On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 04:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
"There was a time when people spoke their minds, and were not afraid to offend -
and that since then, too many truths have been buried."
Mark Kurlansky, "1968: The Year That Rocked The World"
(Ballantine, 2004) thanks to Frank Lauria
In 1968 I was in La Jolla CA at UCSD during time Greg Benford describes in
"Timescape" living on Bonair Street Wind an Sea Beach near Unicorn
Theater with Ken Kesey's "Merry Prankster" Bus parked nearby frequently.
I was also teaching at San Diego State with Fred Alan Wolf.
...
PZ: I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed. And you say Rovelli is a "big
shot"?
That is why I say Rovelli's position is incoherent.
JS: Is coherence in the mind of the beholder?
PZ: If you want to treat g_uv as a physical field, based on its "dynamical character"
(i.e. matter-dependence), then the natural thing to do is separate the background
generalized Minkowski kinematical metric (which is NOT matter dependent) as
chronogeometric, and treat the gravitational g_uv alone as "physical" -- by
Rovelli's own argument.
JS: That will not work. It will not tip the light cones. It will not give the correct bending of light.
Also you are too vague on what you mean by "matter" on the RHS of
Guv(Einstein) = -(alpha)(alpha')Tuv(Matter)
alpha = e^2/hc ~ 1/137
alpha' = 8pi(Witten's reciprocal string tension)
alpha' ~ (10^-32 cm)^2 in a common convention.
I also include on RHS
tuv(Vacuum) ~ [(alpha)(alpha')]^-1/\zpfguv
/\zpf = Lp^-1[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Repulsive dark energy is /\zpf > 0
Attractive dark matter is /\zpf < 0
FRW Omega(Dark Energy + Dark Matter) ~ 0.96
With Omega(Total) = 1
i.e. FLAT SPACE
Preferred foliation is where CMB is maximally isotropic to ~ 10^-5.
This allows accurate navigation with weightless warp drive and traversable wormholes both supported by configurations of dark energy and dark matter exotic w = -1 vacua.
PZ: Yet he doesn't even mention this.
JS: "There was a time when people spoke their minds, and were not afraid to offend -
and that since then, too many truths have been buried."
Mark Kurlansky, "1968: The Year That Rocked The World"
...
JS: Also at quantum level Rovelli
mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow"
is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: Sure, if you want to quantize everything and abandon "time".
JS: Read Goldstein's article in the same volume. It is very clear unlike Unruh's for example, and some of the others.
Unruh has some important ideas however.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling
the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and
shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw
manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully
valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend
on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a
common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to
such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more
deeply.
PZ: It's an artificial model that has nothing to do with physical relativity IMO.
JS: I found this remark by Goldstein helpful:
"In the ADM formulation 4-diffeomorphism invariance amounts to the requirement that one ends up with the same space-time, up to coordinate transformations, regardless of which path in multi-fingered space-time is followed, i.e. which lapse function N is uses." p.278
OK so this idea goes back to the archetypal notions of classical mechanics of a particle in a conservative potential, to reversible thermodynamics with a "state function", to holonomic "integrability" of equality of mixed partial derivatives with not multiply-connected manifolds, to a closed Cartan exterior differential form on a cycle (no boundary), no topological defects and all that.
The passive coordinate transformations are like EM gauge transformation (e/c)Au -> (e/c)Au + hChi,u in a fixed gauge constraint.
PZ: Rotating a system in isotropic space is connected with a true physical symmetry
of the system including the vacuum in which it is embedded. Yes, the symmetry
of the system Hamiltonian under such a transformation is an active transformational
symmetry that is characteristic of the particular system -- unlike the invariance of the
proper formal expression of any physical law under a *mere* coordinate transformation.
JS: Note also 12.2.2 p.279 alluding to your digging up Kretchmann from Dr. Frankenstein's favorite graveyard. ;-)
"The fundamental symmetry at the heart of general relativity is its invariance under general coordinate transformations of spacetime. It is important to stress that almost any theory can be formulated in such a 4-diffeomorphism invariant manner by adding further structure to the theory (e.g. a preferred foliation of spacetime as a dynamical object). General relativity has what is sometimes called serious diffeomorphism invariance, meaning that it involves no spacetime structure beyond the 4-metric and, in particular, singles out no special foliation of spacetime."
Goldstein and Teufel then knock standard QGrav including even Ashtekar -> Loop Spin Foams that are perhaps near to being falsified by NASA's EINSTEIN in
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack better check this story out:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com
...
How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our
immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation
like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical
metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of
the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: You are blocking his actual definition of r. Classic operationalism does not
apply to a theory of this type. That is a critical point. Miss that and of course
nothing makes sense.
JS: I am not ready to renounce PW Bridgman's "Operationalism". Indeed, nothing Hal Puthoff says about the foundations of his PV makes any sense to my mind. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course I am not a doctrinaire "positivist" like Stephen Hawking proudly proclaims he is.
...
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e.
"on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell"
sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of
virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and
to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor
~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of
negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive
pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~
0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat
post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in
Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskind's megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural
selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
OK, I think I made an error above including "brane worlds" in sense of "parallel worlds"?
Here is why I think I made an error (If I did so did Hawking and Scientific American in their popular science reports):
"D-Branes are extended surfaces without edges. In order that the black hole be a localized object, it is assumed that our ordinary four dimensions (three space and one time) are all orthogonal to these D-Brane surfaces ... Thus to us these D-Branes would look as though they were located at a point (or at least a very small region) of our observable three dimensions of space." W. G. Unruh p. 168 "Black holes, dumb holes, and entropy", i.e. the D-Branes are in the compactified Calabi-Yau space. I have to look again at Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" that seems to give the wrong idea here? Perhaps I mis-remember?
Note also Ed Witten's formula generalizing Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle, i.e. eq. (5.9) p. 136
Delta X > h/DeltaP + alpha'(DeltaP)/h
The second gravity-string source of uncertainty should give the irreversible statistical arrow of time not found when alpha' = 0 i.e. infinite string tension, or infinite space-time stiffness of action without reaction as is also found in the "signal locality" of orthodox quantum theory in sense of Antony Valentini's papers.
Consider a model for an elementary particle as a Wheeler wormhole of "Mass without mass", but with a strong micro-gravity
G* ~ 10^40G on 1 fermi scale. The wormhole has an attractive dark matter exotic vacuum core where
Vacuum Coherence --> 0
just like inside a quantized vortex of circulation in superfluid HeII.
Therefore, in the core
/\zpf ~ - (1 fermi)^-2
w = -1
Therefore the quantum pressure is positive and the exotic vacuum core gravitates as
Grad^2V(Exotic Vacuum) ~ -c^2(1 fermi)^-2
this prevents the spread out electric charge from exploding and also compensates any quantized rotation centrifugal forces. For now keep charge and rotation zero for simplicity. That is I here only model a spin 0 neutral micro-geon. That means I would need a high-power graviton laser as the Heisenberg uncertainty scattering probe microscope. That's OK since this is only a gedankenexperiment.
The SSS metric then has the factor
1 - 2GM/c2r
Where G(mass density) is replaced by c^2/\zpf
GM is replaced by ~ c^2/\zpfR^3
for a micro-geon of size R
r is DeltaX as in Witten's formula above with DeltaP as the scattering momentum transfer between gravitons and the micro-geon.
Therefore, the Schwarzschild factor is (neglecting factors of 2, pi etc all lumped into dimensionless parameter b
1 - bc^2/\zpfR^3/DeltaX
The critical value of Delta X is then the "event horizon" where the Schwarzschild factor vanishes - can it be reached?
This micro-geon is a solution of the exotic vacuum local field equation
Guv(Einstein) + /\zpfguv = 0
At critical Delta X, the geon looks like a POINT PARTICLE from the huge space-warp induced by the probe's momentum transfer Delta P.
C is the circumference
dC/dR = 2pi (1 - bc^2/\zpfR^3/DeltaX)^1/2
Where one considers the radial size fixed at R the scale of the throat of the wormhole.
So when can we have
DeltaX = bc^2/\zpfR^3 ?
Note that alpha' may be large of order (10^-11 cm)^2 not (10^-32 cm)^2 as in Witten's idea.
Sunday, December 28, 2003
"There was a time when people spoke their minds, and were not afraid to offend -
and that since then, too many truths have been buried."
Mark Kurlansky, "1968: The Year That Rocked The World"
(Ballantine, 2004) thanks to Frank Lauria
In 1968 was in La Jolla CA at UCSD during time Greg Benford describes in
"Timescape" living on Bonair Street Wind an Sea Beach near Unicorn
Theater with Ken Kesey's "Merry Prankster" Bus parked nearby frequently.
I was also teaching at San Diego State with Fred Alan Wolf.
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
OK, now I have looked at the rest of Rovelli's argument, I'll work through
this one more time.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: Rovelli's position is very odd. First he says:
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational
field as 'the more equal among equals', and declaring that location is
absolute in
GR, because it can be defined with respect to it." (p 108)
JS: But he rejects that Paul. He says doing that misses the "great
Einsteinian insight".
"The great Einsteinian insight" being the conditional and physical nature of
the gravitational metric field -- which conflicts with "the great Einsteinian insight"
strict equivalence.
"The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth." -- Niels Bohr
What Rovelli doesn't seem to understand is that this all makes perfect sense once
you give up strict equivalence and distinguish the background and physical metrics.
JS: I do not understand this distinction. Please give more details what you mean.
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s
use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: It does no such thing. I would not even characterize pp 112-114 as an "argument".
It is simply a sketch of a model in which *everything* is quantized except the "raw"
manifold.
JS: It shows no intrinsic meaning to Puthoff's r and t as he means it in his Tables.
PZ: He wants to throw away time in order to keep a unified g_uv.
Why do you think this is an "argument" against c' = c/K? As far as I can see it is simply
a different theory.
Rovelli briefly considers an alternative approach in which we retain the Minkowski
background of standard QFT. But there he has
g_uv = n_uv + "fluctuations"
which makes no sense to me. He does not seem to understand the distinction between
kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational g_uv. He cannot get his head over the unified
metric.
What does he mean by "fluctuations"?
JS: What do you mean by "kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational g_uv" apart from Ruvwl = 0 in the former and not in the latter.
JZ: Sounds like sheer nonsense to me. Nonsense because it is divorced from the physical
fundamentals.
JS: No argument from me on that one.
PZ: This of course is exactly what the classic Einstein
chronogeometric model does,
going all the way back to special relativity.
JS: I think you are misreading Rovelli.
PZ: The Einsteinian model is a chronogeometric model, in which the metric g_uv reflects the
fundamental structure of spacetime.
JS: If you mean, for example,
dT = goo^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
Then I agree that dT and dR are physical and dt and dr are not.
However, to get a gravity shift of light frequency do
dT'/goo'^1/2 = dT/goo^1'2
treating dt as a kind of nonlocal invariant.
If you mean more than this, then explain with detailed examples.
PZ: That is "the great Einsteinian insight" -- which is.
unfortunately, based on strict Einstein equivalence, which is fictitious.
JS: Again I really do not understand what you mean by this sentence.
PZ: Now Rovelli wants to pretend that "the great Einsteinian insight" is something else entirely
-- that the gravitational field is a physical field.
Loony tunes. He is tying himself up in knots.
JS: Yes, in global special
relativity, NO in local general relativity.
PZ: In Einstein general relativity, the unified metric g_uv represents the fundamental structure
of spacetime, and in inseparable from it. That's Einstein.
It doesn't even make sense to me to say that this chronogeometric model holds only "locally".
PZ: That is precisely what distinguishes the
Einsteinian from the Lorentzian model. The transformational and
metric structure
is not, in the classic Einsteinian model, separable from spacetime
itself.
But then he says:
"There is no absolute referent of motion in GR; the dynamical fields
"move" with
respect to each other." (p 108)
JS: Again you are misreading. There is no contradiction here in
Rovelli's argument.
PZ: This is like arguing that everything is relative because everything is relative to the
absolute, including the absolute.
Sounds like Lewis Carroll.
JS: ;-)
PZ: None of this has anything to do with Einstein general relativity, which treats the
inertial field as real. The unified metric derives its physical meaning from this
equivalence.
Rovelli ignores all this and simply takes the unified Einstein g_uv as given.
PZ: This second assertion seems to approach the metric field of GR as
just another field, which
is very close to and even indistinguishable from the physical "rubber
rod and clock" model
of PV and Yilmaz -- just another physical field which happens to have
"metric" properties.
And of course such a field is fully relational with respect to
unindividuated spacetime points
on a raw manifold stripped of all coordinate systems, transformation
properties, and metrics.
JS: Yes on just another field. But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz. Not
true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal uses an absolute non-dynamical background global
Minkowski space
PZ: That is what Rovelli *should* be doing, but he doesn't even consider this
possibility. He seems to think you can treat unified g_uv as a physical field.
JS: Why do you think you cannot?
PZ: I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed. And you say Rovelli is a "big
shot"?
That is why I say Rovelli's position is incoherent.
JS: Is coherence in the mind of the beholder?
PZ: If you want to treat g_uv as a physical field, based on its "dynamical character"
(i.e. matter-dependence), then the natural thing to do is separate the background
generalized Minkowski kinematical metric (which is NOT matter dependent) as
chronogeometric, and treat the gravitational g_uv alone as "physical" -- by
Rovelli's own argument.
JS: That will not work. It will not tip the light cones. It will not give the correct bending of light.
Also you are too vague on what you mean by "matter" on the RHS of
Guv(Einstein) = -(alpha)(alpha')Tuv(Matter)
alpha = e^2/hc ~ 1/137
alpha' = 8piWitten's reciprocal string tension)
alpha' ~ (10^-32 cm)^2 in a common convention.
I also include on RHS
tuv(Vacuum) ~ [(alpha)(alpha')]^-1/\zpfguv
/\zpf = Lp^-1[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Repulsive dark energy is /\zpf > 0
Attractive dark matter is /\zpf < 0
FRW Omega(Dark Energy + Dark Matter) ~ 0.96
With Omega(Total) = 1 i.e. FLAT SPACE
Preferred foliation is where CMB is maximally isotropic to ~ 10^-5.
This allows accurate navigation with weightless warp drive and traversable wormholes both supported by configurations of dark energy and dark matter exotic w = -1 vacua.
PZ: Yet he doesn't even mention this.
JS: "There was a time when people spoke their minds, and were not afraid to offend -
and that since then, too many truths have been buried."
Mark Kurlansky, "1968: The Year That Rocked The World"
PZ: So he has not made any argument at all against a bimetric approach. He has simply
ignored it, even though his own argument points to it.
JS: with a literal meaning for coordinates r & t, otherwise his formula
dr/dt = c/K
is physically meaningless, which it is in GR as explained by Rovelli on
pp. 112 - 114.
PZ: Only if you insist exclusively on operational meaning -- which would also knock out
F = ma, which by a similar argument is empirically meaningless.
JS: Yes, until you also add things like
F = - GMmr/r^3
F = eE + e(v/c)xB
etc.
That is, Hal's use of "engineering" is precisely missing the "third
step" on Rovelli's p. 108.
PZ: Rovelli's "third step" is merely a sketch of a proposal to quantize everything, while
retaining a unified g_uv treated in its entirety as a "physical field".
This is not an "argument".
Rovelli's "argument" for his proposal, such as it is, is to be found on p 109:
"In my *opinion*, this is the right way to go."
Well, in my *opinion*, it's fundamentally wrong-headed. In addition, Rovelli has
grossly mischaracterized the Feynman-type alternative -- which shows that he has
not understood it; although he is right that under this alternative, the "GR conceptual
revolution" is indeed "dis-valued", but to a much greater extent than he seems to realize.
JS: Also p. 112
"Recall that Einstein described his great intellectual struggle to find
GR as 'understanding the meaning of coordinates'."
This is my key objection to Puthoff's and Ibison's use of "r" ant "t"
in their PV modeling.
