Theater of Absurd Ideas in Big Sur Reality.
"When you're lying awake ... for you dream you are crossing The Channel and tossing about in a ..." (Iolanthe).
Stage direction at end below. Leon Schwartzky, hiding from Wahhabis and Serb Death Squads, is inside big trash bin stage right like in Beckett's End Game and Waiting for Godot.
On Dec 22, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 22, 2004, at 2:43 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
J: Right but trite. Why bring this up?
Z: OK, so you agree so far?
J: Hard to say because your words are too vague.
Z: You said. "right but trite". Now you say it's "too vague" to know.
J: That's quantum mechanics. Depends how your state of vagueness/ambiguities collapses. I made a probabilistic statement. You are not in a sharp eigenstate of clear meaning the way I filter/parse your strings.
Z: So are you saying that there is no unique geodetic line that is locally orthogonal to any given geodesic running through a given point on a curved manifold?
J: No, I am saying that most of time your English is unintelligible because you are talking about mathematical ideas without the relevant math formalism that resolves the Laputian ambiguities of your frequent Malapropisms. Then, when on those rare occasions you ask a question I think I understand, it is usually trite and when I give you the correct answer you take evasive action like a pilot in Saddam's Air Force trying, unsuccessfully mind you, to avoid my missile.
Some math here should be possible to see exactly what you mean.
Z: Some math here is definitely possible. Actual, even.
J: Too bad you don't know how to do the math.
Z: We'll see.
J: So you have said now for 3 years!
J: One sure sign of a crackpot is thinking one can improve on Einstein within the domain of validity of classical GR where you are in.
Z: Not if I am proposing an alternative model for the existing GR formalism that *preserves this empirical accuracy*.
J: Delusions of grandeur.
Z: So your spaghetti logic here is worse than "crackpot" -- it's knee-jerk "doggydoomatic"!
J: I agree with John Baez on that particular.
Z: Did John Baez really say something so clueless?
J: Would I lie about that?
Z: I suspect he was talking about *actual modifications* to the formal-empirical theory leading to *different empirical predictions* -- which is NOT what I am advocating here. If it is based on a mathematical theorem, a tensor/non-tensor decomposition of the LC connection is not really a modification of the GR formalism, any more than 4 = 1 + 3 is a modification of arithmetic.
J: I told you, the ONLY 3rd rank tensor you can get from guv is the nonmetricity tensor guv;w = 0 in zero torsion 1916 GR, which is the subject.
The geodesic choice is simply guv,l(P) = 0, which together with the equivalence principle EEP says
guv(P') ~ nuv + (1/2)guv,w,l(P)(P'-P)^w(P'-P)^l
Z: But you are talking about a CS whose spatial origin follows the observer.
J: That's the ONLY KIND PERMITTED IN GR Professor Genius! Either LIF or LNIF. It's only when {LC} Curl of {LC} = 0 in the region that you can make any kind of global frame like you want. You CAN do it in Newton's gravity, and you can sort of do it in Einstein's special relativity, but you CAN'T DO IT IN EINSTEIN'S GENERAL RELATIVITY. Your starting point is cluelessly ludicrous. You are asking a VERY STUPID COMPLETELY UNINTERESTING FOOLISH BOGUS ILL-POSED ILLEGITIMATE QUESTION that does not even deserve any attempt at an answer because it would only be "garbage out". Your Question is NOT THE QUESTION, it belongs in the Trash Bin along with "How many Angels can dance on the boil on Stephen Schwartz's nose?" (Disembodied voice stage right: "What's that about my nose?).
"Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, Contributing Editor
ho says that Wahabbi-type, "wadical" Muslims can't be "widiculous"? And idiotic. And even funny. Not just deadly. Let's look at the lighter side of this demonic seventh century "weligious" system ... and if you're wondering where the title of this column came from, we will unabashedly admit that this whole page layout is a play on a famous line uttered on more than one occasion by Elmer Fudd to Bugs Bunny in an equally famous and long-"wunning" series of cartoon motion picture shorts. Not being able to "pwonounce" his "R's" correctly, Elmer would yell in "fwustwation" at Bugs:
"You wascally wabbit!"
So when it came time to name this column, well now, we couldn't "wesist" the alliteration, now could we? Unless we indicate otherwise, all stories originally appeared in Arutz-Sheva and were reported by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz."
http://islamcommentaries.com/wahabbis/
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Inertial Forces Newton -> Einstein -> Shipov
Background to "inertial forces" in Einstein's GR ~ (LC) connection field and in Gennady Shipov's extension of GR to include possibly torsion fields:
Review of the concept of "inertial forces" in Newton's kinematics of non-inertial frames of reference in Galilean relativity of absolute simultaneity when v/c << 1.
Let the rotating non-inertial frame S' have pseudo-vector W instant angular velocity
The rate of change in the rotating frame S' is the convective derivative linear operator on 3-vectors
...,t' = ...,t + Wx...
where ,t is the rate of change in the inertial frame S.
Let r be the position vector of a point test particle.
r,t' = r,t + Wxr = instant velocity
r,t',t' = r,t,t + Wxr,t + W,txr + Wxr,t + WxWxr = r,t,t + 2Wxr,t + WxWxr + W,txr
2Wxr,t = Coriolis inertial force per unit test mass in the non-inertial rotating frame
WxWxr = Centrifugal inertial force per unit test mass in the non-inertial rotating frame
W,txr is the inertial torque per unit test mass
Or in terms of Newton's F = ma
unprimed quantities are in the inertial frame, primed quantities are in the rotating non-inertial frame sharing common origin.
v' = v + Wxr
a' = a + 2Wxv + WxWxr + W,txr
Note that the Coriolis inertial force in the rotating frame is a bit like the Lorentz magnetic force on a charge e with W like magnetic field B but here we have the equivalence principle i.e. m cancels out of the problem for all inertial forces just like with gravity.
SPECIAL CASE of above
If the rotating frame is also the instant rest frame of the point test particle then
v' = 0
Therefore v = -Wxr
a' = 0
Assume also no torque so that W,t = 0
Therefore
a + Wxv = 0
Or
a - WxWxr = 0
That is inertial force compensation in the REST LNIF of the test particle where the effective acceleration of "artificial" gravity is
g = a = WxWxr
Of course, the inertial geodesic motion is a straight Euclidean line with the test particle at constant speed.
In Newton's theory there is actually an external gravity force and you can have, for example
GM/r^2 = |WxWxr|
GM = W^2r^3 = r^3/T^2
T = period of orbit. This is Kepler's law of planetary motion, M is mass of Sun.
In Newton's "Force" theory the motion of the planets is NON-GEODESIC in flat 3D space.
This world picture "paradigm" changes completely in Einstein's "force without Force" theory AKA "geometrodynamics" where now the motion of the planets is "inertial" i.e. "geodesic" in 4D space-time i.e. straightest 4D world line possible in curved spacetime.
The space-time curvatures in the above example of Kepler's law are made from
1/r*^2 = GM/c^2r^3
where r* is the scale of local radii of curvature of space-time at "distance" r in weak field limit GM/c^2r << 1.
Background to "inertial forces" in Einstein's GR ~ (LC) connection field and in Gennady Shipov's extension of GR to include possibly torsion fields:
Review of the concept of "inertial forces" in Newton's kinematics of non-inertial frames of reference in Galilean relativity of absolute simultaneity when v/c << 1.
Let the rotating non-inertial frame S' have pseudo-vector W instant angular velocity
The rate of change in the rotating frame S' is the convective derivative linear operator on 3-vectors
...,t' = ...,t + Wx...
where ,t is the rate of change in the inertial frame S.
Let r be the position vector of a point test particle.
r,t' = r,t + Wxr = instant velocity
r,t',t' = r,t,t + Wxr,t + W,txr + Wxr,t + WxWxr = r,t,t + 2Wxr,t + WxWxr + W,txr
2Wxr,t = Coriolis inertial force per unit test mass in the non-inertial rotating frame
WxWxr = Centrifugal inertial force per unit test mass in the non-inertial rotating frame
W,txr is the inertial torque per unit test mass
Or in terms of Newton's F = ma
unprimed quantities are in the inertial frame, primed quantities are in the rotating non-inertial frame sharing common origin.
v' = v + Wxr
a' = a + 2Wxv + WxWxr + W,txr
Note that the Coriolis inertial force in the rotating frame is a bit like the Lorentz magnetic force on a charge e with W like magnetic field B but here we have the equivalence principle i.e. m cancels out of the problem for all inertial forces just like with gravity.
SPECIAL CASE of above
If the rotating frame is also the instant rest frame of the point test particle then
v' = 0
Therefore v = -Wxr
a' = 0
Assume also no torque so that W,t = 0
Therefore
a + Wxv = 0
Or
a - WxWxr = 0
That is inertial force compensation in the REST LNIF of the test particle where the effective acceleration of "artificial" gravity is
g = a = WxWxr
Of course, the inertial geodesic motion is a straight Euclidean line with the test particle at constant speed.
In Newton's theory there is actually an external gravity force and you can have, for example
GM/r^2 = |WxWxr|
GM = W^2r^3 = r^3/T^2
T = period of orbit. This is Kepler's law of planetary motion, M is mass of Sun.
In Newton's "Force" theory the motion of the planets is NON-GEODESIC in flat 3D space.
This world picture "paradigm" changes completely in Einstein's "force without Force" theory AKA "geometrodynamics" where now the motion of the planets is "inertial" i.e. "geodesic" in 4D space-time i.e. straightest 4D world line possible in curved spacetime.
The space-time curvatures in the above example of Kepler's law are made from
1/r*^2 = GM/c^2r^3
where r* is the scale of local radii of curvature of space-time at "distance" r in weak field limit GM/c^2r << 1.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
The Universes Next Door
PS The NASA Pioneer 10&!! Anomaly a_g = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 directed back to Sun is more evidence for the local macro-quantum Higgs order parameter, this time with S^2 symmetry forming a dark energy hedgehog topological defect starting at 20AU from Sun. ending we do not know where yet. The Galactic Halo holding our solar system in the Galaxy is also a dark energy exotic vacuum blob that is more stable than Vilenken's thin vacuum domain wall.
Preliminaries on the nonlocality of gravity energy from Penrose "Road to Reality".
Note that Shipov's "oriented point" in his torsion theory extension of 1916 GR has a non-trivial topology configuration space with a spinor structure as shown in detail by Roger Penrose.
The Cartan p-form is a "density" unlike the graded Grassmann algebra analog to it. A p-form in a N > p space is a N - p dimensional hyper plane element that is dual to the p mult-vector field. The multi-vector from Grassmannian wedge products is not a "density" for integration.
Think of the multi-vectors like the Bohm hidden variable particle trajectories and the dual p forms as the pilot qubit wave fronts.
The p-form is the intersection of p 1-form covectors (N-1 dim hyperplane elements) Fig 12.10 p.228 Penrose. See Fig 12.7 & 12.8 & 12.9 p. 226 on covectors as generalized contours but with a "twist" obstruction p. 225
The p-form is what we integrate over a p-dim submanifold of the N-dim manifold. The topology is generally mutiply connected with Betti numbers and other global topological measures.
Curvature is a 2-form integrated over 2-dim sub-manifolds of spacetime. Diff(4) is automatic for these global integrals and they are, therefore, independent of the arbitrary choice of overlapping local coordinate patches or charts whose atlas covers the entire manifold. The overlap transition functions between them are precisely Einstein's general coordinate transformations (GCT) and GCT symmetry means completely arbitrary LOCAL choices of coordinate charts exactly like the completely arbitrary choice of phases in SU(n) local gauge theories! There is no rule that we MUST choose the largest possible local charts for example. However, each choice of a local coordinate chart specifies a possible distribution of local observers some (LIF) on intrinsic geodesics of the metric space others (LNIF) not. That is, there is a well conceived physical measurement scheme associated with EVERY GCT subject to local causality light cone constraints and negligible quantum gravity uncertainty in the light cone localizations.
Every GCT transition function is a switch from one configuration of local observers to another all inside a small enough spacetime blob without obstructions from event and particle horizons so that they can all exchange light signals.
"One of the beauties of this ... is that it automatically deals with any changes of variable that we may choose to invoke."
The p-forms are INVARIANT under GCT and so are their GLOBAL INTEGRALS. There is an analog to the Cauchy integral residue theorem sum over poles with the Betti-numbered wormhole handles analogous to the poles in evaluating the integrals. For our problem we are talking about the hologram closed 2-surfaces enclosing volumes.
"The parameters x^u or x^u' could be taken to be one of the coordinates in a coordinate patch in this ambient space, where we are happy to change to a different coordinate when we pass to another coordinate patch." p. 230
"This eliminates the explicit mention of awkward quantities known as 'Jacobians'" p. 235
*None of this point set topology manifold structure closely tied to local causal measurement theory is in Hal Puthoff's too simple PV theory without a consistent measurement theory.
Splitting universes require a non-Hausdorf manifold. Fig 12.5 p. 223
A Hausdorff space forbids the splitting and fusion of alternative world timelines in a PK Dickian multi-verse of parallel universes next door. A non-Hausdorff space means we can pass to a universe next door where Phillip Roth's "The Conspiracy Against America" and P.K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" are actual realities down to the last comma!
On Dec 18, 2004, at 3:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
t'Hooft and Susskind building on Bekenstein and Hawking conjectured that the dimensionless information content in a volume of space is the area of its boundary divided by 4Planck area. Whether those are c-bits or qubits is left unclear.
In Cartan's forms, which are automatically Diff(4) invariant, and which permit integrals on curved manifolds, circumventing some of the gravity nonlocality problem, the Levi-Civita connection field is a 1-form and the curvature is a 2-form.
Einstein's field equation, including the dark energy local field correction, is
Guv + /\zpfguv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv
The dimensions of the "marble" geometrodynamic LHS are 1/Area consistent with the Cartan curvature 2-form with INVARIANT Hodge DeRham integrals over 2D coform AREAS. This is automatically HOLOGRAPHIC since VOLUMES are replaced by AREAS!
This is because 8pi(G/c^4) has dimension [Length/Energy] = (String Tension)^-1.
Note that non-Perturbative background-independent Quantum Loop Gravity also rests fundamentally on the quantum area operator as does my own macro-quantum coherent "More is Different" emergence derivation of Einstein's local GR from the rigid Goldstone phase of the Higgs Vacuum Order Parameter in the Inflationary Phase Transition of the Big Bang from the unstable flat false micro-quantum vacuum to the stable curved macro-quantum coherent holographic vacuum with lower zero point energy density (small Cosmological Constant) and lower entropy (smaller phase space volume).
That is, Cartan's tetrads eu^a come from the Bohm elasticity giant pilot wave constraint
eu^a,a = Kronecker Deltau^a,a + (Area Quantum)(Goldstone Phase),u
,a is ordinary partial derivative
When the "rigid" Goldstone Phase = 0
eu^a = Kronecker Deltau^a
guv(Curved LNIF) = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b = (Minkowski)uv = PRE-INFLATION FALSE VACUUM
in that limit.
In general
guv(LNIF) = [Minkowski (LIF)]uv + (1/2)(Eu,v + Ev,u)
Eu = (Quantum of Area)(Goldstone Phase),u
This is not perturbation theory and guv is a dynamical field.
Note also that the Vilenken unstable flat DARK ENERGY vacuum domain wall solution is a finite spacetime blob "Lorentzian instanton" inside of which there is zero conformal curvature with a non-trivial {LC} connection field. Hovering LNIF observers at a fixed distance z from the wall (x-y plane) must fire their rocket motors away from the wall that is effectively an anti-gravity field in Newton's sense. Timelike LIF geodesics appear as hyperbolic "constant accelerating" Rindler motion to these stationary hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers using non-gravity force (ejected propellant) to keep off the geodesics that recede from the wall in the wall's brief violent history.
This is "Curvature without curvature" a nonlocal GR analog to the Bohm-Aharonov effect of "Magnetism without magnetism". The gravity energy is also nonlocal and this is another example of the disembodied footprint of micro-quantum nonlocality in the local macro-quantum Einstein field equations. There is no such thing as the "classical world" there is only the "macro-quantum world" created in the More is different Inflationary Big Bang.
The conformally curved vacuum region outside the finite spacetime blob of the Vilenken-Taub Curvature without curvature solution is like the magnetic flux inside the long thin solenoid in the Bohm-Aharonov electron beam experiment. The need for LNIF non-geodesic observers to fire their rockets away from the wall to stay at a fixed distance z from the wall is like the fringe shift in the Bohm-Aharonov experiment. However, here EVERY POINT in the BLOB is like the coming together of the two paths for the alternative histories of the electron in the Bohm-Aharonov analog. This is familiar in GR where the universe recedes equally from every vantage point with no preferred "center" like an infinite homogeneous rubber sheet stretching isotropically from every point.
PS The NASA Pioneer 10&!! Anomaly a_g = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 directed back to Sun is more evidence for the local macro-quantum Higgs order parameter, this time with S^2 symmetry forming a dark energy hedgehog topological defect starting at 20AU from Sun. ending we do not know where yet. The Galactic Halo holding our solar system in the Galaxy is also a dark energy exotic vacuum blob that is more stable than Vilenken's thin vacuum domain wall.
Preliminaries on the nonlocality of gravity energy from Penrose "Road to Reality".
Note that Shipov's "oriented point" in his torsion theory extension of 1916 GR has a non-trivial topology configuration space with a spinor structure as shown in detail by Roger Penrose.
The Cartan p-form is a "density" unlike the graded Grassmann algebra analog to it. A p-form in a N > p space is a N - p dimensional hyper plane element that is dual to the p mult-vector field. The multi-vector from Grassmannian wedge products is not a "density" for integration.
Think of the multi-vectors like the Bohm hidden variable particle trajectories and the dual p forms as the pilot qubit wave fronts.
The p-form is the intersection of p 1-form covectors (N-1 dim hyperplane elements) Fig 12.10 p.228 Penrose. See Fig 12.7 & 12.8 & 12.9 p. 226 on covectors as generalized contours but with a "twist" obstruction p. 225
The p-form is what we integrate over a p-dim submanifold of the N-dim manifold. The topology is generally mutiply connected with Betti numbers and other global topological measures.
Curvature is a 2-form integrated over 2-dim sub-manifolds of spacetime. Diff(4) is automatic for these global integrals and they are, therefore, independent of the arbitrary choice of overlapping local coordinate patches or charts whose atlas covers the entire manifold. The overlap transition functions between them are precisely Einstein's general coordinate transformations (GCT) and GCT symmetry means completely arbitrary LOCAL choices of coordinate charts exactly like the completely arbitrary choice of phases in SU(n) local gauge theories! There is no rule that we MUST choose the largest possible local charts for example. However, each choice of a local coordinate chart specifies a possible distribution of local observers some (LIF) on intrinsic geodesics of the metric space others (LNIF) not. That is, there is a well conceived physical measurement scheme associated with EVERY GCT subject to local causality light cone constraints and negligible quantum gravity uncertainty in the light cone localizations.
Every GCT transition function is a switch from one configuration of local observers to another all inside a small enough spacetime blob without obstructions from event and particle horizons so that they can all exchange light signals.
"One of the beauties of this ... is that it automatically deals with any changes of variable that we may choose to invoke."
The p-forms are INVARIANT under GCT and so are their GLOBAL INTEGRALS. There is an analog to the Cauchy integral residue theorem sum over poles with the Betti-numbered wormhole handles analogous to the poles in evaluating the integrals. For our problem we are talking about the hologram closed 2-surfaces enclosing volumes.
