Oh Un-Brave New World that has such monsters in it? Something is rotten in the State of Ontology. Is truth beauty and beauty truth? Not if the New Manicheans have their way with us! ;-)
This Yilmaz theory in its ontology has to be spelled out very clearly. It is not so far. Hal's Tables in his PV theory seem to say that
c' = c/K
is locally measurable, but is in fact not? In any case there is confusion on the ontology.
Now in fact, the work of Arcos & Pereira may be a kind of Yilmaz without Yilmaz theory that is, in fact, very close to my theory! The bridge between the globally flat gauge force picture and the curved GR picture is via the Einstein-Cartan tetrad eu^a - my B field in
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
I is the identity
Bu^a the compensating gauge force field from T4 -> Diff(4) lives in globally flat space-time with a kind of torsion S, i.e.
B = dx^uBu^a(Pa/ih)(Goldstone Phase)
{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4
and Pa is the usual momentum operator on the macro-quantum vacuum OLDRO Goldstone Phase.
S = DB
D = d + B
d = Cartan exterior differentiation from p form to p + 1 form, with Yang-Mills equations
DS = 0
D*S = J*
The non-abelian analog to Maxwell's U(1) equations in flat space-time
F = dA
dF = 0
d*F = j
The connection to curved space-time is via EEP where
guv(LNIF) = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(LIF)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Shipov's theory is from an additional local gauging of O(1,3) i.e.
S' = dx^ueu^cAc^a^b(Sab/ih)(Goldstone Phase)
{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)
Ac^a^b are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are now arbitrary functions after O(1,3) is locally gauged to get Shipov's torsion field as the O(1,3) compensating gauge force field (actually "potential" not "force"). In 1916 GR they are the globally rigid phases conjugate to the rotation and boost generators of the Lorentz group.
On Mar 21, 2005, at 3:04 PM, michael ibison wrote:
What measurement problems do you refer to?
On 'global flat shadow metric': such is not viable in GR due to lack of
topological equivalence to (homeomorphism with) Minkowski space-time. But it MAY
be the case (I suspect but I don't know) that the metric tensor of Yilmaz theory
is constrained so that the physical coordinates are always homeomorphic to
Minkowski space-time. If so, then a classical field-theory point of view for the
metric components will be viable, i.e. where the components can then be regarded
as fields (in a prior - given - flat space time).
On 1913+16 pulsar data: PV was there found to fail, predicting the wrong decay
rate.
- Michael
Indeed, where plain vanilla Einstein 1916 GR is right on the mark to the incredible precision of I think it's 10^-15 cited by Penrose in "The Road to Reality".
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Subject: Re: Hal Puthoff allegedly changes his "toon" on PV - finally!
Oy vey! Yilmaz? From the frying pan into the fire. There is no coherent
plausible measurement ontology there - unless you can tie to Lorentz
theory and if Cahill is correct, then maybe. But Hal seems to invoke
the excess metaphysical baggage of a coexisting global flat shadow
metric for which there is no direct empirical evidence. Also, what
about 1913+16 pulsar data? There is also the new "fireball" that may
show little black holes with Hawking radiation.
On Mar 21, 2005, at 2:29 PM, michael ibison wrote:
It is my understanding that present observational data supports Yilmaz
theory as well as Einstein GR. (Yilmaz and others have disagreed with this
position, citing the Hughes-Drever result as favoring their theory over GR.
However, their position on this issue does not seem to have had any impact on the GR
community.) On the other hand, as far as I am aware, the predictions of Yilmaz
theory have not been worked out for gravitational radiation (decay of binary
pulsars) and Cosmology (evolution of the scale factor via the Friedmann equation
for that theory), so there is still some ground to make up. Nonetheless, Yilmaz
theory stands a good chance of correcting the error in PV to give the correct -
observed - result for radiation losses and decay of PSR 1916+13. (This has to do with number of degrees of freedom / polarization in the radiation
field.) In short, at present I can see no reason to strike Yilmaz off the list of
viable theories.
- Michael
Ask Daryl Leitner who now I think rejects Yilmaz after professing it for years.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 3:58 PM
To: Hal P; michael ibison
Subject: Hal Puthoff allegedly changes his "toon" on PV - finally!
Hal & Eric
I hear now from Mike Ibison that since March 1, 2005 you agree with me
that PV should not be promoted as a viable strategy for metric
engineering of advanced space-craft, that all such attempts should be
based on battle-tested Einstein's relativity - barring the kind of
revolution that Reg Cahill is professing of course about the
Michelson-Morley experiment. I am glad I learned this BEFORE Super
Cosmos went into final publication as I need to make extensive changes
in regard to your position. Can you and Eric please give me a statement
to print for the record in my book and on my website getting 30,000
visitors per month? Of course, Eric's USAF report on teleportation
still promotes PV as if it were the only game in town. Otherwise it is
a pretty good report.
BTW Jan 20, 2005 Nature has many experimental falsifications of Trevor
Marshall's SED on which your ZPF "drag" theory with Haisch & Rueda is
based - different from PV I realize.
On Mar 21, 2005, at 4:04 PM, michael ibison wrote:
If I am correct in my previous speculation, in Yilmaz theory you MAY use Ives /
Lorentz type visualization, but it is not mandatory - just like in SR, as I
think Paul is saying.
Will someone please spell out the Lorentz picture in full detail so that we are all on the same page?
HOWEVER, unless someone knows of a proof, it is quite premature to ASSUME that
Yilmaz theory can be regarded in this way (i.e. as always topologically
equivalent to flat-space field theory).
This is where Arcos & Pereira come in.
(PV, however, is a different story; it is possible to show that PV has this
property. But we are not discussing PV here.)
- Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: iksnileiz@earthlink.net [mailto:iksnileiz@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 5:33 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Hal Puthoff allegedly changes his "toon" on PV - finally!
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Oy vey! Yilmaz? From the frying pan into the fire. There is no
coherent plausible measurement ontology there - unless you can tie it to
Lorentz theory and if Cahill is correct, then maybe.
Of course you can. Yilmaz's theory is inherently neo-Lorentzian. Like
PV, it's based on a rubber-rod-and-clock model.
People are too glib with that. It has to be spelled out very carefully! How is the rubber rod and clock model consistent with both local Lorentz and local Diff(4) covariance, even with global Lorentz covariance when gravity vanishes? There may be some difficulties.
Let's posit the Cahill picture. Suppose there is a frame of absolute rest. Let's ignore gravity for now. Everything is global inertial frames only i.e. GIFs.
OK Alice is moving at absolute velocity v relative to Eve that REAL rest frame. The rods along v contract, the rods perpendicular to v do not. This asymmetry should be LOCALLY detectable by Alice by many experiments, not only the alleged n^2 - 1 Michelson-Morley shift of the fringe pattern on 90 degree rotation of the apparatus in Alice's rest frame using n =/= 1 gas in the two orthogonal flight paths. It should be possible to measure some kind of stretch/strain effect locally? OK now Bob is moving uniformly at v' relative to Eve. To make it simpler v & v' point along same space direction. Therefore their relative speed is
u = (v - v')/[1 - vv'/c^2]
We still assume c is inertial frame invariant right?
M = m[1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2
is a fact of many experiments.
My point here, is that it is not self-evident that you really can get the Lorentz rubber rods to really be globally consistent for all measurements that can now be carried out say with nano-technology and really sensitive detectors now on the shelf. Maybe you can, but it would have to be spelled out in great detail. It is far from self-evident.
In the above case, with Eve, Alice and Bob, it is not self-evident that the Lorentz rubber rod relation is a transitive equivalence relation among all three observers. That needs to be proved explicitly. That is we have "gamma" = "Y"
Y(Alice-Eve), Y(Alice-Bob), Y(Bob-Eve)
Will Alice & Bob see
Y(Alice-Bob) = [1 - (u/c)^2]^-1/2
with
u = (v - v')/[1 - vv'/c^2]
i.e.
Y(Alice-Bob) = [1 - ((v - v')/[1 - vv'/c^2]/c)^2]^-1/2
Ugh! Ugh! This is beginning to LOOK UGLY, such a God is not subtle, but is MALICIOUS! Dirac is rising from his grave!
In Yilmaz's theory the underlying gravitational field can be treated as
a physical field that is just a more complicated version of the Maxwell field.
That's what I showed you above with my B field for the non-trivial part of the tetrad. Does Yilmaz use the tetrad? Does he know about local gauge invariance?
There is no fundamental difference. The g_uv metric is recovered from the underlying
physical potential via an exponential definition.
That is clearly hogwash. That's what Matt Visser thinks. He told me so at GR 17 in Dublin where the Guinness is sweet. Also, you need not make such an ad-hoc really silly move like that if you really have the right idea, which is tetrads from local gauge invariance, the unified principle for the theory of everything!
Also, what about ROTATION, gravimagnetism, frame drag? You still are back in square one.
But Hal seems to invoke the excess metaphysical baggage of a
coexisting global flat shadow metric for which there is no direct
empirical evidence.
Looking back at SR, if it turns out there is a preferred frame -- an
absolute physical vacuum -- then you are effectively back to a Lorentzian model for the SR formalism, and the underlying kinematics is then *automatically* Galilean.
I really do not know what that means either mathematically or physically. That really needs to be spelled out.
Of course you can in that case still define for pragmatic purposes a "physical"
kinematics that preserves the form of Maxwell's equations in inertial frames -- but that was the case in the final version of Lorentz's 1904 theory (e.g., Lorentz's "local time").
As far as I can see, the only real difference between the two models is that Einstein discards the underlying kinematics and takes the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and Lorentz's "local time" as fundamental, while Lorentz retains Galilean kinematics at the fundamental level in parallel with the phenomenologically adapted Lorentz transformation rules.
This is very unclear in terms of the logic and how the math and the operational definitions would really work. Has this been done really carefully in the literature?
Also, even Einstein himself acknowledged that a complete and
satisfactory theory should allow a microscopic explanation of
the "relativistic" contraction and dilatation effects.
Promises, promises. Put off to the future what you cannot do today. Einstein did say he was a "Lazy Dog" or was that only Minkowski speaking of him?
Of course all this feeds directly into the interpretative analysis of
1916 GR, since formally this is based on a modification
of Minkowski spacetime. If flat Minkowski space is a just a useful
fiction -- a "conceptual space" -- then so is the curved
Riemannian spacetime of 1916 GR.
I do not really know what you mean here scientifically. Arcos & Pereira do give a scientific distinction with the clear mathematics I have given above beyond even them since I have spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry for inflation and actually derive Einstein's GR formalism from the inflation Higgs-Goldstone field using EEP.
Interestingly, Riemann himself originally conceived his
higher-dimensional curved manifolds as representing purely conceptual
spaces -- e.g., color spaces.
Tell it to Ed Witten.
Z.
Also, what about 1913+16 pulsar data? There is also the new "fireball"
that may show little black holes with Hawking radiation.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Sunday, March 20, 2005
New Scientist got it wrong on direction of Pioneer Anomaly
Yes, so I had it correct, Nature had it correct, but New Scientist has it wrong in their latest issue on 13 things that don't make sense.
On Mar 19, 2005, at 10:36 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
Analysis of the radio-metric tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and
11 spacecraft at distances between 20--70 astronomical units (AU) from
the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of an anomalous,
small, constant Doppler frequency drift. The drift is a blue-shift,
uniformly changing at the rate $\dot{\nu} \sim (5.99 \pm 0.01) \times
10^{-9}$ Hz/s. The signal also can be interpreted as a constant
acceleration of $a_P = (8.74 \pm 1.33) \times 10^{-8}$ cm/s$^2$
directed towards the Sun. This interpretation has become known as the
Pioneer anomaly.
The nature of this anomaly remains unexplained. That is to say, up
to now no unambiguous explanation of the anomalous signal has been
found. To reach this conclusion a complicated interplay between
experiment and theory is needed to rule out systematics. However, in
the end many of the necessary calculations are amenable to students.
To elucidate this students would have a deeper understanding of the
workings of physics in space systems. We give a problem set devoted to
this cause.
Yes, so I had it correct, Nature had it correct, but New Scientist has it wrong in their latest issue on 13 things that don't make sense.
On Mar 19, 2005, at 10:36 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Study of the Pioneer Anomaly: A Problem Set
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
Analysis of the radio-metric tracking data from the Pioneer 10 and
11 spacecraft at distances between 20--70 astronomical units (AU) from
the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of an anomalous,
small, constant Doppler frequency drift. The drift is a blue-shift,
uniformly changing at the rate $\dot{\nu} \sim (5.99 \pm 0.01) \times
10^{-9}$ Hz/s. The signal also can be interpreted as a constant
acceleration of $a_P = (8.74 \pm 1.33) \times 10^{-8}$ cm/s$^2$
directed towards the Sun. This interpretation has become known as the
Pioneer anomaly.
The nature of this anomaly remains unexplained. That is to say, up
to now no unambiguous explanation of the anomalous signal has been
found. To reach this conclusion a complicated interplay between
experiment and theory is needed to rule out systematics. However, in
the end many of the necessary calculations are amenable to students.
To elucidate this students would have a deeper understanding of the
workings of physics in space systems. We give a problem set devoted to
this cause.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Which way does NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly point?
Nature 30 Sept 2004 p. 494 and New Scientist 19 March 2005 p. 35 disagree. Nature says the force points back to the Sun, New Scientists says it points away from the Sun. One paper cites an anomalous blue shift, which seems consistent with Nature's account and not New Scientist's.
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hi I have been in LA at Paul Harris's Time & Wonder Seminar at Loyola and need to catch up with e-mails. I literally just rolled in - been driving all day.
1. Reg where can I see a detailed derivation of your key n(n^2 - 1) equation from special relativity upon which your key claim rests?
2. Which way does the Pioneer Anomaly point, radially in or out? New Scientist in 13 things that don't make sense, March 19 - 25 says it's a repulsion of one nanometer per second per second. So I may have had it pointing wrong way in my earlier remarks. I need to check the original papers. Does anyone know for sure? Neither, Carlos nor Tony, nor Creon caught me on that error, if it is one? In any case I can model it as a hedgehog defect either way.
If it points out then /\zpf < 0 i.e. positive pressure. If it points in then /\zpf > 0 negative pressure.
In either case
|/\zpf| = H(t)/cr for r > 20 AU
r = radial distance to Sun
The Poisson eq. Green's function is 1/r, the volume element is r^2dr
Therefore, the integral for the gravity potential energy per unit test particle of the exotic vacuum is approximately
V(zpf) ~ c^2/\zpfr^2 ~ cHr = cv
v = Hubble velocity of recession from the expansion of space R(t) in FLRW even at 20AU!
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr ~ cH ~ 1 nanometer per second per second pointing either way depending on sign of /\zpf.
Think of dropping a ball through hole drilled through center of the Earth.
3. Note for the Galactic dark matter halo, also an exotic vacuum effect
/\zpf = (v/c)1/r^2
V(zpf) ~ cv
a_g = 0
here v is the constant circulating speed of a star in flat part of the stellar rotation curve.
4. What about ultra-energetic cosmic rays above the GZK limit = 5x10^19 ev? Some kind of anti-gravity dark energy acceleration?
5. The little black holes - a triumph for string theory at last and for Hawking radiation?
On Mar 18, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Jack,
Ben Varcoe in the UK is setting up just such a Bose-Einstein experiment. However the problem is that no one knows how the refractive indices in the two orthogonal directions changes under rotation in such a system. In a gas we know they are uncorrelated. But in a transparent solid they are related, as one would expect. As well the problem with the Michelson interferometer is that it is a 2nd order device..the fringe shifts vary as (v/c)^2. Then various effects all compete: geometrical effects, length contractions, Fresnel drag, correlated refractive index effects,.. This is why we are setting up a coaxial cable experiment. The time variations are first order in v/c, and so relativistic effects are not important, there are no moving parts, and the effect is easily computer recorded. As well we can record in three orthogonal directions, which means a component of the absolute motion velocity in the vertical direction. No one has ever operated a Michelson interferometer in a vertical plane. The need for this vertical measurement is that we need to determine the in-flow component associated with the earth's gravity. This has a speed of 11km/s at the earth's surface. The inflow towards the sun has already been extracted from the Miller data..that speed is some 42 km/s.
Reg
Well clearly the logical foundations of special relativity need to be reexamined in case these data prove plausible & compelling. Suppose Lorentz was really right that length contractions and time dilations need to be referred directly to the Eve frame of absolute rest. Is there a way of seeing that directly in the rest frame of a uniformly moving nano-structure (uniformly moving relative to Eve frame)? After all, your alleged effect is a rest frame effect for the interferometer. The only frame in which your alleged shift would not be seen would be the Eve frame. Also, is the Eve frame, if it were to exist a spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry in the rapidity boost piece of O(1,3) just as a finite domain of a ferromagnet picks a preferred space direction for O(3) in the ground state even though the O(3) symmetry is still intact in the dynamical action and the local laws of nature?
On 19/03/2005, at 3:42 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
What about doing experiments with really large indices of refraction n to see the alleged n(n^2 - 1) effect? Perhaps a gas atomic Bose-Einstein condensate with n >> 1 in some kind of laser pulse experiment?
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Tom,
It is not possible to determined the size of the effect that one would expect in this experiment because the two experimentalists didn't understand how the apparatus worked. To determine the size of the effect we now understand that one needs to know the refractive index of the He-Ne gas mixture. This is not given. However from the work of Jaseja et al Phys. Rev. A133(1964)1221 I could determine in that case that their He-Ne gas mixture had a refractive index of approx n=1.0000028, and so is very close to being a vacuum. So it appears that this experiment was essentially a vacuum experiment. Hils and Hall also used the wrong theory to analyse any signal, namely the Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl formalism.
This formalism is predicated on a spacetime ontology, and also makes no allowance for the effect of any gas present. The key point to appreciate is that until 2002 no one understood how one could and should measure absolute motion. So some techniques were lucky, ie they had the necessary technique, while others were unlucky. Miller, DeWitte and some 5 others were lucky experiments. This Hils and Hall experiment was an unlucky experiment..it simply was blind to the incredibly small effects of absolute motion. However being essentially a vacuum experiment one aspect of the physics that it did check was Lorentz symmetry. Remember that we also now understand that Lorentz symmetry and absolute motion are compatible properties of space, indeed absolute motion is the dynamical cause of the Lorentz symmetry effects. The detection of absolute motion is not a return to Newtonian physics, but it does invalidate Einstein's postulate about the invariance of the speed of light. We now understand, as of 2002, that this postulate was always in disagreement with experiment. What is emerging as the correct theory is essentially a neo-Lorentzian relativity, which predated Einstein's 1905 work. Then it is possible, for example, to write Maxwell's equations in a form that clearly separates the various physics involved. The original and usual covariant form of Maxwell's equations actually melds two different phenomena in such a way that neither is now clearly revealed. The major development is that the whole spacetime ontology, both flat and curved, was a house of cards, held up mainly by misunderstandings. It has now crumbled.