They do not IMHO understand the "meaning of coordinates: in GR. Neither
does Yilmaz apparently.
PZ: I have no idea of what you are getting at here. Einstein's point about coordinates
depends entirely on his strict equivalence thesis, which is untenable.
JS: I guess I have never understood your idea here. Can you try to explain it again with
complete clarity?
PZ: Once you abandon strict equivalence, the unification of gravitational and inertial
g_uv is formal and arbitrary. It has no deep physical meaning. Then we recover
chronogeometric background coordinates together with a physical rubber-rod-
and-clock non-inertial g_uv.
Rovelli doesn't seem to understand that.
JS: Neither do I.
pp 112 - 114 make this clear IMHO.
PZ: This is not an argument -- it's merely a proposal: "In my opinion...".
JS: Also at quantum level Rovelli
mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow"
is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: Sure, if you want to quantize everything and abandon "time".
JS: Read Goldstein's article in the same volume. It is very clear unlike Unruh's for example, and some of the others.
Unruh has some important ideas however.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling
the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and
shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw
manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully
valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend
on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a
common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to
such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more
deeply.
PZ: It's an artificial model that has nothing to do with physical relativity IMO.
JS: I found this remark by Goldstein helpful:
"In the ADM formulation 4-diffeomorphism invariance amounts to the requirement that one ends up with the same space-time, up to coordinate transformations, regardless of which path in multi-fingered space-time is followed, i.e. which lapse function N is uses." p.278
OK so this idea goes back to the archetypal notions of classical mechanics of a particle in a conservative potential, to reversible thermodynamics with a "state function", to holonomic "integrability" of equality of mixed partial derivatives with not multiply-connected manifolds, to a closed Cartan exterior differential form on a cycle (no boundary), no topological defects and all that.
The passive coordinate transformations are like EM gauge transformation (e/c)Au -> (e/c)Au + hChi,u in a fixed gauge constraint.
PZ: Rotating a system in isotropic space is connected with a true physical symmetry
of the system including the vacuum in which it is embedded. Yes, the symmetry
of the system Hamiltonian under such a transformation is an active transformational
symmetry that is characteristic of the particular system -- unlike the invariance of the
proper formal expression of any physical law under a *mere* coordinate transformation.
JS: Note also 12.2.2 p.279 alluding to your digging up Kretchmann from Dr. Frankenstein's favorite graveyard. ;-)
"The fundamental symmetry at the heart of general relativity is its invariance under general coordinate transformations of spacetime. It is important to stress that almost any theory can be formulated in such a 4-diffeomorphism invariant manner by adding further structure to the theory (e.g. a preferred foliation of spacetime as a dynamical object). General relativity has what is sometimes called serious diffeomorphism invariance, meaning that it involves no spacetime structure beyond the 4-metric and, in particular, singles out no special foliation of spacetime."
Goldstein and Teufel then knock standard QGrav including even Ashtekar -> Loop Spin Foams that are perhaps near to being falsified by NASA's EINSTEIN in
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack better check this story out:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com
PZ: However, moving *everything physical* -- including the unified g_uv -- along the "raw"
spacetime manifold is quite another kettle of fish. It is devoid of physical content IMHO.
But again, a space-time frame of reference is not *merely* a coordinate transformation,
since it represents the *motion* of a possible observer. Thus there is no *a priori* reason
why physical laws should take the same form in different frames of reference, contrary
to Einsteinian doctrine. Of course they *may* as a matter of fact, but that is very different
from insisting a priori that they always *should*.
That's yet another Einsteinian red herring.
PZ: What is physically significant here is not this abstract and
artificial definition of "diffeomorphism"
with respect to a raw manifold conceived as an unindividuated point
set, but a shift of physical
fields with respect to the metric-transformational structure of
spacetime, which of course in GR
depends on the distribution of matter.
JS: Precisely, yes that is the idea I think. It's a return to I think
Leibniz's "relationism"?
PZ: Descartes. He is almost literally putting Descartes before the horse of
physical relativity.
JS: ;-)
How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our
immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation
like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical
metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of
the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: You are blocking his actual definition of r. Classic operationalism does not
apply to a theory of this type. That is a critical point. Miss that and of course
nothing makes sense.
JS: I am not ready to renounce PW Bridgman's "Operationalism". Indeed, nothing Hal Puthoff says about the foundations of his PV makes any sense to my mind. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course I am not a doctrinaire "positivist" like Stephen Hawking proudly proclaims he is.
PZ: So it appears that Rovelli ends up in a position where he is
essentially arguing that the matter-
dependence of the metric field implies that the GR metric is really a
physical metric, and the GR
metric field is to be regarded as a physical field like any other
physical field.
That is, the *unified* metric field. That is Rovelli's tacit, yet arbitrary, assumption
IMO.
Then, the physics
depends only on the relative disposition of the various physical
fields with respect to each other.
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e.
"on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell"
sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of
virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and
to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor
~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of
negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive
pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~
0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat
post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in
Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskind's megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural
selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
OK, I think I made an error above including "brane worlds" in sense of "parallel worlds"?
Here is why I think I made an error (If I did so did Hawking and Scientific American in their popular science reports):
"D-Branes are extended surfaces without edges. In order that the black hole be a localized object, it is assumed that our ordinary four dimensions (three space and one time) are all orthogonal to these D-Brane surfaces ... Thus to us these D-Branes would look as though they were located at a point (or at least a very small region) of our observable three dimensions of space." W. G. Unruh p. 168 "Black holes, dumb holes, and entropy", i.e. the D-Branes are in the compactified Calabi-Yau space. I have to look again at Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" that seems to give the wrong idea here? Perhaps I mis-remember?
Note also Ed Witten's formula generalizing Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle, i.e. eq. (5.9) p. 136
Delta X > h/DeltaP + alpha'(DeltaP)/h
The second gravity-string source of uncertainty should give the irreversible statistical arrow of time not found when alpha' = 0 i.e. infinite string tension, or infinite space-time stiffness of action without reaction as is also found in the "signal locality" of orthodox quantum theory in sense of Antony Valentini's papers.
PZ: But while this may allow or even imply a "relational" view of the
raw spacetime manifold, in the
Cartesian sense, it is clearly not physical "general relativity", in
the classic Einsteinian sense,
which requires fundamental identification of the inertial and
gravitational metrics.
JS: I do not understand what you just said. EEP in every significant
sense still holds IMHO.
PZ: You are in a loop.
JS: Ground Hog Day. Help let me out of my bottle Oh Thief of Baghdad. The Magic Flying Carpet is obviously the weightless Alcubierre timelike geodesic faster than light warp drive powered by dark energy and dark matter exotic vacua configurations. See my animated picture of this in http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
PZ: "EEP" is NOT Einstein equivalence. "EEP" is merely a correspondence principle.
Einstein strict equivalence is NOT valid. And even "EEP" is not strictly valid as
advertised (see e.g. Ohanian and Ruffini Ch. 1).
JS: The geodesic equation for a test particle in a
given guv field still works for example.
PZ: This simply reflects weak equivalence -- equality of gravitational and inertial mass.
Same for, say, electrostatic field for particles of fixed q/m.
That does not imply Einstein equivalence. It works whether we use a unified g_uv
or go to a bimetric formalism, and regardless of whether we consider inertial forces
as "real" or "fictitious".
JS: The so-called "fictitious" or "inertial forces", e.g. G-Force when a jet takes off (0 to 120 mph in 2 sec) from an aircraft carrier are physically real. I can tell you that from first-hand experience. The use of "fictitious" like the use of "hidden variable" are unfortunate choices of words. "Extra variable" is better for the latter.
PZ: So this is not a valid argument IMO. It is an example of the classical logical fallacy
"affirming the antecedent".
JS: The "tidal" "stretch-squeeze"
geodesic deviation equation for two neighboring test particles still
works etc.
PZ: Of course. So?
The point is that you can always tell the difference between a real gravity field and
an inertial field. They are NOT "completely physically equivalent".
JS: If you mean Ruvwl =/= 0 locally for a real gravity field, and is zero for an inertial field, I agree.
However, I do not see how you can write
guv = guv(inertial) + guv(real)
That is, apart from
guv = Globally Flat Metric + du,v + dv,u
I do not claim we can physically distinguish the two terms on RHS nor is the
second term small compared to first.
The Bohm pilot constraint for the "extra variable", i.e. actual distortion of Hagen Kleinert's elastic-plastic 4D "world crystal lattice"
i.e. density of vortex line topological defects of curvature disclination and possibly torsion dislocations is
du = Lp^2(Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u
,u is ordinary partial derivative.
Compare my equation here to Goldstein's eq. 12.4 on p. 282.
PZ: Consequently,
unified g_uv has no deep physical meaning or necessity -- as Feynman argued.
PZ: Which all seems to contradict his statement,
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] to prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational field as 'the
more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in
GR, because it can be
defined with respect to it."
JS: No, you have simply misread the context of Rovelli's remark. Read
it again more carefully. This is not a valid objection at all to
Rovelli's argument IMHO. The way I read him, his argument is
splendidly globally self-consistent.
PZ: The way I read him, he doesn't actually *have* an argument. He simply *prefers*
to quantize space and time intervals rather than unpack Einstein's unified g_uv.
PZ: So IMO Rovelli's position is incoherent. If anything, he is
arguing for an *alternative*
"non-Einsteinian" interpretation of GR in which matter-dependent g_uv
is to be treated as a
*physical field*, which means it can in principle be distinguished
from the kinematical inertial
field with its trivially valid transformable metric tensor.
JS: We are back to Square One. The Rock has rolled back down on
Sisyphus. I cannot pinpoint the precise misconception that is driving
your position here.
PZ: It is no wonder you are having this difficulty, since it is *Rovelli's* misconception
that is causing the problem.
Rovelli doesn't seem to understand that recognition of the dynamical character of
non-inertial g_uv fundamentally distinguishes it from the kinematical g_uv, which
latter doesn't depend on the distribution of matter. So the natural thing to do is
to split unified g_uv and thus clearly separate the dynamical and kinematical "metric
fields".
JS: Show me an algorithm to do that in any problem.
PZ: Yet he doesn't even consider this.
PZ: That is the best reconstruction I can salvage from his article.
In other words, Rovelli is really a *Yilmazian*.
JS: Not in my book.
PZ: Actually, you are right -- because he does not follow the natural development
of his own argument to its logical conclusions. If he did, his first alternative (p 109)
would fall squarely in the Feynman-Yilmaz category, with rubber rods and clocks
and a flat background inertial metric.
JS: It seems to me the objective is to eliminate any flat background non-dynamical metric.
"Nondynamical" means ACTION WITHOUT REACTION.
Note, I have it formally in my equations but it is not physically measurable separately.
Indeed, the pre-inflationary vacuum is the perfectly flat world crystal with no vortex string topological
defects of effective multiple-connectivity in the space of the vacuum coherence order parameter which
is zero everywhere prior to the inflationary vacuum phase transition like a normal metal going super-conducting.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of
matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a
spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I read it. Several times. I've been scratching my head for several
days now.
See above.
and that since then, too many truths have been buried."
Mark Kurlansky, "1968: The Year That Rocked The World"
(Ballantine, 2004) thanks to Frank Lauria
In 1968 was in La Jolla CA at UCSD during time Greg Benford describes in
"Timescape" living on Bonair Street Wind an Sea Beach near Unicorn
Theater with Ken Kesey's "Merry Prankster" Bus parked nearby frequently.
I was also teaching at San Diego State with Fred Alan Wolf.
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
OK, now I have looked at the rest of Rovelli's argument, I'll work through
this one more time.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: Rovelli's position is very odd. First he says:
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational
field as 'the more equal among equals', and declaring that location is
absolute in
GR, because it can be defined with respect to it." (p 108)
JS: But he rejects that Paul. He says doing that misses the "great
Einsteinian insight".
"The great Einsteinian insight" being the conditional and physical nature of
the gravitational metric field -- which conflicts with "the great Einsteinian insight"
strict equivalence.
"The opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth." -- Niels Bohr
What Rovelli doesn't seem to understand is that this all makes perfect sense once
you give up strict equivalence and distinguish the background and physical metrics.
JS: I do not understand this distinction. Please give more details what you mean.
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s
use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: It does no such thing. I would not even characterize pp 112-114 as an "argument".
It is simply a sketch of a model in which *everything* is quantized except the "raw"
manifold.
JS: It shows no intrinsic meaning to Puthoff's r and t as he means it in his Tables.
PZ: He wants to throw away time in order to keep a unified g_uv.
Why do you think this is an "argument" against c' = c/K? As far as I can see it is simply
a different theory.
Rovelli briefly considers an alternative approach in which we retain the Minkowski
background of standard QFT. But there he has
g_uv = n_uv + "fluctuations"
which makes no sense to me. He does not seem to understand the distinction between
kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational g_uv. He cannot get his head over the unified
metric.
What does he mean by "fluctuations"?
JS: What do you mean by "kinematical g_uv and dynamic gravitational g_uv" apart from Ruvwl = 0 in the former and not in the latter.
JZ: Sounds like sheer nonsense to me. Nonsense because it is divorced from the physical
fundamentals.
JS: No argument from me on that one.
PZ: This of course is exactly what the classic Einstein
chronogeometric model does,
going all the way back to special relativity.
JS: I think you are misreading Rovelli.
PZ: The Einsteinian model is a chronogeometric model, in which the metric g_uv reflects the
fundamental structure of spacetime.
JS: If you mean, for example,
dT = goo^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
Then I agree that dT and dR are physical and dt and dr are not.
However, to get a gravity shift of light frequency do
dT'/goo'^1/2 = dT/goo^1'2
treating dt as a kind of nonlocal invariant.
If you mean more than this, then explain with detailed examples.
PZ: That is "the great Einsteinian insight" -- which is.
unfortunately, based on strict Einstein equivalence, which is fictitious.
JS: Again I really do not understand what you mean by this sentence.
PZ: Now Rovelli wants to pretend that "the great Einsteinian insight" is something else entirely
-- that the gravitational field is a physical field.
Loony tunes. He is tying himself up in knots.
JS: Yes, in global special
relativity, NO in local general relativity.
PZ: In Einstein general relativity, the unified metric g_uv represents the fundamental structure
of spacetime, and in inseparable from it. That's Einstein.
It doesn't even make sense to me to say that this chronogeometric model holds only "locally".
PZ: That is precisely what distinguishes the
Einsteinian from the Lorentzian model. The transformational and
metric structure
is not, in the classic Einsteinian model, separable from spacetime
itself.
But then he says:
"There is no absolute referent of motion in GR; the dynamical fields
"move" with
respect to each other." (p 108)
JS: Again you are misreading. There is no contradiction here in
Rovelli's argument.
PZ: This is like arguing that everything is relative because everything is relative to the
absolute, including the absolute.
Sounds like Lewis Carroll.
JS: ;-)
PZ: None of this has anything to do with Einstein general relativity, which treats the
inertial field as real. The unified metric derives its physical meaning from this
equivalence.
Rovelli ignores all this and simply takes the unified Einstein g_uv as given.
PZ: This second assertion seems to approach the metric field of GR as
just another field, which
is very close to and even indistinguishable from the physical "rubber
rod and clock" model
of PV and Yilmaz -- just another physical field which happens to have
"metric" properties.
And of course such a field is fully relational with respect to
unindividuated spacetime points
on a raw manifold stripped of all coordinate systems, transformation
properties, and metrics.
JS: Yes on just another field. But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz. Not
true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal uses an absolute non-dynamical background global
Minkowski space
PZ: That is what Rovelli *should* be doing, but he doesn't even consider this
possibility. He seems to think you can treat unified g_uv as a physical field.
JS: Why do you think you cannot?
PZ: I can't imagine anything more wrong-headed. And you say Rovelli is a "big
shot"?
That is why I say Rovelli's position is incoherent.
JS: Is coherence in the mind of the beholder?