"The parameters x^u or x^u' could be taken to be one of the coordinates in a coordinate patch in this ambient space, where we are happy to change to a different coordinate when we pass to another coordinate patch." p. 230
"This eliminates the explicit mention of awkward quantities known as 'Jacobians'" p. 235
*None of this point set topology manifold structure closely tied to local causal measurement theory is in Hal Puthoff's too simple PV theory without a consistent measurement theory.
Splitting universes require a non-Hausdorf manifold. Fig 12.5 p. 223
A Hausdorff space forbids the splitting and fusion of alternative world timelines in a PK Dickian multi-verse of parallel universes next door. A non-Hausdorff space means we can pass to a universe next door where Phillip Roth's "The Conspiracy Against America" and P.K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" are actual realities down to the last comma!
On Dec 18, 2004, at 3:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
t'Hooft and Susskind building on Bekenstein and Hawking conjectured that the dimensionless information content in a volume of space is the area of its boundary divided by 4Planck area. Whether those are c-bits or qubits is left unclear.
In Cartan's forms, which are automatically Diff(4) invariant, and which permit integrals on curved manifolds, circumventing some of the gravity nonlocality problem, the Levi-Civita connection field is a 1-form and the curvature is a 2-form.
Einstein's field equation, including the dark energy local field correction, is
Guv + /\zpfguv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv
The dimensions of the "marble" geometrodynamic LHS are 1/Area consistent with the Cartan curvature 2-form with INVARIANT Hodge DeRham integrals over 2D coform AREAS. This is automatically HOLOGRAPHIC since VOLUMES are replaced by AREAS!
This is because 8pi(G/c^4) has dimension [Length/Energy] = (String Tension)^-1.
Note that non-Perturbative background-independent Quantum Loop Gravity also rests fundamentally on the quantum area operator as does my own macro-quantum coherent "More is Different" emergence derivation of Einstein's local GR from the rigid Goldstone phase of the Higgs Vacuum Order Parameter in the Inflationary Phase Transition of the Big Bang from the unstable flat false micro-quantum vacuum to the stable curved macro-quantum coherent holographic vacuum with lower zero point energy density (small Cosmological Constant) and lower entropy (smaller phase space volume).
That is, Cartan's tetrads eu^a come from the Bohm elasticity giant pilot wave constraint
eu^a,a = Kronecker Deltau^a,a + (Area Quantum)(Goldstone Phase),u
,a is ordinary partial derivative
When the "rigid" Goldstone Phase = 0
eu^a = Kronecker Deltau^a
guv(Curved LNIF) = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b = (Minkowski)uv = PRE-INFLATION FALSE VACUUM
in that limit.
In general
guv(LNIF) = [Minkowski (LIF)]uv + (1/2)(Eu,v + Ev,u)
Eu = (Quantum of Area)(Goldstone Phase),u
This is not perturbation theory and guv is a dynamical field.
Note also that the Vilenken unstable flat DARK ENERGY vacuum domain wall solution is a finite spacetime blob "Lorentzian instanton" inside of which there is zero conformal curvature with a non-trivial {LC} connection field. Hovering LNIF observers at a fixed distance z from the wall (x-y plane) must fire their rocket motors away from the wall that is effectively an anti-gravity field in Newton's sense. Timelike LIF geodesics appear as hyperbolic "constant accelerating" Rindler motion to these stationary hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers using non-gravity force (ejected propellant) to keep off the geodesics that recede from the wall in the wall's brief violent history.
This is "Curvature without curvature" a nonlocal GR analog to the Bohm-Aharonov effect of "Magnetism without magnetism". The gravity energy is also nonlocal and this is another example of the disembodied footprint of micro-quantum nonlocality in the local macro-quantum Einstein field equations. There is no such thing as the "classical world" there is only the "macro-quantum world" created in the More is different Inflationary Big Bang.
The conformally curved vacuum region outside the finite spacetime blob of the Vilenken-Taub Curvature without curvature solution is like the magnetic flux inside the long thin solenoid in the Bohm-Aharonov electron beam experiment. The need for LNIF non-geodesic observers to fire their rockets away from the wall to stay at a fixed distance z from the wall is like the fringe shift in the Bohm-Aharonov experiment. However, here EVERY POINT in the BLOB is like the coming together of the two paths for the alternative histories of the electron in the Bohm-Aharonov analog. This is familiar in GR where the universe recedes equally from every vantage point with no preferred "center" like an infinite homogeneous rubber sheet stretching isotropically from every point.
The Multiverse is a Hologram
t'Hooft and Susskind building on Bekenstein and Hawking conjectured that the dimensionless information content in a volume of space is the area of its boundary divided by 4Planck area. Whether those are c-bits or qubits is left unclear.
In Cartan's forms, which are automatically Diff(4) invariant, and which permit integrals on curved manifolds, circumventing some of the gravity nonlocality problem, the Levi-Civita connection field is a 1-form and the curvature is a 2-form.
Einstein's field equation, including the dark energy local field correction, is
Guv + /\zpfguv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv
The dimensions of the "marble" geometrodynamic LHS are 1/Area consistent with the Cartan curvature 2-form with INVARIANT Hodge DeRham integrals over 2D coform AREAS. This is automatically HOLOGRAPHIC since VOLUMES are replaced by AREAS!
This is because 8pi(G/c^4) has dimension [Length/Energy] = (String Tension)^-1.
Note that non-Perturbative background-independent Quantum Loop Gravity also rests fundamentally on the quantum area operator as does my own macro-quantum coherent "More is Different" emergence derivation of Einstein's local GR from the rigid Goldstone phase of the Higgs Vacuum Order Parameter in the Inflationary Phase Transition of the Big Bang from the unstable flat false micro-quantum vacuum to the stable curved macro-quantum coherent holographic vacuum with lower zero point energy density (small Cosmological Constant) and lower entropy (smaller phase space volume).
That is, Cartan's tetrads eu^a come from the Bohm elasticity giant pilot wave constraint
eu^a,a = Kronecker Deltau^a,a + (Area Quantum)(Goldstone Phase),u
,a is ordinary partial derivative
When the "rigid" Goldstone Phase = 0
eu^a = Kronecker Deltau^a
guv(Curved LNIF) = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b = (Minkowski)uv = PRE-INFLATION FALSE VACUUM
in that limit.
In general
guv(LNIF) = [Minkowski (LIF)]uv + (1/2)(Eu,v + Ev,u)
Eu = (Quantum of Area)(Goldstone Phase),u
This is not perturbation theory and guv is a dynamical field.
Note also that the Vilenken unstable flat DARK ENERGY vacuum domain wall solution is a finite spacetime blob "Lorentzian instanton" inside of which there is zero conformal curvature with a non-trivial {LC} connection field. Hovering LNIF observers at a fixed distance z from the wall (x-y plane) must fire their rocket motors away from the wall that is effectively an anti-gravity field in Newton's sense. Timelike LIF geodesics appear as hyperbolic "constant accelerating" Rindler motion to these stationary hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers using non-gravity force (ejected propellant) to keep off the geodesics that recede from the wall in the wall's brief violent history.
This is "Curvature without curvature" a nonlocal GR analog to the Bohm-Aharonov effect of "Magnetism without magnetism". The gravity energy is also nonlocal and this is another example of the disembodied footprint of micro-quantum nonlocality in the local macro-quantum Einstein field equations. There is no such thing as the "classical world" there is only the "macro-quantum world" created in the More is different Inflationary Big Bang.
The conformally curved vacuum region outside the finite spacetime blob of the Vilenken-Taub Curvature without curvature solution is like the magnetic flux inside the long thin solenoid in the Bohm-Aharonov electron beam experiment. The need for LNIF non-geodesic observers to fire their rockets away from the wall to stay at a fixed distance z from the wall is like the fringe shift in the Bohm-Aharonov experiment. However, here EVERY POINT in the BLOB is like the coming together of the two paths for the alternative histories of the electron in the Bohm-Aharonov analog. This is familiar in GR where the universe recedes equally from every vantage point with no preferred "center" like an infinite homogeneous rubber sheet stretching isotropically from every point.
t'Hooft and Susskind building on Bekenstein and Hawking conjectured that the dimensionless information content in a volume of space is the area of its boundary divided by 4Planck area. Whether those are c-bits or qubits is left unclear.
In Cartan's forms, which are automatically Diff(4) invariant, and which permit integrals on curved manifolds, circumventing some of the gravity nonlocality problem, the Levi-Civita connection field is a 1-form and the curvature is a 2-form.
Einstein's field equation, including the dark energy local field correction, is
Guv + /\zpfguv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv
The dimensions of the "marble" geometrodynamic LHS are 1/Area consistent with the Cartan curvature 2-form with INVARIANT Hodge DeRham integrals over 2D coform AREAS. This is automatically HOLOGRAPHIC since VOLUMES are replaced by AREAS!
This is because 8pi(G/c^4) has dimension [Length/Energy] = (String Tension)^-1.
Note that non-Perturbative background-independent Quantum Loop Gravity also rests fundamentally on the quantum area operator as does my own macro-quantum coherent "More is Different" emergence derivation of Einstein's local GR from the rigid Goldstone phase of the Higgs Vacuum Order Parameter in the Inflationary Phase Transition of the Big Bang from the unstable flat false micro-quantum vacuum to the stable curved macro-quantum coherent holographic vacuum with lower zero point energy density (small Cosmological Constant) and lower entropy (smaller phase space volume).
That is, Cartan's tetrads eu^a come from the Bohm elasticity giant pilot wave constraint
eu^a,a = Kronecker Deltau^a,a + (Area Quantum)(Goldstone Phase),u
,a is ordinary partial derivative
When the "rigid" Goldstone Phase = 0
eu^a = Kronecker Deltau^a
guv(Curved LNIF) = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^b = (Minkowski)uv = PRE-INFLATION FALSE VACUUM
in that limit.
In general
guv(LNIF) = [Minkowski (LIF)]uv + (1/2)(Eu,v + Ev,u)
Eu = (Quantum of Area)(Goldstone Phase),u
This is not perturbation theory and guv is a dynamical field.
Note also that the Vilenken unstable flat DARK ENERGY vacuum domain wall solution is a finite spacetime blob "Lorentzian instanton" inside of which there is zero conformal curvature with a non-trivial {LC} connection field. Hovering LNIF observers at a fixed distance z from the wall (x-y plane) must fire their rocket motors away from the wall that is effectively an anti-gravity field in Newton's sense. Timelike LIF geodesics appear as hyperbolic "constant accelerating" Rindler motion to these stationary hovering non-geodesic LNIF observers using non-gravity force (ejected propellant) to keep off the geodesics that recede from the wall in the wall's brief violent history.
This is "Curvature without curvature" a nonlocal GR analog to the Bohm-Aharonov effect of "Magnetism without magnetism". The gravity energy is also nonlocal and this is another example of the disembodied footprint of micro-quantum nonlocality in the local macro-quantum Einstein field equations. There is no such thing as the "classical world" there is only the "macro-quantum world" created in the More is different Inflationary Big Bang.
The conformally curved vacuum region outside the finite spacetime blob of the Vilenken-Taub Curvature without curvature solution is like the magnetic flux inside the long thin solenoid in the Bohm-Aharonov electron beam experiment. The need for LNIF non-geodesic observers to fire their rockets away from the wall to stay at a fixed distance z from the wall is like the fringe shift in the Bohm-Aharonov experiment. However, here EVERY POINT in the BLOB is like the coming together of the two paths for the alternative histories of the electron in the Bohm-Aharonov analog. This is familiar in GR where the universe recedes equally from every vantage point with no preferred "center" like an infinite homogeneous rubber sheet stretching isotropically from every point.
Curvature without curvature - nonlocality in Einstein's gravity
Vilenken makes NO CLAIM this is a SHgF solution!
The really interesting physics in it is the new Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality of
Conformal curvature without conformal curvature, OR conformal curvature acting nonlocally at a distance to make a non-trivial {LC} field requiring HOVERING fixed x LNIF observers to fire their rockets AWAY from the wall that anti-gravitates! That is massive test particles have geodesics away from the wall that look like hyperbolic motion to the HOVERING LNIF non-geodesic observer who is REALLY accelerating i.e. ejecting propellent to keep hovering at fixed distance from the wall at x = 0.
The {LC}^uvw field is like the EM vector potential A. The Conformal Curvature field C^uvwl is like the magnetic field B ~ Fij, i,j = 1,2,3 in the Bohm-Aharonov effect confined to the inside of the solenoid. In Vilenken's case the inside of the solenoid is OUTSIDE the FINITE PROPER VOLUME of the horizon limited SPACE-TIME VOLUME of his solution. The vacuum wall has limited proper support both in space and time. It's a kind of solitonic instanton - a spacetime blob.
Vilenken's solution in context of Taub's surprising remark is evidence AGAINST the locality of gravity energy and is evidence FOR the macro-quantum coherent emergence of Einstein's local tensor field equations with the footprint of nonlocality in the topology of the order parameter. So is the hedgehog Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly.
Vilenken makes NO CLAIM this is a SHgF solution!
The really interesting physics in it is the new Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality of
Conformal curvature without conformal curvature, OR conformal curvature acting nonlocally at a distance to make a non-trivial {LC} field requiring HOVERING fixed x LNIF observers to fire their rockets AWAY from the wall that anti-gravitates! That is massive test particles have geodesics away from the wall that look like hyperbolic motion to the HOVERING LNIF non-geodesic observer who is REALLY accelerating i.e. ejecting propellent to keep hovering at fixed distance from the wall at x = 0.
The {LC}^uvw field is like the EM vector potential A. The Conformal Curvature field C^uvwl is like the magnetic field B ~ Fij, i,j = 1,2,3 in the Bohm-Aharonov effect confined to the inside of the solenoid. In Vilenken's case the inside of the solenoid is OUTSIDE the FINITE PROPER VOLUME of the horizon limited SPACE-TIME VOLUME of his solution. The vacuum wall has limited proper support both in space and time. It's a kind of solitonic instanton - a spacetime blob.
Vilenken's solution in context of Taub's surprising remark is evidence AGAINST the locality of gravity energy and is evidence FOR the macro-quantum coherent emergence of Einstein's local tensor field equations with the footprint of nonlocality in the topology of the order parameter. So is the hedgehog Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly.
Nonlocality in General Relativity
Ah BUT the solution does not cover ALL of spacetime - it's a LOCAL spacetime region - maximal finite proper distance so that Ruvwl =/= 0 outside it. Also it's not an EXACT UNIFORM g-field.
So it shows a kind of Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality in which {LC} =/= 0 where Ruvwl = 0 like A =/= 0 where CurlA = B = 0.
This {LC} is only measured for HOVERING LNIF non-geodesic observers not for geodesic LIF observers.
It's curvature without curvature i.e. A truly NONLOCAL MACRO-QUANTUM EFFECT consistent with NONLOCALITY of pure gravity energy!
So, it is beginning to look to me that Taub's "surprising" result is the gravity analog of the Josephson-Bohm-Aharonov nonlocal effect.
Curvature without curvature? this is the GR nonlocality analog to magnetic field without magnetic field of the Bohm-Aharonov effect also seen in the Josephson effect. That is, both the {LC} connection of gravity and the vector potential fiber connection of electro-magnetism have a nonlocal macro-quantum observability in regions where their respective covariant curls locally vanish!
A distant curved region where conformal Cuvwl =/= 0 makes a non-vanishing {LC} =/= 0 for HOVERING LNIF observers at fixed distance x from unstable vacuum domain wall (repulsive gravity BTW). Normally this would require local conformal vacuum curvature so that non-geodesic LNIF observers can hover at fixed distance from source by applying non-gravity forces (e.g. ejecting propellent - see Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" on hovering near event horizon of a small black hole and see picture in Hawking's "Universe in a Nutshell" of two antipodal LNIF observers accelerating directly away from each other but staying at FIXED separation in curved Schwarzschild spacetime. So what we have here is a NONLOCALITY from the non-trivial topology of the single-valued macro-quantum vacuum local (zero entropy) OLDRO parameter out of which Einstein's Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 emerges.
Vilenken writes "Surprisingly as Taub has shown..." p. 178 Definitely a surprise. The local {LC} =/= 0 is like the Bohm-Aharonov fringe shift where the two paths come together to make an interference pattern.
In any case that's how it's beginning to look to me at this moment. This is one more argument for the macro-quantum physical reality of the nonlocality of pure gravity energy as explained by Roger Penrose in "The Road to Reality".
On Dec 17, 2004, at 8:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Here is a facsimile PDF of Vilenkin's 1983 Article.
Ah BUT the solution does not cover ALL of spacetime - it's a LOCAL spacetime region - maximal finite proper distance so that Ruvwl =/= 0 outside it. Also it's not an EXACT UNIFORM g-field.
So it shows a kind of Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality in which {LC} =/= 0 where Ruvwl = 0 like A =/= 0 where CurlA = B = 0.
This {LC} is only measured for HOVERING LNIF non-geodesic observers not for geodesic LIF observers.
It's curvature without curvature i.e. A truly NONLOCAL MACRO-QUANTUM EFFECT consistent with NONLOCALITY of pure gravity energy!
So, it is beginning to look to me that Taub's "surprising" result is the gravity analog of the Josephson-Bohm-Aharonov nonlocal effect.
Curvature without curvature? this is the GR nonlocality analog to magnetic field without magnetic field of the Bohm-Aharonov effect also seen in the Josephson effect. That is, both the {LC} connection of gravity and the vector potential fiber connection of electro-magnetism have a nonlocal macro-quantum observability in regions where their respective covariant curls locally vanish!
A distant curved region where conformal Cuvwl =/= 0 makes a non-vanishing {LC} =/= 0 for HOVERING LNIF observers at fixed distance x from unstable vacuum domain wall (repulsive gravity BTW). Normally this would require local conformal vacuum curvature so that non-geodesic LNIF observers can hover at fixed distance from source by applying non-gravity forces (e.g. ejecting propellent - see Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps" on hovering near event horizon of a small black hole and see picture in Hawking's "Universe in a Nutshell" of two antipodal LNIF observers accelerating directly away from each other but staying at FIXED separation in curved Schwarzschild spacetime. So what we have here is a NONLOCALITY from the non-trivial topology of the single-valued macro-quantum vacuum local (zero entropy) OLDRO parameter out of which Einstein's Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 emerges.
Vilenken writes "Surprisingly as Taub has shown..." p. 178 Definitely a surprise. The local {LC} =/= 0 is like the Bohm-Aharonov fringe shift where the two paths come together to make an interference pattern.
In any case that's how it's beginning to look to me at this moment. This is one more argument for the macro-quantum physical reality of the nonlocality of pure gravity energy as explained by Roger Penrose in "The Road to Reality".
On Dec 17, 2004, at 8:02 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Here is a facsimile PDF of Vilenkin's 1983 Article.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler
The {LC} connection field in GR curved spacetime is analogous to the EM vector potential A connection in internal space.
The tidal stretch-squeeze GCT tensor field = {LC} curl of itself is analogous to the Maxwell EM Fuv field tensor.
{LC} and A are both Cartan 1-forms. Curvature and Fuv are both Cartan 2-forms.