Reg
Reg:
I just realized that Hils and Hall's experiment is a direct test of your theory.
They used a laser mode-locked to a vacuum Fabry-Perot cavity interfering
with a single-mode He-Ne laser locked to an I_2 line, both fixed in the lab. They looked for sidereal variations in the beat frequency. As one laser's frequency is determined in vacuum, and one in gas, this seems to me to be a direct test of your theory.
Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), p 1697.
They found no variations at the level of 2*10^-13. I think your theory is in deep trouble here....
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
--
A/Prof. Reginald T. Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
A/Prof Reginald T. Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61)or(0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618)or(08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Nature 30 Sept 2004 p. 494 and New Scientist 19 March 2005 p. 35 disagree. Nature says the force points back to the Sun, New Scientists says it points away from the Sun. One paper cites an anomalous blue shift, which seems consistent with Nature's account and not New Scientist's.
On Mar 19, 2005, at 6:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hi I have been in LA at Paul Harris's Time & Wonder Seminar at Loyola and need to catch up with e-mails. I literally just rolled in - been driving all day.
1. Reg where can I see a detailed derivation of your key n(n^2 - 1) equation from special relativity upon which your key claim rests?
2. Which way does the Pioneer Anomaly point, radially in or out? New Scientist in 13 things that don't make sense, March 19 - 25 says it's a repulsion of one nanometer per second per second. So I may have had it pointing wrong way in my earlier remarks. I need to check the original papers. Does anyone know for sure? Neither, Carlos nor Tony, nor Creon caught me on that error, if it is one? In any case I can model it as a hedgehog defect either way.
If it points out then /\zpf < 0 i.e. positive pressure. If it points in then /\zpf > 0 negative pressure.
In either case
|/\zpf| = H(t)/cr for r > 20 AU
r = radial distance to Sun
The Poisson eq. Green's function is 1/r, the volume element is r^2dr
Therefore, the integral for the gravity potential energy per unit test particle of the exotic vacuum is approximately
V(zpf) ~ c^2/\zpfr^2 ~ cHr = cv
v = Hubble velocity of recession from the expansion of space R(t) in FLRW even at 20AU!
a_g = - dV(zpf)/dr ~ cH ~ 1 nanometer per second per second pointing either way depending on sign of /\zpf.
Think of dropping a ball through hole drilled through center of the Earth.
3. Note for the Galactic dark matter halo, also an exotic vacuum effect
/\zpf = (v/c)1/r^2
V(zpf) ~ cv
a_g = 0
here v is the constant circulating speed of a star in flat part of the stellar rotation curve.
4. What about ultra-energetic cosmic rays above the GZK limit = 5x10^19 ev? Some kind of anti-gravity dark energy acceleration?
5. The little black holes - a triumph for string theory at last and for Hawking radiation?
On Mar 18, 2005, at 1:46 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Jack,
Ben Varcoe in the UK is setting up just such a Bose-Einstein experiment. However the problem is that no one knows how the refractive indices in the two orthogonal directions changes under rotation in such a system. In a gas we know they are uncorrelated. But in a transparent solid they are related, as one would expect. As well the problem with the Michelson interferometer is that it is a 2nd order device..the fringe shifts vary as (v/c)^2. Then various effects all compete: geometrical effects, length contractions, Fresnel drag, correlated refractive index effects,.. This is why we are setting up a coaxial cable experiment. The time variations are first order in v/c, and so relativistic effects are not important, there are no moving parts, and the effect is easily computer recorded. As well we can record in three orthogonal directions, which means a component of the absolute motion velocity in the vertical direction. No one has ever operated a Michelson interferometer in a vertical plane. The need for this vertical measurement is that we need to determine the in-flow component associated with the earth's gravity. This has a speed of 11km/s at the earth's surface. The inflow towards the sun has already been extracted from the Miller data..that speed is some 42 km/s.
Reg
Well clearly the logical foundations of special relativity need to be reexamined in case these data prove plausible & compelling. Suppose Lorentz was really right that length contractions and time dilations need to be referred directly to the Eve frame of absolute rest. Is there a way of seeing that directly in the rest frame of a uniformly moving nano-structure (uniformly moving relative to Eve frame)? After all, your alleged effect is a rest frame effect for the interferometer. The only frame in which your alleged shift would not be seen would be the Eve frame. Also, is the Eve frame, if it were to exist a spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry in the rapidity boost piece of O(1,3) just as a finite domain of a ferromagnet picks a preferred space direction for O(3) in the ground state even though the O(3) symmetry is still intact in the dynamical action and the local laws of nature?
On 19/03/2005, at 3:42 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
What about doing experiments with really large indices of refraction n to see the alleged n(n^2 - 1) effect? Perhaps a gas atomic Bose-Einstein condensate with n >> 1 in some kind of laser pulse experiment?
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Tom,
It is not possible to determined the size of the effect that one would expect in this experiment because the two experimentalists didn't understand how the apparatus worked. To determine the size of the effect we now understand that one needs to know the refractive index of the He-Ne gas mixture. This is not given. However from the work of Jaseja et al Phys. Rev. A133(1964)1221 I could determine in that case that their He-Ne gas mixture had a refractive index of approx n=1.0000028, and so is very close to being a vacuum. So it appears that this experiment was essentially a vacuum experiment. Hils and Hall also used the wrong theory to analyse any signal, namely the Robertson, Mansouri and Sexl formalism.
This formalism is predicated on a spacetime ontology, and also makes no allowance for the effect of any gas present. The key point to appreciate is that until 2002 no one understood how one could and should measure absolute motion. So some techniques were lucky, ie they had the necessary technique, while others were unlucky. Miller, DeWitte and some 5 others were lucky experiments. This Hils and Hall experiment was an unlucky experiment..it simply was blind to the incredibly small effects of absolute motion. However being essentially a vacuum experiment one aspect of the physics that it did check was Lorentz symmetry. Remember that we also now understand that Lorentz symmetry and absolute motion are compatible properties of space, indeed absolute motion is the dynamical cause of the Lorentz symmetry effects. The detection of absolute motion is not a return to Newtonian physics, but it does invalidate Einstein's postulate about the invariance of the speed of light. We now understand, as of 2002, that this postulate was always in disagreement with experiment. What is emerging as the correct theory is essentially a neo-Lorentzian relativity, which predated Einstein's 1905 work. Then it is possible, for example, to write Maxwell's equations in a form that clearly separates the various physics involved. The original and usual covariant form of Maxwell's equations actually melds two different phenomena in such a way that neither is now clearly revealed. The major development is that the whole spacetime ontology, both flat and curved, was a house of cards, held up mainly by misunderstandings. It has now crumbled.
Reg
Reg:
I just realized that Hils and Hall's experiment is a direct test of your theory.
They used a laser mode-locked to a vacuum Fabry-Perot cavity interfering
with a single-mode He-Ne laser locked to an I_2 line, both fixed in the lab. They looked for sidereal variations in the beat frequency. As one laser's frequency is determined in vacuum, and one in gas, this seems to me to be a direct test of your theory.
Hils and Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), p 1697.
They found no variations at the level of 2*10^-13. I think your theory is in deep trouble here....
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
--
A/Prof. Reginald T. Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
A/Prof Reginald T. Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61)or(0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618)or(08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Remember the Future
On Mar 15, 2005, at 6:17 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
After all, the observer's world line is itself a geometric object, and thus from a purely mathematical standpoint itself has a coordinate-independent definition. Yet we find that in GR each observer world line is at the same time associated with a particular choice of coordinates -- which seems somewhat paradoxical. A kind of duplicity.
Not at all. Fix on the Schwarzschild
ds^2 = (1 - 2rs/r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2rs/r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
OK.
There are the trivial GCT's like going to isotropic coordinates, or to Cartesian.
They all correspond to a kind of gauge freedom in which the LNIF observers are still hovering at fixed r (Schwarzschild).
Yes.
So what I mean is NON-TRIVIAL GCT's with TRIVIAL GCT's FACTORED OUT, i.e. a QUOTIENT SPACE. See Einstein's "HOLE PARADOX" before the gauge freedom was understood. Same thing happens in Yang-Mills (Faddeev).
OK, so you do make the distinction. But notice that every "non-trivial" GCT also has a parallel "trivial" definition.
I do not understand your sentence.
This is exactly what I mean by "duplicity". It's not simply that a subset of mathematically possible CSs is marked out as non-mathematical,
so much that a certain subset of mathematical CSs at the same time *also* have a physical interpretation as characterizing observer frames
of reference.
I understand this one less than I understood first, which was not at all! ;-)
I.e. NON-TRIVIAL GCTs connect physically distinct OBSERVER MATRICES
= ALL GCTs/TRIVIAL GCTs
I am asking if, in your gauge field model, these dual aspects of "general covariance" -- one mathematical, and one not just mathematical but also physical -- can be separated?
Yes, it's the gauge freedom.
So your "gauge freedom" is due purely to coordinate generality? It is a trivial consequence of formal general covariance?
It's worked out quite rigorously in a lot of books. As I recall John Baez has a pretty good discussion of all this on his website. Look and see what Penrose says in Road. I am on the road to LA and have almost no books with me. I am using a direct thought-computer interface given to me by ET Black Ops as I drive looking like a Borg. :-)
As I understand it, in Feynman's non-Abelian spin-2 model, not just covariance but also equivalence was explained in terms of an underlying
gauge freedom.
Of course he was working in a flat background spacetime.
Yes, basic idea is in Feynman. He did original stuff for Yang-Mills I think.
A GCT is to ANOTHER MATRIX of LNIF guys firing their rockets in space in a different way.
Sure, of course I know this is how 1916 GR actually works.
That is the PHYSICAL MEANING of LOCAL COORDINATE CHARTS! Physics is more than math. It's MATH PLUS.
Yes, I agree.
But at the same time, how then do you separate mere coordinate-generality from the extra-mathematical question of physical relativity? Or do you think these are not distinguishable in 1916 GR?
Gauge freedom. The physics is a quotient structure. The trivial GCTs are an equivalence relation.
OK, so you do seem to be saying that your "gauge freedom" is entirely due to formal covariance, as opposed to EEP equivalence.
Perhaps.
Local gauging of T4 IS Diff(4)! The compensating B field that gives REAL TIDAL WARPS is as real at the EM field!
OK. But what part of your "gauge freedom" is due purely to coordinate generality, and what part is due to "general relativity" (equivalence)?
Can you separate them? Can you even distinguish them?
Easy. B/gauge ~ -> Non-trivial GCT
OK.
B/gauge ~ done by Fadeev et-al in Yang-Mills theory.
OK.
In quantum field theory it's done with Feynman histories path integrals.
See A. Zee "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" that must have it. I am on road.
OK, this looks good.
Hey what are those strange lights up ahead? :-)
But aren't there two things going on here? (1) coordinate generality; and (2) inertial-gravitational equivalence?
I don't know. That's too vague. Spell it out using Norton quotes.
In this context, "coordinate generality" is the purely mathematical requirement that the *form* of the laws of physics in a formally covariant physical theory be the same in every mathematically well-behaved spacetime CS.
GCT/~
~ equivalence relation expressing gauge freedom, which are the mathematically distinct forms that correspond to INVARIANT OBSERVER MATRICES M, i.e.
~ is the set of TRIVIAL GCTs U such that
M -> M' = UMU^-1 = M
i.e. [M,U] = 0
"Inertial-gravitational equivalence", on the other hand, is a *physical* stipulation that entails that physical laws governing gravitation-inertia are actually the same in every *observer frame of reference* ("general relativity").
This means that the local laws must be tensor/spinor equations relative to the relevant symmetry group G,
Physical ("active") symmetry group, yes.
What do you mean by "active" exactly? Everything is LOCAL, i.e. at FIXED PHYSICAL EVENT P, which is not same as MANIFOLD POINT p. Everything "real" (in physics) is LOCALLY COINCIDENT - that's in Norton citing Einstein. I use that idea!
"Physics is simple only when it's local." Wheeler
Keep it simple, but not too simple. (Einstein's Rule violated in Hal Puthoff' PV).
which in the special case of 1916 GR is simply
Diff(4)xO(1,3) in the tangent bundle.
In Shipov's theory it's something like
Diff(10) instead!
But formal covariance alone demands that physical quantities be represented by coordinate-invariant objects -- and all such invariant objects must be tensors or spinors of various ranks.
There is sloppiness here - in the literature. If you mean LOCAL tensor/spinors like Fuv EM field intensities as representations of OBJECTIVE F = dA, then OK. But some of these guys want everything to be GLOBAL integrals and that's obviously stupid contradicting COINCIDENCE idea cited above. Also GR measurements are always local! One finds nonlocal correlations after the fact. Local relative to scale of curvature that is.
Any nonlinear GCT when B = 0 is simply SIMULATED GRAVITY in sense of Landau & Lifshitz Ch 10 Classical Theory of Fields.
OK.
But such GCT's even in flat space-time need not be dynamically trivial, e.g. Sagnac effect in flat space-time with g0i.
OK. Although I understand this involves rotating *sources*, as opposed to frames. There's a distinction in GR (according to Pauli p 5).
NO, ROTATING SOURCES AS IN Tuv, or as in vacuum Kerr Metric is TORNADO SWIRL OF SPACE-TIME, i.e. REAL GRAVIMAGNETIC FRAME DRAG that even drags along LIFs! Nothing escapes. Resistance is futile.
Forget all that. In Sagnac mount the interferometer, ring lasers what have you on your 78 RPM turntable, and, in principle you will get an effect out in far space in free float. I mean base of turn table is freely floating and the table is turning.
So call this an INERTIAL GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD, a FAKE ONE, like in Landau & Lifshitz.
Of course LOCALLY if you are a bit sloppy you cannot tell to first order. If you work hard enough you can tell, like with tidal curvature. Remember Einstein was a "Lazy Dog" - Minkowski said so.
Now, do you (or can you) distinguish here between mere mathematical "coordinate generality" and physical "EEP" equivalence?
I showed you above. The coordinate REPRESENTATION choice is a DYNAMICAL MATRIX of possible LNIF (and LIF) observers no holds barred - every possible PHYSICAL timelike motion.
Well, I suppose I'll have to take this as a tentative "no".
No, it's a YES, via moding out the trivial GCT's by the Faddeev type equivalence relation in the Yang-Mills B-representation.
OK. You now seem to have this resolved in your own mind.
Yeah, I knew it all the time in the Implicate Order. Plato's remembering FROM THE FUTURE.
On Mar 15, 2005, at 6:17 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
After all, the observer's world line is itself a geometric object, and thus from a purely mathematical standpoint itself has a coordinate-independent definition. Yet we find that in GR each observer world line is at the same time associated with a particular choice of coordinates -- which seems somewhat paradoxical. A kind of duplicity.
Not at all. Fix on the Schwarzschild
ds^2 = (1 - 2rs/r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2rs/r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
OK.
There are the trivial GCT's like going to isotropic coordinates, or to Cartesian.
They all correspond to a kind of gauge freedom in which the LNIF observers are still hovering at fixed r (Schwarzschild).
Yes.
So what I mean is NON-TRIVIAL GCT's with TRIVIAL GCT's FACTORED OUT, i.e. a QUOTIENT SPACE. See Einstein's "HOLE PARADOX" before the gauge freedom was understood. Same thing happens in Yang-Mills (Faddeev).
OK, so you do make the distinction. But notice that every "non-trivial" GCT also has a parallel "trivial" definition.
I do not understand your sentence.
This is exactly what I mean by "duplicity". It's not simply that a subset of mathematically possible CSs is marked out as non-mathematical,
so much that a certain subset of mathematical CSs at the same time *also* have a physical interpretation as characterizing observer frames
of reference.
I understand this one less than I understood first, which was not at all! ;-)
I.e. NON-TRIVIAL GCTs connect physically distinct OBSERVER MATRICES
= ALL GCTs/TRIVIAL GCTs
I am asking if, in your gauge field model, these dual aspects of "general covariance" -- one mathematical, and one not just mathematical but also physical -- can be separated?
Yes, it's the gauge freedom.
So your "gauge freedom" is due purely to coordinate generality? It is a trivial consequence of formal general covariance?
It's worked out quite rigorously in a lot of books. As I recall John Baez has a pretty good discussion of all this on his website. Look and see what Penrose says in Road. I am on the road to LA and have almost no books with me. I am using a direct thought-computer interface given to me by ET Black Ops as I drive looking like a Borg. :-)
As I understand it, in Feynman's non-Abelian spin-2 model, not just covariance but also equivalence was explained in terms of an underlying
gauge freedom.
Of course he was working in a flat background spacetime.
Yes, basic idea is in Feynman. He did original stuff for Yang-Mills I think.
A GCT is to ANOTHER MATRIX of LNIF guys firing their rockets in space in a different way.
Sure, of course I know this is how 1916 GR actually works.
That is the PHYSICAL MEANING of LOCAL COORDINATE CHARTS! Physics is more than math. It's MATH PLUS.
Yes, I agree.
But at the same time, how then do you separate mere coordinate-generality from the extra-mathematical question of physical relativity? Or do you think these are not distinguishable in 1916 GR?
Gauge freedom. The physics is a quotient structure. The trivial GCTs are an equivalence relation.
OK, so you do seem to be saying that your "gauge freedom" is entirely due to formal covariance, as opposed to EEP equivalence.
Perhaps.
Local gauging of T4 IS Diff(4)! The compensating B field that gives REAL TIDAL WARPS is as real at the EM field!
OK. But what part of your "gauge freedom" is due purely to coordinate generality, and what part is due to "general relativity" (equivalence)?
Can you separate them? Can you even distinguish them?
Easy. B/gauge ~ -> Non-trivial GCT
OK.
B/gauge ~ done by Fadeev et-al in Yang-Mills theory.
OK.
In quantum field theory it's done with Feynman histories path integrals.
See A. Zee "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" that must have it. I am on road.
OK, this looks good.
Hey what are those strange lights up ahead? :-)
But aren't there two things going on here? (1) coordinate generality; and (2) inertial-gravitational equivalence?
I don't know. That's too vague. Spell it out using Norton quotes.
In this context, "coordinate generality" is the purely mathematical requirement that the *form* of the laws of physics in a formally covariant physical theory be the same in every mathematically well-behaved spacetime CS.
GCT/~
~ equivalence relation expressing gauge freedom, which are the mathematically distinct forms that correspond to INVARIANT OBSERVER MATRICES M, i.e.
~ is the set of TRIVIAL GCTs U such that
M -> M' = UMU^-1 = M
i.e. [M,U] = 0
"Inertial-gravitational equivalence", on the other hand, is a *physical* stipulation that entails that physical laws governing gravitation-inertia are actually the same in every *observer frame of reference* ("general relativity").
This means that the local laws must be tensor/spinor equations relative to the relevant symmetry group G,
Physical ("active") symmetry group, yes.
What do you mean by "active" exactly? Everything is LOCAL, i.e. at FIXED PHYSICAL EVENT P, which is not same as MANIFOLD POINT p. Everything "real" (in physics) is LOCALLY COINCIDENT - that's in Norton citing Einstein. I use that idea!