PZ: If you want to treat g_uv as a physical field, based on its "dynamical character"
(i.e. matter-dependence), then the natural thing to do is separate the background
generalized Minkowski kinematical metric (which is NOT matter dependent) as
chronogeometric, and treat the gravitational g_uv alone as "physical" -- by
Rovelli's own argument.
JS: That will not work. It will not tip the light cones. It will not give the correct bending of light.
Also you are too vague on what you mean by "matter" on the RHS of
Guv(Einstein) = -(alpha)(alpha')Tuv(Matter)
alpha = e^2/hc ~ 1/137
alpha' = 8piWitten's reciprocal string tension)
alpha' ~ (10^-32 cm)^2 in a common convention.
I also include on RHS
tuv(Vacuum) ~ [(alpha)(alpha')]^-1/\zpfguv
/\zpf = Lp^-1[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Repulsive dark energy is /\zpf > 0
Attractive dark matter is /\zpf < 0
FRW Omega(Dark Energy + Dark Matter) ~ 0.96
With Omega(Total) = 1 i.e. FLAT SPACE
Preferred foliation is where CMB is maximally isotropic to ~ 10^-5.
This allows accurate navigation with weightless warp drive and traversable wormholes both supported by configurations of dark energy and dark matter exotic w = -1 vacua.
PZ: Yet he doesn't even mention this.
JS: "There was a time when people spoke their minds, and were not afraid to offend -
and that since then, too many truths have been buried."
Mark Kurlansky, "1968: The Year That Rocked The World"
PZ: So he has not made any argument at all against a bimetric approach. He has simply
ignored it, even though his own argument points to it.
JS: with a literal meaning for coordinates r & t, otherwise his formula
dr/dt = c/K
is physically meaningless, which it is in GR as explained by Rovelli on
pp. 112 - 114.
PZ: Only if you insist exclusively on operational meaning -- which would also knock out
F = ma, which by a similar argument is empirically meaningless.
JS: Yes, until you also add things like
F = - GMmr/r^3
F = eE + e(v/c)xB
etc.
That is, Hal's use of "engineering" is precisely missing the "third
step" on Rovelli's p. 108.
PZ: Rovelli's "third step" is merely a sketch of a proposal to quantize everything, while
retaining a unified g_uv treated in its entirety as a "physical field".
This is not an "argument".
Rovelli's "argument" for his proposal, such as it is, is to be found on p 109:
"In my *opinion*, this is the right way to go."
Well, in my *opinion*, it's fundamentally wrong-headed. In addition, Rovelli has
grossly mischaracterized the Feynman-type alternative -- which shows that he has
not understood it; although he is right that under this alternative, the "GR conceptual
revolution" is indeed "dis-valued", but to a much greater extent than he seems to realize.
JS: Also p. 112
"Recall that Einstein described his great intellectual struggle to find
GR as 'understanding the meaning of coordinates'."
This is my key objection to Puthoff's and Ibison's use of "r" ant "t"
in their PV modeling.
They do not IMHO understand the "meaning of coordinates: in GR. Neither
does Yilmaz apparently.
PZ: I have no idea of what you are getting at here. Einstein's point about coordinates
depends entirely on his strict equivalence thesis, which is untenable.
JS: I guess I have never understood your idea here. Can you try to explain it again with
complete clarity?
PZ: Once you abandon strict equivalence, the unification of gravitational and inertial
g_uv is formal and arbitrary. It has no deep physical meaning. Then we recover
chronogeometric background coordinates together with a physical rubber-rod-
and-clock non-inertial g_uv.
Rovelli doesn't seem to understand that.
JS: Neither do I.
pp 112 - 114 make this clear IMHO.
PZ: This is not an argument -- it's merely a proposal: "In my opinion...".
JS: Also at quantum level Rovelli
mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow"
is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: Sure, if you want to quantize everything and abandon "time".
JS: Read Goldstein's article in the same volume. It is very clear unlike Unruh's for example, and some of the others.
Unruh has some important ideas however.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling
the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and
shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw
manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully
valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend
on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a
common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to
such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more
deeply.
PZ: It's an artificial model that has nothing to do with physical relativity IMO.
JS: I found this remark by Goldstein helpful:
"In the ADM formulation 4-diffeomorphism invariance amounts to the requirement that one ends up with the same space-time, up to coordinate transformations, regardless of which path in multi-fingered space-time is followed, i.e. which lapse function N is uses." p.278
OK so this idea goes back to the archetypal notions of classical mechanics of a particle in a conservative potential, to reversible thermodynamics with a "state function", to holonomic "integrability" of equality of mixed partial derivatives with not multiply-connected manifolds, to a closed Cartan exterior differential form on a cycle (no boundary), no topological defects and all that.
The passive coordinate transformations are like EM gauge transformation (e/c)Au -> (e/c)Au + hChi,u in a fixed gauge constraint.
PZ: Rotating a system in isotropic space is connected with a true physical symmetry
of the system including the vacuum in which it is embedded. Yes, the symmetry
of the system Hamiltonian under such a transformation is an active transformational
symmetry that is characteristic of the particular system -- unlike the invariance of the
proper formal expression of any physical law under a *mere* coordinate transformation.
JS: Note also 12.2.2 p.279 alluding to your digging up Kretchmann from Dr. Frankenstein's favorite graveyard. ;-)
"The fundamental symmetry at the heart of general relativity is its invariance under general coordinate transformations of spacetime. It is important to stress that almost any theory can be formulated in such a 4-diffeomorphism invariant manner by adding further structure to the theory (e.g. a preferred foliation of spacetime as a dynamical object). General relativity has what is sometimes called serious diffeomorphism invariance, meaning that it involves no spacetime structure beyond the 4-metric and, in particular, singles out no special foliation of spacetime."
Goldstein and Teufel then knock standard QGrav including even Ashtekar -> Loop Spin Foams that are perhaps near to being falsified by NASA's EINSTEIN in
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack better check this story out:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com
PZ: However, moving *everything physical* -- including the unified g_uv -- along the "raw"
spacetime manifold is quite another kettle of fish. It is devoid of physical content IMHO.
But again, a space-time frame of reference is not *merely* a coordinate transformation,
since it represents the *motion* of a possible observer. Thus there is no *a priori* reason
why physical laws should take the same form in different frames of reference, contrary
to Einsteinian doctrine. Of course they *may* as a matter of fact, but that is very different
from insisting a priori that they always *should*.
That's yet another Einsteinian red herring.
PZ: What is physically significant here is not this abstract and
artificial definition of "diffeomorphism"
with respect to a raw manifold conceived as an unindividuated point
set, but a shift of physical
fields with respect to the metric-transformational structure of
spacetime, which of course in GR
depends on the distribution of matter.
JS: Precisely, yes that is the idea I think. It's a return to I think
Leibniz's "relationism"?
PZ: Descartes. He is almost literally putting Descartes before the horse of
physical relativity.
JS: ;-)
How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our
immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation
like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical
metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of
the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: You are blocking his actual definition of r. Classic operationalism does not
apply to a theory of this type. That is a critical point. Miss that and of course
nothing makes sense.
JS: I am not ready to renounce PW Bridgman's "Operationalism". Indeed, nothing Hal Puthoff says about the foundations of his PV makes any sense to my mind. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course I am not a doctrinaire "positivist" like Stephen Hawking proudly proclaims he is.
PZ: So it appears that Rovelli ends up in a position where he is
essentially arguing that the matter-
dependence of the metric field implies that the GR metric is really a
physical metric, and the GR
metric field is to be regarded as a physical field like any other
physical field.
That is, the *unified* metric field. That is Rovelli's tacit, yet arbitrary, assumption
IMO.
Then, the physics
depends only on the relative disposition of the various physical
fields with respect to each other.
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e.
"on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell"
sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of
virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and
to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor
~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of
negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive
pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~
0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat
post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in
Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskind's megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural
selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
OK, I think I made an error above including "brane worlds" in sense of "parallel worlds"?
Here is why I think I made an error (If I did so did Hawking and Scientific American in their popular science reports):
"D-Branes are extended surfaces without edges. In order that the black hole be a localized object, it is assumed that our ordinary four dimensions (three space and one time) are all orthogonal to these D-Brane surfaces ... Thus to us these D-Branes would look as though they were located at a point (or at least a very small region) of our observable three dimensions of space." W. G. Unruh p. 168 "Black holes, dumb holes, and entropy", i.e. the D-Branes are in the compactified Calabi-Yau space. I have to look again at Hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell" that seems to give the wrong idea here? Perhaps I mis-remember?
Note also Ed Witten's formula generalizing Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle, i.e. eq. (5.9) p. 136
Delta X > h/DeltaP + alpha'(DeltaP)/h
The second gravity-string source of uncertainty should give the irreversible statistical arrow of time not found when alpha' = 0 i.e. infinite string tension, or infinite space-time stiffness of action without reaction as is also found in the "signal locality" of orthodox quantum theory in sense of Antony Valentini's papers.
PZ: But while this may allow or even imply a "relational" view of the
raw spacetime manifold, in the
Cartesian sense, it is clearly not physical "general relativity", in
the classic Einsteinian sense,
which requires fundamental identification of the inertial and
gravitational metrics.
JS: I do not understand what you just said. EEP in every significant
sense still holds IMHO.
PZ: You are in a loop.
JS: Ground Hog Day. Help let me out of my bottle Oh Thief of Baghdad. The Magic Flying Carpet is obviously the weightless Alcubierre timelike geodesic faster than light warp drive powered by dark energy and dark matter exotic vacua configurations. See my animated picture of this in http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
PZ: "EEP" is NOT Einstein equivalence. "EEP" is merely a correspondence principle.
Einstein strict equivalence is NOT valid. And even "EEP" is not strictly valid as
advertised (see e.g. Ohanian and Ruffini Ch. 1).
JS: The geodesic equation for a test particle in a
given guv field still works for example.
PZ: This simply reflects weak equivalence -- equality of gravitational and inertial mass.
Same for, say, electrostatic field for particles of fixed q/m.
That does not imply Einstein equivalence. It works whether we use a unified g_uv
or go to a bimetric formalism, and regardless of whether we consider inertial forces
as "real" or "fictitious".
JS: The so-called "fictitious" or "inertial forces", e.g. G-Force when a jet takes off (0 to 120 mph in 2 sec) from an aircraft carrier are physically real. I can tell you that from first-hand experience. The use of "fictitious" like the use of "hidden variable" are unfortunate choices of words. "Extra variable" is better for the latter.
PZ: So this is not a valid argument IMO. It is an example of the classical logical fallacy
"affirming the antecedent".
JS: The "tidal" "stretch-squeeze"
geodesic deviation equation for two neighboring test particles still
works etc.
PZ: Of course. So?
The point is that you can always tell the difference between a real gravity field and
an inertial field. They are NOT "completely physically equivalent".
JS: If you mean Ruvwl =/= 0 locally for a real gravity field, and is zero for an inertial field, I agree.
However, I do not see how you can write
guv = guv(inertial) + guv(real)
That is, apart from
guv = Globally Flat Metric + du,v + dv,u
I do not claim we can physically distinguish the two terms on RHS nor is the
second term small compared to first.
The Bohm pilot constraint for the "extra variable", i.e. actual distortion of Hagen Kleinert's elastic-plastic 4D "world crystal lattice"
i.e. density of vortex line topological defects of curvature disclination and possibly torsion dislocations is
du = Lp^2(Goldstone Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u
,u is ordinary partial derivative.
Compare my equation here to Goldstein's eq. 12.4 on p. 282.
PZ: Consequently,
unified g_uv has no deep physical meaning or necessity -- as Feynman argued.
PZ: Which all seems to contradict his statement,
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] to prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational field as 'the
more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in
GR, because it can be
defined with respect to it."
JS: No, you have simply misread the context of Rovelli's remark. Read
it again more carefully. This is not a valid objection at all to
Rovelli's argument IMHO. The way I read him, his argument is
splendidly globally self-consistent.
PZ: The way I read him, he doesn't actually *have* an argument. He simply *prefers*
to quantize space and time intervals rather than unpack Einstein's unified g_uv.
PZ: So IMO Rovelli's position is incoherent. If anything, he is
arguing for an *alternative*
"non-Einsteinian" interpretation of GR in which matter-dependent g_uv
is to be treated as a
*physical field*, which means it can in principle be distinguished
from the kinematical inertial
field with its trivially valid transformable metric tensor.
JS: We are back to Square One. The Rock has rolled back down on
Sisyphus. I cannot pinpoint the precise misconception that is driving
your position here.
PZ: It is no wonder you are having this difficulty, since it is *Rovelli's* misconception
that is causing the problem.
Rovelli doesn't seem to understand that recognition of the dynamical character of
non-inertial g_uv fundamentally distinguishes it from the kinematical g_uv, which
latter doesn't depend on the distribution of matter. So the natural thing to do is
to split unified g_uv and thus clearly separate the dynamical and kinematical "metric
fields".
JS: Show me an algorithm to do that in any problem.
PZ: Yet he doesn't even consider this.
PZ: That is the best reconstruction I can salvage from his article.
In other words, Rovelli is really a *Yilmazian*.
JS: Not in my book.
PZ: Actually, you are right -- because he does not follow the natural development
of his own argument to its logical conclusions. If he did, his first alternative (p 109)
would fall squarely in the Feynman-Yilmaz category, with rubber rods and clocks
and a flat background inertial metric.
JS: It seems to me the objective is to eliminate any flat background non-dynamical metric.
"Nondynamical" means ACTION WITHOUT REACTION.
Note, I have it formally in my equations but it is not physically measurable separately.
Indeed, the pre-inflationary vacuum is the perfectly flat world crystal with no vortex string topological
defects of effective multiple-connectivity in the space of the vacuum coherence order parameter which
is zero everywhere prior to the inflationary vacuum phase transition like a normal metal going super-conducting.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of
matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a
spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I read it. Several times. I've been scratching my head for several
days now.
See above.
Thanks Gary. This is actually good news for my theory in which
Einstein's GR is emergent as a c-number ODLRO field out of
a BCS QED vacuum instability that forms the inflation field.
That is, direct quantization of Einstein's guv field is not
appropriate anymore than re-quantizing the giant superfluid and
superconducting waves is appropriate.
Therefore "quantum foam" is suspect. Also Bohm's "quantum potential"
view of "vacuum fluctuations" is relevant in context of the recent
paper from Teheran.
I need to follow the experiment below more carefully.
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack better check this story out:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com
Einstein's GR is emergent as a c-number ODLRO field out of
a BCS QED vacuum instability that forms the inflation field.
That is, direct quantization of Einstein's guv field is not
appropriate anymore than re-quantizing the giant superfluid and
superconducting waves is appropriate.
Therefore "quantum foam" is suspect. Also Bohm's "quantum potential"
view of "vacuum fluctuations" is relevant in context of the recent
paper from Teheran.
I need to follow the experiment below more carefully.
On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 02:29 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack better check this story out:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/1212einstein.html
Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com
Thanks for this insight.
PS I will review "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale".
There seems to be a misconception about D Branes starting in Hawking's new popular book
"The Universe in a Nutshell" ("O Brane New Worlds") and also pictures in Scientific American showing gravitons (closed strings)
moving through all of hyperspace with lepto-quarks and photons (open strings) stuck to "D Branes" pictured as "parallel universes" as
in Max Tegmark's "Level 1" May 2003 Scientific American. The way Unruh describes a D Brane seems incompatible with that picture?
Also Witten seems to think his alpha' = 1/(string tension) ~ (10^-32 cm)^2 is a new independent fundamental constant (a moduls or compactification scale) rather than
Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = hc(alpha'alpha) = alpha'e^2
hG/e^2c^3 = alpha'
Think first in quantum field theory of a virtual electron-positron pair "vacuum bubble", i.e. closed world line with no free ends. Then imagine
one virtual photon bisecting the the closed world line. This is the basic virtual bound state into which a huge number of these vacuum bubbles
Bose-Einstein condense to form the vacuum coherence field whose Goldstone phase ripples form Einstein's guv c-number ODLRO field.