Z's hullaballo bruhaha has been a search to find the GR analog to the Maxwell decomposition
F = -GradU + CurlA
Note Cartan identities d^2 = 0
CurlGradU = 0
DivCurlA = 0
GradU is a Cartan 1-form = dS
Curl 1-form = d(1-form)
dS is an exact 1-form
CurlA =/= 0 if the 1-form A is NOT exact.
CurlA =/= 0 is an exact 2-form = dA
DivCurlA is d^2A = 0 vanishing 3-form
All vector fields in 3D are UNIQUELY defined if their circulation densities (curl) and source densities (divergence) are given functions of the coordinates at all points in space, and if the totality of the sources, as well as the source density, is zero at infinity. Panofsky & Phillips "Classical Electricity and Magnetism" p. 2
Note an infinite flat plate (vacuum domain wall) violates the required asymptotic flatness in the GR application.
Therefore, The Question is, is there an analogous decomposition for GR at the level, not of the tidal curvature, but of the {LC} itself?
That is, thinking of {LC} as a "vector field" does it have a COORDINATE INDUCED (INERTIAL) divergence part from accelerating LNIF non-geodesic observers + INTRINSIC GEOMETRY curl part?
Z says yes. However, Z has failed to produce explicit formulae in even the simplest case of the Schwarzschild vacuum solution.
Now in the above analogy
{LC} the connection of 1916 GR is a 1-form.
Therefore, The Question is, is there a decomposition
LC 1-form = d(Zero Form) + 1-form = exact 1-form + non-exact 1-form
The exact 1-form is the INERTIAL FIELD "coordinate-dependent" part.
The non-exact 1-form is the INTRINSIC GEOMETRY part.
Note that the CURVATURE 2-form is
d{LC} = d(non-exact 1-form)
However, in non-Abelian GR
d{LC} = {LC} covariant curl of itself!
Back to EM
U = Integral over a Green's function of a scalar density d = I(Gs)
A = Integral over the same Green's function of a vector density B = I(GB)
Therefore if
{LC} = GradU + CurlA
Curl{LC} = CurlCurlA
But self-consistency requires that
B = Curl{LC}
A = I(Gcurl{LC})
Therefore, the CONJECTURE is, in analog form:
{LC} = -GradI[Gs] + CurlI(GCurl{LC}) ?
The GLOBAL boundary conditions are in the Green's function G.
INERTIAL FORCE coordinate part of {LC} = -GradI(Gs)
INTRINSIC GEOMETRY PART of {LC} = CurlI(GCurl{LC})
The Curl and Grad are of course {LC} covariant operations so that this is all highly nonlinear. There is also the problem of the definition of the Green's functions as well as the Integrals over the curved manifold.
It is not clear if Z's idea can be carried out.
There is also the side issue of whether a stationary homogeneous g-field i.e.
mc^2{LC}^ztt + External Non-Gravity Force^z = 0
In the LNIF rest frame of a HOVERING non-geodesic observer at FIXED DISTANCE z from the FLAT PLATE source Tuv =/= 0, where
{LC}^ztt = g/c^2
{LC} Curl of {LC} = 0 where Tuv = 0
Can be an EXACT SOLUTION of Einstein's Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv ?
Z claims Vilenken's vacuum domain wall is an example.
The {LC} connection field in GR curved spacetime is analogous to the EM vector potential A connection in internal space.
The tidal stretch-squeeze GCT tensor field = {LC} curl of itself is analogous to the Maxwell EM Fuv field tensor.
{LC} and A are both Cartan 1-forms. Curvature and Fuv are both Cartan 2-forms.
Z's hullaballo bruhaha has been a search to find the GR analog to the Maxwell decomposition
F = -GradU + CurlA
Note Cartan identities d^2 = 0
CurlGradU = 0
DivCurlA = 0
GradU is a Cartan 1-form = dS
Curl 1-form = d(1-form)
dS is an exact 1-form
CurlA =/= 0 if the 1-form A is NOT exact.
CurlA =/= 0 is an exact 2-form = dA
DivCurlA is d^2A = 0 vanishing 3-form
All vector fields in 3D are UNIQUELY defined if their circulation densities (curl) and source densities (divergence) are given functions of the coordinates at all points in space, and if the totality of the sources, as well as the source density, is zero at infinity. Panofsky & Phillips "Classical Electricity and Magnetism" p. 2
Note an infinite flat plate (vacuum domain wall) violates the required asymptotic flatness in the GR application.
Therefore, The Question is, is there an analogous decomposition for GR at the level, not of the tidal curvature, but of the {LC} itself?
That is, thinking of {LC} as a "vector field" does it have a COORDINATE INDUCED (INERTIAL) divergence part from accelerating LNIF non-geodesic observers + INTRINSIC GEOMETRY curl part?
Z says yes. However, Z has failed to produce explicit formulae in even the simplest case of the Schwarzschild vacuum solution.
Now in the above analogy
{LC} the connection of 1916 GR is a 1-form.
Therefore, The Question is, is there a decomposition
LC 1-form = d(Zero Form) + 1-form = exact 1-form + non-exact 1-form
The exact 1-form is the INERTIAL FIELD "coordinate-dependent" part.
The non-exact 1-form is the INTRINSIC GEOMETRY part.
Note that the CURVATURE 2-form is
d{LC} = d(non-exact 1-form)
However, in non-Abelian GR
d{LC} = {LC} covariant curl of itself!
Back to EM
U = Integral over a Green's function of a scalar density d = I(Gs)
A = Integral over the same Green's function of a vector density B = I(GB)
Therefore if
{LC} = GradU + CurlA
Curl{LC} = CurlCurlA
But self-consistency requires that
B = Curl{LC}
A = I(Gcurl{LC})
Therefore, the CONJECTURE is, in analog form:
{LC} = -GradI[Gs] + CurlI(GCurl{LC}) ?
The GLOBAL boundary conditions are in the Green's function G.
INERTIAL FORCE coordinate part of {LC} = -GradI(Gs)
INTRINSIC GEOMETRY PART of {LC} = CurlI(GCurl{LC})
The Curl and Grad are of course {LC} covariant operations so that this is all highly nonlinear. There is also the problem of the definition of the Green's functions as well as the Integrals over the curved manifold.
It is not clear if Z's idea can be carried out.
There is also the side issue of whether a stationary homogeneous g-field i.e.
mc^2{LC}^ztt + External Non-Gravity Force^z = 0
In the LNIF rest frame of a HOVERING non-geodesic observer at FIXED DISTANCE z from the FLAT PLATE source Tuv =/= 0, where
{LC}^ztt = g/c^2
{LC} Curl of {LC} = 0 where Tuv = 0
Can be an EXACT SOLUTION of Einstein's Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv ?
Z claims Vilenken's vacuum domain wall is an example.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Black Holes
In Newton's gravity theory, gravity is a force like any other, e.g. the electric force. Every crackpot scheme I have seen about how Einstein is wrong (about gravity let's leave special relativity aside for now) is based on the amateur's inability to get past this cognitive barrier. Z is no exception to this rule. Neither is the so-called PV theory pushed by Eric Davis in the recent USAF teleportation report.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_teleport_041103.html
For example in Newton's theory using Galileo's relativity of absolute simultaneity, which is OK when v/c << 1 we can approximate the Earth's surface as a Newtonian Global Inertial Frame (NGIF) with a test particle of mass m described by the Lagrangian
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z is altitude from surface of the Lab inertial frame.
A typical solution is the parabola (for initial conditions only along z) in the x-t plane
z(t) = z(0) + v(0)t - (1/2)gt^2
Note that m cancels out of the problem because of Galileo's equivalence principle.
If we put in an initial horizonal speed u(0) along x then
x(t) = x(0) + u(0)t
Solve for t and eliminate t in z(t) replacing it by x and one gets another parabola for z(x).
In Newton's theory this parabola is a NON-INERTIAL motion in the INERTIAL FRAME caused by a real gravity force Fg where Newton's second law Fg = ma is obeyed.
The picture does a bait and switch Gestalt Shift in going from Newton to Einstein that most people simply do not get - including some physicists.
In Einstein's theory of gravity, called geometrodynamics, Fg is eliminated. It is a "force without Force". The parabola is an INERTIAL MOTION called the "geodesic", i.e. the straightest possible path not in 3D space but in 4D CURVED spacetime. The Earth's surface is not an INERTIAL FRAME. Small pieces of the Earth's surface are now REST LOCAL NON-INERTIAL FRAMES (REST LNIF). At rest relative to center of mass of Earth because of quantum pressures from Pauli's exclusion principle and the electric force so that detectors at rest on Earth's surface move on non-geodesic world lines. What we think of as the "gravity force of weight" is really only the electrical force pushing us off the natural force free weightless "free float" geodesic. This is why Astronauts are continually weightless in their free float elliptical orbits round Earth with rockets off. Those closed orbits are the straightest possible paths in the curved space-time caused by the Earth's mass M.
If the distance from center of Earth to surface is r, the curvature scale at the surface is ~ GM/c^2r^3 = g/c^2r with dimensions 1/(Area) where here (Area)^1/2 ~ 1AU ~ 10^13 cm ~ local radius of curvature of space-time from the Earth at its surface.
The "g-force" is only felt by local observers pushed off geodesics by non-gravity forces. Local observers on geodesics are weightless with zero g-force.
The g-force is not a tensor because if a tensor is zero in one local frame it is zero in all other local frames connected to it. You cannot transform a non-zero tensor to a zero tensor or vice versa within the rules of Einstein's geometrodynamics from 1916. You cannot even say that the g-force has a tensor piece that is not identically zero. Such a tensor piece of g-force is called "non-metricity" and that is zero in Einstein's 1916 theory.
Example
Schwarzschild approximation to the curved spacetime above the surface of Earth. The local frame invariant differential separation between two neighboring events is
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 - dl^2(flat spherical polar)
The REST LNIF time clicked off by a clock at rest at distance r is
dT(LNIF) = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2(cdt) Alice's REST LNIF clock at fixed r
Bob free falling past Alice in contrast measures
dT(LIF) = dT(LNIF)/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
Note that
2GM/c^2r < 1
This is the LOCAL GRAVITY RED SHIFT
dT(LIF) > dT(REST LNIF) at SAME EVENT in FREE SPACE!
This same red shift is also seen by a distant REST LNIF observer at r -> infinity
That is
dT(LIF at r) = dT(REST LNIF at r -> infinity)
Hal Puthoff's PV theory only has half of Einstein's equivalence principle in his "Tables I & II" with an incorrect ontology and measurement theory. That is, he only has the RHS of the above equation. Hal Puthoff does not believe we need to use tensors in his approach to the "metric engineering" for propellantless propulsion, i.e. "warp drive".
What is the permanent gravity field?
We need the idea of the Killing vector field.
Curved spacetimes can, but need not, have special symmetries. If the metric guv(LNIF) is invariant under {LC} parallel transport along a family of worldlines, the field of tangent vectors to those world lines is called a Killing vector field.
The Schwarzschild metric has the Killing vector field T^u = (1,0,0,0).
Tu is timelike inside local light cones for r > 2GM/c^2
Tu is lightlike i.e. T^uTu = 0 on the Event Horizon of the vacuum black hole at r = 2GM/c^2
Tu is spacelike outside the local light cone for r < 2GM/c^2r where the coordinate patch for r > 2GM/c^2 breaks down.
The permanent g-force, more precisely, the g-acceleration for REST LNIF observers is the
SURFACE GRAVITY = a(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
a = THE NORM OF THE PROPER 4-acceleration needed to keep the LNIF observer at a fixed r. It cannot exist physically without some non-gravity force!
The SURFACE GRAVITY at the EVENT HORIZON of the BLACK HOLE is ~ c4/GM
i.e. c^2/(Schwarzschild Radius)
The Hawking black body radiation temperature is
T ~ hc^3/16piGMkB
The entropy S of the Event Horizon is
A/kB ~ (GM/c^2)^2/(hG/c^3)
In Newton's gravity theory, gravity is a force like any other, e.g. the electric force. Every crackpot scheme I have seen about how Einstein is wrong (about gravity let's leave special relativity aside for now) is based on the amateur's inability to get past this cognitive barrier. Z is no exception to this rule. Neither is the so-called PV theory pushed by Eric Davis in the recent USAF teleportation report.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_teleport_041103.html
For example in Newton's theory using Galileo's relativity of absolute simultaneity, which is OK when v/c << 1 we can approximate the Earth's surface as a Newtonian Global Inertial Frame (NGIF) with a test particle of mass m described by the Lagrangian
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z is altitude from surface of the Lab inertial frame.
A typical solution is the parabola (for initial conditions only along z) in the x-t plane
z(t) = z(0) + v(0)t - (1/2)gt^2
Note that m cancels out of the problem because of Galileo's equivalence principle.
If we put in an initial horizonal speed u(0) along x then
x(t) = x(0) + u(0)t
Solve for t and eliminate t in z(t) replacing it by x and one gets another parabola for z(x).
In Newton's theory this parabola is a NON-INERTIAL motion in the INERTIAL FRAME caused by a real gravity force Fg where Newton's second law Fg = ma is obeyed.
The picture does a bait and switch Gestalt Shift in going from Newton to Einstein that most people simply do not get - including some physicists.
In Einstein's theory of gravity, called geometrodynamics, Fg is eliminated. It is a "force without Force". The parabola is an INERTIAL MOTION called the "geodesic", i.e. the straightest possible path not in 3D space but in 4D CURVED spacetime. The Earth's surface is not an INERTIAL FRAME. Small pieces of the Earth's surface are now REST LOCAL NON-INERTIAL FRAMES (REST LNIF). At rest relative to center of mass of Earth because of quantum pressures from Pauli's exclusion principle and the electric force so that detectors at rest on Earth's surface move on non-geodesic world lines. What we think of as the "gravity force of weight" is really only the electrical force pushing us off the natural force free weightless "free float" geodesic. This is why Astronauts are continually weightless in their free float elliptical orbits round Earth with rockets off. Those closed orbits are the straightest possible paths in the curved space-time caused by the Earth's mass M.
If the distance from center of Earth to surface is r, the curvature scale at the surface is ~ GM/c^2r^3 = g/c^2r with dimensions 1/(Area) where here (Area)^1/2 ~ 1AU ~ 10^13 cm ~ local radius of curvature of space-time from the Earth at its surface.
The "g-force" is only felt by local observers pushed off geodesics by non-gravity forces. Local observers on geodesics are weightless with zero g-force.
The g-force is not a tensor because if a tensor is zero in one local frame it is zero in all other local frames connected to it. You cannot transform a non-zero tensor to a zero tensor or vice versa within the rules of Einstein's geometrodynamics from 1916. You cannot even say that the g-force has a tensor piece that is not identically zero. Such a tensor piece of g-force is called "non-metricity" and that is zero in Einstein's 1916 theory.
Example
Schwarzschild approximation to the curved spacetime above the surface of Earth. The local frame invariant differential separation between two neighboring events is
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 - dl^2(flat spherical polar)
The REST LNIF time clicked off by a clock at rest at distance r is
dT(LNIF) = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2(cdt) Alice's REST LNIF clock at fixed r
Bob free falling past Alice in contrast measures
dT(LIF) = dT(LNIF)/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
Note that
2GM/c^2r < 1
This is the LOCAL GRAVITY RED SHIFT
dT(LIF) > dT(REST LNIF) at SAME EVENT in FREE SPACE!
This same red shift is also seen by a distant REST LNIF observer at r -> infinity
That is
dT(LIF at r) = dT(REST LNIF at r -> infinity)
Hal Puthoff's PV theory only has half of Einstein's equivalence principle in his "Tables I & II" with an incorrect ontology and measurement theory. That is, he only has the RHS of the above equation. Hal Puthoff does not believe we need to use tensors in his approach to the "metric engineering" for propellantless propulsion, i.e. "warp drive".
What is the permanent gravity field?
We need the idea of the Killing vector field.
Curved spacetimes can, but need not, have special symmetries. If the metric guv(LNIF) is invariant under {LC} parallel transport along a family of worldlines, the field of tangent vectors to those world lines is called a Killing vector field.
The Schwarzschild metric has the Killing vector field T^u = (1,0,0,0).
Tu is timelike inside local light cones for r > 2GM/c^2
Tu is lightlike i.e. T^uTu = 0 on the Event Horizon of the vacuum black hole at r = 2GM/c^2
Tu is spacelike outside the local light cone for r < 2GM/c^2r where the coordinate patch for r > 2GM/c^2 breaks down.
The permanent g-force, more precisely, the g-acceleration for REST LNIF observers is the
SURFACE GRAVITY = a(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
a = THE NORM OF THE PROPER 4-acceleration needed to keep the LNIF observer at a fixed r. It cannot exist physically without some non-gravity force!
The SURFACE GRAVITY at the EVENT HORIZON of the BLACK HOLE is ~ c4/GM
i.e. c^2/(Schwarzschild Radius)
The Hawking black body radiation temperature is
T ~ hc^3/16piGMkB
The entropy S of the Event Horizon is
A/kB ~ (GM/c^2)^2/(hG/c^3)
Werner Erhard, Lenny Susskind, Oberlin & UFOs
On Dec 15, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Need to get name from Saul-Paul. An ex-President of Oberlin Robert ... a student of John Wheeler's on black holes had a mid-life crisis and left Oberlin to become a Werner Erhard groupie in SF where I met him in 1974. He ran est Foundation and he had Lenny Susskind and a lot of famous physicists come to Werner's. Lenny writes about it on John Brockman's Edge Foundation webpage.
Werner WAS interested in UFOs and he was one of the funders of my PCRG described by Gary Zukav in the Dancing Wu Li Masters - the Jan 1976 Esalen month-long seminar with Werner, Tim Leary, Fritjof Capra all sorts of people.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 12:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 14, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Aaron B. Clark wrote:
Dr. Sarfatti,
I'm doing research into the connections between Oberlin College and the
UFO subject. I am currently teaching an experimental college course on
UFOs here at Oberlin.
I've discovered that John Mack and Budd Hopkins both went to school
here. Dr. David Jacobs is good friends with the current president, Nancy
Dye.
Edward Condon taught physics here for two years just before his historic
study of UFOs.
I ran across something that seemed to indicate that you went to school
here as well. Is this true? If so, do you know of any other connections
between Oberlin & UFOs?
Thank you,
Aaron Clark
I was never a student at Oberlin, but while at Cornell I spent a few weeks at Oberlin in the summer of 1964 with the Gilbert and Sullivan group at the Conservatory. We then went to the Highfield Theater at Cape Cod that Oberlin ran. Tim Jerome of BroadwayUSA.org has recordings of those shows. Some excerpts are on line at
http://qedcorp.com/London/
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
http://qedcorp.com/APS/
Was The Nation published there then? I remember meeting someone from Oberlin then connected with it.
I was not thinking about UFOs then or physics very much - into the arts & left-liberal politics (Freedom Rides, Vietnam...) then. :-)
However http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html
On Dec 15, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Need to get name from Saul-Paul. An ex-President of Oberlin Robert ... a student of John Wheeler's on black holes had a mid-life crisis and left Oberlin to become a Werner Erhard groupie in SF where I met him in 1974. He ran est Foundation and he had Lenny Susskind and a lot of famous physicists come to Werner's. Lenny writes about it on John Brockman's Edge Foundation webpage.
Werner WAS interested in UFOs and he was one of the funders of my PCRG described by Gary Zukav in the Dancing Wu Li Masters - the Jan 1976 Esalen month-long seminar with Werner, Tim Leary, Fritjof Capra all sorts of people.