"Physics is simple only when it's local." Wheeler
Keep it simple, but not too simple. (Einstein's Rule violated in Hal Puthoff' PV).
which in the special case of 1916 GR is simply
Diff(4)xO(1,3) in the tangent bundle.
In Shipov's theory it's something like
Diff(10) instead!
But formal covariance alone demands that physical quantities be represented by coordinate-invariant objects -- and all such invariant objects must be tensors or spinors of various ranks.
There is sloppiness here - in the literature. If you mean LOCAL tensor/spinors like Fuv EM field intensities as representations of OBJECTIVE F = dA, then OK. But some of these guys want everything to be GLOBAL integrals and that's obviously stupid contradicting COINCIDENCE idea cited above. Also GR measurements are always local! One finds nonlocal correlations after the fact. Local relative to scale of curvature that is.
Any nonlinear GCT when B = 0 is simply SIMULATED GRAVITY in sense of Landau & Lifshitz Ch 10 Classical Theory of Fields.
OK.
But such GCT's even in flat space-time need not be dynamically trivial, e.g. Sagnac effect in flat space-time with g0i.
OK. Although I understand this involves rotating *sources*, as opposed to frames. There's a distinction in GR (according to Pauli p 5).
NO, ROTATING SOURCES AS IN Tuv, or as in vacuum Kerr Metric is TORNADO SWIRL OF SPACE-TIME, i.e. REAL GRAVIMAGNETIC FRAME DRAG that even drags along LIFs! Nothing escapes. Resistance is futile.
Forget all that. In Sagnac mount the interferometer, ring lasers what have you on your 78 RPM turntable, and, in principle you will get an effect out in far space in free float. I mean base of turn table is freely floating and the table is turning.
So call this an INERTIAL GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD, a FAKE ONE, like in Landau & Lifshitz.
Of course LOCALLY if you are a bit sloppy you cannot tell to first order. If you work hard enough you can tell, like with tidal curvature. Remember Einstein was a "Lazy Dog" - Minkowski said so.
Now, do you (or can you) distinguish here between mere mathematical "coordinate generality" and physical "EEP" equivalence?
I showed you above. The coordinate REPRESENTATION choice is a DYNAMICAL MATRIX of possible LNIF (and LIF) observers no holds barred - every possible PHYSICAL timelike motion.
Well, I suppose I'll have to take this as a tentative "no".
No, it's a YES, via moding out the trivial GCT's by the Faddeev type equivalence relation in the Yang-Mills B-representation.
OK. You now seem to have this resolved in your own mind.
Yeah, I knew it all the time in the Implicate Order. Plato's remembering FROM THE FUTURE.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Metric Engineering Flying Saucer Engines
The key quantity in Puthoff's PV model, a wrong model falsified by experiment, better than not-even-wrong models (W. Pauli) is g00. What is goo really? What it is, is
g00(LNIF) = (I0^a + LpB0^aPa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)(LIF)ab(I0^b + LpB0^bPb(Goldstone Phase)/ih)
Where (LIF)ab is the Minkowski metric i.e +1, -1,-1,-1 all off-diagonals = 0, and I is the Kronecker delta, i = 1,2,3
g00 = 1 + 2LpB0^0P0(GP)/ih - 2LpB0^iPi(GP)/ih - Lp^2(B0^0P0(GP)/ih)^2 - Lp^2(B0^iPi(GP)/ih)^2
if I did not make a mistake in algebra.
What is really interesting are the LINEAR terms in Lp that are much larger than the quadratic terms!
In particular, when there is a gravimagnetic field goi from a rotating high Tc superconducting part of the saucer fuselage maybe, we get something like
g0i(LNIF) = (I0^a + LpB0^aPa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)(LIF)ab(Ii^b + LpBi^bPb(Goldstone Phase)/ih)
Again there will be relatively large Lp terms in the gravimagnetic field to couple to the EM 3-vector potential Ai in the Ray Chiao "gravity radio transducer" idea.
This is a BRUTE FORCE method. Mine is more subtle like Tai Chi i.e. imagine a the control macro-quantum phase is something like
Theta = (e/hc)Integral A.dl
With Pa operating on the Josephson phase difference
Goldstone Phase (GP) - Theta
The local zero point energy density is ~ cos[GP - Theta].
When this zero point energy density is negative we have equal opposite positive pressure causing an attractive contractive warp. On the other hand, when this zero point energy density is positive we have a negative pressure repulsive expansive warp. This is exactly what the Alcubierre "G-Engine" weightless timelike geodesic glider globally faster-than-light (locally standing still) time travel machine needs! The objections of Matt Visser and Stephen Hawking et-al are obviously not fatal barriers since we see the damn things over our nuclear missile bases according to Peter Jennings ABC TV Special on Feb 24, 2005. The Cat is Alive and Out of the Box. You want Disclosure? Now you got it. What's up Pussy Cat? We got a Tiger Tiger Eyes Shining Bright in The Dark Energy of The Knight! :-)
On Mar 12, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Coming from someone who has now completely caved in to my position re: Einstein equivalence, this is hilarious.
Paul you continue in your delusion that somehow I renounce EEP? In fact, the opposite is true. EEP in math form is simply
g(LNIF) = (I + B)(Minkowski)(I + B)
e = (I + B) is Einstein-Cartan tetrad
B is the "gauge force" picture i.e. T4 -> Diff(4)
B is the compensating field that RESTORES conservation of Pu currents including the new dynamical degrees of freedom of the B connection field.
The B connection is not the same as the (LC) connection in the geometrodynamic picture.
The EEP is the BRIDGE between the Gauge Force picture and the Geometrodynamic picture!
I do not in any sense "renounce equivalence"!
Given a metric without gravimagnetism i.e. goi = 0 (no rotating sources)
ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - gijdx^idx^j
i,j = 1,2,3
Physically
dT = (goo)^1/2dt
dL = (gijdx^idx^j)^1/2
For a light ray
ds^2 = c^2dT^2 - dL^2 in the LNIF
ds = 0 (null geodesic)
Therefore, the PHYSICALLY MEASURED SPEED OF LIGHT for that LNIF observer who sees the above metric will be c the same as in special relativity, i.e.
dL/dT = c in the LNIF as well as the COINCIDENT LIFs.
The COINCIDENT LIFs and LNIFs are connected together by the Einstein-Cartan tetrad (I + B) where B is the compensating gauge potential connection field from locally gauging global T4 to Diff(4).
Z: Excuse me -- my contention was that *in 1916 Einstein GR* the locally measured speed of light is always c *only in free-fall frames*.
J: Well you are wrong!
Z: The above is not 1916 GR.
J: It certainly is. You do not know enough of the math to see GR when it is staring you in the face as it is.
dT = goo^1/2dt
dL = (gijdx^idx^j)^1/2
i,j = 1,2,3
in LNIFs is in GR text books.
You get rotational Sagnac interferometer shifts in SPEED of light only when there is a gravimagnetic field H = (goi) as defined by Ray Chiao in his "gravity radio" papers.
His superconducting high-efficiency transducer posits a H.A gravity-EM coupling where A is the 3-vector potential of EM in the NR Galilean relativity limit.
Z: It's really very simple. Suppose you have a plane wave in gravity-free spacetime, propagating at every point at the invariant speed c as measured in an inertial frame K. Now go to an accelerating frame K' that is accelerating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. The normals to the wave fronts of the formerly plane wave now appear to change continuously in time, tracing *curved* spatial trajectories.
J: Show the math Paul! This is essentially gravity lensing. It does not imply that magnitude is changing only refraction change of direction.
Z: According to the equivalence principle, the effect of some homogeneous gravitational field on the same wave, as observed from the original inertia frame K, must be identical to the effect of going to the accelerating frame K' Clearly, if the light path is now curved, then the speed of propagation of the waves must vary from point to point on any given wavefront,
J: NONSENSE PAUL! When the metric is of the form:
ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - gijdx^idx^j = (cdT)^2 - dL^2
i,j = 1,2,3
the LNIF measured speed of light when ds = 0 is still
dL/dT = c same as in the COINCIDENT LIF.
, either in a gravity-free accelerating frame, or in a gravitational field viewed from an inertial frame -- as consistently affirmed by Einstein himself:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."
- A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity"
J: Hey Professor! Einstein uses "velocity" not "speed" there! Clean your glasses.
"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the VELOCITY of propagation of light varies with position."
IS GENERALLY TRUE FOR ALL WARPED METRICS
"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the SPEED of propagation of light varies with position."
IS FALSE and that is not what Einstein wrote! Paul, you garbled the difference between 'velocity" and "speed"!
A gravimagnetic field (Lense-Thirring frame drag) will IN ADDITION change the SPEED of light in vacuum, e.g. Sagnac effect, which even happens in special relativity and even in the Galilean limiting case since the fringe shifts are seen in lab experiments.
Now, if there is gravimagnetic Lense-Thirring "frame drag", then, in the LNIF
ds^2 = c^2dT^2 - dL^2 - Hcdt.dr
H is the gravimagnetic 3-vector with components (g0i) and dr is the 3-vector with components (dx^i)
Again ds = 0
(dL/dT)^2 = c^2 - cH(dt/dT).(dr/dT)
The speed of light in a gravimagnetic field is then
dL/dt = c[1 - (dt/dT)H.(dr/cdT)]^1/2
Note the effective sign inside the square root flips when you change the rotation sense. Of course, Paul you never formulated this mathematically, nor did he make any specific remarks of any utility on this problem.
Z: You are not addressing my actual statement, which is that *in 1916 Einstein GR* the locally measured speed of light is always c only in free-fall frames:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."
- A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity"
J: Answered above. Your sloppy thinking again mistaking "velocity" a vector for "speed" the magnitude of the vector.
Puthoff also makes a similar mistake thinking that goo is a "dielectric", i.e. Puthoff-Davis-Yilmaz use:
ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - goo^-1(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
Therefore, when ds = 0
dL/dT = c
dl/dt = c/goo = c/K
goo = n = index of refraction in PV picture
goo = e^-2GM/c^2r is further assumed.
But of course this is wrong since dl/dt is never measured. Hal Puthoff does an ultra-heretical meta-theoretical song and dance Dog and Pony show here that makes Matt Visser and Cliff Will red in the face, that, no doubt, you will think is brilliant. "No possible doubt whatever!"(Gondoliers);-)
*The Sagnac effect for rotating interferometers is an example. This formula applies even in GLOBAL SR without tidal curvature in the rotating GNIF.
Z: That's another can of worms.
J: Not at all. It's simply until you mistify and mystify it with your ultra-heretical meta-theoretics
Z.
On Mar 12, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Mar 11, 2005, at 10:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
"Replace light signals with sound to define time" - a genius idea from Zielinski! ;-)
Z: Well, the sophistication of this dialectical maneuver evidently went right over your head.
J: Oh yeah? Tell us how to do cosmology with sound waves? The point Paul is that the invariant light cone structure is essential to all practical applications in precision cosmology. Indeed, tidal curvature, as shown by Penrose, is a relative tilt between neighboring invariant light cones.
Z: Once you adopt 1905 Einstein kinematics, then of course it becomes fundamental to cosmology.
J: How else would YOU do cosmology? Also you cannot use Lorentz theory to get gravity!
Z: Except that GR, which is in fact the actual chronogeometric basis for modern cosmology, supersedes SR and only preserves the empirical predictions of SR locally, by way of correspondence -- and it even does away with invariant light speed as to local observations made in *non-inertial* frames!
J: Of course, so what? You characteristically state well-known facts of relativity AS IF somehow they are defects in it when just the opposite is true! You have no understanding of local gauge invariance, which, in this case is the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4) whose compensating field Bu^a is precisely the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad responsible for "intrinsic warpage" distinguishing the REAL gravity from the ARTIFICIAL gravity in Minkowski space-time. A problem you were interested in, that you never formulated properly, much less solve. I solved it. In Minkowski space-time Bu^a = 0, the Einstein-Cartan tetrad is the trivial identity Iu^a, the tangent bundle and the base space are degenerate and any GCT made on (Minkowski)uv is simply ARTIFICIAL gravity like in a rotating GNIF since the tidal curvature tensor vanishes in (Minkowski)uv it will vanish in any GCT made on it. You need the B field to get real gravity.
The key quantity in Puthoff's PV model, a wrong model falsified by experiment, better than not-even-wrong models (W. Pauli) is g00. What is goo really? What it is, is
g00(LNIF) = (I0^a + LpB0^aPa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)(LIF)ab(I0^b + LpB0^bPb(Goldstone Phase)/ih)
Where (LIF)ab is the Minkowski metric i.e +1, -1,-1,-1 all off-diagonals = 0, and I is the Kronecker delta, i = 1,2,3
g00 = 1 + 2LpB0^0P0(GP)/ih - 2LpB0^iPi(GP)/ih - Lp^2(B0^0P0(GP)/ih)^2 - Lp^2(B0^iPi(GP)/ih)^2
if I did not make a mistake in algebra.
What is really interesting are the LINEAR terms in Lp that are much larger than the quadratic terms!
In particular, when there is a gravimagnetic field goi from a rotating high Tc superconducting part of the saucer fuselage maybe, we get something like
g0i(LNIF) = (I0^a + LpB0^aPa(Goldstone Phase)/ih)(LIF)ab(Ii^b + LpBi^bPb(Goldstone Phase)/ih)
Again there will be relatively large Lp terms in the gravimagnetic field to couple to the EM 3-vector potential Ai in the Ray Chiao "gravity radio transducer" idea.
This is a BRUTE FORCE method. Mine is more subtle like Tai Chi i.e. imagine a the control macro-quantum phase is something like
Theta = (e/hc)Integral A.dl
With Pa operating on the Josephson phase difference
Goldstone Phase (GP) - Theta
The local zero point energy density is ~ cos[GP - Theta].
When this zero point energy density is negative we have equal opposite positive pressure causing an attractive contractive warp. On the other hand, when this zero point energy density is positive we have a negative pressure repulsive expansive warp. This is exactly what the Alcubierre "G-Engine" weightless timelike geodesic glider globally faster-than-light (locally standing still) time travel machine needs! The objections of Matt Visser and Stephen Hawking et-al are obviously not fatal barriers since we see the damn things over our nuclear missile bases according to Peter Jennings ABC TV Special on Feb 24, 2005. The Cat is Alive and Out of the Box. You want Disclosure? Now you got it. What's up Pussy Cat? We got a Tiger Tiger Eyes Shining Bright in The Dark Energy of The Knight! :-)
On Mar 12, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:05 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Coming from someone who has now completely caved in to my position re: Einstein equivalence, this is hilarious.
Paul you continue in your delusion that somehow I renounce EEP? In fact, the opposite is true. EEP in math form is simply
g(LNIF) = (I + B)(Minkowski)(I + B)
e = (I + B) is Einstein-Cartan tetrad
B is the "gauge force" picture i.e. T4 -> Diff(4)
B is the compensating field that RESTORES conservation of Pu currents including the new dynamical degrees of freedom of the B connection field.
The B connection is not the same as the (LC) connection in the geometrodynamic picture.
The EEP is the BRIDGE between the Gauge Force picture and the Geometrodynamic picture!
I do not in any sense "renounce equivalence"!
Given a metric without gravimagnetism i.e. goi = 0 (no rotating sources)
ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - gijdx^idx^j
i,j = 1,2,3
Physically
dT = (goo)^1/2dt
dL = (gijdx^idx^j)^1/2
For a light ray
ds^2 = c^2dT^2 - dL^2 in the LNIF
ds = 0 (null geodesic)
Therefore, the PHYSICALLY MEASURED SPEED OF LIGHT for that LNIF observer who sees the above metric will be c the same as in special relativity, i.e.
dL/dT = c in the LNIF as well as the COINCIDENT LIFs.
The COINCIDENT LIFs and LNIFs are connected together by the Einstein-Cartan tetrad (I + B) where B is the compensating gauge potential connection field from locally gauging global T4 to Diff(4).
Z: Excuse me -- my contention was that *in 1916 Einstein GR* the locally measured speed of light is always c *only in free-fall frames*.
J: Well you are wrong!
Z: The above is not 1916 GR.
J: It certainly is. You do not know enough of the math to see GR when it is staring you in the face as it is.
dT = goo^1/2dt
dL = (gijdx^idx^j)^1/2
i,j = 1,2,3
in LNIFs is in GR text books.
You get rotational Sagnac interferometer shifts in SPEED of light only when there is a gravimagnetic field H = (goi) as defined by Ray Chiao in his "gravity radio" papers.
His superconducting high-efficiency transducer posits a H.A gravity-EM coupling where A is the 3-vector potential of EM in the NR Galilean relativity limit.
Z: It's really very simple. Suppose you have a plane wave in gravity-free spacetime, propagating at every point at the invariant speed c as measured in an inertial frame K. Now go to an accelerating frame K' that is accelerating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. The normals to the wave fronts of the formerly plane wave now appear to change continuously in time, tracing *curved* spatial trajectories.
J: Show the math Paul! This is essentially gravity lensing. It does not imply that magnitude is changing only refraction change of direction.
Z: According to the equivalence principle, the effect of some homogeneous gravitational field on the same wave, as observed from the original inertia frame K, must be identical to the effect of going to the accelerating frame K' Clearly, if the light path is now curved, then the speed of propagation of the waves must vary from point to point on any given wavefront,
J: NONSENSE PAUL! When the metric is of the form:
ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - gijdx^idx^j = (cdT)^2 - dL^2
i,j = 1,2,3
the LNIF measured speed of light when ds = 0 is still
dL/dT = c same as in the COINCIDENT LIF.
, either in a gravity-free accelerating frame, or in a gravitational field viewed from an inertial frame -- as consistently affirmed by Einstein himself:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."
- A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity"
J: Hey Professor! Einstein uses "velocity" not "speed" there! Clean your glasses.
"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the VELOCITY of propagation of light varies with position."
IS GENERALLY TRUE FOR ALL WARPED METRICS
"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the SPEED of propagation of light varies with position."
IS FALSE and that is not what Einstein wrote! Paul, you garbled the difference between 'velocity" and "speed"!
A gravimagnetic field (Lense-Thirring frame drag) will IN ADDITION change the SPEED of light in vacuum, e.g. Sagnac effect, which even happens in special relativity and even in the Galilean limiting case since the fringe shifts are seen in lab experiments.
Now, if there is gravimagnetic Lense-Thirring "frame drag", then, in the LNIF
ds^2 = c^2dT^2 - dL^2 - Hcdt.dr
H is the gravimagnetic 3-vector with components (g0i) and dr is the 3-vector with components (dx^i)
Again ds = 0
(dL/dT)^2 = c^2 - cH(dt/dT).(dr/dT)
The speed of light in a gravimagnetic field is then
dL/dt = c[1 - (dt/dT)H.(dr/cdT)]^1/2
Note the effective sign inside the square root flips when you change the rotation sense. Of course, Paul you never formulated this mathematically, nor did he make any specific remarks of any utility on this problem.
