress-Energy Density Tensor of Geometry + Stress-Energy Density of Matter etc. = 0 (3)
All physically real objects are either tensors, spinors or twistors in the theory of relativity. This is because the coordinate map is not the physical territory. The form of the laws of physics must be the same locally no matter how the coordinate map is morphed. To this we must add the Einstein Equivalence Principle or EEP which says that even in a curved space-time, we can use the special theory of relativity locally for a special class of LIF observers to describe what is happening to a good approximation. The EEP is only meant to apply in this approximate way and it will break down if one is falling into a black hole singularity of if the microscope magnification is so large that quantum gravity zero point energy density fluctuations in the space-time geometry itself get large. There may also be torsion fields not included in Einstein's 1915 "geometrodynamics" that may require a modification of the EEP. The spinor is a square root of a tensor and the Penrose twistor is a spinor in a complex space-time. The physics of point particles in real space-time when extended to complex and hyper-complex matrix space-time is in reality the physics of extended strings and membranes in real space-time.
Hawking's "imaginary time" and its connection to inverse temperature is part of that same story.
The key concept for metric engineering is the Einstein currents! Einstein's field equation is always the statement that the sum of all the stress-energy density tensors when put on the same side of the equation all balance out to exactly zero. We then take a "covariant divergence" of the equation to get the Einstein currents, which are conserved when added together.
The covariant divergence depends on something called a "connection field", which tells us how to "parallel transport" tensors and spinors along paths or "histories" in space-time and beyond including the extra dimensions of hyperspace. Every time a gauge force field is added, like a torsion field, there is an additional piece added to this connection field. Einstein's 1915 theory is a degenerate case of the bigger unified field theory just like a circle is a degenerate case of an ellipse. An ellipse has two centers or "foci". When the two foci merge together the ellipse degenerates into a circle. Einstein's 1915 theory in the form of the "Bianchi identities" forbids practical metric engineering because it has an impenetrable barrier completely separating the marble geometric current from the wood matter current. Both kinds of currents must be able to intermingle to transform into each other in order to have "soft" practical metric engineering of Star Gate Time Travel traversable wormholes and weightless superluminal warp drives using the anti-gravitating exotic vacuum "dark energy" with negative zero point exotic vacuum pressure that is equal in magnitude, but opposite in sign, to the zero point energy density. The new Type Ia super novae data showing that our brane world Universe is accelerating in its rate of expansion, i.e. speeding up rather than slowing down. Indeed approximately 3/4 of all the stuff of our Universe on the large scale is made out of "dark energy." Therefore, the idea of ancient traversable Star Gate wormholes stabilized by dark energy is not so far fetched. The brute force approach to metric engineering taken by Hal Puthoff now for at least two decades can never work because space-time is too stiff to bend directly with electromagnetic field energy density to do anything worth doing because the string tension is too large. In contrast, we can used the quantum interference of the Einstein stress-energy density currents via the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect for practical metric engineering provided that the pure geometric currents are not separately conserved like they are in Einstein's original theory. One way to do that is to "bottle" or "harness" the "dark energy" as General Douglas Mac Arthur precognitively remote viewed in his "Duty, Honor, Country" Farewell Speech to the Cadets at West Point in 1962 in a speech made even more remarkable for its reference to the coming war in space with extra-terrestrials. Michael Turner, a professor of physics at the University of Chicago, says in April 2003 Physics Today that it is impossible to "bottle dark energy" and if Einstein's 1915 theory is the final theory he is correct. However, the real UFO evidence that drives Hal Puthoff like Captain Ahab after The White Wale, Moby Dick, is the evidence that suggests Professor Turner will be proved wrong in that prediction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