On Dec 14, 2004, at 12:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 14, 2004, at 11:44 AM, Aaron B. Clark wrote:
Dr. Sarfatti,
I'm doing research into the connections between Oberlin College and the
UFO subject. I am currently teaching an experimental college course on
UFOs here at Oberlin.
I've discovered that John Mack and Budd Hopkins both went to school
here. Dr. David Jacobs is good friends with the current president, Nancy
Dye.
Edward Condon taught physics here for two years just before his historic
study of UFOs.
I ran across something that seemed to indicate that you went to school
here as well. Is this true? If so, do you know of any other connections
between Oberlin & UFOs?
Thank you,
Aaron Clark
I was never a student at Oberlin, but while at Cornell I spent a few weeks at Oberlin in the summer of 1964 with the Gilbert and Sullivan group at the Conservatory. We then went to the Highfield Theater at Cape Cod that Oberlin ran. Tim Jerome of BroadwayUSA.org has recordings of those shows. Some excerpts are on line at
http://qedcorp.com/London/
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
http://qedcorp.com/APS/
Was The Nation published there then? I remember meeting someone from Oberlin then connected with it.
I was not thinking about UFOs then or physics very much - into the arts & left-liberal politics (Freedom Rides, Vietnam...) then. :-)
However http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html
Quantum Physics and Consciousness
On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Peter is a smart guy that's why.
There is Information Good, Bad and Bogus
The original Telegraph article was Bogus - worse than Bad - incompetent.
On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:07 AM, visions wrote:
Peter, you seem to be echoing the opinion of physicist Jack Sarfatti who wrote to me:
"This is junk. No physicist will like it. It's strictly for scientific
illiterates written by one. This kind of misrepresentation of physics
as religion is opiate for the the intellectually challenged - the
lemmings on their way to the Abyss. It's cliche New Age sound bytes for
the ADDs on too much MTV. The morality expressed is fine, but don't try
to prove it with a bogus appeal to quantum nonlocality! The argument is
snake oil. It's not new to me."
Cheers
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: phayesxxxx@aol.com
To: testingmediums@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [testingmediums] 'The Greatest Religious Discovery Of The 20th Century'
This is way too much hype. Quantum entanglement has been inherent in the
formulation of quantum mechanics since its beginning, although recent
measurements have simply confirmed it. Entanglement means only statistical
correlation, and it does not involve the possibility of using this "connectedness" to transmit information or effects.
This is not quite true. Entanglement is now an information resource as in cryptography and teleportation. See "Quantum Information and Relativity Theory" A. Peres & D. R. Terno, Rev Mod Phys January 2004, Vol 76 However, it is limited by "signal nonlocality" also called "passion at a distance".
Generally the issue is faster than light and backwards in time signaling which would be called "signal nonlocality". Now there is a generalized quantum theory (e.g. Antony Valentini) where such paranormal effects do occur! There is also evidence, e.g. presponse described by Dick Bierman and others.
So the Fat Lady has not sung yet on that. The Jury is still out.
The relation of micro-quantum theory to MACRO-Quantum theory is like that of special relativity to general relativity.
Space-time is a rigid non-dynamical background that acts on, but is not acted upon, in special relativity. Space-time is a non-rigid dynamical player on equal footing with the electromagnetic field in the general theory of relativity which makes gravity and inertial rest masses of elementary particles come into being.
Similarly, the quantum information wave is a rigid non-dynamical background that acts on, but is not acted upon in micro-quantum theory. This is where Asher Peres makes his "biggest Bohrian blunder" that quantum information is only epistemological and not ontological. The human mind is a giant macro-quantum local wave in the human brain that controls neuronal firings via electric dipoles in the microtubules, but which is also directly acted back upon by those same electric dipole signals in a spontaneously conscious self-organizing environmentally pumped feedback control loop. This is why we have free will BTW.
The following quote from the article is not true: "Only now, when quantum mechanics has shown us that all matter is one, that there is no separation between me and my neighbour, do we have the physical proof of what he really meant." QM does not show that all matter is one, nor does it show that people are not separate. So highly respected is physics that people uncritically try to use it to bolster whatever they wish to believe. There is a plethora of books attempting to get mystical meaning out of modern physics. The universe is strange indeed, but one type of strangeness does not prove another.
Peter Hayes
Yes, Peter is correct in this last paragraph.
On Dec 15, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Peter is a smart guy that's why.
There is Information Good, Bad and Bogus
The original Telegraph article was Bogus - worse than Bad - incompetent.
On Dec 15, 2004, at 2:07 AM, visions wrote:
Peter, you seem to be echoing the opinion of physicist Jack Sarfatti who wrote to me:
"This is junk. No physicist will like it. It's strictly for scientific
illiterates written by one. This kind of misrepresentation of physics
as religion is opiate for the the intellectually challenged - the
lemmings on their way to the Abyss. It's cliche New Age sound bytes for
the ADDs on too much MTV. The morality expressed is fine, but don't try
to prove it with a bogus appeal to quantum nonlocality! The argument is
snake oil. It's not new to me."
Cheers
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: phayesxxxx@aol.com
To: testingmediums@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [testingmediums] 'The Greatest Religious Discovery Of The 20th Century'
This is way too much hype. Quantum entanglement has been inherent in the
formulation of quantum mechanics since its beginning, although recent
measurements have simply confirmed it. Entanglement means only statistical
correlation, and it does not involve the possibility of using this "connectedness" to transmit information or effects.
This is not quite true. Entanglement is now an information resource as in cryptography and teleportation. See "Quantum Information and Relativity Theory" A. Peres & D. R. Terno, Rev Mod Phys January 2004, Vol 76 However, it is limited by "signal nonlocality" also called "passion at a distance".
Generally the issue is faster than light and backwards in time signaling which would be called "signal nonlocality". Now there is a generalized quantum theory (e.g. Antony Valentini) where such paranormal effects do occur! There is also evidence, e.g. presponse described by Dick Bierman and others.
So the Fat Lady has not sung yet on that. The Jury is still out.
The relation of micro-quantum theory to MACRO-Quantum theory is like that of special relativity to general relativity.
Space-time is a rigid non-dynamical background that acts on, but is not acted upon, in special relativity. Space-time is a non-rigid dynamical player on equal footing with the electromagnetic field in the general theory of relativity which makes gravity and inertial rest masses of elementary particles come into being.
Similarly, the quantum information wave is a rigid non-dynamical background that acts on, but is not acted upon in micro-quantum theory. This is where Asher Peres makes his "biggest Bohrian blunder" that quantum information is only epistemological and not ontological. The human mind is a giant macro-quantum local wave in the human brain that controls neuronal firings via electric dipoles in the microtubules, but which is also directly acted back upon by those same electric dipole signals in a spontaneously conscious self-organizing environmentally pumped feedback control loop. This is why we have free will BTW.
The following quote from the article is not true: "Only now, when quantum mechanics has shown us that all matter is one, that there is no separation between me and my neighbour, do we have the physical proof of what he really meant." QM does not show that all matter is one, nor does it show that people are not separate. So highly respected is physics that people uncritically try to use it to bolster whatever they wish to believe. There is a plethora of books attempting to get mystical meaning out of modern physics. The universe is strange indeed, but one type of strangeness does not prove another.
Peter Hayes
Yes, Peter is correct in this last paragraph.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Leonard Susskind and Jack Sarfatti together at Cornell 1962
I don't recall writing that letter, but obviously I did. So it was triggered by their Rev Mod Phys paper. At that time I was co-running NSF Summer School in Macroscopic Quantum Physics at San Diego State. So this theme has been a constant in my physical thinking. Definitely George Parrent Jr at Tech/Ops got me on that problem in early 1962 BEFORE I got back to Cornell and beat the drum on it to Susskind, and of course I brought Glogower back to Cornell with me in Fall 1962. I was at Cornell 1956 - 60.
You know it's important that the naive phase operator with U not unitary not be unitary! Even today, Susskind is still stuck in unitarity! Remember Feynman did not even know what "unitarity" was at the beginning in his work on Dirac's Lagrangian for quantum histories. Susskind even got Hawking to make his greatest blunder at GR 17! While unitarity is OK (ignoring measurements) in closed micro-quantum systems it is WRONG for open systems and it is WRONG for MACRO-QUANTUM SYSTEMS where the information wave and a large number of particles fuse - enter signal nonlocality and Bierman's presponse. Strict unitarity with signal locality and no-cloning a quantum is a BORING UNIVERSE that forbids the emergence of CREATIVE new orders from "More is different". BTW it was London and Von Neumann who put "consciousness" into quantum physics. Antony Valentini, building on Josephson, showed how tenuous is signal locality AKA "passion at a distance". The nonlocal unitary rules of linear micro-quantum theory are suspended for local non-unitary nonlinear MACRO-QUANTUM theory out of which Einstein's general relativity GRAVITY with dark energy springs from the PARTIAL COHERING of the micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuations of the PRE-INFLATIONARY false vacuum with all rest masses m = 0 and NO GRAVITY at all.
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack see reference #15 in the paper by Nieto.
"[15] Letter and _Historical corrections_ by J. Sarfatt sent to E. U. Condon, editor of Rev. Mod. Phys., dated 20 May 1968, with copies sent to many individuals, including Carruthers, Louisell, Nieto, and Susskind. Also included was a copy of part of (not all of) an undated, handwritten letter from L. Susskind to J. Sarfatt.
[16] J. Sarfatt, Nuovo Cimento 27 (1963) 1119.
[17] L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Physics 1 (1964) 49.
[18] P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, Am. J. Phys. 33 (1965) 537.
[19] P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40 (1968) 441.
[20] Letter from P. Carruthers to J. Sarfatt, dated 6 June 1968.
After Carruthers_ and my review appeared [19], Sarfatt wrote the letter referred to earlier [15]. He wanted historical corrections to be published giving him credit. In the _Historical corrections_ of his communication, given as our Ref. [15], he wrote: . . . In turn I ran across the fact that a Hermitian phase operator could not be defined in informal discussions with the late Dr. David Falcoff and some of his students at Brandeis during 1961-1962. Glogower was responsible for the ingenious mathematical solution of certain recursion relations, and Susskind did the bulk of the work on the proper form of the commutation relations for the C and S operators as well as the appropriate
eigenfunctions. There is no question that Susskind completed the greater
part of the final work on his own, but there is equally no question that the paper never would have been written were it not for my participation in the crucial initial stages when we were not even clear about the qualitative nature of the problem. Sarfatt also quoted from, and enclosed a copy of part of, a handwritten note from Susskind. It stated
. . . Any way I feel bad about forgetting to acknowledge you. Glo and
myself debated whether to put you as an author or Acknowledgement and
in the scuffle I forgot. . . . Lenny
Carruthers wrote a kind letter to Sarfatt in return, gently pointing out that [20] . . . They (SG) did not acknowledge my aid either, although I spent a lot of time encouraging them and in reading the final MS! . . . I_d like to remind you that in the fall of 1962 I gave a homework problem in which I asked for a discussion of the existence of °. My curiosity on this point arose independently of your own, as I recall. (Also Louisell [21].) In any event, I think that my problem, or your remark, however perceptive and important towards motivating the solution, did not especially deserve reference. (We [19] did not intend to present a complete historical document.) . . .
Well, this article is a more, but not entirely, complete historical document, so I have related the above. (However, as you might expect, some of the things in my files are slightly more pugnacious than I have quoted.) In any event, eventually Sarfatt added an _i_ to his name and went into Physics Consciousness [22]."
I did not "add" the i. The i was properly restored. It was stolen from me at my birth. This is a very important correction of another historical error by the "Victorian Station Masters" in Colin Bennett's sense.
"Later, alternative phase operators were developed. I mention four of the more important schemes [23, 24, 25, 26]. The critical points always were if a Hermitian phase was possible or not, if alternative sine and cosine operators commuted among themselves, and if the sums of the squares of these operators was unity."
Note that the sine and cosine operators DO NOT COMMUTE with each other, and the sums of the squares ARE NOT UNITY. This is telling us something important that Carruthers, Nieto and Susskind STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND TODAY! Indeed, Hawking was on the right track until Susskind led him off the true path through his Journey from Inferno to Paradiso. ;-)
See Werbos "backward in time" and Bierman's "presponse". Quantum computer theory rests on very shaky ground indeed. "Quantum computers" is more hype like "string theory" I suspect.
Theoretical physics today really is mostly "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" (R. Penrose) - it has really become decadent post-modern.
I don't recall writing that letter, but obviously I did. So it was triggered by their Rev Mod Phys paper. At that time I was co-running NSF Summer School in Macroscopic Quantum Physics at San Diego State. So this theme has been a constant in my physical thinking. Definitely George Parrent Jr at Tech/Ops got me on that problem in early 1962 BEFORE I got back to Cornell and beat the drum on it to Susskind, and of course I brought Glogower back to Cornell with me in Fall 1962. I was at Cornell 1956 - 60.
You know it's important that the naive phase operator with U not unitary not be unitary! Even today, Susskind is still stuck in unitarity! Remember Feynman did not even know what "unitarity" was at the beginning in his work on Dirac's Lagrangian for quantum histories. Susskind even got Hawking to make his greatest blunder at GR 17! While unitarity is OK (ignoring measurements) in closed micro-quantum systems it is WRONG for open systems and it is WRONG for MACRO-QUANTUM SYSTEMS where the information wave and a large number of particles fuse - enter signal nonlocality and Bierman's presponse. Strict unitarity with signal locality and no-cloning a quantum is a BORING UNIVERSE that forbids the emergence of CREATIVE new orders from "More is different". BTW it was London and Von Neumann who put "consciousness" into quantum physics. Antony Valentini, building on Josephson, showed how tenuous is signal locality AKA "passion at a distance". The nonlocal unitary rules of linear micro-quantum theory are suspended for local non-unitary nonlinear MACRO-QUANTUM theory out of which Einstein's general relativity GRAVITY with dark energy springs from the PARTIAL COHERING of the micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuations of the PRE-INFLATIONARY false vacuum with all rest masses m = 0 and NO GRAVITY at all.
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:16 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Jack see reference #15 in the paper by Nieto.
"[15] Letter and _Historical corrections_ by J. Sarfatt sent to E. U. Condon, editor of Rev. Mod. Phys., dated 20 May 1968, with copies sent to many individuals, including Carruthers, Louisell, Nieto, and Susskind. Also included was a copy of part of (not all of) an undated, handwritten letter from L. Susskind to J. Sarfatt.
[16] J. Sarfatt, Nuovo Cimento 27 (1963) 1119.
[17] L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Physics 1 (1964) 49.
[18] P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, Am. J. Phys. 33 (1965) 537.
[19] P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40 (1968) 441.
[20] Letter from P. Carruthers to J. Sarfatt, dated 6 June 1968.
After Carruthers_ and my review appeared [19], Sarfatt wrote the letter referred to earlier [15]. He wanted historical corrections to be published giving him credit. In the _Historical corrections_ of his communication, given as our Ref. [15], he wrote: . . . In turn I ran across the fact that a Hermitian phase operator could not be defined in informal discussions with the late Dr. David Falcoff and some of his students at Brandeis during 1961-1962. Glogower was responsible for the ingenious mathematical solution of certain recursion relations, and Susskind did the bulk of the work on the proper form of the commutation relations for the C and S operators as well as the appropriate
eigenfunctions. There is no question that Susskind completed the greater
part of the final work on his own, but there is equally no question that the paper never would have been written were it not for my participation in the crucial initial stages when we were not even clear about the qualitative nature of the problem. Sarfatt also quoted from, and enclosed a copy of part of, a handwritten note from Susskind. It stated
. . . Any way I feel bad about forgetting to acknowledge you. Glo and
myself debated whether to put you as an author or Acknowledgement and
in the scuffle I forgot. . . . Lenny
Carruthers wrote a kind letter to Sarfatt in return, gently pointing out that [20] . . . They (SG) did not acknowledge my aid either, although I spent a lot of time encouraging them and in reading the final MS! . . . I_d like to remind you that in the fall of 1962 I gave a homework problem in which I asked for a discussion of the existence of °. My curiosity on this point arose independently of your own, as I recall. (Also Louisell [21].) In any event, I think that my problem, or your remark, however perceptive and important towards motivating the solution, did not especially deserve reference. (We [19] did not intend to present a complete historical document.) . . .
Well, this article is a more, but not entirely, complete historical document, so I have related the above. (However, as you might expect, some of the things in my files are slightly more pugnacious than I have quoted.) In any event, eventually Sarfatt added an _i_ to his name and went into Physics Consciousness [22]."
I did not "add" the i. The i was properly restored. It was stolen from me at my birth. This is a very important correction of another historical error by the "Victorian Station Masters" in Colin Bennett's sense.
"Later, alternative phase operators were developed. I mention four of the more important schemes [23, 24, 25, 26]. The critical points always were if a Hermitian phase was possible or not, if alternative sine and cosine operators commuted among themselves, and if the sums of the squares of these operators was unity."
Note that the sine and cosine operators DO NOT COMMUTE with each other, and the sums of the squares ARE NOT UNITY. This is telling us something important that Carruthers, Nieto and Susskind STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND TODAY! Indeed, Hawking was on the right track until Susskind led him off the true path through his Journey from Inferno to Paradiso. ;-)
See Werbos "backward in time" and Bierman's "presponse". Quantum computer theory rests on very shaky ground indeed. "Quantum computers" is more hype like "string theory" I suspect.
Theoretical physics today really is mostly "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" (R. Penrose) - it has really become decadent post-modern.
NASA Pioneer Anomaly & Cornell History Quantum Phase
On Dec 13, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://stardrive.org/
On Dec 12, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note for the record to Martin Nieto at Los Alamos.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Turns out that Martin is one of the top guys in the Pioneer Anomaly phenomenon!
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 12, 2004 12:17:51 PM PST
To: mmm@pion.lanl.gov
Subject: Pioneer Anomaly Explained
Dear Martin
Another synchronicity I can explain
a_g = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2
back to Sun as an exotic vacuum dark energy hedgehog topological defect in the Higgs vacuum condensate starting out ~ 20AU from Sun. Where it ends I don't know.
Attached to be published in semi-pop book Super Cosmos Spring 2005.
Of course, the idea is to use these phase operators in some kind of Hamiltonian when you consider the time evolution - is it unitary or not?
For example in the Josephson and Bohm-Aharonov effects
The Hamiltonian H ~ C12, i.e. the cosine phase difference operator in Nieto's paper.
Is C12 "self-adjoint"?
If not, then there is signal nonlocality in e^Ht/hbar operating on some initial state.
However C12 is self-adjoint in micro-quantum problem. It is not clear if it remains so in a macro-quantum problem like the Josephson effect because the giant wave function is not a projective ray like the micro-quantum wave function is. Also the Born probability rules do not apply to the giant wave function because of P.W. Anderson's "generalized phase rigidity" in his "More is different" papers on spontaneous broken ground state symmetry e.g. "off-mass-shell" false to true vacuum inflationary phase transition creating the Big Bang with a collapse of phase space volume, therefore the early universe has low "conformal curvature" entropy (Penrose) explaining the Arrow of Time.
So the math in Nieto's paper is concerned with finding the appropriate phase operators to put into some Hamiltonian.