The Higgs amplitude ripples of the vacuum coherence condensate form the dark energy and dark matter exotic vacuum w = -1 phases that is 96% of the large-scale stuff of the world.
For strings imagine a closed strip - two-sided orientable - maybe also Mobius one-sided strips.
The smallest quantized area of these vacuum bubbles is obviously
hcalpha' in Witten's sense.
The single virtual photon gives a factor of alpha = e^2/hc since each fuzzed out vertex is (alpha)^1/2
i.e. basic diagram is <|> | is the virtual photon and <> is the virtual electron-positron vacuum loop or bubble.
Therefore, this is a simple Mickey Mouse derivation of Andrei Sakharov's emergence of gravity G from QED and Witten's basic
modulus or string tension parameter, i.e.
G = e^2c^3alpha'/h = c^4(alpha)(alpha')
So that to be more precise Einstein's GR equation is
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
8piGh/hc^4 = 8piLp^2/hc = (alpha)(alpha')
Guv = (alpha)(alpha')Tuv
alpha' is Witten's modulus.
On Saturday, December 27, 2003, at 11:30 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:
Dear Friends :
Recently there has been a lot of work dedicated to
Fisher information theory, entropy.... see the book by
Frieden, Cambridge University Press :
" Physics from Fisher Information "
that claims/suggests to derive all of physics from
Fisher information theory. If you look at the
literature about QM and Fisher you will see that there
is a Fisher information term in the Schroedinger
equation that is related to Bohm's quantum potential =
Weyl scalar curvature induced by the ensemble density
of particle paths. Although the authors never pointed
this out to my amazement !
So yes, information theory, entropy and Weyl-Bohm have
a lot in common. Call it " Information Geometry "
which is very popular today.
also
Dear Jack :
The title of Christian Beck's book is :
Spatio-temporal vacuum fluctuations of quantized fields...
World Scientific 2002. Nonlinear sciences.
His papers are in the hep-th, condensed matter and astrophysics archives. You can download them.
His book is based on his paper : Chaotic Strings that is on the archives.
Best wishes
Carlos
____________
PS I will review "Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale".
There seems to be a misconception about D Branes starting in Hawking's new popular book
"The Universe in a Nutshell" ("O Brane New Worlds") and also pictures in Scientific American showing gravitons (closed strings)
moving through all of hyperspace with lepto-quarks and photons (open strings) stuck to "D Branes" pictured as "parallel universes" as
in Max Tegmark's "Level 1" May 2003 Scientific American. The way Unruh describes a D Brane seems incompatible with that picture?
Also Witten seems to think his alpha' = 1/(string tension) ~ (10^-32 cm)^2 is a new independent fundamental constant (a moduls or compactification scale) rather than
Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = hc(alpha'alpha) = alpha'e^2
hG/e^2c^3 = alpha'
Think first in quantum field theory of a virtual electron-positron pair "vacuum bubble", i.e. closed world line with no free ends. Then imagine
one virtual photon bisecting the the closed world line. This is the basic virtual bound state into which a huge number of these vacuum bubbles
Bose-Einstein condense to form the vacuum coherence field whose Goldstone phase ripples form Einstein's guv c-number ODLRO field.
The Higgs amplitude ripples of the vacuum coherence condensate form the dark energy and dark matter exotic vacuum w = -1 phases that is 96% of the large-scale stuff of the world.
For strings imagine a closed strip - two-sided orientable - maybe also Mobius one-sided strips.
The smallest quantized area of these vacuum bubbles is obviously
hcalpha' in Witten's sense.
The single virtual photon gives a factor of alpha = e^2/hc since each fuzzed out vertex is (alpha)^1/2
i.e. basic diagram is <|> | is the virtual photon and <> is the virtual electron-positron vacuum loop or bubble.
Therefore, this is a simple Mickey Mouse derivation of Andrei Sakharov's emergence of gravity G from QED and Witten's basic
modulus or string tension parameter, i.e.
G = e^2c^3alpha'/h = c^4(alpha)(alpha')
So that to be more precise Einstein's GR equation is
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
8piGh/hc^4 = 8piLp^2/hc = (alpha)(alpha')
Guv = (alpha)(alpha')Tuv
alpha' is Witten's modulus.
On Saturday, December 27, 2003, at 11:30 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:
Dear Friends :
Recently there has been a lot of work dedicated to
Fisher information theory, entropy.... see the book by
Frieden, Cambridge University Press :
" Physics from Fisher Information "
that claims/suggests to derive all of physics from
Fisher information theory. If you look at the
literature about QM and Fisher you will see that there
is a Fisher information term in the Schroedinger
equation that is related to Bohm's quantum potential =
Weyl scalar curvature induced by the ensemble density
of particle paths. Although the authors never pointed
this out to my amazement !
So yes, information theory, entropy and Weyl-Bohm have
a lot in common. Call it " Information Geometry "
which is very popular today.
also
Dear Jack :
The title of Christian Beck's book is :
Spatio-temporal vacuum fluctuations of quantized fields...
World Scientific 2002. Nonlinear sciences.
His papers are in the hep-th, condensed matter and astrophysics archives. You can download them.
His book is based on his paper : Chaotic Strings that is on the archives.
Best wishes
Carlos
____________
Saturday, December 27, 2003
On Friday, December 26, 2003, at 06:48 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: Rovelli's position is very odd. First he says:
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational
field as 'the more equal among equals', and declaring that location is
absolute in
GR, because it can be defined with respect to it." (p 108)
JS: But he rejects that Paul. He says doing that misses the "great
Einsteinian insight".
First he says
"Of course, *nothing* prevents us..."
from treating the metric field as reflecting the fundamental structure of spacetime,
singling it out as unique among "fields"; and *then* he says,
"The problem with this attitude is that it fully misses the great Einsteinian insight: that
Newtonian spacetime is just one field among others."
Yet Einstein's entire approach, at least before 1920, was premised on the idea of a *true
chronogeometric theory* based on an extension of the Relativity Principle. This is well-
known and unassailable.
JS So what? Einstein may have changed his opinion as he got further insight into his own theory - assuming your historical account is accurate.
PZ: The sole qualification arising from Einstein GR is that the metric
structure of spacetime is dependent on the distribution of matter. The fact of Riemann
curvature is dismissed as inessential, not definitive.
JS: What "matter" means is not even clear today. Justify your last sentence.
PZ: In 1920, Einstein did a PR handstand and started talking again about an ether -- but even then
he did not fully acknowledge the consequences for "general relativity", to wit, that there
is none.
JS: I do not understand what you say here. Have you read Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether"?
PZ: The concept of "general relativity" then gradually morphed into (1) mere general covariance;
and (2) the *conditionality of the metric field on the distribution of matter* -- away from the
true physical relativity of arbitrary motion, which was the original Einsteinian concept.
JS: I do not know if this is an accurate historical rendering.
PZ: So which is the "great Einsteinian insight"? Will the real Albert Einstein please stand up?
This is like Biblical exegesis. More shell games. This is what you get when you try to rationalize
an internally incoherent POV, or a pedagogical hotch potch that is obtained by mixing up
incompatible ideas from different periods of heuristic development of a theory.
JS: Then you need to make a chronological list of some kind. Paper for a journal on history and philosophy of physics.
The point is today that physicists basically know what they mean by "GR" recall Polyani's "tacit knowing".
PZ: All Rovelli is really saying here is that the dynamical matter-dependent gravitational metric g_uv can
be regarded as just another physical field. That is hardly "Einsteinian" an the classic (iconic) sense.
In fact it is the very opposite of Einsteinian. It is exactly what Feynman was arguing in 1963 -- the
metric field g_uv is a physical rubber-rod-and-clock field that it just so happens can be modeled in
terms of a curved Riemannian manifold for *contingent physical reasons*.
JS: Einstein did not reject "constructive" supplements to his geometrodynamics that he compared to "kinetic theory of gases" to "thermodynamics". Einstein did not reject for example the Lorentz contraction as a dynamical effect.
PZ: As for Rovelli's technical argument, asking what happens when you move *everything dynamic*,
including the gravitational spacetime metric, relatively to a manifold conceived as a set of unindividuated
points, is a scholastic conundrum that is equivalent to asking, "What happens if the whole universe
is displaced sideways?"
JS: No, I suspect you are underestimating Rovelli's depth of understanding.
PZ: It is the kind of thing that Kant ridiculed in his "Prelogomena to Any Future Metaphysics". It's a joke.
Tell me, Jack, what exactly is the difference between relabelling a bunch of unindividuated and
(by definition) physically indistinguishable spacetime points, and moving everything physical in
lockstep with respect to such points -- while keeping the relationship between all physical meaningful
dynamic elements, including the variable metric, fixed? Is there really any material difference between a
"passive diffeomorphism" and an "active diffeomorphism"?
JS: A fair and difficult question for sure. I do not claim to understand this well and I am working on it.
Might be a good idea to go back to Wigner's early papers on similar issues in quantum mechanics in
relation to unitary transformations and group theory.
PZ: Rovelli's argument has nothing to do with Einsteinian physical relativity.
At most it is an argument for a *non-Einsteinian* model of GR -- which holds that the variable
metric is to be regarded as a physical field.
JS: In my theory guv is from the phase modulation of the vacuum coherence field.
du(x) = Lp^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u
guv = nuv(flat) + du,v + dv,u
PZ: In such a model it is natural to decompose the unified
metric g_uv into a physical metric (Rovelli's matter-dependent physical field) and a kinematical
metric (which describes a *matter-independent* inertial field and reflects the underlying chrono-
geometry).
JS: Here is your fundamental error I suspect. This cannot be done. If it can be done. Show me.
Do not talk ABOUT it. Simply do it in all detail. Astonish us.
PZ: Then, we can define an "active transformation" as the physical transformation of the
dynamic physical fields, including physical g_uv, with respect to the kinematical flat background
spacetime with its generalized (i.e transformable) Minkowski metric.
JS: Unless you mean my
guv = nuv(flat) + du,v + dv,u
nuv(flat) = kinematical (perfect 4D world Planck lattice)
du,v + dv,u dynamical (topological line defects in world crystal lattice e.g. Hagen Kleinert)
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s
use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: I haven't yet had the time to unravel this part of his article. I'll look at it.
JS: This is key part for your thesis!
PZ: Although I have to say it is hard for me to take Rovelli seriously, judging by his earlier performance
PZ: This of course is exactly what the classic Einstein
chronogeometric model does,
going all the way back to special relativity.
JS: I think you are misreading Rovelli. Yes, in global special
relativity, NO in local general relativity.
PZ: Yes, locally and globally, in classic Einstein GR.
JS: I do not understand last sentence, especially use of "globally" in GR.
PZ: Contemporary canonical GR (e.g. MTW) is an incoherent mishmash of vintage Einstein and this modern
interpretation.
But I agree that what you say above is the correct interpretation of GR. That is precisely what I mean when
I say there is no such thing as "general relativity" *per se*, in the classic Einsteinian sense.
So we basically agree on this. I am simply insisting that this new interpretation be applied consistently all
the way through. You are still trying to pretend that MTW are consistent when they claim that the gravitational
vacuum stress-energy *must* vanish at some point in an LIF. That is simply inconsistent IMO: it is a vestigial
residue of that classic Einsteinian red herring, strict gravitational-inertial equivalence.
JS: Depends on the math definition of "vacuum stress-energy". Classically it is zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in ALL FRAMES
LIF or LNIF because
tuv(Vacuum Stress-Energy Density) = (String Tension)Guv(Einstein) = - (String Tension)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (Planck Area)^-1[(Planck Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
/\zpf = 0 exactly in "classical" non-exotic vacuum, which is ALL MTW (1973) conceived of.
My "vacuum coherence" has no relation to Hal Puthoff's and Eric Davis's use of same words as far as I can tell.
PZ: That is precisely what distinguishes the
Einsteinian from the Lorentzian model. The transformational and
metric structure
is not, in the classic Einsteinian model, separable from spacetime
itself.
But then he says:
"There is no absolute referent of motion in GR; the dynamical fields
"move" with
respect to each other." (p 108)
JS: Again you are misreading. There is no contradiction here in
Rovelli's argument.
PZ: Not if you view it as an argument for a rubber-rod-and-clock interpretation of gravitational g_uv.
As I said, this is the best reconstruction of his position.
Thus the matter-dependent field-variable tensor quantity g_uv is to be regarded as a *physical field*.
That is exactly the PV/Yilmaz approach.
JS: No it is not in terms of the details. I see no identity between Hal's PV and Rovelli. None at all.
PZ: Now, of course, you can also move an entire flat Minkowski backgound with respect to the
points of the raw manifold -- but that is trivial and completely irrelevant to physical relativity;
although perhaps not to "Cartesian relationalism", or whatever jewel of curved-void scholasticism
Rovelli has conjured up.
Apples and Oranges. Einsteinian physical relativity, and relationalism a la Rovelli, lie on different
levels of analysis. It's a category error.
Also, Rovelli's argument arbitrarily *assumes* that there aren't and cannot be any other "metrics" or
similar properties defined over the raw manifold -- which makes the argument seem artificial and
circular. For example, we can define a background generalized Minkowski metric with respect to the
same manifold, as is done in bimetric theories. Then we consider what happens when all *physical
dynamical elements* are moved together along the manifold as characterized by this background
chronogeometric structure, leaving the latter undisturbed. Now that addresses the *Einsteinian* issue
of relativity -- as opposed to the metaphysical "Cartesian" question of relationality with respect to the
raw manifold.
PZ: This second assertion seems to approach the metric field of GR as
just another field, which
is very close to and even indistinguishable from the physical "rubber
rod and clock" model
of PV and Yilmaz -- just another physical field which happens to have
"metric" properties.
And of course such a field is fully relational with respect to
unindividuated spacetime points
on a raw manifold stripped of all coordinate systems, transformation
properties, and metrics.
JS: Yes on just another field.
PZ: OK.
JS: But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz.
PZ: What's the difference?
JS I do not understand Yilmaz. But I focus on Hal's PV.
There is no common ground between anything in PV and what Rovelli proposes.
Where does Rovelli invoke
K = e^2GM/c2r
and ignore difference between curvature and isotropic radial coordinates and the idea of coordinate patches and renounce
event horizons etc?
Not
true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal's uses an absolute non-dynamical background global
Minkowski space
with a literal meaning for coordinates r & t, otherwise his formula
dr/dt = c/K
is physically meaningless, which it is in GR as explained by Rovelli on
pp. 112 - 114.
PZ: But if gravitational g_uv is just another physical field with "metric" properties (in the "hotplate"
sense of Feynman) , then it is quite reasonable to define the *true* lengths and times in terms
of what you get with no sources, or far from any sources.
JS: What about space-times that are not asymptotic flat?
PZ: I think that is the nub of the problem here, and I suspect this is because you are still in fact
rapidly oscillating between the Einsteinian and rubber-rod-and-clock POVs under the tiny
Yilmazian conceptual perturbation t_uv. :-)
That is, Hal's use of "engineering" is precisely missing the "third
step" on Rovelli's p. 108.
Also p. 112
"Recall that Einstein described his great intellectual struggle to find
GR as 'understanding the meaning of coordinates'."
PZ: Yes, precisely -- he had a hard time with this. He was stumbling and confused. Part of his confusion
was exposed by Kretschman. Then later we find him going back to an ether.
Look, it's quite simple: there is no such thing as "general relativity of motion" as Einstein once thought.
General covariance is not "general relativity", just as Lorentz covariance is not "special relativity". A
frame of reference is not simply a coordinate system. A connection field does not necessarily describe
a physical field of force. Riemann spacetime curvature is *absolute* and is locally detectable,
and so inertial fields are not identical with physical fields -- they are kinematical fields.
And so on, and so forth.
Einstein learned all this the hard way. It is all so much easier for us now: all we have
to do is face up to his mistakes, his wrong turns and red herrings, and *learn from them*.
We are all like rats in a maze.