Z: You are not addressing my actual statement, which is that *in 1916 Einstein GR* the locally measured speed of light is always c only in free-fall frames:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."
- A. Einstein, "The Meaning of Relativity"
J: Answered above. Your sloppy thinking again mistaking "velocity" a vector for "speed" the magnitude of the vector.
Puthoff also makes a similar mistake thinking that goo is a "dielectric", i.e. Puthoff-Davis-Yilmaz use:
ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - goo^-1(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
dl^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
Therefore, when ds = 0
dL/dT = c
dl/dt = c/goo = c/K
goo = n = index of refraction in PV picture
goo = e^-2GM/c^2r is further assumed.
But of course this is wrong since dl/dt is never measured. Hal Puthoff does an ultra-heretical meta-theoretical song and dance Dog and Pony show here that makes Matt Visser and Cliff Will red in the face, that, no doubt, you will think is brilliant. "No possible doubt whatever!"(Gondoliers);-)
*The Sagnac effect for rotating interferometers is an example. This formula applies even in GLOBAL SR without tidal curvature in the rotating GNIF.
Z: That's another can of worms.
J: Not at all. It's simply until you mistify and mystify it with your ultra-heretical meta-theoretics
Z.
On Mar 12, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Mar 11, 2005, at 10:12 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
"Replace light signals with sound to define time" - a genius idea from Zielinski! ;-)
Z: Well, the sophistication of this dialectical maneuver evidently went right over your head.
J: Oh yeah? Tell us how to do cosmology with sound waves? The point Paul is that the invariant light cone structure is essential to all practical applications in precision cosmology. Indeed, tidal curvature, as shown by Penrose, is a relative tilt between neighboring invariant light cones.
Z: Once you adopt 1905 Einstein kinematics, then of course it becomes fundamental to cosmology.
J: How else would YOU do cosmology? Also you cannot use Lorentz theory to get gravity!
Z: Except that GR, which is in fact the actual chronogeometric basis for modern cosmology, supersedes SR and only preserves the empirical predictions of SR locally, by way of correspondence -- and it even does away with invariant light speed as to local observations made in *non-inertial* frames!
J: Of course, so what? You characteristically state well-known facts of relativity AS IF somehow they are defects in it when just the opposite is true! You have no understanding of local gauge invariance, which, in this case is the local gauging of T4 to Diff(4) whose compensating field Bu^a is precisely the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad responsible for "intrinsic warpage" distinguishing the REAL gravity from the ARTIFICIAL gravity in Minkowski space-time. A problem you were interested in, that you never formulated properly, much less solve. I solved it. In Minkowski space-time Bu^a = 0, the Einstein-Cartan tetrad is the trivial identity Iu^a, the tangent bundle and the base space are degenerate and any GCT made on (Minkowski)uv is simply ARTIFICIAL gravity like in a rotating GNIF since the tidal curvature tensor vanishes in (Minkowski)uv it will vanish in any GCT made on it. You need the B field to get real gravity.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Richard Feynman did it before Stephen Hawking
I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few minutes but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual, and equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were discussing Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around to Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman, author of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme at Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR. He did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.
In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula. Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press, Saul Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of shining light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in at expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went back to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient model and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking formula!
A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about apparently.
I am driving back to San Francisco from Santa Barbara in a few minutes but I want to get this down while it's fresh in my mind. I just had breakfast with Alan Lightman, a delightful Southern intellectual, and equally delightful Marsha Bartusiak (both from MIT). We were discussing Phil Morrison, Bethe, Salpeter - old days at Cornell. It got around to Hawking and what he will be remembered for. Then Alan Lightman, author of "Einstein's Dreams" told us the following "narrative" (big theme at Kavli meeting hosted by David Gross, who actually is a GOOD ACTOR. He did a scene as Feynman in QED - good job.
In 1972 before Hawking came out with the Hawking radiation formula. Feynman was meeting with Kip Thorne's grad students, Bill Press, Saul Teukolsky & Lightman. They discussed a recent calculation of shining light on a rotating black hole and getting more energy out then in at expense of decreasing rotational energy of the hole. They all went back to Lightman's office. Feynman said: "Hey this is like stimulated emission. So he went to black board and did a A & B coefficient model and then when angular momentum J of the black hole J -> 0 there was still "A" spontaneous emission and it was the later Hawking formula!
A maid erased the board that night before Lightman and the others realized they should have written down what Feynman wrote. Not even Feynman thought it was important enough to write a paper about apparently.
Friday, March 04, 2005
Squeezed Coherent Macro-Quantum States
So as not to give the wrong idea below about Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle and complementarity still hold. What is not true is the over-simplified view, apparently first introduced by Heisenberg himself, but he corrected his error quickly, is that ALWAYS looking at the quantum object disturbs the object.
"It is possible to devise experiments where the disturbance is totally negligible, but where the Heisenberg relations are still valid. They are enforced by the complementarity of quantum mechanics."
e.g. non-demolition measurements in gravity wave detectors.
A note on quantum optics. Let ak and a*k destroy and create photons in mode phi(x)k. This need not be a plane wave mode. It can be a localized cavity mode. k does not necessarily mean wave number.
For now assume the photons are real, i.e. on mass shell excited states OUTSIDE the vacuum, not virtual photons INSIDE the vacuum.
Real photons can make QED detectors click, virtual photons cannot. However, virtual photons, and ALL virtual quanta do have direct gravity effects IF they have a net random zero point energy density that is not absorbed into the vacuum condensate.
Roughly Zero Point Energy Density = (Incoherent ZPE density)[1 - Lp^n|Vacuum Condensate|^2]
n = 2, or 3 depending how one normalizes, e.g. n = 2 in the world hologram model.
The general single-mode squeezed state is of the form
|z,s> = e^(za*-z*a)e^(sa*a* - s*aa)|0>
= coherent superposition in Fock occupation number space.
In space time this is
Define P ~ i(a - a*), Q ~ (a + a')
Wigner phase space density is in the P-Q symplectic plane. This has nothing to do with actual position momentum space.
Roughly
P^2 + Q^2 =
tan(theta) = P/Q
The unsqueezed coherent state Wigner phase space density is a displaced circular base Gaussian peak in the P-Q plane as a complex plane, i.e. an arrow of length^1/2 and orientation theta. The squeezed state is an ellipse base peak with major axis either along P or Q directions.
The trick now is to do same thing for virtual quanta INSIDE the vacuum!
On Mar 4, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am sitting in a video conference at Kavli Institute Thoeretical Physics at UCSB with Peter Galison's face on a big screen and three actors reading from his book "Einstein's Clocks & Poincare's Maps" all about clock synchronization in modern technology!
"Heisenberg's formulation of a dynamical disturbance necessarily induced on a syatem by a measurement was experimentally proved wrong" Seth Lloyd et-al
ref Scully, Englert et-al NATURE 351, 111, (1991)
"Heisenberg's principle ... is not a principle in modern quantum mechanics" S. Lloyd ... ref. H.P. Robertson, Phys Rev 34, (1929)
We had readings from Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen" and Slyboots Stoppard's "Arcadia". Alan Lightman author of Einstein's Dreams will comment. Last night we had Penny Penniston's play "Now Then Again" on changing the past in parallel worlds via advanced destiny waves FROM the future. The playwright wanted presponse so I explained the issue of signal nonlocality to Penny who is a professor of theater at Northwestern. See also SCIENCE 19 Nov 2004, Vol 306, 5700 especially p.1331 Fig 1
"Heisenberg's formulation of a dynamical disturbance necessarily induced on a syatem by a measurement was experimentally proved wrong" Seth Lloyd et-al
ref Scully, Englert et-al NATURE 351, 111, (1991)
"Heisenberg's principle ... is not a principle in modern quantum mechanics" S. Lloyd ... ref. H.P. Robertson, Phys Rev 34, (1929)
So as not to give the wrong idea below about Heisenberg, the uncertainty principle and complementarity still hold. What is not true is the over-simplified view, apparently first introduced by Heisenberg himself, but he corrected his error quickly, is that ALWAYS looking at the quantum object disturbs the object.
"It is possible to devise experiments where the disturbance is totally negligible, but where the Heisenberg relations are still valid. They are enforced by the complementarity of quantum mechanics."
e.g. non-demolition measurements in gravity wave detectors.
A note on quantum optics. Let ak and a*k destroy and create photons in mode phi(x)k. This need not be a plane wave mode. It can be a localized cavity mode. k does not necessarily mean wave number.
For now assume the photons are real, i.e. on mass shell excited states OUTSIDE the vacuum, not virtual photons INSIDE the vacuum.
Real photons can make QED detectors click, virtual photons cannot. However, virtual photons, and ALL virtual quanta do have direct gravity effects IF they have a net random zero point energy density that is not absorbed into the vacuum condensate.
Roughly Zero Point Energy Density = (Incoherent ZPE density)[1 - Lp^n|Vacuum Condensate|^2]
n = 2, or 3 depending how one normalizes, e.g. n = 2 in the world hologram model.
The general single-mode squeezed state is of the form
|z,s> = e^(za*-z*a)e^(sa*a* - s*aa)|0>
= coherent superposition in Fock occupation number space.
In space time this is
Define P ~ i(a - a*), Q ~ (a + a')
Wigner phase space density is in the P-Q symplectic plane. This has nothing to do with actual position momentum space.
Roughly
P^2 + Q^2 =
tan(theta) = P/Q
The unsqueezed coherent state Wigner phase space density is a displaced circular base Gaussian peak in the P-Q plane as a complex plane, i.e. an arrow of length
The trick now is to do same thing for virtual quanta INSIDE the vacuum!
On Mar 4, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I am sitting in a video conference at Kavli Institute Thoeretical Physics at UCSB with Peter Galison's face on a big screen and three actors reading from his book "Einstein's Clocks & Poincare's Maps" all about clock synchronization in modern technology!
"Heisenberg's formulation of a dynamical disturbance necessarily induced on a syatem by a measurement was experimentally proved wrong" Seth Lloyd et-al
ref Scully, Englert et-al NATURE 351, 111, (1991)
"Heisenberg's principle ... is not a principle in modern quantum mechanics" S. Lloyd ... ref. H.P. Robertson, Phys Rev 34, (1929)
We had readings from Michael Frayn's play "Copenhagen" and Slyboots Stoppard's "Arcadia". Alan Lightman author of Einstein's Dreams will comment. Last night we had Penny Penniston's play "Now Then Again" on changing the past in parallel worlds via advanced destiny waves FROM the future. The playwright wanted presponse so I explained the issue of signal nonlocality to Penny who is a professor of theater at Northwestern. See also SCIENCE 19 Nov 2004, Vol 306, 5700 especially p.1331 Fig 1
"Heisenberg's formulation of a dynamical disturbance necessarily induced on a syatem by a measurement was experimentally proved wrong" Seth Lloyd et-al
ref Scully, Englert et-al NATURE 351, 111, (1991)
"Heisenberg's principle ... is not a principle in modern quantum mechanics" S. Lloyd ... ref. H.P. Robertson, Phys Rev 34, (1929)
Gauge Force/Geometrodynamic Duality
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravityGauge.pdf
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Written at Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB
I make notation change at end so as not to confound "T" as stress-energy density source tensor bending geometry from T as torsion field 1-form. I use S for torsion.
On longitudinal EM waves. If photon has a rest mass then there would be such a component. Vigier suggests a very small photon rest mass of
mc^2 = hH(t)
H(t) = Hubble.
What about vacuum phonons asks R. Kiehn? One would have to do make a calculation of the correlations of virtual electron-positron zero point density fluctuations to compute the effective elastic PV parameters from QED with vacuum coherence. However, Zielinski is still wrong since these hypothetical vacuum phonons would have to obey O(1,3)Diff(4) dynamical symmetry with possible SBS of course. No reason at all to impose Galilean boosts except as the limiting case of v/c < 0, where v is observer velocity relative to another observer. We know that the virtual quanta have NO direct "clicks" on QED-based detectors. They could only be detected by their DIRECT gravity effects via Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
Virtual electron-positron quasi BCS vacuum coherence macro-quantum local "More is different" order parameter is a complex numbered Cartan 0-form PSI with Higgs amplitude |PSI| and Goldstone phase argPSI.
Local gauge force picture:
The Einstein-Cartan tetrad is
e = I + B
I is the holonomic tetrad for pre-inflationary false-vacuum globally flat 1905 SR without gravity and without inertia, where the tangent space and base space are globally identical, i.e. Kronecker delta &u^a, u is in base space. All quantum field theories in the false vacuum are conformal with zero rest mass.
B is the anholonomic tetrad compensating field from locally gauging the translation group T4 generated by energy-momentum Pa, a is in tangent space.
B = Bu^adx^u(dargPSI/dx^a) = Bu^adx^u(Pa/h)argPSI = *d^-1*argPSI
*argPSI = 4-form
d^-1argPSI = 3-form
*d^-1argPSI = 1-form
Einstein's local equivalence principle EEP is
g(LNIF) = en(LIF)e' = (I + B)n(LIF)(I' + B')
= InI' + BnI' + InB' + BnB'
U(1)em SBS in the false vacuum triggers the post-inflationary Big Bang and the emergence of our universe (among many) with gravity and inertia, i.e. m =/= 0 rest masses of lepto-quarks, W bosons.
Gauge transforms on B in gauge force picture <---> Diff(4) in geometrodynamic picture
(LC) when we only locally gauge T4 is the Levi-Civita connection (with no torsion fields for now) in the geometrodynamic curved space-time representation.
D = d + (LC) =
The 4th rank tidal stretch-squeeze curvature tensor is
C = D(LC)
It's 2nd rank contraction is
G = T = stress-energy density source tensor
DG = 0 are the Bianchi identities
DT = 0 is local stress-energy current density source conservation
note again EEP
g(LNIF) = In(LIF)I' + Bn(LIFI' + In(LIF)B' + Bn(LIF)B'
this is the explicit connection of the gauge force picture to the geometrodynamic picture
Locally gauging O(1,3) gives the torsion field extension of above 1915 plain vanilla GR.
S = Su^a^bdx^u(d/dx^a)(d/dx^b) =Su^a^bdx^uSab/h = Torsion field in base space
{Sab} = Lie algebra of Lorentz group O(1,3).
D* = D + S
Sua^b = eu^cAc^a^b
Ac^a^b = Ricci rotation coefficients
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravityGauge.pdf
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Written at Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB
I make notation change at end so as not to confound "T" as stress-energy density source tensor bending geometry from T as torsion field 1-form. I use S for torsion.
On longitudinal EM waves. If photon has a rest mass then there would be such a component. Vigier suggests a very small photon rest mass of
mc^2 = hH(t)
H(t) = Hubble.
What about vacuum phonons asks R. Kiehn? One would have to do make a calculation of the correlations of virtual electron-positron zero point density fluctuations to compute the effective elastic PV parameters from QED with vacuum coherence. However, Zielinski is still wrong since these hypothetical vacuum phonons would have to obey O(1,3)Diff(4) dynamical symmetry with possible SBS of course. No reason at all to impose Galilean boosts except as the limiting case of v/c < 0, where v is observer velocity relative to another observer. We know that the virtual quanta have NO direct "clicks" on QED-based detectors. They could only be detected by their DIRECT gravity effects via Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
Virtual electron-positron quasi BCS vacuum coherence macro-quantum local "More is different" order parameter is a complex numbered Cartan 0-form PSI with Higgs amplitude |PSI| and Goldstone phase argPSI.
Local gauge force picture:
The Einstein-Cartan tetrad is
e = I + B
I is the holonomic tetrad for pre-inflationary false-vacuum globally flat 1905 SR without gravity and without inertia, where the tangent space and base space are globally identical, i.e. Kronecker delta &u^a, u is in base space. All quantum field theories in the false vacuum are conformal with zero rest mass.
B is the anholonomic tetrad compensating field from locally gauging the translation group T4 generated by energy-momentum Pa, a is in tangent space.
B = Bu^adx^u(dargPSI/dx^a) = Bu^adx^u(Pa/h)argPSI = *d^-1*argPSI
*argPSI = 4-form
d^-1argPSI = 3-form
*d^-1argPSI = 1-form
Einstein's local equivalence principle EEP is
g(LNIF) = en(LIF)e' = (I + B)n(LIF)(I' + B')
= InI' + BnI' + InB' + BnB'
U(1)em SBS in the false vacuum triggers the post-inflationary Big Bang and the emergence of our universe (among many) with gravity and inertia, i.e. m =/= 0 rest masses of lepto-quarks, W bosons.
Gauge transforms on B in gauge force picture <---> Diff(4) in geometrodynamic picture
(LC) when we only locally gauge T4 is the Levi-Civita connection (with no torsion fields for now) in the geometrodynamic curved space-time representation.
D = d + (LC) =
The 4th rank tidal stretch-squeeze curvature tensor is
C = D(LC)
It's 2nd rank contraction is
G = T = stress-energy density source tensor
DG = 0 are the Bianchi identities
DT = 0 is local stress-energy current density source conservation
note again EEP
g(LNIF) = In(LIF)I' + Bn(LIFI' + In(LIF)B' + Bn(LIF)B'
this is the explicit connection of the gauge force picture to the geometrodynamic picture
Locally gauging O(1,3) gives the torsion field extension of above 1915 plain vanilla GR.
S = Su^a^bdx^u(d/dx^a)(d/dx^b) =Su^a^bdx^uSab/h = Torsion field in base space
{Sab} = Lie algebra of Lorentz group O(1,3).
D* = D + S
Sua^b = eu^cAc^a^b
Ac^a^b = Ricci rotation coefficients
Monday, February 28, 2005
Subject: Message from physics Nobel Laurerate Brian Josephson on signal nonlocality
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Remote Viewing
Are there two independent modes of communication?
1. Classical electromagnetic signals.
2. Signal nonlocality in violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory?
On Feb 28, 2005, at 1:40 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:
Please forward!
--On Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:13 pm -0800 Jack Sarfatti wrote:
J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I
have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only
possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of
micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.
The first manned Mars landing is about to take place (in the universal time frame of the Lorentzian interpretation). All are awaiting anxiously at the space centre on Earth. Then one of the astronaut's wives says "ah! they've landed safely, I can sense it". Eight minutes later a radio signal confirms this.
I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise,
I'm afraid it is. It is because science is an authority-based enterprise that cold fusion is regarded as non-existent despite the fact that many experiment(er)s have demonstrated otherwise (see e.g. lenr.org, newenergytimes.com)
Brian
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Remote Viewing
Are there two independent modes of communication?
1. Classical electromagnetic signals.
2. Signal nonlocality in violation of orthodox micro-quantum theory?
On Feb 28, 2005, at 1:40 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:
Please forward!
--On Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:13 pm -0800 Jack Sarfatti
J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I
have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only
possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of
micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.
The first manned Mars landing is about to take place (in the universal time frame of the Lorentzian interpretation). All are awaiting anxiously at the space centre on Earth. Then one of the astronaut's wives says "ah! they've landed safely, I can sense it". Eight minutes later a radio signal confirms this.