The Glauber macro-quantum coherent states for "condensates", both "real" and "virtual", are eigenstates |z> of destruction operator a, with z a complex number = N^1/2e^itheta. They are displaced circular Gaussians in the N,Phase plane. Squeezed states are ellipses. The |z> are generated from the vacuum |0> with things like e^(za - z*a*) the squeezing has quadratic terms in a & a* with the coefficient ~ eccentricity of the ellipse in phase space - for detection of weak signals (Braginski) like gravity waves with low quantum noise in one quadrature that circumvents the uncertainty principle in that quadrature at the expense of the other one.
That is
|z> = D(z)|0>
D(z) = e^(za* - z*a)
= (z^n/n!^1/2)e^-(1/2)|z|^2
z =^1/2e^itheta
The z-plane is the (n, theta) "symplectic" phase space where is the MEAN photon number and the phase is theta.
Therefore, this is a kind of Wigner phase space function with ||^2 the marginal Born probability along the n-line. However, one cannot really collapse this macro-quantum CONDENSATE state |z> with a "Stern-Gerlach filter" to make sharp n eigenstate measurements when n >> 1.
Squeezed macro-quantum states
|z,w> = D(z)S(w)|0>
S(w) = e^(1/2)[w*a2 - wa*^2]
w is the complex number "squeeze" ellipse of the Wigner function in the n,theta plane.
We can keep going to a^3, a^4 ... for bosons.
There is a formal connection to "Lorentz" boost transformations!
S*aS = acosh|w| - a*sinh|w|e^-i2phi
S*a*A = -asinh|w|e^^i2phi + a*cosh|w|
phi is the orientation of the squeezed ellipse of the Wigner function in n,theta phase space with eccentricity ~ |w|.
w = |w|e^iphi
When the Wigner function goes negative in some regions of number-phase space you really have NON-CLASSICAL LIGHT. This destroys Marshall Trevor's "SED" used by Haisch in his "EM ZPE origin of electron's inertia" model.
A note on fermions.
For fermions
aa* + a*a = 1
This gives the Pauli exclusion principle.
That is the "Grassmann" number (Feynman path integrals) oscillator only has eigenvalues 0,1. This is in contrast to bosons where
aa* - a*a = 1 gives the oscillator with values n = 0, 1, 2, ... infinity
aa = a*a* = 0
Parastatistics with n limited to N can be done with FINITE GALOIS FIELDS that decompose to products of primes. (roughly speaking)
Quantum Loop Gravity & Holographic Universe
Back to "spin 1/2" fermion i.e. n = 0, 1. This is a qubit with the 2x2 Pauli matrix Clifford Algebra
(1, sx, sy, sz ) = 1 qubit for reversible unitary quantum computers
The qubit is the SIMPLEST CLIFFORD ALGEBRA
sxsy = isz
si^2 ~ 1
Since this simplest Clifford alebra describes Penrose's "spin networks" for 3D space, and since obviously only TWO Pauli matrices are nonlinearly independent, we see WHY the entropy of a VOLUME of space is ~ (Bounding Area)/Lp^2
Also in my macro-quantum theory of emergent Einstein GR gravity
Eu = (eu^a,a - &u^a,a) = eu^a,a = Lp^2(Macro-Quantum Vacuum Goldstone Phase),u
eu^a is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad needed for the LOCAL GR equivalence principle
guv = eu^anabev^b
nab is the local SR Minkowski LF metric
guv is the "curved" LNIF GR metric
,u is ordinary partial derivative
Diff (4) GCT's Jacobian matrices Xu^u' are simple canonical transformations from the gauge phase transforms on the Goldstone field. They are the transition functions for overlapping coordinate patches on the manifold.
That is, Einstein's spin 2 tensor theory with Diff(4) has a substratum that is a familiar spin 1 vector theory using the Einstein-Cartan tetrads that emerge from the Goldstone phase gradients of the "BCS" post-inflationary metastable macro-quantum coherent vacuum.
Bosons are EPR pairs of fermions, e.g. BCS superconductor ground state condensate.
Given 2 fermions a, b
Multiply their 2x2 Clifford algebras, i.e. 2-qubit strings give the 4x4 Dirac gamma matrices of the special relativistic electron and "spin foams".
to be continued
On Dec 12, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Nieto's discussion starts out a bit loosely at the beginning. For example
U = e^i(phase operator)
by itself is not really a time evolution operator.
For example, given
[P,X] = -ih
Treat P as the operator and a as the c-number
Then
e^iPa/hbar generates the displacement a in the quantum wave Psi(x), i.e.
e^iPa/hbarPsi(x) = Psi(x + a)
Similarly in the momentum Fourier transform space
e^-iXkPsi(p) = Psi(p - hbark)
therefore, treating PHASE as the operator and n' as an integer
e^iPHASEn'Psi(n) = Psi(n + n')
Psi(n) is a basis in Fock space.
Nieto considers quantized phase eigenvalues in the conjugate problem which correspond to things like quantized fluxes for phase difference experiments like the Bohm-Aharonov electron interferometer showing the quantum reality of the connection field even in a region where the "curvature" vanishes! Of course the connection field is only defined locally mod a gauge transformation, or a general coordinate transformation if we are doing "quantum gravity".
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On M.M.Nieto's historical paper on quantum phase and quantum phase and time operators.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Nieto is primarily interested in new low photon number experiments, but he does, at the end of his paper come across outside the light cone EPR nonlocal effects. Since I am primarily here interested in the opposite high N limit where is the connection? Also I am interested in off-mass-shell boson electron-positron pair vacuum condensates not the macro-quantum quantum optical states of real photons in laser radiation.
I am saying that the bottom -> up PW Anderson "More is different" emergence of Einstein's c-number general theory of relativity is in the collapse of vacuum phase space volume in the pre->post-inflationary phase transition that creates the Big Bang. Einstein's tetrad-based local c-number field equations then pop out of the ripples in the macro-quantum coherent "holographic universe" c-number phase from the Off-Diagonal-Long-Range Order (ODLRO) in the virtual boson condensate (center of mass coordinates of the virtual electron-positron pairs in a kind of BCS scenario).
So how do the micro-quantum phase operators that Nieto is interested come into this problem? Obviously they describe the exotic vacua "dark energy phases". The 1-sided non-unitarity of the time-evolution U operator generated by quantum phase in the naive attempt to get a self-adjoint phase operator, at the very beginning of Nieto's paper, is here a virtue not a vice. We do not expect unitarity at all here because the macro-quantum vacuum condensate is a reservoir for the outward and inward flow of virtual quanta. That is, the virtual electron and virtual positron bind together inside the vacuum condensate, but they are unbound outside the condensate in a kind of neutral ionized plasma, i.e. usual picture of vacuum polarization zero point fluctuations. Of course, lack of unitarity also implies signal-nonlocality - but you cannot make electromagnetic "clicks" with virtual quanta. So we are saved, as it were, by Bell's theorem, from signal-nonlocality using zero point fluctuations. However, because of the equivalence principle, these same ionized plasma micro-quantum fluctuations do gravitate - and even anti-gravitate as dark energy!
U = e^i(phase operator) = aN^-1/2
N = a*a
a is for the CM degrees of freedom of the virtual electron-positron pair as a boson oscillator
xcm = 2^-1/2[a + a*]
pcm = 2^-1/2[a - a*]
UNU* = N + 1
UU^-1 = 1
But
U^-1U =/= 1
Which is just what the Doctor ordered in our problem of "More is different" emergent creative complexity from spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum (or ground state).
This micro-quantum U is only for exotic vacuum "dark energy" part of our "two fluid" model.
Einstein's cosmological constant is small because most of the large-scale zero point fluctuations are swept under the rug of vacuum coherence.
On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".
GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
That's an order soldier! ;-)
I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.
BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1963 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1963. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.
Violation of cause and effect backwards in time requires nonunitary time evolution.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 12, 2004 9:03:30 AM PST
To: ItalianPhysicsCenter
Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars, SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
Subject: Re: What gravity force means & Bohm Aharonov Effect 2 & Cornell history
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Yes, exactly. The probability of your success is ZERO. Meantime there are many more interesting problems and you are wasting your time completely - other than sharpening my pedagogy in how to write about relativity in my books, which is why I kept at this. No one responded to you because most of them cannot understand what your point is, and those that do think you are off your rocker. This includes Alex who does not agree with you. Puthoff's PV is also inconsistent with the LOCAL equivalence principle Visser et-al agreed. Even Hal's colleague Ibison agrees since he wrote no GCT in PV. But Hal at least has a real theory that can be falsified and has. You have nothing but words with unfullfilled promises of a proof. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html ;-)
Meantime read that Nieto paper linked below if you want some interesting lessons in publish or perish. Also the physics is important. One can see how my first interest led to what I am doing now on deriving Einstein's GR from the macro-quantum vacuum phase - as well as my paper with Stoneham at Harwell on Goldstone theorem in 1966 on emergent order. Also PW Anderson's role is interesting synchronicity. Nieto's paper is very interesting both in terms of the history (my role) and the physics.
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
To Martin Nieto
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum phase operator at Cornell: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Date: December 11, 2004 8:52:33 PM PST
PS You also make the comment that I added an i to my name. That is not true. My family name is "Sarfatti".
My father's name is Hyman Sarfatti. Our Sarfatti cousins were largely responsible for Benito Mussolini coming to power as told in the book by CIA historians P. V. Cannistraro & B.R. Sullivan "Il Duce's Other Woman" (W. Morrow, 1993). Because of that fact my mother left the "i" off my birth certificate on Sept 14, 1939 when war was obviously coming and the association with Mussolini was not wise.. My father officially restored the "i" to my birth certificate in 1974 with the Department of Records in Brooklyn, New York. In any case "Sarfatti" is my birthright. My real identity was hidden as a child of WWII.
On Dec 11, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
To Martin Nieto
Hi Martin
re: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036 I have just come across this for first time in 2004.
I never received the 1968 letter Peter Carruthers wrote to me mentioned in your historical review of the history of quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1963-4. If it was 1968 I was at both UCSD physics department and also teaching at San Diego State. At least I do not remember it. If Carruthers received a reply from me I would like to see it.
Thanks
Jack Sarfatti
:-)
Also as I was a student at the time it was more important for me to receive my proper share of the credit for a paper that proved to be important than for Carruthers - addressing myself to Carruthers remark that you cited. Note that I also participated as equal co-author in another important paper on spontaneous symmetry breakdown in solid state physics 1966 that is cited in APS Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics with A.M. Stoneham on the Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London. Furthermore, Glogower would never have come to Cornell in the first place had I not enlisted Phil Morrison's help to get him in as a special student. Neither Susskind nor Glogower had Bachelor's degrees of any kind when admitted into Cornell as grad students. Glogower was a Westinghouse Finalist and had been a celebrity Quiz Kid. He was also part of the Walter Breen/William Sheldon Columbia Superki Project I was part of funded by friends of Charles Lindburgh like Texas Instruments founder Eugene McDermott, curious given Phil Roth's new book on the "Conspiracy Against America".
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Newton's "gravity force" is replaced by Einstein's "gravity force without force".
On Dec 11, 2004, at 5:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Do you think I ever denied that my model is inconsistent with Einstein equivalence? Of course it is.
I am glad you admit that. Ipso facto you are off your rocker! :-)
On Dec 13, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://stardrive.org/
On Dec 12, 2004, at 12:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note for the record to Martin Nieto at Los Alamos.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Turns out that Martin is one of the top guys in the Pioneer Anomaly phenomenon!
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 12, 2004 12:17:51 PM PST
To: mmm@pion.lanl.gov
Subject: Pioneer Anomaly Explained
Dear Martin
Another synchronicity I can explain
a_g = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2
back to Sun as an exotic vacuum dark energy hedgehog topological defect in the Higgs vacuum condensate starting out ~ 20AU from Sun. Where it ends I don't know.
Attached to be published in semi-pop book Super Cosmos Spring 2005.
Of course, the idea is to use these phase operators in some kind of Hamiltonian when you consider the time evolution - is it unitary or not?
For example in the Josephson and Bohm-Aharonov effects
The Hamiltonian H ~ C12, i.e. the cosine phase difference operator in Nieto's paper.
Is C12 "self-adjoint"?
If not, then there is signal nonlocality in e^Ht/hbar operating on some initial state.
However C12 is self-adjoint in micro-quantum problem. It is not clear if it remains so in a macro-quantum problem like the Josephson effect because the giant wave function is not a projective ray like the micro-quantum wave function is. Also the Born probability rules do not apply to the giant wave function because of P.W. Anderson's "generalized phase rigidity" in his "More is different" papers on spontaneous broken ground state symmetry e.g. "off-mass-shell" false to true vacuum inflationary phase transition creating the Big Bang with a collapse of phase space volume, therefore the early universe has low "conformal curvature" entropy (Penrose) explaining the Arrow of Time.
So the math in Nieto's paper is concerned with finding the appropriate phase operators to put into some Hamiltonian.
The Glauber macro-quantum coherent states for "condensates", both "real" and "virtual", are eigenstates |z> of destruction operator a, with z a complex number = N^1/2e^itheta. They are displaced circular Gaussians in the N,Phase plane. Squeezed states are ellipses. The |z> are generated from the vacuum |0> with things like e^(za - z*a*) the squeezing has quadratic terms in a & a* with the coefficient ~ eccentricity of the ellipse in phase space - for detection of weak signals (Braginski) like gravity waves with low quantum noise in one quadrature that circumvents the uncertainty principle in that quadrature at the expense of the other one.
That is
|z> = D(z)|0>
D(z) = e^(za* - z*a)
z =
The z-plane is the (n, theta) "symplectic" phase space where
Therefore, this is a kind of Wigner phase space function with |
Squeezed macro-quantum states
|z,w> = D(z)S(w)|0>
S(w) = e^(1/2)[w*a2 - wa*^2]
w is the complex number "squeeze" ellipse of the Wigner function in the n,theta plane.
We can keep going to a^3, a^4 ... for bosons.
There is a formal connection to "Lorentz" boost transformations!
S*aS = acosh|w| - a*sinh|w|e^-i2phi
S*a*A = -asinh|w|e^^i2phi + a*cosh|w|
phi is the orientation of the squeezed ellipse of the Wigner function in n,theta phase space with eccentricity ~ |w|.
w = |w|e^iphi
When the Wigner function goes negative in some regions of number-phase space you really have NON-CLASSICAL LIGHT. This destroys Marshall Trevor's "SED" used by Haisch in his "EM ZPE origin of electron's inertia" model.
A note on fermions.
For fermions
aa* + a*a = 1
This gives the Pauli exclusion principle.
That is the "Grassmann" number (Feynman path integrals) oscillator only has eigenvalues 0,1. This is in contrast to bosons where
aa* - a*a = 1 gives the oscillator with values n = 0, 1, 2, ... infinity
aa = a*a* = 0
Parastatistics with n limited to N can be done with FINITE GALOIS FIELDS that decompose to products of primes. (roughly speaking)
Quantum Loop Gravity & Holographic Universe
Back to "spin 1/2" fermion i.e. n = 0, 1. This is a qubit with the 2x2 Pauli matrix Clifford Algebra
(1, sx, sy, sz ) = 1 qubit for reversible unitary quantum computers
The qubit is the SIMPLEST CLIFFORD ALGEBRA
sxsy = isz
si^2 ~ 1
Since this simplest Clifford alebra describes Penrose's "spin networks" for 3D space, and since obviously only TWO Pauli matrices are nonlinearly independent, we see WHY the entropy of a VOLUME of space is ~ (Bounding Area)/Lp^2
Also in my macro-quantum theory of emergent Einstein GR gravity
Eu = (eu^a,a - &u^a,a) = eu^a,a = Lp^2(Macro-Quantum Vacuum Goldstone Phase),u
eu^a is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad needed for the LOCAL GR equivalence principle
guv = eu^anabev^b
nab is the local SR Minkowski LF metric
guv is the "curved" LNIF GR metric
,u is ordinary partial derivative
Diff (4) GCT's Jacobian matrices Xu^u' are simple canonical transformations from the gauge phase transforms on the Goldstone field. They are the transition functions for overlapping coordinate patches on the manifold.
That is, Einstein's spin 2 tensor theory with Diff(4) has a substratum that is a familiar spin 1 vector theory using the Einstein-Cartan tetrads that emerge from the Goldstone phase gradients of the "BCS" post-inflationary metastable macro-quantum coherent vacuum.
Bosons are EPR pairs of fermions, e.g. BCS superconductor ground state condensate.
Given 2 fermions a, b
Multiply their 2x2 Clifford algebras, i.e. 2-qubit strings give the 4x4 Dirac gamma matrices of the special relativistic electron and "spin foams".
to be continued
On Dec 12, 2004, at 2:05 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Nieto's discussion starts out a bit loosely at the beginning. For example
U = e^i(phase operator)
by itself is not really a time evolution operator.
For example, given
[P,X] = -ih
Treat P as the operator and a as the c-number
Then
e^iPa/hbar generates the displacement a in the quantum wave Psi(x), i.e.
e^iPa/hbarPsi(x) = Psi(x + a)
Similarly in the momentum Fourier transform space
e^-iXkPsi(p) = Psi(p - hbark)
therefore, treating PHASE as the operator and n' as an integer
e^iPHASEn'Psi(n) = Psi(n + n')
Psi(n) is a basis in Fock space.
Nieto considers quantized phase eigenvalues in the conjugate problem which correspond to things like quantized fluxes for phase difference experiments like the Bohm-Aharonov electron interferometer showing the quantum reality of the connection field even in a region where the "curvature" vanishes! Of course the connection field is only defined locally mod a gauge transformation, or a general coordinate transformation if we are doing "quantum gravity".
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On M.M.Nieto's historical paper on quantum phase and quantum phase and time operators.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Nieto is primarily interested in new low photon number experiments, but he does, at the end of his paper come across outside the light cone EPR nonlocal effects. Since I am primarily here interested in the opposite high N limit where is the connection? Also I am interested in off-mass-shell boson electron-positron pair vacuum condensates not the macro-quantum quantum optical states of real photons in laser radiation.
I am saying that the bottom -> up PW Anderson "More is different" emergence of Einstein's c-number general theory of relativity is in the collapse of vacuum phase space volume in the pre->post-inflationary phase transition that creates the Big Bang. Einstein's tetrad-based local c-number field equations then pop out of the ripples in the macro-quantum coherent "holographic universe" c-number phase from the Off-Diagonal-Long-Range Order (ODLRO) in the virtual boson condensate (center of mass coordinates of the virtual electron-positron pairs in a kind of BCS scenario).
So how do the micro-quantum phase operators that Nieto is interested come into this problem? Obviously they describe the exotic vacua "dark energy phases". The 1-sided non-unitarity of the time-evolution U operator generated by quantum phase in the naive attempt to get a self-adjoint phase operator, at the very beginning of Nieto's paper, is here a virtue not a vice. We do not expect unitarity at all here because the macro-quantum vacuum condensate is a reservoir for the outward and inward flow of virtual quanta. That is, the virtual electron and virtual positron bind together inside the vacuum condensate, but they are unbound outside the condensate in a kind of neutral ionized plasma, i.e. usual picture of vacuum polarization zero point fluctuations. Of course, lack of unitarity also implies signal-nonlocality - but you cannot make electromagnetic "clicks" with virtual quanta. So we are saved, as it were, by Bell's theorem, from signal-nonlocality using zero point fluctuations. However, because of the equivalence principle, these same ionized plasma micro-quantum fluctuations do gravitate - and even anti-gravitate as dark energy!