Did Einstein understand that you can covariantly describe fictitious forces by a transformable space-time
metric field in purely Newtonian physics?
I doubt it.
JS: This is my key objection to Puthoff's and Ibison's use of "r" ant "t"
in their PV modeling.
PZ: See above. You have to understand his ideal benchmark -- lengths and time intervals with no
sources present, or infinitely removed from all sources.
JS: This is physical nonsense. You need to compare locally which is what EEP does in principle.
Only under certain special space-times can you use remote sensing of gravity redshift to do
approximately what Hal alludes to in his Tables.
They do not IMHO understand the "meaning of coordinates: in GR. Neither
does Yilmaz apparently.
PZ: What this actually refers to is the generalization of the unified metric, conceived as a
monolithic inertial-gravitational "field", to inhomogeneous fields over finite spacetime
regions. In order to take this step Einstein had to loosen his intuitive understanding
of the physical meaning of spacetime coordinates.
But what you don't seem to realize is that the later concept of a physical matter-
dependent "metric" field reverses this step. Coordinates can be *chronogeometric*
(background metric) or *gravitational* (physical metric). That re-establishes the
idea of matter-independent kinematical reference coordinates.
JS: Define "matter" here. I include "exotic vacuum" w = -1 , /\zpf =/= 0 MISSING
even in Rovelli's analysis.
PZ: You have to apply the modern interpretation *consistently*, all the way through.
JS: pp 112 - 114 make this clear IMHO. Also at quantum level Rovelli
mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow"
is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling
the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and
shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw
manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully
valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend
on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a
common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to
such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more
deeply.
PZ: So you admit it. :-)
JS: I admit deep foundational ambiguities in both GR and QM of course.
PZ: What is physically significant here is not this abstract and
artificial definition of "diffeomorphism"
with respect to a raw manifold conceived as an unindividuated point
set, but a shift of physical
fields with respect to the metric-transformational structure of
spacetime, which of course in GR
depends on the distribution of matter.
JS: Precisely, yes that is the idea I think. It's a return to I think
Leibniz's "relationism"? How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our
immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation
like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical
metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of
the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: I'll comment on this later.
JS: My main interest here.
PZ: So it appears that Rovelli ends up in a position where he is
essentially arguing that the matter-
dependence of the metric field implies that the GR metric is really a
physical metric, and the GR
metric field is to be regarded as a physical field like any other
physical field. Then, the physics
depends only on the relative disposition of the various physical
fields with respect to each other.
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e.
"on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell"
sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
PZ: OK.
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of
virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and
to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor
~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of
negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive
pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~
0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat
post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in
Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskings megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural
selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
PZ: Fine.
JS: Again this is the really NEW PHYSICS in all this IMHO.
PZ: But while this may allow or even imply a "relational" view of the
raw spacetime manifold, in the
Cartesian sense, it is clearly not physical "general relativity", in
the classic Einsteinian sense,
which requires fundamental identification of the inertial and
gravitational metrics.
JS: I do not understand what you just said.
PZ: Then you don't understand Einstein 1921 (e.g., "The Meaning of Relativity").
JS: Spell it out. Whoops maybe not since that is what you have been doing. ;-)
EEP in every significant
sense still holds IMHO.
PZ: That's another issue. "EEP" holds, but this is now *merely* a correspondence principle.
JS: Much Ado About Nothing. Of course it is a correspondence principle with a limited domain of validity.
Show me one important physical concept that is otherwise?
PZ: "EEP" does *not* stand for "Einstein equivalence principle", which was far more
than a mere correspondence model.
JS: If you think Einstein over-hyped his theory what about Brian Greene & Co in NOVA's PBS "Elegant Universe".
Talk about Dot.Com vaporware in mass media. ;-) I agree with Wheeler however that classical GR is "battle tested"
by experiments where it is supposed to work it does work.
PZ: Keep your eyes on that pea, Jack. Big John Wheeler's a *wheeler-dealer*. He's
real good at what he does.
Would I accept a used gift horse from that guy? Not before giving it a long hard
look in the mouth...
"General relativity is the *name* Einstein gave to his theory of gravity".
Slick!
JS: The geodesic equation for a test particle in a
given guv field still works for example. The "tidal" "stretch-squeeze"
geodesic deviation equation for two neighboring test particles still
works etc.
PZ: Yes, but that ignores other powers of the gravitational field. It is only *part* of
the picture.
"I see no ships".
Both translational g-forces and tidal forces, together with rotational and "metric"
effects and self-gravitating stress-energy, are all aspects of one integral matter-induced
physical field of influence over the vacuum -- the real gravitational field.
PZ: Which all seems to contradict his statement,
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] to prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational field as 'the
more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in
GR, because it can be
defined with respect to it."
JS: No, you have simply misread the context of Rovelli's remark. Read
it again more carefully. This is not a valid objection at all to
Rovelli's argument IMHO. The way I read him, his argument is
splendidly globally self-consistent.
PZ: Not if you adopt my construction, which is that while logically we *can* interpret the
GR unified metric field in a fundamental chronogeometric manner ("nothing prevents us*),
it is more natural to interpret the dynamical (matter-dependent) part of that field as one
physical field among others.
Which is precisely the PV/Yilmaz approach.
JS: There is no connection to PV/Yilmaz in any concrete way IMHO. A vague philofawzical similarity not important.
PZ: Then, Rovelli shows us how the idea of "relativity" can be re-discovered at a deeper metaphysical
level as "Cartesian relationality".
Fine, but this is *not* Einsteinian "relativity", contrary to what Rovelli seems to suggest ("the great
Einsteinian insight"). Here he is simply deferring to Einstein. It's a lot like genuflection. The fact of
the matter is that this is a profoundly *un-Einsteinian* approach (in the classic sense of Einsteinian
"relativity").
So here you have it: profound deference to the iconic Einstein is warping the intellectual landscape,
resulting in nonsensical and counter-historical statements that clang dissonantly against the actual
thrust of the writer's own arguments. Ripe for deconstruction.
In this case, the writer is pretending that classically *non-Einsteinian* models are really "Einsteinian".
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rovelli is in fact arguing *against* Einsteinian "general relativity", offering metaphysical Cartesian
"relationism" as a consolation prize for the agonized true believers.
PZ: So IMO Rovelli's position is incoherent. If anything, he is
arguing for an *alternative*
"non-Einsteinian" interpretation of GR in which matter-dependent g_uv
is to be treated as a
*physical field*, which means it can in principle be distinguished
from the kinematical inertial
field with its trivially valid transformable metric tensor.
JS: We are back to Square One. The Rock has rolled back down on
Sisyphus. I cannot pinpoint the precise misconception that is driving
your position here.
PZ: But above you agreed with this.
Rovelli's position is incoherent only because of his genuflection to the Einstein icon,
which here takes the form of pretending that the idea of approaching the gravitational g_uv
as a physical rubber-rod-and-clock field is profoundly Einsteinian -- the exact opposite
of reality.
PZ: That is the best reconstruction I can salvage from his article.
In other words, Rovelli is really a *Yilmazian*.
JS: Not in my book.
PZ: What's the difference? The kinematical g_uv is not matter-dependent; so it need not be
considered a physical dynamical field according to Rovelli's argument. This re-establishes
the fundamental distinction between dynamical and kinematical g_uv, which leads directly
to Yilmaz's frame-independent localizable dynamical vacuum t_uv.
What could be simpler?
Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Z.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of
matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a
spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I read it. Several times. I've been scratching my head for several
days now.
See above.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: Rovelli's position is very odd. First he says:
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational
field as 'the more equal among equals', and declaring that location is
absolute in
GR, because it can be defined with respect to it." (p 108)
JS: But he rejects that Paul. He says doing that misses the "great
Einsteinian insight".
First he says
"Of course, *nothing* prevents us..."
from treating the metric field as reflecting the fundamental structure of spacetime,
singling it out as unique among "fields"; and *then* he says,
"The problem with this attitude is that it fully misses the great Einsteinian insight: that
Newtonian spacetime is just one field among others."
Yet Einstein's entire approach, at least before 1920, was premised on the idea of a *true
chronogeometric theory* based on an extension of the Relativity Principle. This is well-
known and unassailable.
JS So what? Einstein may have changed his opinion as he got further insight into his own theory - assuming your historical account is accurate.
PZ: The sole qualification arising from Einstein GR is that the metric
structure of spacetime is dependent on the distribution of matter. The fact of Riemann
curvature is dismissed as inessential, not definitive.
JS: What "matter" means is not even clear today. Justify your last sentence.
PZ: In 1920, Einstein did a PR handstand and started talking again about an ether -- but even then
he did not fully acknowledge the consequences for "general relativity", to wit, that there
is none.
JS: I do not understand what you say here. Have you read Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether"?
PZ: The concept of "general relativity" then gradually morphed into (1) mere general covariance;
and (2) the *conditionality of the metric field on the distribution of matter* -- away from the
true physical relativity of arbitrary motion, which was the original Einsteinian concept.
JS: I do not know if this is an accurate historical rendering.
PZ: So which is the "great Einsteinian insight"? Will the real Albert Einstein please stand up?
This is like Biblical exegesis. More shell games. This is what you get when you try to rationalize
an internally incoherent POV, or a pedagogical hotch potch that is obtained by mixing up
incompatible ideas from different periods of heuristic development of a theory.
JS: Then you need to make a chronological list of some kind. Paper for a journal on history and philosophy of physics.
The point is today that physicists basically know what they mean by "GR" recall Polyani's "tacit knowing".
PZ: All Rovelli is really saying here is that the dynamical matter-dependent gravitational metric g_uv can
be regarded as just another physical field. That is hardly "Einsteinian" an the classic (iconic) sense.
In fact it is the very opposite of Einsteinian. It is exactly what Feynman was arguing in 1963 -- the
metric field g_uv is a physical rubber-rod-and-clock field that it just so happens can be modeled in
terms of a curved Riemannian manifold for *contingent physical reasons*.
JS: Einstein did not reject "constructive" supplements to his geometrodynamics that he compared to "kinetic theory of gases" to "thermodynamics". Einstein did not reject for example the Lorentz contraction as a dynamical effect.
PZ: As for Rovelli's technical argument, asking what happens when you move *everything dynamic*,
including the gravitational spacetime metric, relatively to a manifold conceived as a set of unindividuated
points, is a scholastic conundrum that is equivalent to asking, "What happens if the whole universe
is displaced sideways?"
JS: No, I suspect you are underestimating Rovelli's depth of understanding.
PZ: It is the kind of thing that Kant ridiculed in his "Prelogomena to Any Future Metaphysics". It's a joke.
Tell me, Jack, what exactly is the difference between relabelling a bunch of unindividuated and
(by definition) physically indistinguishable spacetime points, and moving everything physical in
lockstep with respect to such points -- while keeping the relationship between all physical meaningful
dynamic elements, including the variable metric, fixed? Is there really any material difference between a
"passive diffeomorphism" and an "active diffeomorphism"?
JS: A fair and difficult question for sure. I do not claim to understand this well and I am working on it.
Might be a good idea to go back to Wigner's early papers on similar issues in quantum mechanics in
relation to unitary transformations and group theory.
PZ: Rovelli's argument has nothing to do with Einsteinian physical relativity.
At most it is an argument for a *non-Einsteinian* model of GR -- which holds that the variable
metric is to be regarded as a physical field.
JS: In my theory guv is from the phase modulation of the vacuum coherence field.
du(x) = Lp^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u
guv = nuv(flat) + du,v + dv,u
PZ: In such a model it is natural to decompose the unified
metric g_uv into a physical metric (Rovelli's matter-dependent physical field) and a kinematical
metric (which describes a *matter-independent* inertial field and reflects the underlying chrono-
geometry).
JS: Here is your fundamental error I suspect. This cannot be done. If it can be done. Show me.
Do not talk ABOUT it. Simply do it in all detail. Astonish us.
PZ: Then, we can define an "active transformation" as the physical transformation of the
dynamic physical fields, including physical g_uv, with respect to the kinematical flat background
spacetime with its generalized (i.e transformable) Minkowski metric.
JS: Unless you mean my
guv = nuv(flat) + du,v + dv,u
nuv(flat) = kinematical (perfect 4D world Planck lattice)
du,v + dv,u dynamical (topological line defects in world crystal lattice e.g. Hagen Kleinert)
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s
use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: I haven't yet had the time to unravel this part of his article. I'll look at it.
JS: This is key part for your thesis!
PZ: Although I have to say it is hard for me to take Rovelli seriously, judging by his earlier performance
PZ: This of course is exactly what the classic Einstein
chronogeometric model does,
going all the way back to special relativity.
JS: I think you are misreading Rovelli. Yes, in global special
relativity, NO in local general relativity.
PZ: Yes, locally and globally, in classic Einstein GR.
JS: I do not understand last sentence, especially use of "globally" in GR.
PZ: Contemporary canonical GR (e.g. MTW) is an incoherent mishmash of vintage Einstein and this modern
interpretation.
But I agree that what you say above is the correct interpretation of GR. That is precisely what I mean when
I say there is no such thing as "general relativity" *per se*, in the classic Einsteinian sense.
So we basically agree on this. I am simply insisting that this new interpretation be applied consistently all
the way through. You are still trying to pretend that MTW are consistent when they claim that the gravitational
vacuum stress-energy *must* vanish at some point in an LIF. That is simply inconsistent IMO: it is a vestigial
residue of that classic Einsteinian red herring, strict gravitational-inertial equivalence.
JS: Depends on the math definition of "vacuum stress-energy". Classically it is zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in ALL FRAMES
LIF or LNIF because
tuv(Vacuum Stress-Energy Density) = (String Tension)Guv(Einstein) = - (String Tension)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (Planck Area)^-1[(Planck Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
/\zpf = 0 exactly in "classical" non-exotic vacuum, which is ALL MTW (1973) conceived of.
My "vacuum coherence" has no relation to Hal Puthoff's and Eric Davis's use of same words as far as I can tell.
PZ: That is precisely what distinguishes the
Einsteinian from the Lorentzian model. The transformational and
metric structure
is not, in the classic Einsteinian model, separable from spacetime
itself.
But then he says:
"There is no absolute referent of motion in GR; the dynamical fields
"move" with
respect to each other." (p 108)
JS: Again you are misreading. There is no contradiction here in
Rovelli's argument.
PZ: Not if you view it as an argument for a rubber-rod-and-clock interpretation of gravitational g_uv.
As I said, this is the best reconstruction of his position.
Thus the matter-dependent field-variable tensor quantity g_uv is to be regarded as a *physical field*.
That is exactly the PV/Yilmaz approach.
JS: No it is not in terms of the details. I see no identity between Hal's PV and Rovelli. None at all.
PZ: Now, of course, you can also move an entire flat Minkowski backgound with respect to the
points of the raw manifold -- but that is trivial and completely irrelevant to physical relativity;
although perhaps not to "Cartesian relationalism", or whatever jewel of curved-void scholasticism
Rovelli has conjured up.
Apples and Oranges. Einsteinian physical relativity, and relationalism a la Rovelli, lie on different
levels of analysis. It's a category error.
Also, Rovelli's argument arbitrarily *assumes* that there aren't and cannot be any other "metrics" or
similar properties defined over the raw manifold -- which makes the argument seem artificial and
circular. For example, we can define a background generalized Minkowski metric with respect to the
same manifold, as is done in bimetric theories. Then we consider what happens when all *physical
dynamical elements* are moved together along the manifold as characterized by this background
chronogeometric structure, leaving the latter undisturbed. Now that addresses the *Einsteinian* issue
of relativity -- as opposed to the metaphysical "Cartesian" question of relationality with respect to the
raw manifold.
PZ: This second assertion seems to approach the metric field of GR as
just another field, which
is very close to and even indistinguishable from the physical "rubber
rod and clock" model
of PV and Yilmaz -- just another physical field which happens to have
"metric" properties.
And of course such a field is fully relational with respect to
unindividuated spacetime points
on a raw manifold stripped of all coordinate systems, transformation
properties, and metrics.