I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise,
I'm afraid it is. It is because science is an authority-based enterprise that cold fusion is regarded as non-existent despite the fact that many experiment(er)s have demonstrated otherwise (see e.g. lenr.org, newenergytimes.com)
Brian
* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Waiting for GOD(D) Oh!
Bill Gates said that China graduated 6 times as many engineers as US did in 2002! India also graduates more. America is 16th in science and math compared to the 20 developed nations, which exclude China and India as "undeveloped". China will soon control the US deficit and therefore the stability of our currency, which is rapidly deteriorating. We fiddle-faddle as Rome burns. Well, when booking passage on The Titanic, go First Class!
George got his PhD in physics from UC with I think Henry Stapp or maybe it was Geof Chew. In any case George answers Paul with more patience than I have had and I agree with George's position that fleshes out what I have been trying to tell Paul without success. So I let George do it. ;-)
G: Here a reply to your last points. Sorry, Jack, I guess my reply could be called heavy on philosophy (because that's the level of Paul's argumentation) but I hope it's not philophauzzy (or whatever term Feynman used)
Z: As I understand it, in 1905 SR reciprocal kinematic time-dilatation in inertial frames depends on the adoption of a *convention* for clock synchronization using light beams, and the *a priori* identification of the empirically measured and actual speeds of light. I agree that once this convention is adopted, the observations with light beams will conform to the predictions of SR. But this is still consistent with a Lorentzian model in which the observed dilatation due to purely relative inertial motion is only *apparent*.
G: I think Einstein's idea that the presupposition of absolute time was at the core of the tremendous confusion and turmoil at the time is the core idea of special relativity, and his solution to insist on an experimental procedure to determine space-time differences between two points was the logical method to challenge that presupposition; the specific method he proposed (using light signals) is in my view canonical. Or do you have an alternative suggestion for how to do it?
J: One of my main points precisely nicely put.
Z: I think I understand what Einstein was trying to do in 1905, namely, find a way of doing electrodynamics without reference to a light medium in empty space -- which implied a revision of Galilean kinematics in order to make the canonical form of Maxwell's equations apply in every inertial frame under a common set of transformations. However, the vulgar-empiricist idea that "time" can be defined in terms of one or another "operational procedure" is really quite problematic,
since there is then no way of separating effects that are purely due to the behavior of, say, the light rays used for clock synchronization, and those that are due to the objective behavior of the system under observation.
G: Time is not defined that way; it is much too fundamental for that. But its measurement is operationalized by Einstein's light-clock method, and you have not answered my above challenge to suggest a suitable alternative - presumably because you can't. Neither can I, nor Jack, nor probably anyone. Calling something vulgar doesn't express anything but your aversion to it; as long as you're clear on that, I won't further comment on your characerization of the position I have been taking.
J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.
G: As to your last point, you are begging the question with your distinction: what precisely (or even approximately) is this "objective behavior" you are supposedly distinguishing from our observation of the light rays and the signal values they carry (telling us how much time has elapsed, how far away an event is from the "here and now" of the observer, etc.)?
J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that. I have kept asking this same thing from Paul. It is the Achilles Heel of his spurious argument.
G: That such an objective reality exists and, more importantly, that it can be described in ways which are not founded on our sensory experiences which give us supposed knowledge about "it" (assuming for argument's sake that "it " has meaning and exists) is precisely the presupposition that stands in the way of understanding SR, GR and ultimately quantum theory. More, much more, on this later.
J: BINGO! Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the second degree! ;-)
G: Meanwhile I just challenge you to give experiential-experimental-operational meaning to your above point!
J: The next remark is obscure so I will attribute it to Z not to G.:-) This is a good Turing Test to see if by now you can tell who is saying what. That tests your understanding of the text and these ideas are important to Western Physical Science.
Z? Einstein's further supposition that such effects are *universal* does not alter this, although from the Machian-Poincarean-empiricist-conventionalist POV this licenses a complete erasure of the distinction. In philosophical terms, Einstein's 1905 reduction of "time" to a particular operational definition fails to support a fundamental theoretic distinction between appearance and reality, which of course is the problem with this kind of empiricism.
G: My comment above applies ditto to this. What is the "reality" which you counterpose to mere "appearance"? I fail to support such a distinction too :-) Of course, I am thoroughly familiar with the physicalist-reductionist scientism that presupposes such a distinction, and which feels it has a handle on what this physical-reality-per-se is, even if it can't say one single fact about this supposed "Ding an sich", since this latter is always known through the senses (and, less commonly acknowledged, through the mind). But I see it as a childishly naive perspective (here I'm doing it :-) ), which can be picked apart and deconstructed in many ways cognitively, (and in quantum science, also experimentally) and more importantly, which one can directly see to be fatally flawed if one looks with fewer blinders. In Buddhist terms, you would say that the "objective reality" and the "knowing subject" codependently arise, and you cannot reduce one to the other. The classic question Einstein was asked on this was: "Why use light?". Einstein's best public answer was: "Because light is something we know something about". In this sense it is misleading to call it a convention.
Z: That's what Einstein 1905 called it.
G: I don't want to argue this on the historical level of what Einstein said or didn't say. I intuit that it's not just a convention; more on that another time.
J: Mine too.
G: But unless one can give a very solid justification for calling the method canonical, Einstein's concession of calling it a "convention" avoids criticism, for how can you criticize a convention especially when you yourself don't have an equivalently good, much less better way to operationalize space-time measurements than Einstein did?
J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the third degree! ;-)
G: I think Einstein hit the nail on the head, and his fundamental method used then (insistence on operational definitions of basic concepts in physics) is one of the greatest revolutions in physics, far beyond just the SR or even GR.
J: Of course!
Z: Except that Einstein himself gave this up -- at least in its crude 1905 form -- in the 1920s.
J: Not to the degree you have taken it Paul.
Z: Einstein repudiated the "Machian" arguments that he deployed in the 1905 paper as "rubbish". This repudiation includes the attempt to reduce the meaning of a concept like "time" to a particular operational definition.
J: No, Paul you are distorting the facts here. It is false that Einstein abandoned the operational method. He refined it in 1915 beyond his immature use of it in 1905. He did not throw it away with complete abandon as you have! You have jumped way beyond Einstein's self-avowed "struggle" to free himself from a direct physical meaning of "coordinates" (i.e. "dr", "dt" etc. below) as is "common sense" in the Galilean relativity of engineering - and even in 1905 special relativity. In the simple case of the spherically symmetric static curved space-time
dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
dR is the tiny element of length OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods oriented radially from the source M.
dL = r(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)^1/2
dL is the tiny element of length actually OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods confined in the tangent plane to the surface of a concentric sphere of area 4pir^2 in terms of the usual flat space spherical polar coordinates. That is, the radially oriented measuring rods LOCALLY SHRINK compared to the tangentially oriented ones, which stay as they are in flat space without any gravitational field! Puthoff's PV theory violates this LOCALLY.
dT = dt(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
dT is the actual OPERATIONALLY measured time tick-tocked off by a resting "non-geodesic" LNIF clock. That is the LNIF clock held fixed in the attractive gravity field slows down in the gravity redshift! It will, in contrast, speed up in the repulsive gravity field of dark zero point energy density with equal and opposite negative micro-quantum pressure in the anti-gravity blue shift. Flying saucers show these strange red/blue shift patterns around the fuselage in silent weightless warp flight even at very slow speeds. Details of this are found in the Robert Bigelow NIDS reports of Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis as well as in my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II".
All of the above "LNIF" measuring rods and clocks are held at rest at fixed r etc by some non-gravity force. In contrast, the LOCAL equivalence principle is that momentarily coincident weightless freely-falling/floating "geodesic" LIF rods and clocks show no significant space and time warping like their LNIF non-geodesic "fixed" twins. There will be some tidal curvature stretch-squeezing of the LIF rods and clocks of course, but here on Earth the tidal effect is ultra-tiny. Kip Thorne & Company at Cal Tech work very hard to try to show these incredibly tiny stretch-squeeze tidal effects from gravity waves in their LIGO and LISA devices.
G to Z: I'd like to know more about this later Einstein position; do you have Internet-accessible references? So from a position of relative ignorance of what Einstein actually said about this issue and in which context and with which intention, I'll withhold further comment for now except to say that the later Einstein developed a very conservative bent; he realized that his own genius as a younger man had given strength to an empiricist-operationalist orientation amongst many physicists which led them to adopt positions in the emerging Great Quantum Controversy of the mid and late twenties and thirties which offended the objective-realist paradigm that Einstein clung to, fighting a more and more rearguard action in the process. I venture the fledgling hypothesis that at that point he may have regretted letting the geni out of the lamp, and gone back to critique and try to undermine his own method inasfar as this method had led to this for him very regrettable orientation of Bohr, Heisenberg and others. I would like to check this hypothesis by reading what "Einstein II" wrote.
Z: Einstein II's point (made forcefully to Heisenberg in 1926) was that the theoretic model that is adopted legitimately *corrects* empirical observations for distortions of the measuring instruments that are due to objective physical effects, and since after ~1920 the vacuum was considered even by Einstein to be both actively and passively physical, motion through the physical vacuum can have effects that are
fundamentally no different from, say, thermal contraction, and can therefore legitimately be accounted for by theoretic corrections..."
J: True.
Z ... which implies a reversion to a Lorentzian paradigm for interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism (at least on the metatheoretic level).
G: Can you quote a reference where HE actually said that? I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise, his actually saying the above would not prove the point
J: There you go again Z (not G). Give Z a nanometer and Z takes a megaparsec! In fact there is no contradiction at all between the Lorentzian and Einsteinian pictures any more than there is between the kinetic theory of gases and thermodynamics! The two go hand-in-hand like Love and Marriage between a Man and a Woman! ;-) Seriously, in moderns terms from the recent work of Arcos and Pereira in Brazil, you can equate the Lorentzian dynamical view to the gauge force method which meets up with Einstein's geometrodynamical view in the Einstein-Cartan tetrad mobile Cartan frame of four basic 4-vectors. The non-trival part of the tetrad is the space-time distortion compensating gauge field from locally gauging the global symmetry of translation group T4 generated by the total energy-momentum of the dynamical field of the world. This non-trivial part of the tetrad, in turn, comes primarily from the coherent holographic Goldstone phase of the spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) of the electromagnetic symmetry group U(1) of Maxwell's electromagnetic local gauge field that couples to the pre-inflationary turbulent Dirac Sea negative energy virtual electron-positron false-vacuum plasma in its Big Bang phase transition to the calm Higgs Ocean. Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity emerges simply, very simply from the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field. String theory? "Who ordered that?" (Isador Rabi)
G: A lot of the current bullshit (some of it brilliant bullshit, admittedly) going on in physics (including the bombastic claims of string theorists of having found the theory of all even though they haven't made a single observable prediction) could have been avoided if physicists had taken this basic point more to heart and insisted on relating everything back to experience.
J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the unsolvable Galois fifth degree! ;-)
Z: While I agree with you that operational *illustrations* of concepts and principles in physics impose a healthy discipline, I cannot agree that 1905-style operationalism -- which supposes that the meaning of high-level theoretic concepts like "time" can be reduced to one or another particular operational definition -- is rationally supportable, for reasons given by Einstein himself in the 1920s.
G: Again, please give me the reference to this supposed quote of Einstein. And again, time is not defined that way; its measurement is.
J: G just hoisted Z by his own petard!
Z: Back to the SR situation specifically: with the 1905 paper, the confusion surrounding Michelson-Morley and the Lorentz transformation dissolved; and simplicity, beauty, and the accuracy of experimental predictions reigned again. But in fact the Einstein-Minkowski formalism can be given a perfectly coherent Lorentzian interpretation, precisely due to the technical features of SR that are exposed in the analysis of my revised "Polish joke" version of the two-clock problem: the 1905 theory turns out to be much more "Lorentzian" than it first seemed to be, since the *reciprocal* effects of time dilatation on the observed retardation of clocks
-- a hallmark of Einstein 1905 theory vis a vis Lorentz's -- always automatically self-cancel when you bring clocks back together, exposing the "virtual" character of the once-supposed reciprocity.
J to Z: False Paul. You still don't understand it. The retardation does not always self-cancel when you bring the clocks back together. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't depending on the contingent histories of the clocks in a perfectly precise way!
G to Z: Again (I'm sorry I have to use this word so many times in this post) I would like to see your clean and according to you unassailable Gendankenexperimental statement of your critique of the Einstein (as contrasted to Lorentz). It is becoming very frustrating to me to hear statements from you to the above effect again and again, without having seen the corresponding formulation itself from you, except in forms which we have agreed were untenable. Please, out of consideration of my nerves ( :-) ) refrain from such claims as above until you have produced such a statement.
J: Agreed. Z has been playing this false hand now for several years.
Z: That doesn't mean that the Einstein model for SR is internally incoherent, or that the 1905 theory is mathematically inconsistent; it just means that when the technical details of the actual workings of the 1905 theory are properly understood, the *most natural interpretation* of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism is, ironically, Lorentzian.
G: I don't think Lorentz himself would have taken the position you are taking (once he had digested Einstein's approach), even though his name is associated with the position you are taking now because it was Lorentz's thinking BEFORE 1905.
Z: Actually that's not true: Lorentz never accepted Einstein's 1905 model. Here is Lorentz in 1920:
"It is not necessary to give up entirely even the ether. Many natural philosophers
find satisfaction in the idea of a material intermediate substance in which the
vibrations of light take place, and they will very probably be all the more inclined
to imagine such a medium when they learn that, according to the Einstein theory,
gravitation itself does not spread instantaneously, but with a velocity that at the
first estimate may be compared with that of light. Especially in former years were
such interpretations current and repeated attempts were made by speculations
about the nature of the ether and about the mutations and movements that might
take place in it to arrive at a clear presentation of electro-magnetic phenomena,
and also of the functioning of gravitation. ... In my opinion it is not impossible that in the future this road, indeed abandoned at present, will once more be followed with good results, if only because it can lead to the thinking out of new experimental tests. Einstein’s theory need not keep us from so doing; only the ideas about the ether must accord with it."
- H. A. Lorentz, "The Einstein Theory of Relativity" (1920).
In other words, there can still be an ether, but any ether model, in order to be viable, must take account of the pragmatic-empirical success of Einstein's theories.
I think Lorentz died in 1929. If you read Einstein's Leyden address on the ether, you will see that by 1920 there was a convergence of the views of Einstein and Lorentz:
http://www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_English_pp160-163.pdf
G to Z: I haven't heard back from you regarding a defensible formulation of the supposed contradiction within SR itself that you have been arguing.
Z: As I have said, there is no mathematical contradiction in SR even in the two-clock case; but there is a "paradox" if you wish to treat the *reciprocal* time dilatation of 1905 SR as an objectively real physical effect.
G: I don't, because I don't know what that means; see above. and so there is, for me, no paradox and no "paradox", and not even a ""paradox"" :-)
J: Agreed.
Z: The reason why 1905 SR is consistent in its predictions is precisely because the reciprocity of time dilatation that you get in a single GIF is lost when you use multiple matching GIFs to account for time dilatation over more than one inertial segment -- and that is precisely the point of my re-formulation of the traditional two-clock problem, which IMHO exposes this "paradoxical" feature of the 1905 theory very clearly.
J: Pretense! All one need do is calculate the classical phase world line integrals of the path-dependent histories of the inexact differential frame-invariant proper time element ds/c for each clock in the space-time diagram. Nothing new here and every proper question has a true and consistent answer. There is no paradox! No possible doubt whatever!
G: As far as I know non-existent re-formulation (in the sense that it would not remain a constant moving target, to be reexpressed differently (and again vainly) the next time. If you think I am trying to provoke you to finally produce the actual valid statement of the "paradox" (operationally, and without reference to nebulous terms like "obejctively real") then you are DAMN RIGHT :-)
J: I tried to do exactly that with Paul and failed. Paul Z is Tar Baby in Uncle Remus. Arguing with Paul is like trying to struggle your way out of quicksand.
Z: It is this precisely feature of 1905 SR that allows a coherent interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism in *Lorentzian* terms.
G: I take it that we are then leaving it at that, and Einstein vs Zielinsky is settled. Phew, I am relieved :-)
Z: No this is Einstein_1 vs. Lorentz, and Einstein_1 vs. Einstein_2! You have to distinguish sharply between two quite different issues:
(1) The mathematical consistency of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism; and
(2) The question of which is the more natural physical interpretation of the
Einstein-Minkowski formalism. Alas, "natural" may turn out to be in the eye of the beholder, or rather a funsction of his/her fundamental paradigm (or structure. Issue (1) is settled by the existence of a geometric model for the 1905 theory (Lorentz-Einstein transformations in Minkowski spacetime); whereas (2) is not at all obvious -- although it is beginning to look like the Lorentz model for the standard SR formalism is the more useful in the present stage of development of physics, and is the more natural physical interpretation.
G: It is beginning to look TO YOU to be more useful, maybe, but you have been unable to clearly (that means with reference to experience rather than metaphysical presupposed terms) state it much less substantiate it -- Still waiting.
J: For Godot.
Bill Gates said that China graduated 6 times as many engineers as US did in 2002! India also graduates more. America is 16th in science and math compared to the 20 developed nations, which exclude China and India as "undeveloped". China will soon control the US deficit and therefore the stability of our currency, which is rapidly deteriorating. We fiddle-faddle as Rome burns. Well, when booking passage on The Titanic, go First Class!
George got his PhD in physics from UC with I think Henry Stapp or maybe it was Geof Chew. In any case George answers Paul with more patience than I have had and I agree with George's position that fleshes out what I have been trying to tell Paul without success. So I let George do it. ;-)
G: Here a reply to your last points. Sorry, Jack, I guess my reply could be called heavy on philosophy (because that's the level of Paul's argumentation) but I hope it's not philophauzzy (or whatever term Feynman used)
Z: As I understand it, in 1905 SR reciprocal kinematic time-dilatation in inertial frames depends on the adoption of a *convention* for clock synchronization using light beams, and the *a priori* identification of the empirically measured and actual speeds of light. I agree that once this convention is adopted, the observations with light beams will conform to the predictions of SR. But this is still consistent with a Lorentzian model in which the observed dilatation due to purely relative inertial motion is only *apparent*.
G: I think Einstein's idea that the presupposition of absolute time was at the core of the tremendous confusion and turmoil at the time is the core idea of special relativity, and his solution to insist on an experimental procedure to determine space-time differences between two points was the logical method to challenge that presupposition; the specific method he proposed (using light signals) is in my view canonical. Or do you have an alternative suggestion for how to do it?
J: One of my main points precisely nicely put.
Z: I think I understand what Einstein was trying to do in 1905, namely, find a way of doing electrodynamics without reference to a light medium in empty space -- which implied a revision of Galilean kinematics in order to make the canonical form of Maxwell's equations apply in every inertial frame under a common set of transformations. However, the vulgar-empiricist idea that "time" can be defined in terms of one or another "operational procedure" is really quite problematic,
since there is then no way of separating effects that are purely due to the behavior of, say, the light rays used for clock synchronization, and those that are due to the objective behavior of the system under observation.