U = e^i(phase operator) = aN^-1/2
N = a*a
a is for the CM degrees of freedom of the virtual electron-positron pair as a boson oscillator
xcm = 2^-1/2[a + a*]
pcm = 2^-1/2[a - a*]
UNU* = N + 1
UU^-1 = 1
But
U^-1U =/= 1
Which is just what the Doctor ordered in our problem of "More is different" emergent creative complexity from spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum (or ground state).
This micro-quantum U is only for exotic vacuum "dark energy" part of our "two fluid" model.
Einstein's cosmological constant is small because most of the large-scale zero point fluctuations are swept under the rug of vacuum coherence.
On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".
GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
That's an order soldier! ;-)
I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.
BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1963 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1963. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.
Violation of cause and effect backwards in time requires nonunitary time evolution.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 12, 2004 9:03:30 AM PST
To: ItalianPhysicsCenter
Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Subject: Re: What gravity force means & Bohm Aharonov Effect 2 & Cornell history
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Yes, exactly. The probability of your success is ZERO. Meantime there are many more interesting problems and you are wasting your time completely - other than sharpening my pedagogy in how to write about relativity in my books, which is why I kept at this. No one responded to you because most of them cannot understand what your point is, and those that do think you are off your rocker. This includes Alex who does not agree with you. Puthoff's PV is also inconsistent with the LOCAL equivalence principle Visser et-al agreed. Even Hal's colleague Ibison agrees since he wrote no GCT in PV. But Hal at least has a real theory that can be falsified and has. You have nothing but words with unfullfilled promises of a proof. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html ;-)
Meantime read that Nieto paper linked below if you want some interesting lessons in publish or perish. Also the physics is important. One can see how my first interest led to what I am doing now on deriving Einstein's GR from the macro-quantum vacuum phase - as well as my paper with Stoneham at Harwell on Goldstone theorem in 1966 on emergent order. Also PW Anderson's role is interesting synchronicity. Nieto's paper is very interesting both in terms of the history (my role) and the physics.
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
To Martin Nieto
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum phase operator at Cornell: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Date: December 11, 2004 8:52:33 PM PST
PS You also make the comment that I added an i to my name. That is not true. My family name is "Sarfatti".
My father's name is Hyman Sarfatti. Our Sarfatti cousins were largely responsible for Benito Mussolini coming to power as told in the book by CIA historians P. V. Cannistraro & B.R. Sullivan "Il Duce's Other Woman" (W. Morrow, 1993). Because of that fact my mother left the "i" off my birth certificate on Sept 14, 1939 when war was obviously coming and the association with Mussolini was not wise.. My father officially restored the "i" to my birth certificate in 1974 with the Department of Records in Brooklyn, New York. In any case "Sarfatti" is my birthright. My real identity was hidden as a child of WWII.
On Dec 11, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
To Martin Nieto
Hi Martin
re: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036 I have just come across this for first time in 2004.
I never received the 1968 letter Peter Carruthers wrote to me mentioned in your historical review of the history of quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1963-4. If it was 1968 I was at both UCSD physics department and also teaching at San Diego State. At least I do not remember it. If Carruthers received a reply from me I would like to see it.
Thanks
Jack Sarfatti
:-)
Also as I was a student at the time it was more important for me to receive my proper share of the credit for a paper that proved to be important than for Carruthers - addressing myself to Carruthers remark that you cited. Note that I also participated as equal co-author in another important paper on spontaneous symmetry breakdown in solid state physics 1966 that is cited in APS Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics with A.M. Stoneham on the Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London. Furthermore, Glogower would never have come to Cornell in the first place had I not enlisted Phil Morrison's help to get him in as a special student. Neither Susskind nor Glogower had Bachelor's degrees of any kind when admitted into Cornell as grad students. Glogower was a Westinghouse Finalist and had been a celebrity Quiz Kid. He was also part of the Walter Breen/William Sheldon Columbia Superki Project I was part of funded by friends of Charles Lindburgh like Texas Instruments founder Eugene McDermott, curious given Phil Roth's new book on the "Conspiracy Against America".
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Newton's "gravity force" is replaced by Einstein's "gravity force without force".
On Dec 11, 2004, at 5:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Do you think I ever denied that my model is inconsistent with Einstein equivalence? Of course it is.
I am glad you admit that. Ipso facto you are off your rocker! :-)
How big is the electron?
Jack, since you know so many physicists let me ask you some things.
In your theory and in the physics community in general,
1. How big is an electron, what's its radius?
The classical ball size of an electron is
e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm
The quantum size is
h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm
The classical "ball" is surrounded by a virtual electron-positron plasma that extends out from 10^-13 cm to 10^-11 cm
This is the NAIVE picture.
Problem is that Bohr's Copenhagen -> Von Neumann interpretation says THERE ARE NO ELECTRONS as Newton's "hard massy balls" - there are only "quantum waves" or "qubits" that "collapse" to make localized "clicks" on counters. This is Wheeler's "Smoky Dragon" mysticism. That is, there are NO HIDDEN VARIABLES.
In quantum electrodynamics the bare electron is a point particle. This leads to problems of infinite renormalization parameters.
There is then the scattering theory of "form factors" - complicated.
Also high energy scattering of electrons on protons and neutrons shows the latter have three point like scattering centers - consistent with "quarks". Quarks and leptons are "unified" in gauge theory. Well not quite.
Bohm's theory does allow the HIDDEN VARIABLES i.e. Newton's hard massy balls that are "guided" by the Bohr quantum pilot waves. It's like a ball rolling on a landscape of hills valleys and saddle point mountain passes. These are the Bohmian trajectories of the hidden variables.
Then there is the idea that electrons and quarks are really little microgeons i.e. localized regions of pure vacuum with CONFORMAL CURVATURE fields like rotating charged black holes. Burinski is working on that now in Moscow. However you need strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G on the scale of e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi for this to work. Maybe the extra space dimensions kick it for nuclear physics. Also for the stable electron you need a special solution that does not have Hawking radiation - that is part of Kerr-Newman.
The microgeons will "shrink" if probed with a big kick in a high-resolution scattering Heisenberg microscope experiment. They look more and more like point particles as you increase the momentum transfer - at least up to a critical value, where maybe they start looking bigger again in Susskind's IR/UV duality of string theory.
One nice thing about rotating micro-geons in strong short range gravity is that they automatically obey the universal Regge slope law
Spin of hadronic resonance ~ alpha'E^2
alpha' ~ (1 Gev)^-2
This is the basic data for string theory and of course black holes and strings are two sides of the same coin!
Also no hierarchy problem in this picture where the quantum gravity Planck scale Lp is actually at ~ 1Gev. I published this in 1973 and Abdus Salam invited me to ICTP because of that.
2. What is the equivalent lineal mass density (kg/m) of the vacuum?
Meaningless question.
The naive zero point energy of the vacuum WITHOUT the COHERENCE that is the basis for my theory of the emergence of Einstein's General Relativity as a "More is Different" post-inflationary macro-quantum coherent phase modulation is
Vacuum Energy Density ~ hc/Lp^4
This is MUCH TOO BIG. The dark energy density is
~ hc/(c/H)^4
Where H = today's FRW Hubble parameter R^-1dR/dt.
If you use Lp ~ 10^-33 cm Hal's PV gives is off by 122 Powers of Ten. That is a colossal failure compared to GR's colossal success of 10^-14 in the 1916 + 13 pulsar data that won a Nobel Prize!
Hal Puthoff has no solution to this problem in PV. He hand waves it away as he genuflects to ET. :-)
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/thevatic.htm
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/genuflect
I'm doing a comparison of GR and PV and, I'd like to compare it to your
model as well. However, I'm getting mixed input about the radius of an
electron. The Particle Data Group lists it as the classical radius of 2.818
fm. Milonni on the other hand says it is point-like and 10^-2 fm but its
charge is spread out by the interaction with the ZPF to about the Compton
wavelength, ~10^3 fm. The classical radius is "bogus". Do you agree?
Sort of. See above. PV is worthless, a complete waste of time.
1. It violates general coordinate transformation covariance of the dynamical action.
2. It is incompatible with the LOCAL equivalence principle used in GR (e.g. Cartan tetrads).
3. It is seriously incomplete e.g. it cannot describe rotating bodies and the now observed gravimagnetic Lense-Thirring frame drag of the Cartan tetrads.
4. PV fails every experimental test beyond the 3 trivial classic tests in new observations like 1913+16 pulsar where GR works beautifully to a precision of 10^-14!
The above opinion on Hal's PV is the consensus of several top physicists at GR 17
e.g. Cliff Will, Matt Visser, Bill Unruh ...
Since at less than 1/2 the Compton wavelength we get the possibility of e-p
pair creation, this would seem to fit well with your model of the vacuum. So
I'm hoping you can give me some specifics to compare to.
Thank you!
main_engineering
Jack, since you know so many physicists let me ask you some things.
In your theory and in the physics community in general,
1. How big is an electron, what's its radius?
The classical ball size of an electron is
e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm
The quantum size is
h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm
The classical "ball" is surrounded by a virtual electron-positron plasma that extends out from 10^-13 cm to 10^-11 cm
This is the NAIVE picture.
Problem is that Bohr's Copenhagen -> Von Neumann interpretation says THERE ARE NO ELECTRONS as Newton's "hard massy balls" - there are only "quantum waves" or "qubits" that "collapse" to make localized "clicks" on counters. This is Wheeler's "Smoky Dragon" mysticism. That is, there are NO HIDDEN VARIABLES.
In quantum electrodynamics the bare electron is a point particle. This leads to problems of infinite renormalization parameters.
There is then the scattering theory of "form factors" - complicated.
Also high energy scattering of electrons on protons and neutrons shows the latter have three point like scattering centers - consistent with "quarks". Quarks and leptons are "unified" in gauge theory. Well not quite.
Bohm's theory does allow the HIDDEN VARIABLES i.e. Newton's hard massy balls that are "guided" by the Bohr quantum pilot waves. It's like a ball rolling on a landscape of hills valleys and saddle point mountain passes. These are the Bohmian trajectories of the hidden variables.
Then there is the idea that electrons and quarks are really little microgeons i.e. localized regions of pure vacuum with CONFORMAL CURVATURE fields like rotating charged black holes. Burinski is working on that now in Moscow. However you need strong short range gravity G* ~ 10^40G on the scale of e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi for this to work. Maybe the extra space dimensions kick it for nuclear physics. Also for the stable electron you need a special solution that does not have Hawking radiation - that is part of Kerr-Newman.
The microgeons will "shrink" if probed with a big kick in a high-resolution scattering Heisenberg microscope experiment. They look more and more like point particles as you increase the momentum transfer - at least up to a critical value, where maybe they start looking bigger again in Susskind's IR/UV duality of string theory.
One nice thing about rotating micro-geons in strong short range gravity is that they automatically obey the universal Regge slope law
Spin of hadronic resonance ~ alpha'E^2
alpha' ~ (1 Gev)^-2
This is the basic data for string theory and of course black holes and strings are two sides of the same coin!
Also no hierarchy problem in this picture where the quantum gravity Planck scale Lp is actually at ~ 1Gev. I published this in 1973 and Abdus Salam invited me to ICTP because of that.
2. What is the equivalent lineal mass density (kg/m) of the vacuum?
Meaningless question.
The naive zero point energy of the vacuum WITHOUT the COHERENCE that is the basis for my theory of the emergence of Einstein's General Relativity as a "More is Different" post-inflationary macro-quantum coherent phase modulation is
Vacuum Energy Density ~ hc/Lp^4
This is MUCH TOO BIG. The dark energy density is
~ hc/(c/H)^4
Where H = today's FRW Hubble parameter R^-1dR/dt.
If you use Lp ~ 10^-33 cm Hal's PV gives is off by 122 Powers of Ten. That is a colossal failure compared to GR's colossal success of 10^-14 in the 1916 + 13 pulsar data that won a Nobel Prize!
Hal Puthoff has no solution to this problem in PV. He hand waves it away as he genuflects to ET. :-)
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/thevatic.htm
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/genuflect
I'm doing a comparison of GR and PV and, I'd like to compare it to your
model as well. However, I'm getting mixed input about the radius of an
electron. The Particle Data Group lists it as the classical radius of 2.818
fm. Milonni on the other hand says it is point-like and 10^-2 fm but its
charge is spread out by the interaction with the ZPF to about the Compton
wavelength, ~10^3 fm. The classical radius is "bogus". Do you agree?
Sort of. See above. PV is worthless, a complete waste of time.
1. It violates general coordinate transformation covariance of the dynamical action.
2. It is incompatible with the LOCAL equivalence principle used in GR (e.g. Cartan tetrads).
3. It is seriously incomplete e.g. it cannot describe rotating bodies and the now observed gravimagnetic Lense-Thirring frame drag of the Cartan tetrads.
4. PV fails every experimental test beyond the 3 trivial classic tests in new observations like 1913+16 pulsar where GR works beautifully to a precision of 10^-14!
The above opinion on Hal's PV is the consensus of several top physicists at GR 17
e.g. Cliff Will, Matt Visser, Bill Unruh ...
Since at less than 1/2 the Compton wavelength we get the possibility of e-p
pair creation, this would seem to fit well with your model of the vacuum. So
I'm hoping you can give me some specifics to compare to.
Thank you!
main_engineering
Sunday, December 12, 2004
On M.M.Nieto's historical paper on quantum phase and quantum phase and time operators.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Nieto's discussion starts out a bit loosely at the beginning. For example
U = e^i(phase operator)
by itself is not really a time evolution operator.
For example, given
[P,X] = -ih
Treat P as the operator and a as the c-number
Then
e^iPa/hbar generates the displacement a in the quantum wave Psi(x), i.e.
e^iPa/hbarPsi(x) = Psi(x + a)
Similarly in the momentum Fourier transform space
e^-iXkPsi(p) = Psi(p - hbark)
therefore, treating PHASE as the operator and n' as an integer
e^iPHASEn'Psi(n) = Psi(n + n')
Psi(n) is a basis in Fock space.
Nieto considers quantized phase eigenvalues in the conjugate problem which correspond to things like quantized fluxes for phase difference experiments like the Bohm-Aharonov electron interferometer showing the quantum reality of the connection field even in a region where the "curvature" vanishes! Of course the connection field is only defined locally mod a gauge transformation, or a general coordinate transformation if we are doing "quantum gravity".
Of course, the idea is to use these phase operators in some kind of Hamiltonian when you consider the time evolution - is it unitary or not?
For example in the Josephson and Bohm-Aharonov effects
The Hamiltonian H ~ C12, i.e. the cosine phase difference operator in Nieto's paper.
Is C12 "self-adjoint"?
If not, then there is signal nonlocality in e^Ht/hbar operating on some initial state.
So the math in Nieto's paper is concerned with finding the appropriate phase operators to put into some Hamiltonian.
Nieto is primarily interested in new low photon number experiments, but he does, at the end of his paper come across outside the light cone EPR nonlocal effects. Since I am primarily here interested in the opposite high N limit where is the connection? Also I am interested in off-mass-shell boson electron-positron pair vacuum condensates not the macro-quantum quantum optical states of real photons in laser radiation.
I am saying that the bottom -> up PW Anderson "More is different" emergence of Einstein's c-number general theory of relativity is in the collapse of vacuum phase space volume in the pre->post-inflationary phase transition that creates the Big Bang. Einstein's tetrad-based local c-number field equations then pop out of the ripples in the macro-quantum coherent "holographic universe" c-number phase from the Off-Diagonal-Long-Range Order (ODLRO) in the virtual boson condensate (center of mass coordinates of the virtual electron-positron pairs in a kind of BCS scenario).
So how do the micro-quantum phase operators that Nieto is interested come into this problem? Obviously they describe the exotic vacua "dark energy phases". The 1-sided non-unitarity of the time-evolution U operator generated by quantum phase in the naive attempt to get a self-adjoint phase operator, at the very beginning of Nieto's paper, is here a virtue not a vice. We do not expect unitarity at all here because the macro-quantum vacuum condensate is a reservoir for the outward and inward flow of virtual quanta. That is, the virtual electron and virtual positron bind together inside the vacuum condensate, but they are unbound outside the condensate in a kind of neutral ionized plasma, i.e. usual picture of vacuum polarization zero point fluctuations. Of course, lack of unitarity also implies signal-nonlocality - but you cannot make electromagnetic "clicks" with virtual quanta. So we are saved, as it were, by Bell's theorem, from signal-nonlocality using zero point fluctuations. However, because of the equivalence principle, these same ionized plasma micro-quantum fluctuations do gravitate - and even anti-gravitate as dark energy!
U = e^i(phase operator) = aN^-1/2
N = a*a
a is for the CM degrees of freedom of the virtual electron-positron pair as a boson oscillator
xcm = 2^-1/2[a + a*]
pcm = 2^-1/2[a - a*]
UNU* = N + 1
UU^-1 = 1
But
U^-1U =/= 1
Which is just what the Doctor ordered in our problem of "More is different" emergent creative complexity from spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum (or ground state).
This micro-quantum U is only for exotic vacuum "dark energy" part of our "two fluid" model.
Einstein's cosmological constant is small because most of the large-scale zero point fluctuations are swept under the rug of vacuum coherence.
On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".
GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
That's an order soldier! ;-)
I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.
BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1963 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1963. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.
Violation of cause and effect backwards in time requires nonunitary time evolution.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Nieto's discussion starts out a bit loosely at the beginning. For example
U = e^i(phase operator)
by itself is not really a time evolution operator.
For example, given
[P,X] = -ih
Treat P as the operator and a as the c-number
Then
e^iPa/hbar generates the displacement a in the quantum wave Psi(x), i.e.
e^iPa/hbarPsi(x) = Psi(x + a)
Similarly in the momentum Fourier transform space
e^-iXkPsi(p) = Psi(p - hbark)
therefore, treating PHASE as the operator and n' as an integer
e^iPHASEn'Psi(n) = Psi(n + n')
Psi(n) is a basis in Fock space.
Nieto considers quantized phase eigenvalues in the conjugate problem which correspond to things like quantized fluxes for phase difference experiments like the Bohm-Aharonov electron interferometer showing the quantum reality of the connection field even in a region where the "curvature" vanishes! Of course the connection field is only defined locally mod a gauge transformation, or a general coordinate transformation if we are doing "quantum gravity".
Of course, the idea is to use these phase operators in some kind of Hamiltonian when you consider the time evolution - is it unitary or not?
For example in the Josephson and Bohm-Aharonov effects
The Hamiltonian H ~ C12, i.e. the cosine phase difference operator in Nieto's paper.
Is C12 "self-adjoint"?
If not, then there is signal nonlocality in e^Ht/hbar operating on some initial state.
So the math in Nieto's paper is concerned with finding the appropriate phase operators to put into some Hamiltonian.
Nieto is primarily interested in new low photon number experiments, but he does, at the end of his paper come across outside the light cone EPR nonlocal effects. Since I am primarily here interested in the opposite high N limit where is the connection? Also I am interested in off-mass-shell boson electron-positron pair vacuum condensates not the macro-quantum quantum optical states of real photons in laser radiation.
I am saying that the bottom -> up PW Anderson "More is different" emergence of Einstein's c-number general theory of relativity is in the collapse of vacuum phase space volume in the pre->post-inflationary phase transition that creates the Big Bang. Einstein's tetrad-based local c-number field equations then pop out of the ripples in the macro-quantum coherent "holographic universe" c-number phase from the Off-Diagonal-Long-Range Order (ODLRO) in the virtual boson condensate (center of mass coordinates of the virtual electron-positron pairs in a kind of BCS scenario).