JS: Yes on just another field.
PZ: OK.
JS: But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz.
PZ: What's the difference?
JS I do not understand Yilmaz. But I focus on Hal's PV.
There is no common ground between anything in PV and what Rovelli proposes.
Where does Rovelli invoke
K = e^2GM/c2r
and ignore difference between curvature and isotropic radial coordinates and the idea of coordinate patches and renounce
event horizons etc?
Not
true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal's uses an absolute non-dynamical background global
Minkowski space
with a literal meaning for coordinates r & t, otherwise his formula
dr/dt = c/K
is physically meaningless, which it is in GR as explained by Rovelli on
pp. 112 - 114.
PZ: But if gravitational g_uv is just another physical field with "metric" properties (in the "hotplate"
sense of Feynman) , then it is quite reasonable to define the *true* lengths and times in terms
of what you get with no sources, or far from any sources.
JS: What about space-times that are not asymptotic flat?
PZ: I think that is the nub of the problem here, and I suspect this is because you are still in fact
rapidly oscillating between the Einsteinian and rubber-rod-and-clock POVs under the tiny
Yilmazian conceptual perturbation t_uv. :-)
That is, Hal's use of "engineering" is precisely missing the "third
step" on Rovelli's p. 108.
Also p. 112
"Recall that Einstein described his great intellectual struggle to find
GR as 'understanding the meaning of coordinates'."
PZ: Yes, precisely -- he had a hard time with this. He was stumbling and confused. Part of his confusion
was exposed by Kretschman. Then later we find him going back to an ether.
Look, it's quite simple: there is no such thing as "general relativity of motion" as Einstein once thought.
General covariance is not "general relativity", just as Lorentz covariance is not "special relativity". A
frame of reference is not simply a coordinate system. A connection field does not necessarily describe
a physical field of force. Riemann spacetime curvature is *absolute* and is locally detectable,
and so inertial fields are not identical with physical fields -- they are kinematical fields.
And so on, and so forth.
Einstein learned all this the hard way. It is all so much easier for us now: all we have
to do is face up to his mistakes, his wrong turns and red herrings, and *learn from them*.
We are all like rats in a maze.
Did Einstein understand that you can covariantly describe fictitious forces by a transformable space-time
metric field in purely Newtonian physics?
I doubt it.
JS: This is my key objection to Puthoff's and Ibison's use of "r" ant "t"
in their PV modeling.
PZ: See above. You have to understand his ideal benchmark -- lengths and time intervals with no
sources present, or infinitely removed from all sources.
JS: This is physical nonsense. You need to compare locally which is what EEP does in principle.
Only under certain special space-times can you use remote sensing of gravity redshift to do
approximately what Hal alludes to in his Tables.
They do not IMHO understand the "meaning of coordinates: in GR. Neither
does Yilmaz apparently.
PZ: What this actually refers to is the generalization of the unified metric, conceived as a
monolithic inertial-gravitational "field", to inhomogeneous fields over finite spacetime
regions. In order to take this step Einstein had to loosen his intuitive understanding
of the physical meaning of spacetime coordinates.
But what you don't seem to realize is that the later concept of a physical matter-
dependent "metric" field reverses this step. Coordinates can be *chronogeometric*
(background metric) or *gravitational* (physical metric). That re-establishes the
idea of matter-independent kinematical reference coordinates.
JS: Define "matter" here. I include "exotic vacuum" w = -1 , /\zpf =/= 0 MISSING
even in Rovelli's analysis.
PZ: You have to apply the modern interpretation *consistently*, all the way through.
JS: pp 112 - 114 make this clear IMHO. Also at quantum level Rovelli
mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow"
is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling
the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and
shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw
manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully
valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend
on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a
common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to
such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more
deeply.
PZ: So you admit it. :-)
JS: I admit deep foundational ambiguities in both GR and QM of course.
PZ: What is physically significant here is not this abstract and
artificial definition of "diffeomorphism"
with respect to a raw manifold conceived as an unindividuated point
set, but a shift of physical
fields with respect to the metric-transformational structure of
spacetime, which of course in GR
depends on the distribution of matter.
JS: Precisely, yes that is the idea I think. It's a return to I think
Leibniz's "relationism"? How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our
immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation
like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical
metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of
the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: I'll comment on this later.
JS: My main interest here.
PZ: So it appears that Rovelli ends up in a position where he is
essentially arguing that the matter-
dependence of the metric field implies that the GR metric is really a
physical metric, and the GR
metric field is to be regarded as a physical field like any other
physical field. Then, the physics
depends only on the relative disposition of the various physical
fields with respect to each other.
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e.
"on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell"
sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
PZ: OK.
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of
virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and
to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor
~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of
negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive
pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~
0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat
post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in
Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskings megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural
selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
PZ: Fine.
JS: Again this is the really NEW PHYSICS in all this IMHO.
PZ: But while this may allow or even imply a "relational" view of the
raw spacetime manifold, in the
Cartesian sense, it is clearly not physical "general relativity", in
the classic Einsteinian sense,
which requires fundamental identification of the inertial and
gravitational metrics.
JS: I do not understand what you just said.
PZ: Then you don't understand Einstein 1921 (e.g., "The Meaning of Relativity").
JS: Spell it out. Whoops maybe not since that is what you have been doing. ;-)
EEP in every significant
sense still holds IMHO.
PZ: That's another issue. "EEP" holds, but this is now *merely* a correspondence principle.
JS: Much Ado About Nothing. Of course it is a correspondence principle with a limited domain of validity.
Show me one important physical concept that is otherwise?
PZ: "EEP" does *not* stand for "Einstein equivalence principle", which was far more
than a mere correspondence model.
JS: If you think Einstein over-hyped his theory what about Brian Greene & Co in NOVA's PBS "Elegant Universe".
Talk about Dot.Com vaporware in mass media. ;-) I agree with Wheeler however that classical GR is "battle tested"
by experiments where it is supposed to work it does work.
PZ: Keep your eyes on that pea, Jack. Big John Wheeler's a *wheeler-dealer*. He's
real good at what he does.
Would I accept a used gift horse from that guy? Not before giving it a long hard
look in the mouth...
"General relativity is the *name* Einstein gave to his theory of gravity".
Slick!
JS: The geodesic equation for a test particle in a
given guv field still works for example. The "tidal" "stretch-squeeze"
geodesic deviation equation for two neighboring test particles still
works etc.
PZ: Yes, but that ignores other powers of the gravitational field. It is only *part* of
the picture.
"I see no ships".
Both translational g-forces and tidal forces, together with rotational and "metric"
effects and self-gravitating stress-energy, are all aspects of one integral matter-induced
physical field of influence over the vacuum -- the real gravitational field.
PZ: Which all seems to contradict his statement,
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] to prevents us... from singling out the
gravitational field as 'the
more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in
GR, because it can be
defined with respect to it."
JS: No, you have simply misread the context of Rovelli's remark. Read
it again more carefully. This is not a valid objection at all to
Rovelli's argument IMHO. The way I read him, his argument is
splendidly globally self-consistent.
PZ: Not if you adopt my construction, which is that while logically we *can* interpret the
GR unified metric field in a fundamental chronogeometric manner ("nothing prevents us*),
it is more natural to interpret the dynamical (matter-dependent) part of that field as one
physical field among others.
Which is precisely the PV/Yilmaz approach.
JS: There is no connection to PV/Yilmaz in any concrete way IMHO. A vague philofawzical similarity not important.
PZ: Then, Rovelli shows us how the idea of "relativity" can be re-discovered at a deeper metaphysical
level as "Cartesian relationality".
Fine, but this is *not* Einsteinian "relativity", contrary to what Rovelli seems to suggest ("the great
Einsteinian insight"). Here he is simply deferring to Einstein. It's a lot like genuflection. The fact of
the matter is that this is a profoundly *un-Einsteinian* approach (in the classic sense of Einsteinian
"relativity").
So here you have it: profound deference to the iconic Einstein is warping the intellectual landscape,
resulting in nonsensical and counter-historical statements that clang dissonantly against the actual
thrust of the writer's own arguments. Ripe for deconstruction.
In this case, the writer is pretending that classically *non-Einsteinian* models are really "Einsteinian".
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rovelli is in fact arguing *against* Einsteinian "general relativity", offering metaphysical Cartesian
"relationism" as a consolation prize for the agonized true believers.
PZ: So IMO Rovelli's position is incoherent. If anything, he is
arguing for an *alternative*
"non-Einsteinian" interpretation of GR in which matter-dependent g_uv
is to be treated as a
*physical field*, which means it can in principle be distinguished
from the kinematical inertial
field with its trivially valid transformable metric tensor.
JS: We are back to Square One. The Rock has rolled back down on
Sisyphus. I cannot pinpoint the precise misconception that is driving
your position here.
PZ: But above you agreed with this.
Rovelli's position is incoherent only because of his genuflection to the Einstein icon,
which here takes the form of pretending that the idea of approaching the gravitational g_uv
as a physical rubber-rod-and-clock field is profoundly Einsteinian -- the exact opposite
of reality.
PZ: That is the best reconstruction I can salvage from his article.
In other words, Rovelli is really a *Yilmazian*.
JS: Not in my book.
PZ: What's the difference? The kinematical g_uv is not matter-dependent; so it need not be
considered a physical dynamical field according to Rovelli's argument. This re-establishes
the fundamental distinction between dynamical and kinematical g_uv, which leads directly
to Yilmaz's frame-independent localizable dynamical vacuum t_uv.
What could be simpler?
Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Z.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of
matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a
spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I read it. Several times. I've been scratching my head for several
days now.
See above.
Friday, December 26, 2003
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 02:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: Rovelli's position is very odd. First he says:
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] prevents us... from singling out the gravitational
field as 'the more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in
GR, because it can be defined with respect to it." (p 108)
JS: But he rejects that Paul. He says doing that misses the "great Einsteinian insight".
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: This of course is exactly what the classic Einstein chronogeometric model does,
going all the way back to special relativity.
JS: I think you are misreading Rovelli. Yes, in global special relativity, NO in local general relativity.
PZ: That is precisely what distinguishes the
Einsteinian from the Lorentzian model. The transformational and metric structure
is not, in the classic Einsteinian model, separable from spacetime itself.
But then he says:
"There is no absolute referent of motion in GR; the dynamical fields "move" with
respect to each other." (p 108)
JS: Again you are misreading. There is no contradiction here in Rovelli's argument.
PZ: This second assertion seems to approach the metric field of GR as just another field, which
is very close to and even indistinguishable from the physical "rubber rod and clock" model
of PV and Yilmaz -- just another physical field which happens to have "metric" properties.
And of course such a field is fully relational with respect to unindividuated spacetime points
on a raw manifold stripped of all coordinate systems, transformation properties, and metrics.
JS: Yes on just another field. But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz. Not true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal's uses an absolute non-dynamical background global Minkowski space
with a literal meaning for coordinates r & t, otherwise his formula
dr/dt = c/K
is physically meaningless, which it is in GR as explained by Rovelli on pp. 112 - 114.
That is, Hal's use of "engineering" is precisely missing the "third step" on Rovelli's p. 108.
Also p. 112
"Recall that Einstein described his great intellectual struggle to find GR as 'understanding the meaning of coordinates'."
This is my key objection to Puthoff's and Ibison's use of "r" ant "t" in their PV modeling.
They do not IMHO understand the "meaning of coordinates: in GR. Neither does Yilmaz apparently.
pp 112 - 114 make this clear IMHO. Also at quantum level Rovelli mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow" is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more deeply.
PZ: What is physically significant here is not this abstract and artificial definition of "diffeomorphism"
with respect to a raw manifold conceived as an unindividuated point set, but a shift of physical
fields with respect to the metric-transformational structure of spacetime, which of course in GR
depends on the distribution of matter.
JS: Precisely, yes that is the idea I think. It's a return to I think Leibniz's "relationism"? How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: So it appears that Rovelli ends up in a position where he is essentially arguing that the matter-
dependence of the metric field implies that the GR metric is really a physical metric, and the GR
metric field is to be regarded as a physical field like any other physical field. Then, the physics
depends only on the relative disposition of the various physical fields with respect to each other.
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e. "on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell" sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor ~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~ 0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskings megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
PZ: But while this may allow or even imply a "relational" view of the raw spacetime manifold, in the
Cartesian sense, it is clearly not physical "general relativity", in the classic Einsteinian sense,
which requires fundamental identification of the inertial and gravitational metrics.
JS: I do not understand what you just said. EEP in every significant sense still holds IMHO. The geodesic equation for a test particle in a given guv field still works for example. The "tidal" "stretch-squeeze" geodesic deviation equation for two neighboring test particles still works etc.
PZ: Which all seems to contradict his statement,
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] to prevents us... from singling out the gravitational field as 'the
more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in GR, because it can be
defined with respect to it."
JS: No, you have simply misread the context of Rovelli's remark. Read it again more carefully. This is not a valid objection at all to Rovelli's argument IMHO. The way I read him, his argument is splendidly globally self-consistent.
PZ: So IMO Rovelli's position is incoherent. If anything, he is arguing for an *alternative*
"non-Einsteinian" interpretation of GR in which matter-dependent g_uv is to be treated as a
*physical field*, which means it can in principle be distinguished from the kinematical inertial
field with its trivially valid transformable metric tensor.
JS: We are back to Square One. The Rock has rolled back down on Sisyphus. I cannot pinpoint the precise misconception that is driving your position here.
PZ: That is the best reconstruction I can salvage from his article.
In other words, Rovelli is really a *Yilmazian*.
JS: Not in my book.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of
matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a
spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I read it. Several times. I've been scratching my head for several days now.
See above.
PZ: Rovelli's position is very odd. First he says:
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] prevents us... from singling out the gravitational
field as 'the more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in
GR, because it can be defined with respect to it." (p 108)
JS: But he rejects that Paul. He says doing that misses the "great Einsteinian insight".
Have you read pp. 112 - 114 that completely demolishes Hal Puthoff' s use of
dr/dt = c' = c/K radial null geodesic
in his "Tables".
PZ: This of course is exactly what the classic Einstein chronogeometric model does,
going all the way back to special relativity.
JS: I think you are misreading Rovelli. Yes, in global special relativity, NO in local general relativity.
PZ: That is precisely what distinguishes the
Einsteinian from the Lorentzian model. The transformational and metric structure
is not, in the classic Einsteinian model, separable from spacetime itself.
But then he says:
"There is no absolute referent of motion in GR; the dynamical fields "move" with
respect to each other." (p 108)
JS: Again you are misreading. There is no contradiction here in Rovelli's argument.
PZ: This second assertion seems to approach the metric field of GR as just another field, which
is very close to and even indistinguishable from the physical "rubber rod and clock" model
of PV and Yilmaz -- just another physical field which happens to have "metric" properties.
And of course such a field is fully relational with respect to unindividuated spacetime points
on a raw manifold stripped of all coordinate systems, transformation properties, and metrics.
JS: Yes on just another field. But NO that it's like PV and Yilmaz. Not true at all because,
at least in PV, Hal's uses an absolute non-dynamical background global Minkowski space
with a literal meaning for coordinates r & t, otherwise his formula
dr/dt = c/K
is physically meaningless, which it is in GR as explained by Rovelli on pp. 112 - 114.
That is, Hal's use of "engineering" is precisely missing the "third step" on Rovelli's p. 108.
Also p. 112
"Recall that Einstein described his great intellectual struggle to find GR as 'understanding the meaning of coordinates'."
This is my key objection to Puthoff's and Ibison's use of "r" ant "t" in their PV modeling.
They do not IMHO understand the "meaning of coordinates: in GR. Neither does Yilmaz apparently.
pp 112 - 114 make this clear IMHO. Also at quantum level Rovelli mention's Dirac's insight that the Heisenberg Picture is better than
Schrodinger Picture and that "time" as in the "flow" of "time's arrow" is not dynamical time but is a statistical thermodynamic construct.