G: Time is not defined that way; it is much too fundamental for that. But its measurement is operationalized by Einstein's light-clock method, and you have not answered my above challenge to suggest a suitable alternative - presumably because you can't. Neither can I, nor Jack, nor probably anyone. Calling something vulgar doesn't express anything but your aversion to it; as long as you're clear on that, I won't further comment on your characerization of the position I have been taking.
J: Indeed, I would never even try to. It's not a legitimate question! I have also kept asking Paul for his "suitable alternative". The only possible one would, perhaps, be "signal nonlocality" in violation of micro-quantum theory. Paul, of course, never suggested that.
G: As to your last point, you are begging the question with your distinction: what precisely (or even approximately) is this "objective behavior" you are supposedly distinguishing from our observation of the light rays and the signal values they carry (telling us how much time has elapsed, how far away an event is from the "here and now" of the observer, etc.)?
J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that. I have kept asking this same thing from Paul. It is the Achilles Heel of his spurious argument.
G: That such an objective reality exists and, more importantly, that it can be described in ways which are not founded on our sensory experiences which give us supposed knowledge about "it" (assuming for argument's sake that "it " has meaning and exists) is precisely the presupposition that stands in the way of understanding SR, GR and ultimately quantum theory. More, much more, on this later.
J: BINGO! Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the second degree! ;-)
G: Meanwhile I just challenge you to give experiential-experimental-operational meaning to your above point!
J: The next remark is obscure so I will attribute it to Z not to G.:-) This is a good Turing Test to see if by now you can tell who is saying what. That tests your understanding of the text and these ideas are important to Western Physical Science.
Z? Einstein's further supposition that such effects are *universal* does not alter this, although from the Machian-Poincarean-empiricist-conventionalist POV this licenses a complete erasure of the distinction. In philosophical terms, Einstein's 1905 reduction of "time" to a particular operational definition fails to support a fundamental theoretic distinction between appearance and reality, which of course is the problem with this kind of empiricism.
G: My comment above applies ditto to this. What is the "reality" which you counterpose to mere "appearance"? I fail to support such a distinction too :-) Of course, I am thoroughly familiar with the physicalist-reductionist scientism that presupposes such a distinction, and which feels it has a handle on what this physical-reality-per-se is, even if it can't say one single fact about this supposed "Ding an sich", since this latter is always known through the senses (and, less commonly acknowledged, through the mind). But I see it as a childishly naive perspective (here I'm doing it :-) ), which can be picked apart and deconstructed in many ways cognitively, (and in quantum science, also experimentally) and more importantly, which one can directly see to be fatally flawed if one looks with fewer blinders. In Buddhist terms, you would say that the "objective reality" and the "knowing subject" codependently arise, and you cannot reduce one to the other. The classic question Einstein was asked on this was: "Why use light?". Einstein's best public answer was: "Because light is something we know something about". In this sense it is misleading to call it a convention.
Z: That's what Einstein 1905 called it.
G: I don't want to argue this on the historical level of what Einstein said or didn't say. I intuit that it's not just a convention; more on that another time.
J: Mine too.
G: But unless one can give a very solid justification for calling the method canonical, Einstein's concession of calling it a "convention" avoids criticism, for how can you criticize a convention especially when you yourself don't have an equivalently good, much less better way to operationalize space-time measurements than Einstein did?
J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the third degree! ;-)
G: I think Einstein hit the nail on the head, and his fundamental method used then (insistence on operational definitions of basic concepts in physics) is one of the greatest revolutions in physics, far beyond just the SR or even GR.
J: Of course!
Z: Except that Einstein himself gave this up -- at least in its crude 1905 form -- in the 1920s.
J: Not to the degree you have taken it Paul.
Z: Einstein repudiated the "Machian" arguments that he deployed in the 1905 paper as "rubbish". This repudiation includes the attempt to reduce the meaning of a concept like "time" to a particular operational definition.
J: No, Paul you are distorting the facts here. It is false that Einstein abandoned the operational method. He refined it in 1915 beyond his immature use of it in 1905. He did not throw it away with complete abandon as you have! You have jumped way beyond Einstein's self-avowed "struggle" to free himself from a direct physical meaning of "coordinates" (i.e. "dr", "dt" etc. below) as is "common sense" in the Galilean relativity of engineering - and even in 1905 special relativity. In the simple case of the spherically symmetric static curved space-time
dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
dR is the tiny element of length OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods oriented radially from the source M.
dL = r(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)^1/2
dL is the tiny element of length actually OPERATIONALLY measured by resting LNIF rods confined in the tangent plane to the surface of a concentric sphere of area 4pir^2 in terms of the usual flat space spherical polar coordinates. That is, the radially oriented measuring rods LOCALLY SHRINK compared to the tangentially oriented ones, which stay as they are in flat space without any gravitational field! Puthoff's PV theory violates this LOCALLY.
dT = dt(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
dT is the actual OPERATIONALLY measured time tick-tocked off by a resting "non-geodesic" LNIF clock. That is the LNIF clock held fixed in the attractive gravity field slows down in the gravity redshift! It will, in contrast, speed up in the repulsive gravity field of dark zero point energy density with equal and opposite negative micro-quantum pressure in the anti-gravity blue shift. Flying saucers show these strange red/blue shift patterns around the fuselage in silent weightless warp flight even at very slow speeds. Details of this are found in the Robert Bigelow NIDS reports of Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis as well as in my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II".
All of the above "LNIF" measuring rods and clocks are held at rest at fixed r etc by some non-gravity force. In contrast, the LOCAL equivalence principle is that momentarily coincident weightless freely-falling/floating "geodesic" LIF rods and clocks show no significant space and time warping like their LNIF non-geodesic "fixed" twins. There will be some tidal curvature stretch-squeezing of the LIF rods and clocks of course, but here on Earth the tidal effect is ultra-tiny. Kip Thorne & Company at Cal Tech work very hard to try to show these incredibly tiny stretch-squeeze tidal effects from gravity waves in their LIGO and LISA devices.
G to Z: I'd like to know more about this later Einstein position; do you have Internet-accessible references? So from a position of relative ignorance of what Einstein actually said about this issue and in which context and with which intention, I'll withhold further comment for now except to say that the later Einstein developed a very conservative bent; he realized that his own genius as a younger man had given strength to an empiricist-operationalist orientation amongst many physicists which led them to adopt positions in the emerging Great Quantum Controversy of the mid and late twenties and thirties which offended the objective-realist paradigm that Einstein clung to, fighting a more and more rearguard action in the process. I venture the fledgling hypothesis that at that point he may have regretted letting the geni out of the lamp, and gone back to critique and try to undermine his own method inasfar as this method had led to this for him very regrettable orientation of Bohr, Heisenberg and others. I would like to check this hypothesis by reading what "Einstein II" wrote.
Z: Einstein II's point (made forcefully to Heisenberg in 1926) was that the theoretic model that is adopted legitimately *corrects* empirical observations for distortions of the measuring instruments that are due to objective physical effects, and since after ~1920 the vacuum was considered even by Einstein to be both actively and passively physical, motion through the physical vacuum can have effects that are
fundamentally no different from, say, thermal contraction, and can therefore legitimately be accounted for by theoretic corrections..."
J: True.
Z ... which implies a reversion to a Lorentzian paradigm for interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism (at least on the metatheoretic level).
G: Can you quote a reference where HE actually said that? I would add that since science is not an authority-based enterprise, his actually saying the above would not prove the point
J: There you go again Z (not G). Give Z a nanometer and Z takes a megaparsec! In fact there is no contradiction at all between the Lorentzian and Einsteinian pictures any more than there is between the kinetic theory of gases and thermodynamics! The two go hand-in-hand like Love and Marriage between a Man and a Woman! ;-) Seriously, in moderns terms from the recent work of Arcos and Pereira in Brazil, you can equate the Lorentzian dynamical view to the gauge force method which meets up with Einstein's geometrodynamical view in the Einstein-Cartan tetrad mobile Cartan frame of four basic 4-vectors. The non-trival part of the tetrad is the space-time distortion compensating gauge field from locally gauging the global symmetry of translation group T4 generated by the total energy-momentum of the dynamical field of the world. This non-trivial part of the tetrad, in turn, comes primarily from the coherent holographic Goldstone phase of the spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) of the electromagnetic symmetry group U(1) of Maxwell's electromagnetic local gauge field that couples to the pre-inflationary turbulent Dirac Sea negative energy virtual electron-positron false-vacuum plasma in its Big Bang phase transition to the calm Higgs Ocean. Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity emerges simply, very simply from the non-trivial part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field. String theory? "Who ordered that?" (Isador Rabi)
G: A lot of the current bullshit (some of it brilliant bullshit, admittedly) going on in physics (including the bombastic claims of string theorists of having found the theory of all even though they haven't made a single observable prediction) could have been avoided if physicists had taken this basic point more to heart and insisted on relating everything back to experience.
J: Exactly, exactly, exactly! I second, third and fourth that to the unsolvable Galois fifth degree! ;-)
Z: While I agree with you that operational *illustrations* of concepts and principles in physics impose a healthy discipline, I cannot agree that 1905-style operationalism -- which supposes that the meaning of high-level theoretic concepts like "time" can be reduced to one or another particular operational definition -- is rationally supportable, for reasons given by Einstein himself in the 1920s.
G: Again, please give me the reference to this supposed quote of Einstein. And again, time is not defined that way; its measurement is.
J: G just hoisted Z by his own petard!
Z: Back to the SR situation specifically: with the 1905 paper, the confusion surrounding Michelson-Morley and the Lorentz transformation dissolved; and simplicity, beauty, and the accuracy of experimental predictions reigned again. But in fact the Einstein-Minkowski formalism can be given a perfectly coherent Lorentzian interpretation, precisely due to the technical features of SR that are exposed in the analysis of my revised "Polish joke" version of the two-clock problem: the 1905 theory turns out to be much more "Lorentzian" than it first seemed to be, since the *reciprocal* effects of time dilatation on the observed retardation of clocks
-- a hallmark of Einstein 1905 theory vis a vis Lorentz's -- always automatically self-cancel when you bring clocks back together, exposing the "virtual" character of the once-supposed reciprocity.
J to Z: False Paul. You still don't understand it. The retardation does not always self-cancel when you bring the clocks back together. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't depending on the contingent histories of the clocks in a perfectly precise way!
G to Z: Again (I'm sorry I have to use this word so many times in this post) I would like to see your clean and according to you unassailable Gendankenexperimental statement of your critique of the Einstein (as contrasted to Lorentz). It is becoming very frustrating to me to hear statements from you to the above effect again and again, without having seen the corresponding formulation itself from you, except in forms which we have agreed were untenable. Please, out of consideration of my nerves ( :-) ) refrain from such claims as above until you have produced such a statement.
J: Agreed. Z has been playing this false hand now for several years.
Z: That doesn't mean that the Einstein model for SR is internally incoherent, or that the 1905 theory is mathematically inconsistent; it just means that when the technical details of the actual workings of the 1905 theory are properly understood, the *most natural interpretation* of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism is, ironically, Lorentzian.
G: I don't think Lorentz himself would have taken the position you are taking (once he had digested Einstein's approach), even though his name is associated with the position you are taking now because it was Lorentz's thinking BEFORE 1905.
Z: Actually that's not true: Lorentz never accepted Einstein's 1905 model. Here is Lorentz in 1920:
"It is not necessary to give up entirely even the ether. Many natural philosophers
find satisfaction in the idea of a material intermediate substance in which the
vibrations of light take place, and they will very probably be all the more inclined
to imagine such a medium when they learn that, according to the Einstein theory,
gravitation itself does not spread instantaneously, but with a velocity that at the
first estimate may be compared with that of light. Especially in former years were
such interpretations current and repeated attempts were made by speculations
about the nature of the ether and about the mutations and movements that might
take place in it to arrive at a clear presentation of electro-magnetic phenomena,
and also of the functioning of gravitation. ... In my opinion it is not impossible that in the future this road, indeed abandoned at present, will once more be followed with good results, if only because it can lead to the thinking out of new experimental tests. Einstein’s theory need not keep us from so doing; only the ideas about the ether must accord with it."
- H. A. Lorentz, "The Einstein Theory of Relativity" (1920).
In other words, there can still be an ether, but any ether model, in order to be viable, must take account of the pragmatic-empirical success of Einstein's theories.
I think Lorentz died in 1929. If you read Einstein's Leyden address on the ether, you will see that by 1920 there was a convergence of the views of Einstein and Lorentz:
http://www.alberteinstein.info/PDFs/CP7Doc38_English_pp160-163.pdf
G to Z: I haven't heard back from you regarding a defensible formulation of the supposed contradiction within SR itself that you have been arguing.
Z: As I have said, there is no mathematical contradiction in SR even in the two-clock case; but there is a "paradox" if you wish to treat the *reciprocal* time dilatation of 1905 SR as an objectively real physical effect.
G: I don't, because I don't know what that means; see above. and so there is, for me, no paradox and no "paradox", and not even a ""paradox"" :-)
J: Agreed.
Z: The reason why 1905 SR is consistent in its predictions is precisely because the reciprocity of time dilatation that you get in a single GIF is lost when you use multiple matching GIFs to account for time dilatation over more than one inertial segment -- and that is precisely the point of my re-formulation of the traditional two-clock problem, which IMHO exposes this "paradoxical" feature of the 1905 theory very clearly.
J: Pretense! All one need do is calculate the classical phase world line integrals of the path-dependent histories of the inexact differential frame-invariant proper time element ds/c for each clock in the space-time diagram. Nothing new here and every proper question has a true and consistent answer. There is no paradox! No possible doubt whatever!
G: As far as I know non-existent re-formulation (in the sense that it would not remain a constant moving target, to be reexpressed differently (and again vainly) the next time. If you think I am trying to provoke you to finally produce the actual valid statement of the "paradox" (operationally, and without reference to nebulous terms like "obejctively real") then you are DAMN RIGHT :-)
J: I tried to do exactly that with Paul and failed. Paul Z is Tar Baby in Uncle Remus. Arguing with Paul is like trying to struggle your way out of quicksand.
Z: It is this precisely feature of 1905 SR that allows a coherent interpretation of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism in *Lorentzian* terms.
G: I take it that we are then leaving it at that, and Einstein vs Zielinsky is settled. Phew, I am relieved :-)
Z: No this is Einstein_1 vs. Lorentz, and Einstein_1 vs. Einstein_2! You have to distinguish sharply between two quite different issues:
(1) The mathematical consistency of the Einstein-Minkowski formalism; and
(2) The question of which is the more natural physical interpretation of the
Einstein-Minkowski formalism. Alas, "natural" may turn out to be in the eye of the beholder, or rather a funsction of his/her fundamental paradigm (or structure. Issue (1) is settled by the existence of a geometric model for the 1905 theory (Lorentz-Einstein transformations in Minkowski spacetime); whereas (2) is not at all obvious -- although it is beginning to look like the Lorentz model for the standard SR formalism is the more useful in the present stage of development of physics, and is the more natural physical interpretation.
G: It is beginning to look TO YOU to be more useful, maybe, but you have been unable to clearly (that means with reference to experience rather than metaphysical presupposed terms) state it much less substantiate it -- Still waiting.
J: For Godot.
The Axes of Evil are East of Eden
A physicist in Flinders, Australia named Reg Cahill claims he detects the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley interferometer is rotated by a right angle provided that the light signals in the two interfering light paths pass through a gas whose index of refraction is not equal to 1. The effect will not occur in vacuum or solid state only in gas. We do not know if Cahill is making an error or not, but suppose he turns out to be correct? What would it mean? The theory of everything rests only on the intimate tango dance two battle-tested ideas – each a kind of broken symmetry:
1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.
The pre-Einsteinian Galilean relativity symmetry of Newton’s 17th Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute simultaneity with an aether or vacuum medium of what Newton called “absolute rest”. This is easy to prove like a theorem in Euclid’s geometry. Imagine a non-rotating uniformly moving “inertial frame” (GIF). By definition, no external forces are acting on this platform of detectors. The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called a “geodesic” path. Suppose the velocity vector of light in vacuum is measured by Alice in this frame to be the venerable c, whose magnitude speed c = 186,000 miles per second in a given direction in space. Now imagine Bob whizzing by Alice with a relative uniform velocity vector v. What is the speed of the same light signal that Bob measures in his inertial frame? According to the Galilean symmetry group that light velocity vector will either be c + v if Bob moves opposite to the light signal, or will be c – v if Bob tries to outrace the light signal in the same direction. In what frame then will we see the speed c? Clearly, only in the frame where v = 0! That is, the Galilean symmetry or relativity automatically demands the frame of absolute rest as a corollary not as an independent postulate! Indeed, that was the key idea of Michelson at Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1880s. He aligned one arm of his horizontal interferometer in the direction Earth’s motion where c’ = c +/- v and the other at right angles where c’ = c still in the horizontal plane. Michelson expected to see the pattern of light fringes where the two beams come together shift when he rotated his interferometer by a right angle 90 degrees about the perpendicular axis to the horizontal plane that depended on the ratio (v/c)2. In fact, he did not see any such shift beyond his expected errors. In other words, absolute velocity v could not be detected! Fitzgerald, in Dublin, explained this unexpected result by saying that the length L of the interferometer path in the same direction as the Earth’s absolute velocity shrunk to L’ = L[1 – (1/2)(v/c)2]1/2. In contrast, the length of the other path at right angles to the first in the horizon tal plane stayed the same. This adhoc mechanical aether conjecture would explain the data. Poincare and Lorentz further developed this idea before 1905 when Einstein published his “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, which did not take much notice of Michelson’s interferometer anomaly. Einstein was concerned with the fact that Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations did not preserve their form under the Galilean relativity inertial frame transformations and this resulted in further anomalies when say a bar magnet and a coil were in motion relative to each other. You get one thing when the magnet is at absolute rest and another when the coil is at absolute rest. Such a split is not ever observed. This caused Einstein at age 26, an outcast from the university to replace the Galilean frame shift with something else that we now call the “Lorentz boost”. These new transformations changed time as well as space, but left the “space-time interval” ds invariant, i.e. unchanging for all relatively uniformly moving observers like Alice and Bob. Newton’s point particle mechanical equations changed in structure in order to be consistent with Maxwell’s field equation’s form not changing in the frame shift. However, since the speed of light in vacuum was a fixed point invariant, there was, it appeared no way to measure v the absolute speed. No way Jose, until Cahill and another guy Consoli from Catania, Sicily came along in 2005 100 years later. On the other hand, Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity (SR) does not say that absolute velocity violates the laws of physics. It only says that if some new measurement like Cahill’s measures it, then absolute velocity must be appended like Euclid’s 5th Parallel Postulate and is not a theorem as it is in Galilean relativity! Along comes SBS of the vacuum to save the day giving a general theory of “preferred frames” that does not violate the symmetries of the laws of physics!