So how do the micro-quantum phase operators that Nieto is interested come into this problem? Obviously they describe the exotic vacua "dark energy phases". The 1-sided non-unitarity of the time-evolution U operator generated by quantum phase in the naive attempt to get a self-adjoint phase operator, at the very beginning of Nieto's paper, is here a virtue not a vice. We do not expect unitarity at all here because the macro-quantum vacuum condensate is a reservoir for the outward and inward flow of virtual quanta. That is, the virtual electron and virtual positron bind together inside the vacuum condensate, but they are unbound outside the condensate in a kind of neutral ionized plasma, i.e. usual picture of vacuum polarization zero point fluctuations. Of course, lack of unitarity also implies signal-nonlocality - but you cannot make electromagnetic "clicks" with virtual quanta. So we are saved, as it were, by Bell's theorem, from signal-nonlocality using zero point fluctuations. However, because of the equivalence principle, these same ionized plasma micro-quantum fluctuations do gravitate - and even anti-gravitate as dark energy!
U = e^i(phase operator) = aN^-1/2
N = a*a
a is for the CM degrees of freedom of the virtual electron-positron pair as a boson oscillator
xcm = 2^-1/2[a + a*]
pcm = 2^-1/2[a - a*]
UNU* = N + 1
UU^-1 = 1
But
U^-1U =/= 1
Which is just what the Doctor ordered in our problem of "More is different" emergent creative complexity from spontaneous symmetry breakdown in the vacuum (or ground state).
This micro-quantum U is only for exotic vacuum "dark energy" part of our "two fluid" model.
Einstein's cosmological constant is small because most of the large-scale zero point fluctuations are swept under the rug of vacuum coherence.
On Dec 12, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".
GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
That's an order soldier! ;-)
I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.
BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1963 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1963. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.
Violation of cause and effect backwards in time requires nonunitary time evolution.
Jack Sarfatti and Leonard Susskind at Cornell 1962
On Dec 12, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".
GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
That's an order soldier! ;-)
I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.
BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1962 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1962. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker"."
Yes, exactly. The probability of your success is ZERO. Meantime there are many more interesting problems and you are wasting your time completely - other than sharpening my pedagogy in how to write about relativity in my books, which is why I kept at this. No one responded to you because most of them cannot understand what your point is, and those that do think you are off your rocker. This includes Alex who does not agree with you. Puthoff's PV is also inconsistent with the LOCAL equivalence principle Visser et-al agreed. Even Hal's colleague Ibison agrees since he wrote no GCT in PV. But Hal at least has a real theory that can be falsified and has. You have nothing but words with unfulfilled promises of a proof. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html ;-)
Meantime read that Nieto paper linked below if you want some interesting lessons in publish or perish. Also the physics is important. One can see how my first interest led to what I am doing now on deriving Einstein's GR from the macro-quantum vacuum phase - as well as my paper with Stoneham at Harwell on Goldstone theorem in 1966 on emergent order. Also PW Anderson's role is interesting synchronicity. Nieto's paper is very interesting both in terms of the history (my role) and the physics.
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
To Martin Nieto
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum phase operator at Cornell: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Date: December 11, 2004 8:52:33 PM PST
PS You also make the comment that I added an i to my name. That is not true. My family name is "Sarfatti".My father's name is Hyman Sarfatti. Our Sarfatti cousins were largely responsible for Benito Mussolini coming to power as told in the book by CIA historians P. V. Cannistraro & B.R. Sullivan "Il Duce's Other Woman" (W. Morrow, 1993). Because of that fact my mother left the "i" off my birth certificate on Sept 14, 1939 when war was obviously coming and the association with Mussolini was not wise.. My father officially restored the "i" to my birth certificate in 1974 with the Department of Records in Brooklyn, New York. In any case "Sarfatti" is my birthright. My real identity was hidden as a child of WWII.
On Dec 11, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
To Martin Nieto
Hi Martin
re: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036 I have just come across this for first time in 2004.
I never received the 1968 letter Peter Carruthers wrote to me mentioned in your historical review of the history of quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1963-4. If it was 1968 I was at both UCSD physics department and also teaching at San Diego State. At least I do not remember it. If Carruthers received a reply from me I would like to see it.
Thanks
Jack Sarfatti
:-)
"Also as I was a student at the time it was more important for me to receive my proper share of the credit for a paper that proved to be important than for Carruthers - addressing myself to Carruthers remark that you cited. Note that I also participated as equal co-author in another important paper on spontaneous symmetry breakdown in solid state physics 1966 that is cited in APS Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics with A.M. Stoneham on the Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London."
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Newton's "gravity force" is replaced by Einstein's "gravity force without force".
On Dec 11, 2004, at 5:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"Do you think I ever denied that my model is inconsistent with Einstein equivalence? Of course it is."
I am glad you admit that. Ipso facto you are off your rocker!
On Dec 12, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker".
Indeed, Paul your writing "the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been" says it all. It is very revealing. You have not connected the dots properly. You are missing what Michael Polyani calls "tacit knowing" a kind of subconscious heuristic probably connected with "signal nonlocality" - what Bierman measures as "presponse".
GODD (I.J. Good's version of P.K. Dick's VALIS) is subtle but not malicious and moves in strange ways such as my discovery of Martin Nieto's 1993 paper from Los Alamos describing my role with Lenny Susskind and Johnny Glogower (who I brought to Cornell) in the discovery of the C & S operators for micro-quantum phase.
Click NOW on the very important http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
That's an order soldier! ;-)
I am now able to look on the first really important problem I worked 40 years ago with a new perspective! The issue is what the nonunitarity of the time evolution operator for quantum phase is really telling us - especially in the macro-quantum case of spontaneous broken ground state symmetry with the Goldstone phase and the Higgs field that controls the dark energy of the universe! "Signal nonlocality" is the clue. More on that anon.
BTW Nieto's history is incomplete. I was also working on the quantum phase operator problem BEFORE returning to Cornell in the Autumn of 1962 when, with Phil Morrison's help, I brought Johnny Glogower with me and rightaway "The Three Stooges" Lenny Susskind, Johnny and me became a team. We were all equally dysfunctional megalomaniacs who complimented each other with the whole greater than the sum of its parts. I had been in George Parrent's Jr Tech/Ops group on spy satellites, either NSA or CIA, in a building shared with Mitre on Route 2, Burlington, Mass in early 1962. George was a student of Emil Wolf's and we also spent a lot of time in the Boston University physics department. Roy Glauber was developing quantum coherence theory at Harvard and George assigned me to learn all that stuff to develop the quantum version of Wolf's classical partial coherence theory. Also lasers were still in their infancy right then. George was more a hands on guy and I was his resident boy genius theorist. They did not want me to leave Tech/Ops and go back to Cornell. I was guaranteed a fast PhD at BU if I stayed and high pay in defense work. But then I never would have met Lenny Susskind. Indeed, Carruthers probably posed the problem because of me. I think Nieto put the cart before the horse.
On Dec 12, 2004, at 1:51 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"This pretty much sums up Jack's position: any person who proposes an interpretation of GR that is not fully consistent with the Einstein equivalence hypothesis -- whatever that may have been -- is "ipso facto off his rocker"."
Yes, exactly. The probability of your success is ZERO. Meantime there are many more interesting problems and you are wasting your time completely - other than sharpening my pedagogy in how to write about relativity in my books, which is why I kept at this. No one responded to you because most of them cannot understand what your point is, and those that do think you are off your rocker. This includes Alex who does not agree with you. Puthoff's PV is also inconsistent with the LOCAL equivalence principle Visser et-al agreed. Even Hal's colleague Ibison agrees since he wrote no GCT in PV. But Hal at least has a real theory that can be falsified and has. You have nothing but words with unfulfilled promises of a proof. Who do you think you are? Ed Witten?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html ;-)
Meantime read that Nieto paper linked below if you want some interesting lessons in publish or perish. Also the physics is important. One can see how my first interest led to what I am doing now on deriving Einstein's GR from the macro-quantum vacuum phase - as well as my paper with Stoneham at Harwell on Goldstone theorem in 1966 on emergent order. Also PW Anderson's role is interesting synchronicity. Nieto's paper is very interesting both in terms of the history (my role) and the physics.
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
To Martin Nieto
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum phase operator at Cornell: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036
Date: December 11, 2004 8:52:33 PM PST
PS You also make the comment that I added an i to my name. That is not true. My family name is "Sarfatti".My father's name is Hyman Sarfatti. Our Sarfatti cousins were largely responsible for Benito Mussolini coming to power as told in the book by CIA historians P. V. Cannistraro & B.R. Sullivan "Il Duce's Other Woman" (W. Morrow, 1993). Because of that fact my mother left the "i" off my birth certificate on Sept 14, 1939 when war was obviously coming and the association with Mussolini was not wise.. My father officially restored the "i" to my birth certificate in 1974 with the Department of Records in Brooklyn, New York. In any case "Sarfatti" is my birthright. My real identity was hidden as a child of WWII.
On Dec 11, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
To Martin Nieto
Hi Martin
re: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036 I have just come across this for first time in 2004.
I never received the 1968 letter Peter Carruthers wrote to me mentioned in your historical review of the history of quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1963-4. If it was 1968 I was at both UCSD physics department and also teaching at San Diego State. At least I do not remember it. If Carruthers received a reply from me I would like to see it.
Thanks
Jack Sarfatti
:-)
"Also as I was a student at the time it was more important for me to receive my proper share of the credit for a paper that proved to be important than for Carruthers - addressing myself to Carruthers remark that you cited. Note that I also participated as equal co-author in another important paper on spontaneous symmetry breakdown in solid state physics 1966 that is cited in APS Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics with A.M. Stoneham on the Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London."
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Newton's "gravity force" is replaced by Einstein's "gravity force without force".
On Dec 11, 2004, at 5:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"Do you think I ever denied that my model is inconsistent with Einstein equivalence? Of course it is."
I am glad you admit that. Ipso facto you are off your rocker!
Saturday, December 11, 2004
String theory: Good, Bad and Bogus
Part 1
Commentary on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html
Words written by Dennis Overbye are between quote marks.
"a single equation that could explain all the laws of physics, all the forces of nature - the proverbial 'theory of everything'" ?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Physicists, like Dr. Robert Park, use a double standard not applying the same rules of engagement to fashionable elegant string theory as they do to flying saucers, the paranormal and cold fusion.
http://www.archivefreedom.org/
"And so emerged into the limelight a strange new concept of nature, called string theory, so named because it depicts the basic constituents of the universe as tiny wriggling strings, not point particles. ... By uniting all the forces, string theory had the potential of achieving the goal that Einstein sought without success for half his life and that has embodied the dreams of every physicist since then. If true, it could be used like a searchlight to illuminate some of the deepest mysteries physicists can imagine, like the origin of space and time in the Big Bang and the putative death of space and time at the infinitely dense centers of black holes. ... In the last 20 years, string theory has become a major branch of physics. Physicists and mathematicians conversant in strings are courted and recruited like star quarterbacks by universities eager to establish their research credentials. String theory has been celebrated and explained in best-selling books like "The Elegant Universe," by Dr. Brian Greene, a physicist at Columbia University, and even on popular television shows."
'Let them eat cake' said Marie Antoinette shortly before she was guillotined.
"even as they ate cake and drank wine, the string theorists admitted that after 20 years, they still did not know how to test string theory, or even what it meant."
Note "or even what it meant." Mainstream theoretical physics today is in a sorry state. Not so for experimental physics.
"As a result, the goal of explaining all the features of the modern world is as far away as ever, they say. And some physicists outside the string theory camp are growing restive. At another meeting, at the Aspen Institute for Humanities, only a few days before the string commemoration, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, called string theory 'a colossal failure.'"
Brian Greene got a few million dollars advance for his book. The big corporations have a vested interest in this hype that can be compared to "WMD in Iraq."
"String theorists agree that it has been a long, strange trip, but they still have faith that they will complete the journey."
The fusion of science and religion on the heels of the fusion of Church and State?
"Twenty years ago no one would have correctly predicted how string theory has since developed," said Dr. Andrew Strominger of Harvard. 'There is disappointment that despite all our efforts, experimental verification or disproof still seems far away. On the other hand, the depth and beauty of the subject, and the way it has reached out, influenced and connected other areas of physics and mathematics, is beyond the wildest imaginations of 20 years ago.' In a way, the story of string theory and of the physicists who have followed its siren song for two decades is like a novel that begins with the classic "what if?" What if the basic constituents of nature and matter were not little points, as had been presumed since the time of the Greeks? What if the seeds of reality were rather teeny tiny wiggly little bits of string? And what appear to be different particles like electrons and quarks merely correspond to different ways for the strings to vibrate, different notes on God's guitar?"
"I'll play the music on my guitar, yes!" Rossini, The Barber of Seville.
"That would explain why you cannot have a single quark you cannot have a string with only one end. Strings seduced many physicists with their mathematical elegance, but they had some problems, like requiring 26 dimensions and a plethora of mysterious particles that did not seem to have anything to do with quarks or the strong force."
You need the extra space dimensions because string theory violates signal locality in Einstein's original 4D curved spacetime. That is, final causes after their effects are possible in plain vanilla 4D string theory with topology change. Of course, this is exactly what the UFO and paranormal evidence is telling us along with "presponse" experiments by Dick Bierman and others. Then there is also the "Intelligent Design" controversy. What is bad and bogus for string theorists is good for UFO, paranormal and consciousness researchers. One man's meat is another man's poison.
"When accelerator experiments supported an alternative theory of quark behavior known as quantum chromodynamics, most physicists consigned strings to the dustbin of history. But some theorists thought the mathematics of strings was too beautiful to die. In 1974 Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Joel Scherk from the École Normale Supérieure in France noticed that one of the mysterious particles predicted by string theory had the properties predicted for the graviton, the particle that would be responsible for transmitting gravity in a quantum theory of gravity, if such a theory existed."
This pyrrhic victory has been trumpeted as a great triumph showing the power of fantasy in the minds of string theorists. Einstein's gravity is not renormalizable as a quantum field theory which strongly suggests that it should not be quantized top -> down like electro-weak dynamic and chromodynamics. Indeed, Andrei Sakharov suggested that Einstein's gravity emerges bottom -> up as a collective phenomenon just like the elasticity in crystals. P.W. Anderson has since formalized this idea as "More is different." Furthermore all current tests for grainy "quantum gravity foam" that should show dispersion in the high energy gamma rays from outer space have been null. That is, there is no evidence for the equation
E^2 = [(pc)^2 + mc^2]/[1 + (pc/mPc^2)^2]
where mP is the Planck mass for the quantum gravity graininess of Einstein'sw spacetime geometrodynamics.
Note that the high energy limit of this equation is
E -> mPc^2 ~ 10^-5 grams c^2 ~ 10^16 ergs ~ 10^9 Joules ~ 10^28 electron volts
implying a maximal acceleration of
a_max = c^2/LP ~ 10^21/10^-33 ~ 10^54 cm/sec^2 ~ 10^51g
But, so far, no evidence supports this idea. If my theory of the emergence of Einstein's gravity of MACRO-QUANTUM curved spacetime from the PARTIAL cohering of the micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuations in the BCS unstable massless pre-inflationary globally flat false conformal vacuum is correct, there is no quantum foam in principle.
The BCS type energy gap Egap of "quasiparticle excitations" of the non-perturbative background-independent MACRO-QUANTUM vacuum condensate of virtual electron-hole pairs bound by virtual photons near the E = 0 Fermi energy of the pre-inflationay false vacuum obeys
E^2 = (pc)^2 + Egap^2
Egap ~ (Debye energy of edge of Fermi surface)e^-1/Vrho(0)
V is the attractive static potential energy between the virtual electron-hole (hole = positron) pair from a single virtual photon exchange. rho(0) is the density of Dirac's negative energy virtual electron states at the edge per unit energy.
The Einstein-Cartan tetrads eu^a derive from the MACRO-QUANTUM COHERENT WORLD HOLOGRAM phase of the LOCAL PARTIAL VACUUM COHERENCE "More is different" "order parameter".
guv = eu^anabev^b = nuv + (1/2)Lp^2(PHASE OF VACUUM COHERENCE){,u,v}
= nuv + (1/2)[Eu,v + Ev,u)
{ } is symmetrizer (i.e. anti-commutator) with ,u ordinary partial derivatives in a local coordinate patch of the manifold.
eu^a = &u^a + Eu^a
&u,^a = Kronecker-Delta i.e. 1 if u = a, 0 if u =/= a
Eu = Eu^a,a = Lp^2(PHASE OF VACUUM COHERENCE),u
This equation is the analog to the deBroglie-Bohm guidance equation of IT by BIT for a quantum liquid. Here we have an ELASTIC ODLRO "quantum solid" that I introduced into physics in 1966-67 in Physics Letters A on "Super Solids" in Helium when I was on the physics faculty of San Diego State and the creator of the National Science Foundation Summer School in Superfluid Physics and Lasers for College Teachers at San Diego State (1969 & 1970) that I ran with Herschel Snodgrass. The faculty included F.W. Cummings and Jim Johnston.
The QUANTUM OF AREA Lp^2 = hG/c^3 ensures Hawking's (also Bekenstein, Susskind, t'Hooft)
Entropy of Volume of Space = (Bounding Area of Volume)/4Lp^2
Space-time physics is local because the macro-quantum order parameter is local. This same locality ensures that the early post-Big Bang universe after the inflationary vacuum phase transition has low entropy so that the Arrow of Time for the irreversible processes of the Second Law of Thermodynamics points in the same "direction" as the presently accelerating expansion of the 3D space of our universe from residual w = -1 zero point dark energy of negative quantum pressure. Hawking's blackhole entropy formula is automatically obeyed. That is considered a triumph of string theory. It's no big deal really. Sorry for stealing string theorist's thunder and upstaging them, but as Ludwig Boltzmann said "Elegance is for tailors". Not that this new way of connecting the cosmic dots is not elegant to the max. :-)
That is, the pre -> post inflationary Big Bang phase transition collapses the phase space volume of the "ground state" and the "entropy" is ~ kBlog(Phase Space Volume). This same collapse of ground state phase space volume always accompanies "More is different" emergence of qualitatively CREATIVE new order, AKA "spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry".
"These are the phenomena"
Dennis Overbye wrote:
"It was another 10 years before Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Green (Dr. Scherk died in 1980) finally hit pay dirt. They showed that it was possible to write down a string theory of everything that was not only mathematically consistent but also free of certain absurdities, like the violation of cause and effect, that had plagued earlier quantum gravity calculations."
Of course we "fringe" physicists who study UFOs, the paranormal and consciousness are struck by the real evidence for the violation of cause and effect! We do not consider the "signal nonlocality" of 4D string theory and quantum gravity to be absurd at all. But we do consider, perhaps, these extra space dimensions, that Roger Penrose says are "unstable" to be an abomination! Schwarz and Green's results are, perhaps a cure that is much worse than the disease. A disease that has been misdiagnosed. Antony Valentini has shown how quantum theory can be tweaked a tiny bit to have the violation of cause and effect. Henry Stapp showed how that generalized quantum theory with signal nonlocality can explain paranormal data. Stapp, a professor at UC Berkeley was burned at the stake in the scathing pages of Physics Today for a paper he managed to get published in Physical Review A on "General Physics". "Never again!" said Robert Park.