PZ: But then I fail to see any material distinction between relabeling the bare unindividuated
spacetime points (passive diffeomorphism), on the one hand, and shifting all physical
"fields" (including the GR metric field) with respect to such a raw manifold (active
diffeomorphism), on the other. Kretschman's point appears to be fully valid in both cases:
how can physics in general -- any sensible physics -- possibly depend on a mere re-labeling
of raw unindividuated spacetime points; or, for that matter, on a common shift of all physical
systems, including the *physical* metric field g_uv, with respect to such a set of unindividuated
points?
JS: Admittedly a sticky wicket that I also need to understand more deeply.
PZ: What is physically significant here is not this abstract and artificial definition of "diffeomorphism"
with respect to a raw manifold conceived as an unindividuated point set, but a shift of physical
fields with respect to the metric-transformational structure of spacetime, which of course in GR
depends on the distribution of matter.
JS: Precisely, yes that is the idea I think. It's a return to I think Leibniz's "relationism"? How to get
localization in space and the flow of time as we experience it in our immediate inner consciousness
has nothing to do with the particular local coordinate representation like "r" and "t" in, for example,
Puthoff's "PV" challenge to "GR" as when he writes
K = e^2GM/c^2r
dr/dt = c/K
for null geodesic
and in his Tables generally in the context of potentially practical metric engineering of the guv field using the EM Au field in spite of the enormous gravity string tension ~ c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
PZ: So it appears that Rovelli ends up in a position where he is essentially arguing that the matter-
dependence of the metric field implies that the GR metric is really a physical metric, and the GR
metric field is to be regarded as a physical field like any other physical field. Then, the physics
depends only on the relative disposition of the various physical fields with respect to each other.
JS: Correct, with the proviso that "matter" includes both "real", i.e. "on mass shell", sources" as well as "virtual", i.e. "off mass shell" sources. The virtual sources divide into two classes:
I. Non-exotic near EM field Fuv giant coherent quantum states of virtual photons that contribute to Omega(Matter) of the FRW metric and to Tuv in Einstein's local field equation.
II. Exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point stress-energy density local tensor ~ (String Tension)/\zpfguv for both repulsive dark energy /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure and attractive dark matter /\zpf < 0 of positive pressure.
These exotic vacuum virtual sources contribute Omega(Exotic Vacua) ~ 0.96 to Omega(Total) = 1 in our large-scale spatially flat post-inflationary local "Level I" "Hubble sphere" "brane world" as in Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American's "Parallel Universes" on
Lenny Susskings megalopolis "Landscape" subject to the natural selection of the Weak Anthropic Principle ("WAP")
PZ: But while this may allow or even imply a "relational" view of the raw spacetime manifold, in the
Cartesian sense, it is clearly not physical "general relativity", in the classic Einsteinian sense,
which requires fundamental identification of the inertial and gravitational metrics.
JS: I do not understand what you just said. EEP in every significant sense still holds IMHO. The geodesic equation for a test particle in a given guv field still works for example. The "tidal" "stretch-squeeze" geodesic deviation equation for two neighboring test particles still works etc.
PZ: Which all seems to contradict his statement,
"...Of course, nothing [in GR] to prevents us... from singling out the gravitational field as 'the
more equal among equals', and declaring that location is absolute in GR, because it can be
defined with respect to it."
JS: No, you have simply misread the context of Rovelli's remark. Read it again more carefully. This is not a valid objection at all to Rovelli's argument IMHO. The way I read him, his argument is splendidly globally self-consistent.
PZ: So IMO Rovelli's position is incoherent. If anything, he is arguing for an *alternative*
"non-Einsteinian" interpretation of GR in which matter-dependent g_uv is to be treated as a
*physical field*, which means it can in principle be distinguished from the kinematical inertial
field with its trivially valid transformable metric tensor.
JS: We are back to Square One. The Rock has rolled back down on Sisyphus. I cannot pinpoint the precise misconception that is driving your position here.
PZ: That is the best reconstruction I can salvage from his article.
In other words, Rovelli is really a *Yilmazian*.
JS: Not in my book.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of
matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a
spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I read it. Several times. I've been scratching my head for several days now.
See above.
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
re:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL
http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/1999/0799ss.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821_.html
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/television/6336570.htm
Interesting. Happy Holidays in Saint Petersburg. :-)
http://www.techgnosis.com/
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Konstantin Iwanenko wrote:
"In connection with an interesting message of MARK DUNN Re: AI AND TIME TRAVEL,- contained in your email of Monday, Dec 22, 2003 8:18 PM, - I might express following ideas.
The task of Demiourgos/Ialdabaoth, - Gnostic Maker of Universes, whose task is to make a sturdy enough prison for souls, which consist of higher-plane stuff of Supreme God's essence, - may be compared to task of designer of TOKAMAC devices for hot nuclear fusion, which tries to confine superhot hydrogen plasma in as stable way as possible; - so as to extract from it its inner energy (as Demiourgos sucks Divine Energy out of captive souls).
Slightest imperfection in this design will lead to runaway instabilities which lead to fast collapse of this small "prison Universe".
Similarly, miscalculations of Universe-maker lead to collapse of made by Him/Her/It 'larger-scale Universes": "Soul Prisons", as they are called in Gnostic tradition.
Their instabilities are manifested in the form of creation by their "rebel inhabitants" of various kinds of "Universal WMD" capable to destroy their Cosmic Prison. (This idea was most clearly expressed in one of '70s SF novels of Stanislaw Lem; - who wrote that "inhabitants of prison Universe" try to burn their Cosmic Prison - like rebels during mutiny in Attica, NY state - in order to attract attention of Supreme Observer to their sad plight (like Attica inmates which tried to attract attention of public & press). Cf. also '42 SF strory by A. Bester "A Push of a Finger" - and/or Bros. Strugatskys' '70s SF novel "Billion of years before World's End" - where is also touched the problem of 'universal weapons'."
Jack comments:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
When you look at computer simulations of large scale universe with the tangled web of filaments, walls, voids punctuated by clusters of galaxies it looks like biological cell structure. Since 96% of the universe is IMHO unbalanced w = -1 zero point energy density of ALL quantum fields, and since Nobel Prize Cambridge University physicist, Brian Josephson, and others have postulated a connection of consciousness to "vacuum"
zero point energy, e.g.
http://www.arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012
"ABSTRACT
A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena."
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/
Note that quantum computing theory is now mainstream and it recognizes that the quantum wave is an "information" BIT or "qubit" wave more akin to "thoughts" than "matter". The Bohm quantum realism has the "thought-like" (Stapp) BIT (Wheeler) "pilot wave" of "active information"(Bohm & Hiley) guiding the "rock-like" (Stapp) "particles" or "field configurations" i.e. "IT" (Wheeler).
The Bohm quantum potential is a way of describing vacuum thought-like BIT zero point energy and is important to understand 96% of the "stuff" of the Universe! The Muslim physicists in Teheran are way ahead of the "Elegant Tailors" weaving strings and spin foams into the fabric of space-time in this regard probably because of the Sufi Doctrine of "Tauhid" made known to me by Robert Dickson Crane 24 years ago. The Universe is not only more and more like a "Great Thought" said Sir James Jeans (at least 96%) it is like Stan Lem's "Solaris"
http://vislab.cs.wright.edu/~rbryll/LemLinks.html
Fred Hoyle wrote a prescient book on this in ~ 1984-6 "The Intelligent Universe". Recall also his "Black Cloud", PK Dick's "VALIS",
John Lilly's "Cosmic Coincidence Control", Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker", Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger" and Martin Gardner's
"Magic and Paraphysics" in "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus."
And do not miss Stephen Schwartz's
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL
All The King's Men are not seeing Humpty Dumpty as SHE really is. No "dark matter detector" (Omega ~ 0.3) will ever "click" with "The Right Stuff". It ain't "particles" "on-mass-shell" Out There Dancing In The Dark making The Voids, The Filaments, The Walls, The Clusters.
Constraints Algebra and Equations of Motion in Bohmian Interpretation of
Quantum Gravity
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311076
Authors: Ali Shojai, Fatimah Shojai
Comments: 9 journal pages
Journal-ref: Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 1-9 (2004)
"It is shown that introducing the quantum effects using deBroglie--Bohm theory in the canonical formulation of gravity would change the constraints algebra. The new algebra is derived and shown that it is the clear projection of general coordinate transformations to the spatial and temporal diffeomorphisms. The quantum Einstein's equations are derived and it is shown that they are manifestly covariant under the above diffeomorphisms, as it would be."
Quantum Effects and Cluster Formation
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211272
Authors: Ali Shojai, Fatimah Shojai
Comments: 25 pages, 17 figures
Journal-ref: Spacetime and Substance 2 (2001) 134-139
"The causal interpretation of quantum mechanics is applied to the universe as
a whole and the problem of cluster formation is studied in this framework.
It is shown that the quantum effects be the source of the cluster formation."
CI continued:
"Wise enough Demiourgos will invent Its Cosmic Prison in such way that its inmates will not be able even to conceive an idea of possibility of liberation therefrom; - being fully satisfied with their present situation (cf. the "End of History" concept of F. Fukuyama - and/or concept of "Communist Paradise on Earth").
It may be interesting to note in connection with abovesaid that interest to cosmological problems is often combined (eg, in case of such significant person as Acad. Sakharov) with advanced achievements in area of WMD design & bright ideas in area of nuclear fusion.
Constantin Ivanenko, Ph. D., Metaphysics"
http://www.sffaith.com/ed/articles/1999/0799ss.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821_.html
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/television/6336570.htm
Interesting. Happy Holidays in Saint Petersburg. :-)
http://www.techgnosis.com/
On Wednesday, December 24, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Konstantin Iwanenko wrote:
"In connection with an interesting message of MARK DUNN Re: AI AND TIME TRAVEL,- contained in your email of Monday, Dec 22, 2003 8:18 PM, - I might express following ideas.
The task of Demiourgos/Ialdabaoth, - Gnostic Maker of Universes, whose task is to make a sturdy enough prison for souls, which consist of higher-plane stuff of Supreme God's essence, - may be compared to task of designer of TOKAMAC devices for hot nuclear fusion, which tries to confine superhot hydrogen plasma in as stable way as possible; - so as to extract from it its inner energy (as Demiourgos sucks Divine Energy out of captive souls).
Slightest imperfection in this design will lead to runaway instabilities which lead to fast collapse of this small "prison Universe".
Similarly, miscalculations of Universe-maker lead to collapse of made by Him/Her/It 'larger-scale Universes": "Soul Prisons", as they are called in Gnostic tradition.
Their instabilities are manifested in the form of creation by their "rebel inhabitants" of various kinds of "Universal WMD" capable to destroy their Cosmic Prison. (This idea was most clearly expressed in one of '70s SF novels of Stanislaw Lem; - who wrote that "inhabitants of prison Universe" try to burn their Cosmic Prison - like rebels during mutiny in Attica, NY state - in order to attract attention of Supreme Observer to their sad plight (like Attica inmates which tried to attract attention of public & press). Cf. also '42 SF strory by A. Bester "A Push of a Finger" - and/or Bros. Strugatskys' '70s SF novel "Billion of years before World's End" - where is also touched the problem of 'universal weapons'."
Jack comments:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
When you look at computer simulations of large scale universe with the tangled web of filaments, walls, voids punctuated by clusters of galaxies it looks like biological cell structure. Since 96% of the universe is IMHO unbalanced w = -1 zero point energy density of ALL quantum fields, and since Nobel Prize Cambridge University physicist, Brian Josephson, and others have postulated a connection of consciousness to "vacuum"
zero point energy, e.g.
http://www.arxiv.org/html/physics/0312012
"ABSTRACT
A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena."
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/
Note that quantum computing theory is now mainstream and it recognizes that the quantum wave is an "information" BIT or "qubit" wave more akin to "thoughts" than "matter". The Bohm quantum realism has the "thought-like" (Stapp) BIT (Wheeler) "pilot wave" of "active information"(Bohm & Hiley) guiding the "rock-like" (Stapp) "particles" or "field configurations" i.e. "IT" (Wheeler).
The Bohm quantum potential is a way of describing vacuum thought-like BIT zero point energy and is important to understand 96% of the "stuff" of the Universe! The Muslim physicists in Teheran are way ahead of the "Elegant Tailors" weaving strings and spin foams into the fabric of space-time in this regard probably because of the Sufi Doctrine of "Tauhid" made known to me by Robert Dickson Crane 24 years ago. The Universe is not only more and more like a "Great Thought" said Sir James Jeans (at least 96%) it is like Stan Lem's "Solaris"
http://vislab.cs.wright.edu/~rbryll/LemLinks.html
Fred Hoyle wrote a prescient book on this in ~ 1984-6 "The Intelligent Universe". Recall also his "Black Cloud", PK Dick's "VALIS",
John Lilly's "Cosmic Coincidence Control", Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker", Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger" and Martin Gardner's
"Magic and Paraphysics" in "Science, Good, Bad and Bogus."
And do not miss Stephen Schwartz's
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/08/17/SC46892.DTL
All The King's Men are not seeing Humpty Dumpty as SHE really is. No "dark matter detector" (Omega ~ 0.3) will ever "click" with "The Right Stuff". It ain't "particles" "on-mass-shell" Out There Dancing In The Dark making The Voids, The Filaments, The Walls, The Clusters.
Constraints Algebra and Equations of Motion in Bohmian Interpretation of
Quantum Gravity
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311076
Authors: Ali Shojai, Fatimah Shojai
Comments: 9 journal pages
Journal-ref: Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 1-9 (2004)
"It is shown that introducing the quantum effects using deBroglie--Bohm theory in the canonical formulation of gravity would change the constraints algebra. The new algebra is derived and shown that it is the clear projection of general coordinate transformations to the spatial and temporal diffeomorphisms. The quantum Einstein's equations are derived and it is shown that they are manifestly covariant under the above diffeomorphisms, as it would be."
Quantum Effects and Cluster Formation
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0211272
Authors: Ali Shojai, Fatimah Shojai
Comments: 25 pages, 17 figures
Journal-ref: Spacetime and Substance 2 (2001) 134-139
"The causal interpretation of quantum mechanics is applied to the universe as
a whole and the problem of cluster formation is studied in this framework.
It is shown that the quantum effects be the source of the cluster formation."
CI continued:
"Wise enough Demiourgos will invent Its Cosmic Prison in such way that its inmates will not be able even to conceive an idea of possibility of liberation therefrom; - being fully satisfied with their present situation (cf. the "End of History" concept of F. Fukuyama - and/or concept of "Communist Paradise on Earth").
It may be interesting to note in connection with abovesaid that interest to cosmological problems is often combined (eg, in case of such significant person as Acad. Sakharov) with advanced achievements in area of WMD design & bright ideas in area of nuclear fusion.
Constantin Ivanenko, Ph. D., Metaphysics"
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
On Tuesday, December 23, 2003, at 06:58 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2003, at 05:22 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: The shoe is on the other foot. It is the Yilmaz model that renders the
gravitational field just a particular physical field
among other fields. In this alternative model it's just that the
gravitational field happens to have *physical* effects on
measuring devices that can be described by a *physical*
rubber-rod-and-clock metric -- which is held to be fundamentally
distinct from an underlying flat kinematical background.
JS: Huh? Tell that to Rovelli.
PZ: The Yilmaz field is much closer to the EM field than the monolithic
Einstein gravitational-inertial field,
which is uniquely chronogeometric in character.
JS: How do you get time?
"Time" in GR is not like we think of it even in QFT and string theory and not as in "arrow of time".
Rovelli does seem to misapply special relativity to cosmology when he says we cannot think of "now" on Andromeda. This is not true, we can think of "now" on Andromeda in the sense of us and them measuring the same CMB absolute temperature in the sense of the FLRW metric.
Also all the quantum gravity pundits whether Hoola Hoopers or Yo Yo players all may be mistaken that quantum gravity is only important at 10^19 Gev. I think it is important at 1 Gev.