The ferromagnet below its Curie temperature has a preferred orientation frame in a finite 3D space domain in its macro-quantum SBS ground state. Similarly, what Cahill may be seeing would be a preferred orientation frame in a finite 4D space-time domain in the macro-quantum SBS vacuum containing the Earth’s orbit. It might be the same or different at the orbits of Mars and Venus et-al. That is, the existence of such a preferred frame of “rapidity” is a contingent “frozen accident” of history from the amplification of a random micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuation in the pre-> post inflation phase transition that created the Big Bang. Similarly, for the anomalous weak spatially uniform radial gravity tug pointing back to the Sun
ag = - cH(t) ~ 10-7 cm/sec2
H(t) = R(t)dR(t)/dt
ds2 = -(cdt)2 + R(t)2[dx2 + dy2 + dz2]
seen in both the NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 space probes suddenly starting only beyond Jupiter’s orbit out 20 AU. This is exactly what is expected for a contingent frozen accident of history called the “hedgehog topological defect” in the Higgs Ocean macro-quantum coherent “multi-layered multi-colored” cosmic superconducting vacuum field out of which Einstein’s gravity with both dark energy and dark matter emerge completing Andrei Sakharov’s 1967 conjecture.
But we are not yet done because some physicists looking at WMAP anomalies think they see the “Axis of Evil” that is a preferred axis in space of the universe as if it were a giant “ferromagnet”. They don’t know about Cahill’s similar preferred axis in space-time! As if that is not enough, still other physicists think they see multiple images in the WMAP data suggesting that our space is finite and closed in a giant dodecahedron! It’s too soon to know if any of these people are correct or are charging wind mills. However, all of these allegations are simply explained in principle by only two great battle-tested ideas cited above. i.e.,
1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.
A physicist in Flinders, Australia named Reg Cahill claims he detects the absolute velocity of the Earth when a Michelson-Morley interferometer is rotated by a right angle provided that the light signals in the two interfering light paths pass through a gas whose index of refraction is not equal to 1. The effect will not occur in vacuum or solid state only in gas. We do not know if Cahill is making an error or not, but suppose he turns out to be correct? What would it mean? The theory of everything rests only on the intimate tango dance two battle-tested ideas – each a kind of broken symmetry:
1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.
The pre-Einsteinian Galilean relativity symmetry of Newton’s 17th Century particle mechanics automatically guaranteed absolute simultaneity with an aether or vacuum medium of what Newton called “absolute rest”. This is easy to prove like a theorem in Euclid’s geometry. Imagine a non-rotating uniformly moving “inertial frame” (GIF). By definition, no external forces are acting on this platform of detectors. The inertial frame falls freely weightless in what is called a “geodesic” path. Suppose the velocity vector of light in vacuum is measured by Alice in this frame to be the venerable c, whose magnitude speed c = 186,000 miles per second in a given direction in space. Now imagine Bob whizzing by Alice with a relative uniform velocity vector v. What is the speed of the same light signal that Bob measures in his inertial frame? According to the Galilean symmetry group that light velocity vector will either be c + v if Bob moves opposite to the light signal, or will be c – v if Bob tries to outrace the light signal in the same direction. In what frame then will we see the speed c? Clearly, only in the frame where v = 0! That is, the Galilean symmetry or relativity automatically demands the frame of absolute rest as a corollary not as an independent postulate! Indeed, that was the key idea of Michelson at Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1880s. He aligned one arm of his horizontal interferometer in the direction Earth’s motion where c’ = c +/- v and the other at right angles where c’ = c still in the horizontal plane. Michelson expected to see the pattern of light fringes where the two beams come together shift when he rotated his interferometer by a right angle 90 degrees about the perpendicular axis to the horizontal plane that depended on the ratio (v/c)2. In fact, he did not see any such shift beyond his expected errors. In other words, absolute velocity v could not be detected! Fitzgerald, in Dublin, explained this unexpected result by saying that the length L of the interferometer path in the same direction as the Earth’s absolute velocity shrunk to L’ = L[1 – (1/2)(v/c)2]1/2. In contrast, the length of the other path at right angles to the first in the horizon tal plane stayed the same. This adhoc mechanical aether conjecture would explain the data. Poincare and Lorentz further developed this idea before 1905 when Einstein published his “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, which did not take much notice of Michelson’s interferometer anomaly. Einstein was concerned with the fact that Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations did not preserve their form under the Galilean relativity inertial frame transformations and this resulted in further anomalies when say a bar magnet and a coil were in motion relative to each other. You get one thing when the magnet is at absolute rest and another when the coil is at absolute rest. Such a split is not ever observed. This caused Einstein at age 26, an outcast from the university to replace the Galilean frame shift with something else that we now call the “Lorentz boost”. These new transformations changed time as well as space, but left the “space-time interval” ds invariant, i.e. unchanging for all relatively uniformly moving observers like Alice and Bob. Newton’s point particle mechanical equations changed in structure in order to be consistent with Maxwell’s field equation’s form not changing in the frame shift. However, since the speed of light in vacuum was a fixed point invariant, there was, it appeared no way to measure v the absolute speed. No way Jose, until Cahill and another guy Consoli from Catania, Sicily came along in 2005 100 years later. On the other hand, Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity (SR) does not say that absolute velocity violates the laws of physics. It only says that if some new measurement like Cahill’s measures it, then absolute velocity must be appended like Euclid’s 5th Parallel Postulate and is not a theorem as it is in Galilean relativity! Along comes SBS of the vacuum to save the day giving a general theory of “preferred frames” that does not violate the symmetries of the laws of physics!
The ferromagnet below its Curie temperature has a preferred orientation frame in a finite 3D space domain in its macro-quantum SBS ground state. Similarly, what Cahill may be seeing would be a preferred orientation frame in a finite 4D space-time domain in the macro-quantum SBS vacuum containing the Earth’s orbit. It might be the same or different at the orbits of Mars and Venus et-al. That is, the existence of such a preferred frame of “rapidity” is a contingent “frozen accident” of history from the amplification of a random micro-quantum zero point vacuum fluctuation in the pre-> post inflation phase transition that created the Big Bang. Similarly, for the anomalous weak spatially uniform radial gravity tug pointing back to the Sun
ag = - cH(t) ~ 10-7 cm/sec2
H(t) = R(t)dR(t)/dt
ds2 = -(cdt)2 + R(t)2[dx2 + dy2 + dz2]
seen in both the NASA Pioneer 10 & 11 space probes suddenly starting only beyond Jupiter’s orbit out 20 AU. This is exactly what is expected for a contingent frozen accident of history called the “hedgehog topological defect” in the Higgs Ocean macro-quantum coherent “multi-layered multi-colored” cosmic superconducting vacuum field out of which Einstein’s gravity with both dark energy and dark matter emerge completing Andrei Sakharov’s 1967 conjecture.
But we are not yet done because some physicists looking at WMAP anomalies think they see the “Axis of Evil” that is a preferred axis in space of the universe as if it were a giant “ferromagnet”. They don’t know about Cahill’s similar preferred axis in space-time! As if that is not enough, still other physicists think they see multiple images in the WMAP data suggesting that our space is finite and closed in a giant dodecahedron! It’s too soon to know if any of these people are correct or are charging wind mills. However, all of these allegations are simply explained in principle by only two great battle-tested ideas cited above. i.e.,
1. Local gauge invariance restoring a dynamical broken symmetry of a source with a force field.
2. “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) in the vacuum state of virtual quanta and in the ground state of real quanta leaving the symmetry of the dynamics intact not broken.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Space-Time Warps & Theory of Everything
All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic “force-without-force”) fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical action. The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by the compensating gauge field. Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry intact. Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan “tetrad”/”Ricci rotation coefficients” extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium. In 1916 GR the Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields, but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 into Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in Shipov’s theory. There is a curious cross-play in that the disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear even in torsion-free 1916 GR. The curious cross-play is that the curvature disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging of the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J = L + S (space-space rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in instantaneously uniform relative motion. The curious cross-play is this dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The lack of preferred space-time frames with “absolute velocity”, as in the usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost sector of O(1,3). If there is such a broken symmetry then a particular “rapidity” (direction in4D space-time) of “absolute rest” is selected in a finite space-time domain, much like a particular 3D space direction is selected in a ferromagnetic domain. Cahill and Consoli have challenged this assumption in independent papers, which, however, are not consistent with each other. It’s too soon to know if there is any merit to these empirical claims, but if there is, their proper explanation is “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBR), this time in the off-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent vacuum relative to O(1,3) and possibly Diff(4) rather than the on-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent ground states of equilibrium superfluids (U(1)), ferromagnets (O(3)) and non-equilbrium lasers (U(1)) and living bio-membranes as in H. Frohlich's theory. (U(1)).
Bu = bu^aPa = (Goldstone Hologram Phase of Higgs Ocean),u
{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4
guv(Einstein LNIF) = (&u^a + bu^a)(Minkowski LIF)ab(&v^b + bv^b)
&u^a are the trivial holonomic tetrads (Kronecker deltas) connecting the curved base space to the quasi-flat tangent space fiber.
All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic “force-without-force”) fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical action. The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by the compensating gauge field. Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry intact. Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan “tetrad”/”Ricci rotation coefficients” extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium. In 1916 GR the Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields, but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 into Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in Shipov’s theory. There is a curious cross-play in that the disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear even in torsion-free 1916 GR. The curious cross-play is that the curvature disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging of the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J = L + S (space-space rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in instantaneously uniform relative motion. The curious cross-play is this dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The lack of preferred space-time frames with “absolute velocity”, as in the usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost sector of O(1,3). If there is such a broken symmetry then a particular “rapidity” (direction in4D space-time) of “absolute rest” is selected in a finite space-time domain, much like a particular 3D space direction is selected in a ferromagnetic domain. Cahill and Consoli have challenged this assumption in independent papers, which, however, are not consistent with each other. It’s too soon to know if there is any merit to these empirical claims, but if there is, their proper explanation is “More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBR), this time in the off-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent vacuum relative to O(1,3) and possibly Diff(4) rather than the on-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent ground states of equilibrium superfluids (U(1)), ferromagnets (O(3)) and non-equilbrium lasers (U(1)) and living bio-membranes as in H. Frohlich's theory. (U(1)).
Bu = bu^aPa = (Goldstone Hologram Phase of Higgs Ocean),u
{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4
guv(Einstein LNIF) = (&u^a + bu^a)(Minkowski LIF)ab(&v^b + bv^b)
&u^a are the trivial holonomic tetrads (Kronecker deltas) connecting the curved base space to the quasi-flat tangent space fiber.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Rubber Rods? JS Bell on Special Relativity
JS Bell in his "Unspeakable" book tells how almost entire Theory Division at CERN got an elementary SR problem wrong at first. Z made same error and I did not catch him in it.
Alice and Bob are in two rockets separated by distance L(0) at t = 0 in space when they fire their rockets equally to make a 1g artifical gravity field in their ships accelerating along z-axis. A taut string connects the rockets. What happens to the string? Correct answer is it will break. Most of the theorists in CERNs theory division guessed it would not break before they really thought about the problem. The problem is counter-intuitive because our Galilean relativity "common sense" assumes falsely that the separation between Alice and Bob L(t) is not changing when in fact it increases because the measuring rods along z shrink from the Einstein equivalence principle. See Kip Thorne "Black Holes and Time Warps" p. 30 picture for analogous spherically symmetric problem that also explains why the three real on-mass-shell quarks inside nucleons shrink to points in high magnification Heisenberg scattering microscopes using electron probes (e.g. SLAC deep inelastic "parton" data).
The effective artificial gravity metric, from the rockets inertial fields from Einstein's equivalence principle EEP, is
ds^2 = (1 - 2gz/c^2)(cdt)^2 - dz^2/(1 - 2gz/c^2)
The actually measured time and space intervals dT and dZ are
dT = dt(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2
dZ = dz/(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2
respectively.
Where dz ~ L(0)
In the weak field limit
x = 2gz/c^2 << 1
1/(1 - x^2)^1/2 ~ 1/(1 - (1/2)x^2) ~ 1 + (1/2)x^2
we can use the Newtonian kinematics of Galilean relativity to good approximation
z = (1/2)gt^2
1 - 2gz/c^2 = 1 - (gt/c))^2
L(t) ~ L(0)[1 + (1/2)(gt/c^2)] > L(0) if t > 0
That is, the actual physical separation between the two LNIF rockets each accelerating locally the same way actually increases so that the string will eventually snap and break!
On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:46 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
These Lorentz vs. Einstein arguments have already been made many times over. I mistakenly assumed you would be familiar with them.
Jack, you don't seem to have any intuitive appreciation of the difference between a Lorentzian "rubber-rod-and-clock" model and an Einsteinian "moving coordinates" model of the Lorentz transformations.
I am familiar. The argument is completely stupid as Kip Thorne says IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCE. The Cahill difference is not relevant to that distinction.
Didn't you read Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation"? He explains the difference from the standpoint of a spin-2 quantum field model quite vividly.
NO you completely MISUNDERSTAND Feynman. He is only talking about perturbation theory to finite order from a flat background and there you can maybe make the distinction you want to make implicit in Puthoff's PV "Tables I & II". As Penrose explains YOU CANNOT DO IT for the complete GR, which in Feyman's terms is a INFINITE SUM of flat diagrams! This is like in BCS theory
gap energy ~ (Debye Energy)e^-1/V(binding)(Density of Fermi Sea States Per Unit Energy at Fermi Surface)
You cannot get this SPONTANEOUS BREAKING of the VACUUM SYMMETRY from a FINITE NUMBER of flat back-ground diagrams.
Penrose distinguishes the "linear graviton" of Feynman here, also of Puthoff's Yilmazian PV from the "nonlinear graviton" in the book "Geometric Universe".
So your basic error here Paul is to take a limited approximate idea BEYOND its proper domain of validity.
Feynman's approximation and your distinction above violates what all the Big Boys today like Ashtekar, Smolin et-al call BACKGROUND INDEPENDENCE closely connected to the full meaning of the equivalence principle that your distinction essentially violates. That is NO RIGID BACKGROUNDS that act without direct back-reaction. Everything is a player. No stages. No fixed arenas - not even in quantum theory, hence the signal nonlocality of consciousness!
JS Bell in his "Unspeakable" book tells how almost entire Theory Division at CERN got an elementary SR problem wrong at first. Z made same error and I did not catch him in it.
Alice and Bob are in two rockets separated by distance L(0) at t = 0 in space when they fire their rockets equally to make a 1g artifical gravity field in their ships accelerating along z-axis. A taut string connects the rockets. What happens to the string? Correct answer is it will break. Most of the theorists in CERNs theory division guessed it would not break before they really thought about the problem. The problem is counter-intuitive because our Galilean relativity "common sense" assumes falsely that the separation between Alice and Bob L(t) is not changing when in fact it increases because the measuring rods along z shrink from the Einstein equivalence principle. See Kip Thorne "Black Holes and Time Warps" p. 30 picture for analogous spherically symmetric problem that also explains why the three real on-mass-shell quarks inside nucleons shrink to points in high magnification Heisenberg scattering microscopes using electron probes (e.g. SLAC deep inelastic "parton" data).
The effective artificial gravity metric, from the rockets inertial fields from Einstein's equivalence principle EEP, is
ds^2 = (1 - 2gz/c^2)(cdt)^2 - dz^2/(1 - 2gz/c^2)
The actually measured time and space intervals dT and dZ are
dT = dt(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2
dZ = dz/(1 - 2gz/c^2)^1/2
respectively.
Where dz ~ L(0)
In the weak field limit
x = 2gz/c^2 << 1
1/(1 - x^2)^1/2 ~ 1/(1 - (1/2)x^2) ~ 1 + (1/2)x^2
we can use the Newtonian kinematics of Galilean relativity to good approximation
z = (1/2)gt^2
1 - 2gz/c^2 = 1 - (gt/c))^2
L(t) ~ L(0)[1 + (1/2)(gt/c^2)] > L(0) if t > 0
That is, the actual physical separation between the two LNIF rockets each accelerating locally the same way actually increases so that the string will eventually snap and break!
On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:46 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
These Lorentz vs. Einstein arguments have already been made many times over. I mistakenly assumed you would be familiar with them.
Jack, you don't seem to have any intuitive appreciation of the difference between a Lorentzian "rubber-rod-and-clock" model and an Einsteinian "moving coordinates" model of the Lorentz transformations.
I am familiar. The argument is completely stupid as Kip Thorne says IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DIFFERENCE. The Cahill difference is not relevant to that distinction.
Didn't you read Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation"? He explains the difference from the standpoint of a spin-2 quantum field model quite vividly.
NO you completely MISUNDERSTAND Feynman. He is only talking about perturbation theory to finite order from a flat background and there you can maybe make the distinction you want to make implicit in Puthoff's PV "Tables I & II". As Penrose explains YOU CANNOT DO IT for the complete GR, which in Feyman's terms is a INFINITE SUM of flat diagrams! This is like in BCS theory
gap energy ~ (Debye Energy)e^-1/V(binding)(Density of Fermi Sea States Per Unit Energy at Fermi Surface)
You cannot get this SPONTANEOUS BREAKING of the VACUUM SYMMETRY from a FINITE NUMBER of flat back-ground diagrams.
Penrose distinguishes the "linear graviton" of Feynman here, also of Puthoff's Yilmazian PV from the "nonlinear graviton" in the book "Geometric Universe".
So your basic error here Paul is to take a limited approximate idea BEYOND its proper domain of validity.
Feynman's approximation and your distinction above violates what all the Big Boys today like Ashtekar, Smolin et-al call BACKGROUND INDEPENDENCE closely connected to the full meaning of the equivalence principle that your distinction essentially violates. That is NO RIGID BACKGROUNDS that act without direct back-reaction. Everything is a player. No stages. No fixed arenas - not even in quantum theory, hence the signal nonlocality of consciousness!
Theory of Everything?
On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:22 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
The only issue I am concerned with here is whether Lorentz invariance is universal and why.
I don't know what you mean and neither do you. The question is ill-posed.
In GR Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry not a global one because T(4) is locally gauged whose compensating field is the non-trivial part of the Cartan tetrad. This solves one of your problems, i.e. intrinsic vs coordinate.
Do you mean there are exotic vacua where O(1,3) is wrong even locally? No evidence for that at all.
G. E. Volovik has emergent O(1,3) at a fixed point low energy effective field theory in a renormalization group flow from a Galilean sub-stratum. Is that what you mean?
I am not arguing against spontaneously broken symmetry. Obviously you can get preferred frames in a physical vacuum by breaking the underlying dynamical symmetry in the solutions at the macro-level, which I think is what you are saying.
That's all the Cahill/Consoli data show, if they are real. Interesting and important to be sure - another triumph for PW Anderson's theory of emergent complexity! No change in paradigm needed.