"In the summer and fall of 1984, as word of the achievement spread, physicists around the Year?” world left what they were doing and stormed their blackboards, visions of the Einsteinian grail of a unified theory dancing in their heads."
This is a scene out of Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" at the Academy of Laputa where "to get sunbeams from cucumbers they've a plan and they'll set The Thames on fire if they can" (Princess Ida, Gilbert and Sullivan "These are the phenomena".
"String theory is certainly one of the most musical explanations ever offered for nature, but it is not for the untrained ear. For one thing, the modern version of the theory decreed that there are 10 dimensions of space and time. To explain to ordinary mortals why the world appears to have only four dimensions - one of time and three of space -string theorists adopted a notion first bruited by the German mathematicians Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein in 1926. The extra six dimensions, they said, go around in sub-submicroscopic loops, so tiny that people cannot see them or store old National Geographics in them. A simple example, the story goes, is a garden hose. Seen from afar, it is a simple line across the grass, but up close it has a circular cross section. An ant on the hose can go around it as well as travel along its length. To envision the world as seen by string theory, one only has to imagine a tiny, tiny six-dimensional ball at every point in space-time."
Curiously, Gennady Shipov's torsion theory has 6 extra anholonomic space dimensions from locally gauging the Cartan tetrad Lorentz group rotations. But they are not all curled up.
"One of string theory's biggest triumphs has come in the study of black holes. In Einstein's general relativity, these objects are bottomless pits in space-time, voraciously swallowing everything, even light, that gets too close, but in string theory they are a dense tangle of strings and membranes. In a prodigious calculation in 1995, Dr. Strominger and Dr. Cumrun Vafa, both of Harvard, were able to calculate the information content of a black hole, matching a famous result obtained by Dr. Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University using more indirect means in 1973. Their calculation is viewed by many people as the most important result yet in string theory Another success, Dr. Greene and others said, was the discovery that the shape, or topology, of space, is not fixed but can change, according to string theory. Space can even rip and tear. But the scorecard is mixed when it comes to other areas of physics. So far, for example, string theory has had little to say about what might have happened at the instant of the Big Bang.. Moreover, the theory seems to have too many solutions. One of the biggest dreams that physicists had for the so-called theory of everything was that it would specify a unique prescription of nature, one in which God had no choice, as Einstein once put it, about details like the number of dimensions or the relative masses of elementary particles. But recently theorists have estimated that there could be at least 10^100 different solutions to the string equations, corresponding to different ways of folding up the extra dimensions and filling them with fields - gazillions of different possible universes. Some theorists, including Dr. Witten, hold fast to the Einsteinian dream, hoping that a unique answer to the string equations will emerge when they finally figure out what all this 21st-century physics is trying to tell them about the world. But that day is still far away ... For years physicists have looked for the origins of string theory in some sort of deep and esoteric symmetry, but string theory has turned out to be weirder than that. Recently it has painted a picture of nature as a kind of hologram. In the holographic images often seen on bank cards, the illusion of three dimensions is created on a two-dimensional surface. Likewise string theory suggests that in nature all the information about what is happening inside some volume of space is somehow encoded on its outer boundary ... Just how and why a three-dimensional reality can spring from just two dimensions, or four dimensions can unfold from three, is as baffling to people like Dr. Witten as it probably is to someone reading about it in a newspaper. In effect, as Dr. Witten put it, an extra dimension of space can mysteriously appear out of 'nothing.' ... Our own universe may be a four dimensional brane floating in some higher-dimensional space, like a bubble in a fish tank, perhaps with other branes •parallel universes - nearby. Collisions or other interactions between the branes might have touched off the Big Bang that started our own cosmic clock ticking or could produce the dark energy that now seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, they say."
I have a simpler explanation of the dark energy as residual zero point energy of negative pressure that is not totally absorbed into the coherent giant quantum vacuum wave out of which Einstein's curved spacetime springs emergent like a song on FM cosmic radio - God's Talk Reality Show.
"Critics of string theory, meanwhile, have been keeping their own scorecard. The most glaring omission is the lack of any experimental evidence for strings or even a single experimental prediction that could prove string theory wrong - the acid test of the scientific process."
This is precisely Richard Feynman's definition of "Cargo Cult Pseudo-Science. Paranormal research, flying saucers and cold fusion are better than string theory in that regard. You do not see any Big Professors at the Institute for Advanced Studies on those topics. I mean not the one in Princeton. How come PSICOP is not attacking the string theorists as beyond the "fringe"? Why the double standard?
"Dr. Harvey of Chicago said he sometimes woke up thinking, What am I doing spending my whole career on something that can't be tested experimentally? This disparity between theoretical speculation and testable reality has led some critics to suggest that string theory is as much philosophy as science, and that it has diverted the attention and energy of a generation of physicists from other perhaps more worthy pursuits. Others say the theory itself is still too vague and that some promising ideas have not been proved rigorously enough yet. Dr. Krauss said, 'We bemoan the fact that Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life on a fruitless quest, but we think it's fine if a thousand theorists spend 30 years of their prime on the same quest.'"
Part 1
Commentary on http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/science/07stri.html
Words written by Dennis Overbye are between quote marks.
"a single equation that could explain all the laws of physics, all the forces of nature - the proverbial 'theory of everything'" ?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Physicists, like Dr. Robert Park, use a double standard not applying the same rules of engagement to fashionable elegant string theory as they do to flying saucers, the paranormal and cold fusion.
http://www.archivefreedom.org/
"And so emerged into the limelight a strange new concept of nature, called string theory, so named because it depicts the basic constituents of the universe as tiny wriggling strings, not point particles. ... By uniting all the forces, string theory had the potential of achieving the goal that Einstein sought without success for half his life and that has embodied the dreams of every physicist since then. If true, it could be used like a searchlight to illuminate some of the deepest mysteries physicists can imagine, like the origin of space and time in the Big Bang and the putative death of space and time at the infinitely dense centers of black holes. ... In the last 20 years, string theory has become a major branch of physics. Physicists and mathematicians conversant in strings are courted and recruited like star quarterbacks by universities eager to establish their research credentials. String theory has been celebrated and explained in best-selling books like "The Elegant Universe," by Dr. Brian Greene, a physicist at Columbia University, and even on popular television shows."
'Let them eat cake' said Marie Antoinette shortly before she was guillotined.
"even as they ate cake and drank wine, the string theorists admitted that after 20 years, they still did not know how to test string theory, or even what it meant."
Note "or even what it meant." Mainstream theoretical physics today is in a sorry state. Not so for experimental physics.
"As a result, the goal of explaining all the features of the modern world is as far away as ever, they say. And some physicists outside the string theory camp are growing restive. At another meeting, at the Aspen Institute for Humanities, only a few days before the string commemoration, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, called string theory 'a colossal failure.'"
Brian Greene got a few million dollars advance for his book. The big corporations have a vested interest in this hype that can be compared to "WMD in Iraq."
"String theorists agree that it has been a long, strange trip, but they still have faith that they will complete the journey."
The fusion of science and religion on the heels of the fusion of Church and State?
"Twenty years ago no one would have correctly predicted how string theory has since developed," said Dr. Andrew Strominger of Harvard. 'There is disappointment that despite all our efforts, experimental verification or disproof still seems far away. On the other hand, the depth and beauty of the subject, and the way it has reached out, influenced and connected other areas of physics and mathematics, is beyond the wildest imaginations of 20 years ago.' In a way, the story of string theory and of the physicists who have followed its siren song for two decades is like a novel that begins with the classic "what if?" What if the basic constituents of nature and matter were not little points, as had been presumed since the time of the Greeks? What if the seeds of reality were rather teeny tiny wiggly little bits of string? And what appear to be different particles like electrons and quarks merely correspond to different ways for the strings to vibrate, different notes on God's guitar?"
"I'll play the music on my guitar, yes!" Rossini, The Barber of Seville.
"That would explain why you cannot have a single quark you cannot have a string with only one end. Strings seduced many physicists with their mathematical elegance, but they had some problems, like requiring 26 dimensions and a plethora of mysterious particles that did not seem to have anything to do with quarks or the strong force."
You need the extra space dimensions because string theory violates signal locality in Einstein's original 4D curved spacetime. That is, final causes after their effects are possible in plain vanilla 4D string theory with topology change. Of course, this is exactly what the UFO and paranormal evidence is telling us along with "presponse" experiments by Dick Bierman and others. Then there is also the "Intelligent Design" controversy. What is bad and bogus for string theorists is good for UFO, paranormal and consciousness researchers. One man's meat is another man's poison.
"When accelerator experiments supported an alternative theory of quark behavior known as quantum chromodynamics, most physicists consigned strings to the dustbin of history. But some theorists thought the mathematics of strings was too beautiful to die. In 1974 Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Joel Scherk from the École Normale Supérieure in France noticed that one of the mysterious particles predicted by string theory had the properties predicted for the graviton, the particle that would be responsible for transmitting gravity in a quantum theory of gravity, if such a theory existed."
This pyrrhic victory has been trumpeted as a great triumph showing the power of fantasy in the minds of string theorists. Einstein's gravity is not renormalizable as a quantum field theory which strongly suggests that it should not be quantized top -> down like electro-weak dynamic and chromodynamics. Indeed, Andrei Sakharov suggested that Einstein's gravity emerges bottom -> up as a collective phenomenon just like the elasticity in crystals. P.W. Anderson has since formalized this idea as "More is different." Furthermore all current tests for grainy "quantum gravity foam" that should show dispersion in the high energy gamma rays from outer space have been null. That is, there is no evidence for the equation
E^2 = [(pc)^2 + mc^2]/[1 + (pc/mPc^2)^2]
where mP is the Planck mass for the quantum gravity graininess of Einstein'sw spacetime geometrodynamics.
Note that the high energy limit of this equation is
E -> mPc^2 ~ 10^-5 grams c^2 ~ 10^16 ergs ~ 10^9 Joules ~ 10^28 electron volts
implying a maximal acceleration of
a_max = c^2/LP ~ 10^21/10^-33 ~ 10^54 cm/sec^2 ~ 10^51g
But, so far, no evidence supports this idea. If my theory of the emergence of Einstein's gravity of MACRO-QUANTUM curved spacetime from the PARTIAL cohering of the micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuations in the BCS unstable massless pre-inflationary globally flat false conformal vacuum is correct, there is no quantum foam in principle.
The BCS type energy gap Egap of "quasiparticle excitations" of the non-perturbative background-independent MACRO-QUANTUM vacuum condensate of virtual electron-hole pairs bound by virtual photons near the E = 0 Fermi energy of the pre-inflationay false vacuum obeys
E^2 = (pc)^2 + Egap^2
Egap ~ (Debye energy of edge of Fermi surface)e^-1/Vrho(0)
V is the attractive static potential energy between the virtual electron-hole (hole = positron) pair from a single virtual photon exchange. rho(0) is the density of Dirac's negative energy virtual electron states at the edge per unit energy.
The Einstein-Cartan tetrads eu^a derive from the MACRO-QUANTUM COHERENT WORLD HOLOGRAM phase of the LOCAL PARTIAL VACUUM COHERENCE "More is different" "order parameter".
guv = eu^anabev^b = nuv + (1/2)Lp^2(PHASE OF VACUUM COHERENCE){,u,v}
= nuv + (1/2)[Eu,v + Ev,u)
{ } is symmetrizer (i.e. anti-commutator) with ,u ordinary partial derivatives in a local coordinate patch of the manifold.
eu^a = &u^a + Eu^a
&u,^a = Kronecker-Delta i.e. 1 if u = a, 0 if u =/= a
Eu = Eu^a,a = Lp^2(PHASE OF VACUUM COHERENCE),u
This equation is the analog to the deBroglie-Bohm guidance equation of IT by BIT for a quantum liquid. Here we have an ELASTIC ODLRO "quantum solid" that I introduced into physics in 1966-67 in Physics Letters A on "Super Solids" in Helium when I was on the physics faculty of San Diego State and the creator of the National Science Foundation Summer School in Superfluid Physics and Lasers for College Teachers at San Diego State (1969 & 1970) that I ran with Herschel Snodgrass. The faculty included F.W. Cummings and Jim Johnston.
The QUANTUM OF AREA Lp^2 = hG/c^3 ensures Hawking's (also Bekenstein, Susskind, t'Hooft)
Entropy of Volume of Space = (Bounding Area of Volume)/4Lp^2
Space-time physics is local because the macro-quantum order parameter is local. This same locality ensures that the early post-Big Bang universe after the inflationary vacuum phase transition has low entropy so that the Arrow of Time for the irreversible processes of the Second Law of Thermodynamics points in the same "direction" as the presently accelerating expansion of the 3D space of our universe from residual w = -1 zero point dark energy of negative quantum pressure. Hawking's blackhole entropy formula is automatically obeyed. That is considered a triumph of string theory. It's no big deal really. Sorry for stealing string theorist's thunder and upstaging them, but as Ludwig Boltzmann said "Elegance is for tailors". Not that this new way of connecting the cosmic dots is not elegant to the max. :-)
That is, the pre -> post inflationary Big Bang phase transition collapses the phase space volume of the "ground state" and the "entropy" is ~ kBlog(Phase Space Volume). This same collapse of ground state phase space volume always accompanies "More is different" emergence of qualitatively CREATIVE new order, AKA "spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry".
"These are the phenomena"
Dennis Overbye wrote:
"It was another 10 years before Dr. Schwarz and Dr. Green (Dr. Scherk died in 1980) finally hit pay dirt. They showed that it was possible to write down a string theory of everything that was not only mathematically consistent but also free of certain absurdities, like the violation of cause and effect, that had plagued earlier quantum gravity calculations."
Of course we "fringe" physicists who study UFOs, the paranormal and consciousness are struck by the real evidence for the violation of cause and effect! We do not consider the "signal nonlocality" of 4D string theory and quantum gravity to be absurd at all. But we do consider, perhaps, these extra space dimensions, that Roger Penrose says are "unstable" to be an abomination! Schwarz and Green's results are, perhaps a cure that is much worse than the disease. A disease that has been misdiagnosed. Antony Valentini has shown how quantum theory can be tweaked a tiny bit to have the violation of cause and effect. Henry Stapp showed how that generalized quantum theory with signal nonlocality can explain paranormal data. Stapp, a professor at UC Berkeley was burned at the stake in the scathing pages of Physics Today for a paper he managed to get published in Physical Review A on "General Physics". "Never again!" said Robert Park.
"In the summer and fall of 1984, as word of the achievement spread, physicists around the Year?” world left what they were doing and stormed their blackboards, visions of the Einsteinian grail of a unified theory dancing in their heads."
This is a scene out of Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" at the Academy of Laputa where "to get sunbeams from cucumbers they've a plan and they'll set The Thames on fire if they can" (Princess Ida, Gilbert and Sullivan "These are the phenomena".
"String theory is certainly one of the most musical explanations ever offered for nature, but it is not for the untrained ear. For one thing, the modern version of the theory decreed that there are 10 dimensions of space and time. To explain to ordinary mortals why the world appears to have only four dimensions - one of time and three of space -string theorists adopted a notion first bruited by the German mathematicians Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein in 1926. The extra six dimensions, they said, go around in sub-submicroscopic loops, so tiny that people cannot see them or store old National Geographics in them. A simple example, the story goes, is a garden hose. Seen from afar, it is a simple line across the grass, but up close it has a circular cross section. An ant on the hose can go around it as well as travel along its length. To envision the world as seen by string theory, one only has to imagine a tiny, tiny six-dimensional ball at every point in space-time."
Curiously, Gennady Shipov's torsion theory has 6 extra anholonomic space dimensions from locally gauging the Cartan tetrad Lorentz group rotations. But they are not all curled up.
"One of string theory's biggest triumphs has come in the study of black holes. In Einstein's general relativity, these objects are bottomless pits in space-time, voraciously swallowing everything, even light, that gets too close, but in string theory they are a dense tangle of strings and membranes. In a prodigious calculation in 1995, Dr. Strominger and Dr. Cumrun Vafa, both of Harvard, were able to calculate the information content of a black hole, matching a famous result obtained by Dr. Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University using more indirect means in 1973. Their calculation is viewed by many people as the most important result yet in string theory Another success, Dr. Greene and others said, was the discovery that the shape, or topology, of space, is not fixed but can change, according to string theory. Space can even rip and tear. But the scorecard is mixed when it comes to other areas of physics. So far, for example, string theory has had little to say about what might have happened at the instant of the Big Bang.. Moreover, the theory seems to have too many solutions. One of the biggest dreams that physicists had for the so-called theory of everything was that it would specify a unique prescription of nature, one in which God had no choice, as Einstein once put it, about details like the number of dimensions or the relative masses of elementary particles. But recently theorists have estimated that there could be at least 10^100 different solutions to the string equations, corresponding to different ways of folding up the extra dimensions and filling them with fields - gazillions of different possible universes. Some theorists, including Dr. Witten, hold fast to the Einsteinian dream, hoping that a unique answer to the string equations will emerge when they finally figure out what all this 21st-century physics is trying to tell them about the world. But that day is still far away ... For years physicists have looked for the origins of string theory in some sort of deep and esoteric symmetry, but string theory has turned out to be weirder than that. Recently it has painted a picture of nature as a kind of hologram. In the holographic images often seen on bank cards, the illusion of three dimensions is created on a two-dimensional surface. Likewise string theory suggests that in nature all the information about what is happening inside some volume of space is somehow encoded on its outer boundary ... Just how and why a three-dimensional reality can spring from just two dimensions, or four dimensions can unfold from three, is as baffling to people like Dr. Witten as it probably is to someone reading about it in a newspaper. In effect, as Dr. Witten put it, an extra dimension of space can mysteriously appear out of 'nothing.' ... Our own universe may be a four dimensional brane floating in some higher-dimensional space, like a bubble in a fish tank, perhaps with other branes •parallel universes - nearby. Collisions or other interactions between the branes might have touched off the Big Bang that started our own cosmic clock ticking or could produce the dark energy that now seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe, they say."
I have a simpler explanation of the dark energy as residual zero point energy of negative pressure that is not totally absorbed into the coherent giant quantum vacuum wave out of which Einstein's curved spacetime springs emergent like a song on FM cosmic radio - God's Talk Reality Show.
"Critics of string theory, meanwhile, have been keeping their own scorecard. The most glaring omission is the lack of any experimental evidence for strings or even a single experimental prediction that could prove string theory wrong - the acid test of the scientific process."
This is precisely Richard Feynman's definition of "Cargo Cult Pseudo-Science. Paranormal research, flying saucers and cold fusion are better than string theory in that regard. You do not see any Big Professors at the Institute for Advanced Studies on those topics. I mean not the one in Princeton. How come PSICOP is not attacking the string theorists as beyond the "fringe"? Why the double standard?
"Dr. Harvey of Chicago said he sometimes woke up thinking, What am I doing spending my whole career on something that can't be tested experimentally? This disparity between theoretical speculation and testable reality has led some critics to suggest that string theory is as much philosophy as science, and that it has diverted the attention and energy of a generation of physicists from other perhaps more worthy pursuits. Others say the theory itself is still too vague and that some promising ideas have not been proved rigorously enough yet. Dr. Krauss said, 'We bemoan the fact that Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life on a fruitless quest, but we think it's fine if a thousand theorists spend 30 years of their prime on the same quest.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