PZ: This is Torretti's terminology.
By "chronogeometric" I mean it is a theory about the fundamental metric structure
of space and time, and not just about a rubber-rod-and-clock physical metric -- such
as Feynman's metal rods on a hotplate with a universal thermal expansion coefficient.
"The problem with this attitude is that it fully misses the great
Einsteinian insight: that Newtonian space-time is just one field
among the others." (Rovelli)
PZ: What is Rovelli going on about?
JS: He is a Top Gun in the field.
PZ: In that case, perhaps you can explain how Einstein's original chronogeometric g_uv is
"just one field among others"?
JS: To get "localization" is a kind of conditional correlation of solitons of the different fields
"sliding over each other". Of course the different fields all couple universally to guv.
Even in guv you need to split near from far.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I think he is trying to say that all that matters in GR is the relations among the
gravity field and all other dynamical fields -- as long as they are *all* moved
smoothly together along the primitive 4D manifold, the physics looks formally
exactly the same.
The "great Einsteinian insight" is precisely the opposite: in Einstein
GR, the gravitational field describes the fundamental
(although matter-dependent) chronogeometric structure of the world,
and is thus fundamentally different from any other
physical field.
JS: You still have not defined how you mean "chronogeometrodynamic".
PZ: See Torretti ("Relativity and Geometry"), and above.
I think I see what Rovelli is getting at -- he means simply that in Einstein GR the
spacetime metric depends on matter, and is thus analogous to a physical field.
Then as long as *everything* physical (including the metric field g_uv) is moved along
the bare manifold, everything still looks the same physically, and solutions of the
dynamical equations are still solutions of the dynamical equations.
He is drawing a distinction between this "active diff invariance", which reflects a
formal property of a particular theory, and "passive diff invariance", which merely
reflects the indistinguishability in principle of the bare points in the manifold and
the insensitivity of physics to the labeling/re-labeling of those points.
JS: Yes, but there is still something else that I admit is elusive to me at the moment.
PZ: It is a *chronogeometric* field. Which, when you think about it, is
almost a contradiction in terms -- as Einstein
began to admit in 1920.
That is, absent a viable Einsteinian unified field theory. And I
haven't seen one -- have you?
JS: I do not understand what you are saying.
PZ: I am saying that you are dealing with the physics of a *physical medium* in interaction
with matter. That is very close to Einstein's 1920 view. That is not what I am calling a
"chronogeometric" view, which treats the vacuum like a void that happens to have a
variable Riemann metric.
JS: OK I am saying that the lepto-quarks are multiply-connected IT micro-geons in the IT ("extra variable")guv field
like Wheeler's pictures in his 1950's book "Geometrodynamics". The Dirac spinor is
BIT pilot field for these extended "soliton" structures. I suppose we need quantized gauge force
fluxes trapped in the wormhole mouths as independent degrees of freedom, but I am not sure
because of Wheeler-Feynman elimination of far field - but not perhaps the near field!
That is "matter" emerges as multiply connected guv field with quantized trapped gauge force
fluxes. Indeed, in string theory we need the extra space-dimensions it's not only u = 0,1,2,3
like Wheeler thought. Also G* ~ 10^40G(Newton) at scale 1 fermi. QM gravity is
"low energy physics" IMHO - SURPRISE! ;-)
PZ: After all, why should a chronogeometric void be affected by the presence of matter,
if this is not a *physical* phenomenon? The gravitational influences propagate through
the vacuum at a universal fixed finite speed. So it's more naturally approached as a
physical process -- in a physical medium.
That is the basic idea behind the rubber-rod-and-clock metric. The physical metric can
be layered over a kinematical metric on a flat background manifold. Then only the
background spacetime is truly "chronogeometric" in my strong sense.
The problem is this chronogeometric model only works with *strict
Einstein equivalence*. But this strict equivalence
breaks down.
The inertial field does not self-gravitate. Without strict
equivalence, there is indeed an absolute standard of *accelerated*
motion through the vacuum, as Newton asserted.
JS: Puthoff and Yilmaz deny the great democracy of fields, an extension
of the Copernican principle.
PZ: In fact it's the opposite. This is so perverse!
JS: "... this attitude" of Yilmaz, Puthoff, and possibly Zielinski,
"sends us into a nightmare when we have to deal with the motion of
the gravitational field itself, which certainly moves ... we are
spending millions of dollars for constructing gravity wave detectors
... There is no absolute referent of motion in GR: the dynamical
fields 'move' with respect to each other."
PZ: *Only with Einstein strict equivalence*. But Einstein strict
equivalence is *wrong*.
JS: I guess I do not understand what it is you are saying here.
PZ: And Einstein equivalence is not, as Rovelli imagines, "encoded" into
the GR formalism by active diffeomorphism
invariance.
Sorry.
So move over Minkowski -- tell Rovelli the news.
JS: Rovelli notes that this last step was not easy for Einstein and it
took him from 1912 to 1915 to make it.
PZ: The "hole" problem.
JS: Therefore, Paul any of your Einstein quotes on "strict equivalence"
dated prior to late 1915 should be discarded!
PZ: But my quotes also come from *1918-1921* -- and later. The vacuum
energy problem is *1918*.
Again, you are systematically conflating the issue of general
covariance with the issue of general relativity, by fiat.
Because as far as I can see there is simply no argument here. Rovelli
has simply made an error IMO.
JS: Lev Landau studied your issue and I doubt he was mistaken when he
said that Einstein's GR post-1915 is "the most beautiful of the
physical theories."
PZ: Well, as if I disagree that it's "beautiful". But what alternatives
did Landau compare it with?
Comparative beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
"Elegance is for tailors" -- Boltzmann
JS: Wait till you read about the "weave" of spin foams for the emergence of
the fabric of space-time. ;-)
Time for a physics fashion show in Paris? Witten and Asktekar like Versace and Armani?
Reminds me of that scene in Fellini's ROMA on Vatican Fashions. :-)
PZ: I am just trying to understand phenomenological GR for now.
See my later message re: Rovelli. I think I have pinpointed his error.
JS: Hal Puthoff's "error" in PV when he writes
c' = c/K
for dr/dt on a radial null geodesic for example, has to do with Rovelli's
remark about how it was even hard for Einstein to renounce the
Cartesian brainwashing that coordinates mean something like
number of ticks of a clock dT or number of rods dR laid along the radial
in an SSS case.
In fact
dT = g00^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
dt and dr by themselves are mere illusions in GR
Ghosts, shades of departed ancestors.
BTW I just read Mike Turner's article in Oct 2003
RMP about measuring and understanding the
large scale universe.
It is clear, and Turner says so that
none of the Top Guns really have
a clue as to
1. What the inflation field is dynamically.
2. Why cosmological constant is small.
i.e. they do not have my notion of "vacuum coherence"
which has no relation at all IMHO to how Hal Puthoff
uses the same words.
3. They think dark matter is particles that make detectors click.
That IMHO is a wrong idea.
4. If you look at universe on large scale with a web of
filaments, walls, voids, it looks like an electron microscope
picture of dead tissue. Shades of "Solaris" and Organic
Universe basically made out of w = -1 exotic vacuum
/\zpf = Lp^-2[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
BTW Volovik in his book
"Universe in a Helium Drop"
has almost same formula I have above.
I got mine BEFORE he got his as
proved in my book
"Destiny Matrix" (2002) with the
formula.
His book came out after mine
and I did not see it until later.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Monday, December 22, 2003, at 05:22 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
PZ: The shoe is on the other foot. It is the Yilmaz model that renders the
gravitational field just a particular physical field
among other fields. In this alternative model it's just that the
gravitational field happens to have *physical* effects on
measuring devices that can be described by a *physical*
rubber-rod-and-clock metric -- which is held to be fundamentally
distinct from an underlying flat kinematical background.
JS: Huh? Tell that to Rovelli.
PZ: The Yilmaz field is much closer to the EM field than the monolithic
Einstein gravitational-inertial field,
which is uniquely chronogeometric in character.
JS: How do you get time?
"Time" in GR is not like we think of it even in QFT and string theory and not as in "arrow of time".
Rovelli does seem to misapply special relativity to cosmology when he says we cannot think of "now" on Andromeda. This is not true, we can think of "now" on Andromeda in the sense of us and them measuring the same CMB absolute temperature in the sense of the FLRW metric.
Also all the quantum gravity pundits whether Hoola Hoopers or Yo Yo players all may be mistaken that quantum gravity is only important at 10^19 Gev. I think it is important at 1 Gev.
PZ: This is Torretti's terminology.
By "chronogeometric" I mean it is a theory about the fundamental metric structure
of space and time, and not just about a rubber-rod-and-clock physical metric -- such
as Feynman's metal rods on a hotplate with a universal thermal expansion coefficient.
"The problem with this attitude is that it fully misses the great
Einsteinian insight: that Newtonian space-time is just one field
among the others." (Rovelli)
PZ: What is Rovelli going on about?
JS: He is a Top Gun in the field.
PZ: In that case, perhaps you can explain how Einstein's original chronogeometric g_uv is
"just one field among others"?
JS: To get "localization" is a kind of conditional correlation of solitons of the different fields
"sliding over each other". Of course the different fields all couple universally to guv.
Even in guv you need to split near from far.
PZ: Obviously it is a field that depends on the distribution of matter, if that's what he
means. But it is the only field that is defined in terms of a spacetime metric, so it
is obviously unique in that sense.
JS: Read Rovelli's paper in the book. Then tell me what you think.
PZ: I think he is trying to say that all that matters in GR is the relations among the
gravity field and all other dynamical fields -- as long as they are *all* moved
smoothly together along the primitive 4D manifold, the physics looks formally
exactly the same.
The "great Einsteinian insight" is precisely the opposite: in Einstein
GR, the gravitational field describes the fundamental
(although matter-dependent) chronogeometric structure of the world,
and is thus fundamentally different from any other
physical field.
JS: You still have not defined how you mean "chronogeometrodynamic".
PZ: See Torretti ("Relativity and Geometry"), and above.
I think I see what Rovelli is getting at -- he means simply that in Einstein GR the
spacetime metric depends on matter, and is thus analogous to a physical field.
Then as long as *everything* physical (including the metric field g_uv) is moved along
the bare manifold, everything still looks the same physically, and solutions of the
dynamical equations are still solutions of the dynamical equations.
He is drawing a distinction between this "active diff invariance", which reflects a
formal property of a particular theory, and "passive diff invariance", which merely
reflects the indistinguishability in principle of the bare points in the manifold and
the insensitivity of physics to the labeling/re-labeling of those points.
JS: Yes, but there is still something else that I admit is elusive to me at the moment.
PZ: It is a *chronogeometric* field. Which, when you think about it, is
almost a contradiction in terms -- as Einstein
began to admit in 1920.
That is, absent a viable Einsteinian unified field theory. And I
haven't seen one -- have you?
JS: I do not understand what you are saying.
PZ: I am saying that you are dealing with the physics of a *physical medium* in interaction
with matter. That is very close to Einstein's 1920 view. That is not what I am calling a
"chronogeometric" view, which treats the vacuum like a void that happens to have a
variable Riemann metric.
JS: OK I am saying that the lepto-quarks are multiply-connected IT micro-geons in the IT ("extra variable")guv field
like Wheeler's pictures in his 1950's book "Geometrodynamics". The Dirac spinor is
BIT pilot field for these extended "soliton" structures. I suppose we need quantized gauge force
fluxes trapped in the wormhole mouths as independent degrees of freedom, but I am not sure
because of Wheeler-Feynman elimination of far field - but not perhaps the near field!
That is "matter" emerges as multiply connected guv field with quantized trapped gauge force
fluxes. Indeed, in string theory we need the extra space-dimensions it's not only u = 0,1,2,3
like Wheeler thought. Also G* ~ 10^40G(Newton) at scale 1 fermi. QM gravity is
"low energy physics" IMHO - SURPRISE! ;-)
PZ: After all, why should a chronogeometric void be affected by the presence of matter,
if this is not a *physical* phenomenon? The gravitational influences propagate through
the vacuum at a universal fixed finite speed. So it's more naturally approached as a
physical process -- in a physical medium.
That is the basic idea behind the rubber-rod-and-clock metric. The physical metric can
be layered over a kinematical metric on a flat background manifold. Then only the
background spacetime is truly "chronogeometric" in my strong sense.
The problem is this chronogeometric model only works with *strict
Einstein equivalence*. But this strict equivalence
breaks down.
The inertial field does not self-gravitate. Without strict
equivalence, there is indeed an absolute standard of *accelerated*
motion through the vacuum, as Newton asserted.
JS: Puthoff and Yilmaz deny the great democracy of fields, an extension
of the Copernican principle.
PZ: In fact it's the opposite. This is so perverse!
JS: "... this attitude" of Yilmaz, Puthoff, and possibly Zielinski,
"sends us into a nightmare when we have to deal with the motion of
the gravitational field itself, which certainly moves ... we are
spending millions of dollars for constructing gravity wave detectors
... There is no absolute referent of motion in GR: the dynamical
fields 'move' with respect to each other."
PZ: *Only with Einstein strict equivalence*. But Einstein strict
equivalence is *wrong*.
JS: I guess I do not understand what it is you are saying here.
PZ: And Einstein equivalence is not, as Rovelli imagines, "encoded" into
the GR formalism by active diffeomorphism
invariance.
Sorry.
So move over Minkowski -- tell Rovelli the news.
JS: Rovelli notes that this last step was not easy for Einstein and it
took him from 1912 to 1915 to make it.
PZ: The "hole" problem.
JS: Therefore, Paul any of your Einstein quotes on "strict equivalence"
dated prior to late 1915 should be discarded!
PZ: But my quotes also come from *1918-1921* -- and later. The vacuum
energy problem is *1918*.
Again, you are systematically conflating the issue of general
covariance with the issue of general relativity, by fiat.
Because as far as I can see there is simply no argument here. Rovelli
has simply made an error IMO.
JS: Lev Landau studied your issue and I doubt he was mistaken when he
said that Einstein's GR post-1915 is "the most beautiful of the
physical theories."
PZ: Well, as if I disagree that it's "beautiful". But what alternatives
did Landau compare it with?
Comparative beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
"Elegance is for tailors" -- Boltzmann
JS: Wait till you read about the "weave" of spin foams for the emergence of
the fabric of space-time. ;-)
Time for a physics fashion show in Paris? Witten and Asktekar like Versace and Armani?
Reminds me of that scene in Fellini's ROMA on Vatican Fashions. :-)
PZ: I am just trying to understand phenomenological GR for now.
See my later message re: Rovelli. I think I have pinpointed his error.
JS: Hal Puthoff's "error" in PV when he writes
c' = c/K
for dr/dt on a radial null geodesic for example, has to do with Rovelli's
remark about how it was even hard for Einstein to renounce the
Cartesian brainwashing that coordinates mean something like
number of ticks of a clock dT or number of rods dR laid along the radial
in an SSS case.
In fact
dT = g00^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
dt and dr by themselves are mere illusions in GR
Ghosts, shades of departed ancestors.
BTW I just read Mike Turner's article in Oct 2003
RMP about measuring and understanding the
large scale universe.
It is clear, and Turner says so that
none of the Top Guns really have
a clue as to
1. What the inflation field is dynamically.
2. Why cosmological constant is small.
i.e. they do not have my notion of "vacuum coherence"
which has no relation at all IMHO to how Hal Puthoff
uses the same words.
3. They think dark matter is particles that make detectors click.
That IMHO is a wrong idea.
4. If you look at universe on large scale with a web of
filaments, walls, voids, it looks like an electron microscope
picture of dead tissue. Shades of "Solaris" and Organic
Universe basically made out of w = -1 exotic vacuum
/\zpf = Lp^-2[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
BTW Volovik in his book
"Universe in a Helium Drop"
has almost same formula I have above.
I got mine BEFORE he got his as
proved in my book
"Destiny Matrix" (2002) with the
formula.
His book came out after mine
and I did not see it until later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