The mainstream paradigm
1. Symmetries
2. Locally gauging symmetries to get forces (complementary to geometrodynamics)
3. "More is different" emergence via spontaneously broken symmetries in the locally lowest energy valleys of the landscape of the parallel worlds of the multi-verse.
This is all we need for the theory of everything from large-scale universe today to small-scale lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons.
From Stormy Pre-Inflationary Dirac Sea to Post-Inflationary Pacific Higgs Ocean. Oil on Water.
Einstein's gravity with anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter emerges as phase and amplitude modulations of the post-inflationary calm Higgs Ocean (AKA Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field, AKA vacuum coherence of ZPF).
I do not see what you are worried about. BTW the affine/vector space distinction for the space of Lorentz inertial frames is an elegant way to look at the contingent Einstein/Lorentz empirical significant difference. The alleged experimental anomaly is strictly isolated - no major damage control needed. Now if you could give me a counter example on that, then you would have something. At the moment you are charging windmills.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Stop making vague statements. Simply write a review paper in complete detail with logic like Euclid step-by-step what you think Einstein says, what you think Lorentz says etc. Stop using polemics. Don't talk about it. Do it.
On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:22 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
The only issue I am concerned with here is whether Lorentz invariance is universal and why.
I don't know what you mean and neither do you. The question is ill-posed.
In GR Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry not a global one because T(4) is locally gauged whose compensating field is the non-trivial part of the Cartan tetrad. This solves one of your problems, i.e. intrinsic vs coordinate.
Do you mean there are exotic vacua where O(1,3) is wrong even locally? No evidence for that at all.
G. E. Volovik has emergent O(1,3) at a fixed point low energy effective field theory in a renormalization group flow from a Galilean sub-stratum. Is that what you mean?
I am not arguing against spontaneously broken symmetry. Obviously you can get preferred frames in a physical vacuum by breaking the underlying dynamical symmetry in the solutions at the macro-level, which I think is what you are saying.
That's all the Cahill/Consoli data show, if they are real. Interesting and important to be sure - another triumph for PW Anderson's theory of emergent complexity! No change in paradigm needed.
The mainstream paradigm
1. Symmetries
2. Locally gauging symmetries to get forces (complementary to geometrodynamics)
3. "More is different" emergence via spontaneously broken symmetries in the locally lowest energy valleys of the landscape of the parallel worlds of the multi-verse.
This is all we need for the theory of everything from large-scale universe today to small-scale lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons.
From Stormy Pre-Inflationary Dirac Sea to Post-Inflationary Pacific Higgs Ocean. Oil on Water.
Einstein's gravity with anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter emerges as phase and amplitude modulations of the post-inflationary calm Higgs Ocean (AKA Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field, AKA vacuum coherence of ZPF).
I do not see what you are worried about. BTW the affine/vector space distinction for the space of Lorentz inertial frames is an elegant way to look at the contingent Einstein/Lorentz empirical significant difference. The alleged experimental anomaly is strictly isolated - no major damage control needed. Now if you could give me a counter example on that, then you would have something. At the moment you are charging windmills.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Stop making vague statements. Simply write a review paper in complete detail with logic like Euclid step-by-step what you think Einstein says, what you think Lorentz says etc. Stop using polemics. Don't talk about it. Do it.
Eve:The Mother Of All Inertial Frames
Paul
Of course I understand the data Cahill is alleging. But neither you nor Cahill understand the real meaning of that data!
When there is a n =/= 1 (index of gas) "v =/= 0" absolute velocity detected, that means a vacuum symmetry breaking of O(1,3). It does not mean a return to t' = t absolute time of Galilean relativity. You still must use O(1,3) to get from one inertial frame to another even though there is a preferred frame which is to O(1,3) as the ferromagnetic order parameter is to O(3). There is a local vacuum order parameter just like there is a ferromagnetic order parameter.
Let Eve be in the preferred frame v = 0. This means that no fringe shifts on 90 degree rotations of the MM interferometer at rest in Eve's frame.
If Alice (Bob) measures v(Alice(Bob)) that means the Lorentz boost between Alice(Bob) and Eve is via [1 - (v(Alice(Bob))/c)^2]^-1/2 with the usual Lorentz transformations!
On the other hand the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (do 1 + 1 to keep it simple for now) directly measured in their Doppler radar is
v(Alice - Bob) = - v(Bob - Alice) = [v(Alice) - v(Bob)]/[1 - v(Alice)v(Bob)/c^2]
So that a direct boost between Alice and Bob (bypassing Eve) is via
[1 - (v(Alice - Bob)/c)^2]^-1/2
There is no problem with reciprocity as you incorrectly allege.
Apart from Alice and Bob seeing anomalous MM fringe shifts on 90 deg rotations if n =/= 1 and Eve seeing none, everything else is completely normal! Nothing else changes.
The anomaly is truly isolated! It is contingent not fundamental. No change of paradigm is required. A spontaneous broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry in a finite space-time region simply means that the space of inertial frames is a vector space with an origin rather than an affine space with no origin, i.e. no preferred inertial Eve frame.
Ignoring GR curvature et-al for now, the kinematics of frame transforms is still O(1,3) and the dynamics is still O(1,3) covariant.
A revolution is not called for. There is no impending paradigm shift overturning Einstein as Cahill professes. There is no return to Galilean relativity. One simply punches an isolated hole in Einstein's affine space of inertial frames. End of story.
If you can find an inconsistency here show it. Cahill is the new Herbert Dingle even if his claims (and Consoli's in Catania) of the n =/= 1 Michelson-Morley fringe pattern shift on 90 degree rotations is confirmed. What he infers from that alleged fact is not justified by the evidence and the mainstream ideas of local gauge invariance with dynamics from compensating field and the "More is different" spontaneous breaking of vacuum (ground state) symmetries from the large-scale of cosmology to the shortest scales of high-energy physics.
Paul
Of course I understand the data Cahill is alleging. But neither you nor Cahill understand the real meaning of that data!
When there is a n =/= 1 (index of gas) "v =/= 0" absolute velocity detected, that means a vacuum symmetry breaking of O(1,3). It does not mean a return to t' = t absolute time of Galilean relativity. You still must use O(1,3) to get from one inertial frame to another even though there is a preferred frame which is to O(1,3) as the ferromagnetic order parameter is to O(3). There is a local vacuum order parameter just like there is a ferromagnetic order parameter.
Let Eve be in the preferred frame v = 0. This means that no fringe shifts on 90 degree rotations of the MM interferometer at rest in Eve's frame.
If Alice (Bob) measures v(Alice(Bob)) that means the Lorentz boost between Alice(Bob) and Eve is via [1 - (v(Alice(Bob))/c)^2]^-1/2 with the usual Lorentz transformations!
On the other hand the relative velocity between Alice and Bob (do 1 + 1 to keep it simple for now) directly measured in their Doppler radar is
v(Alice - Bob) = - v(Bob - Alice) = [v(Alice) - v(Bob)]/[1 - v(Alice)v(Bob)/c^2]
So that a direct boost between Alice and Bob (bypassing Eve) is via
[1 - (v(Alice - Bob)/c)^2]^-1/2
There is no problem with reciprocity as you incorrectly allege.
Apart from Alice and Bob seeing anomalous MM fringe shifts on 90 deg rotations if n =/= 1 and Eve seeing none, everything else is completely normal! Nothing else changes.
The anomaly is truly isolated! It is contingent not fundamental. No change of paradigm is required. A spontaneous broken O(1,3) vacuum symmetry in a finite space-time region simply means that the space of inertial frames is a vector space with an origin rather than an affine space with no origin, i.e. no preferred inertial Eve frame.
Ignoring GR curvature et-al for now, the kinematics of frame transforms is still O(1,3) and the dynamics is still O(1,3) covariant.
A revolution is not called for. There is no impending paradigm shift overturning Einstein as Cahill professes. There is no return to Galilean relativity. One simply punches an isolated hole in Einstein's affine space of inertial frames. End of story.
If you can find an inconsistency here show it. Cahill is the new Herbert Dingle even if his claims (and Consoli's in Catania) of the n =/= 1 Michelson-Morley fringe pattern shift on 90 degree rotations is confirmed. What he infers from that alleged fact is not justified by the evidence and the mainstream ideas of local gauge invariance with dynamics from compensating field and the "More is different" spontaneous breaking of vacuum (ground state) symmetries from the large-scale of cosmology to the shortest scales of high-energy physics.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Decoding The Cipher of Genesis
Decoding The Cipher of Genesis
"quasi-local approach" ... "super-potential, which is a Hamiltonian boundary term" "screen" of World Hologram i.e. local horizon on (anti) De Sitter space-time with Hawking radiation? That is the gravity energy only depends on the horizon surface not on local space volume elements! 3D Space is a holographic image! See p. 16 section E of Brazilian paper. They go on to get a local representation in the complementary or dual gauge-force picture that is physically equivalent to the nonlocal geometrodynamic picture.
The Brazilians Arcos & Pereira (2005) discuss the nonlocality of the gravity energy in Einstein's geometrodynamic representation with curvature and no torsion that is Bohr complementary to the gauge force representation with torsion and no curvature. However the Brazilian "torsion" should not be confused with Gennady Shipov's torsion. They are entirely different and different words should be used.
My own macro-quantum theory, for the emergence of Einstein's curvature in the post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene) AKA "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field (Frank Wilczek) AKA partial cohering of the pre-inflationary random micro-quantum zero point false vacuum fluctuations, is more naturally set in the Brazilian gauge force representation initially although I immediately transform to Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical representation as more heuristic for getting new insights.
Recall that the pre-inflationary unstable false vacuum is a conformal vacuum without gravitation or inertia admitting only massless lepto-quark and boson gauge force special relativistic quantum fields. U(1)SU(2)SU(3) is locally gauged in the false vacuum. No part of the 15 parameter conformal group is locally gauged pre-inflation.
Conformal Group C(4)
= Dilation*(Conformal Boosts to Uniformly Accelerating Hyperbolic Motion)*(Translations)*(Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts)
T4 = normal subgroup of translations generated by Wheeler's "mom-energy" = Lie algebra {Pa}
O(1,3) = (Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts) = Lorentz Group
Lorentz Boost = space-time rotation
real angles of rotation of an extended rigid body have imaginary extensions that are equivalent to the "rapidities" of the Lorentz boosts.
Spontaneous breaking of O(3) rotation group symmetry in the ground state of many spinning electrons is ferromagnetism. Ferromagnetism is a preferred frame of orientation in space without explicit O(3) breaking terms in the dynamical action.
Similarly, data like Cahill's and Consoli's claiming a preferred Lorentz inertial frame would, if corroborated, merely mean spontaneous breakdown of the O(1,3) group in the physical vacuum, particularly its boost sector. The preferred frame of absolute rest means a set of rapidities are chosen in a finite region of vacuum just like a set of rotation angles (only latitude and longitude on the celestial sphere, twist rotation (torsion field?) about the preferred space direction is another issue using ALL THREE Euler angles, is chosen in a finite domain of the ferromagnetic ground state.
Einstein, not knowing about spontaneous symmetry breakdown in 1905, thought of the space of global inertial frames (pre-GR 1916) as an affine space without a preferred origin. Lorentz thought of this space of frames as a vector space with an origin. This is a real experimental difference, but it is contingent not fundamental. The way the symmetry breaks in a ferromagnetic domain is contingent like a pimple on one's nose. Similarly, for Cahill's claim - a small blemish on Einstein's nose for The Truth! :-)
All dynamics comes from the minimal coupling local gauge principle of different symmetry groups both internal and external in 4D space-time. Roger Penrose says extra space dimensions are unstable so let's see if we can do without them. No supersymmetry needed as yet either since I predict supersymmetry will not be found in the LHC and also that dark matter detectors will never click with the right stuff, e.g. on-mass-shell neutralinos et-al do not exist. These are falsifiable predictions.
From Stormy Dirac Sea to Calm Higgs Ocean (Oil upon The Waters of Creation)
Looking only, for now, at the low-energy tail of the false pre-inflationary conformal vacuum sans gravity and inertia, both emergent properties, the Dirac negative energy virtual Fermi energy is E = 0 and the zero point PV virtual electron-positron pairs in a small thickness of the Fermi surface form virtual bound states fusing into the zero entropy BEC vacuum condensate "Higgs Ocean" that trigger the inflation and the emergence of Einstein's gravity along with all rest masses m and both dark energy and dark matter.
Post-inflation, the Cartan tetrad encoding the important part of the equivalence principle (EEP) is
eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a
Bu = Bu^aPa/h = (Higgs Ocean Goldstone Phase),u
{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4
i.e. the non-trivial curved intrinsic part - the actual or "real" gravitational field that is locally equivalent to an inertial field in a local non-inertial frame of reference, AKA "LNIF"
This is a spontaneous broken locally-gauged U(1)em vacuum symmetry exactly like in the BCS superconductor where, instead of on-mass-shell charged 2e electron pairs, we have neutral virtual electron-positron pairs in an off-mass-shell "bound state". The result is a locally-gauged T4 dynamical non-trivial tetrad field eu^a emergent from the spontaneous broken U(1)em vacuum symmetry. The release of binding energy of the virtual electron-positron pairs powers the Big Bang.
Message from Cahill
bcc
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Hi Jack,
What a story! It seems to me that you are approaching the issues from the wrong direction and whence the incredibly complicated path.
Seems pretty simple to me. Local gauge invariance and spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. :-)
The first issue is to get clear picture of what has emerged. The interferometer experiments have shown that (i) absolute motion is detectable, and (ii) that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Yes, I understand that. I have not understood all the technical details of the experiments in your paper(s) nor those of Consoli. The two of you seem to differ in some important details although generally you are reporting the same kind of qualitative effect. You get different absolute speeds in different directions I think? But neither are zero and that's the point. By "Newtonian physics" I assume you mean specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian relativity, i.e.
x -> x' = x - vt
t -> t' = t
is wrong (e.g. Ch 15, Panofsky & Phillips)
x -> x' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(x - vt)
t -> t' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(t - vx/c^2)
is correct even when there is a preferred global inertial frame that we call "absolute rest". Also for now we try to neglect general relativity, although that may not be possible in the end for these measurements.
This followed after the discovery that a theory for the interferometer must take account of relativistic effects and the effect of the refractive index of the gas present (Cahill and Kitto 2002). The results were confirmed by two coaxial cable experiments, which being 1st order in v/c don't need relativistic effect corrections. Then it follows that we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. This fits neatly in with the original 19th century Lorentz interpretation, namely that absolute motion is the cause of relativistic effects.
Can you elaborate on that? Exactly how is it the "cause"?
It also means that the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of these same effects is wrong..there is no spacetime.
Can you elaborate on that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanation. :-) My position, as you may have gathered is that there is no major change of interpretation needed assuming your experiments and Consoli's similar ones, stand the test of scrutiny. Renouncing the battle-tested special relativity i.e.
Require dynamical actions to be Lorentz-invariant with Lorentz-covariant Euler-Lagrange equations, with standard modifications of general relativity, is not at all affected, with all its consequences for the computation of scattering cross sections, atomic & nuclear spectra etc.
We do not have put in O(3) violating terms in the action for the Heisenberg ferromagnet with the Coulomb exchange interaction in order to explain the O(3) violation in the ferromagnetic ground state. In exactly the same way, we do not need to put O(1,3) violating terms in the actions of the fundamental quantum fields of physics (lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons) to explain your reports of O(1,3) violation in the vacuum.
Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state of a given model of quantum dynamics is the very definition of what a "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. This is an explanation "for all seasons" as it were. :-)
So the speed of light is c only relative to this space, and not relative to all non-accelerating observers.
That's so in a more general sense for all instances of spontaneous symmetry breakdown leaving the kinematics and the dynamics intact. Every symmetry group G defines its own class of "frames of reference" i.e. base states for a given representation of G. In the case of O(1,3) in real space-time we have the class of global inertial frames. The only significantdifference between Einstein's interpretation of O(1,3) and Lorentz's is that Einstein says that the space of frames is affine, and Lorentz says that it's a vector space with an "origin" = "preferred frame" = a chosen "rapidity" in the space-time vacuum just like the chosen "space orientation" in the ferromagnetic ground state. Occam's Razor is with me here. More with less.
So Einstein's main postulate is disproved by experiment.
I do not think you have proved that. Indeed, I think I just proved the very opposite! :-)
Nevertheless one can use a mathematical spacetime, because the spacetime encodes absolute motion effects, albeit in a manner that is well hidden.
You need to explain that in a lot more detail. :-)
So we have a 3-space and separately a time phenomenon. The 3-space is in relative motion, that is, different regions of it have relative motion, as well that motion is time-dependent.
I am not sure what you mean. Let's think of a ferromagnet. Is it like the buckling of tectonic plates? The different ferromagnetic domains are pressing against each other? This is no problem in vacuum because the vacuum has a local macro-quantum order parameter, e.g. Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered, multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field. (Nature Jan 20, 2005 "In Search of Symmetry Lost").
Presumably this space has some substratum structure, and that structure has relative motion. These two effects cause gravity.
How? Now I have shown exactly how. No if's and's and but's - but the actual equations.
An interferometer or coaxial cable device can detect motion relative to that space.
Yeah, no problemo, once one has the idea of spontaneous broken symmetry with the vacuum condensate as the "aether" or substratum. Frank Wilczek explains this pretty well in Jan 20, 2005 Nature. I suggest you look at it. :-)
That by itself does'nt imply some preferred direction intrinsic to the space..rather it simply means that the device is moving through that space.
You do not get my point. The ferromagnet is only an analogy. I never said that your data show a preferred direction in space. What I said was that your data, and Consoli's, if true show a preferred direction in space-time i.e. rapidity i.e. absolute velocity. So the preferred direction in space is a Red Herring. :-)
The intrinsic local direction in space is determined by the direction of the convective acceleration (=the spatial inhomogeneity direction) and the time-dependence of the velocity field.
I don't understand this. I assume this is your "flow" theory that I have not read in detail. It is not needed. It is too ad-hoc, too Rube Goldberg and we already have exactly what we need in the two battle-tested ideas of modern theoretical physics
1. Local gauge symmetry inducing compensating connection fields.
2. Spontaneous breaking of the meta-stable state of lowest energy for the covariant dynamics relative to the above local gauge symmetry.
It works in the heavens of the internal dimensions (electro-weak/strong) as well as on the ground of being (space-time with gravity and maybe torsion and other fields).
We now know all this because (i) the Miller data is so extensive that one can extract from it the flow past the earth towards the sun (some 42 km/s), as well as galactic flow and turbulence (novel non-Einsteinain gravity waves) in that flow, (ii) both Newtonian gravity and GR (in those cases where it has been successfully tested) can be written in the form of a flow theory. Most importantly these flow formalisms can be generalised, and the new dynamical effects turn out to be the so-called `dark matter' effect.
I have a complete explanation of both gravitating "dark matter" and anti-gravitating "dark energy" in terms of Einstein's
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
and spontaneous breakdown of U(1)em vacuum symmetry. Done elsewhere.
This non-relativistic gravity effect is not in either NG or GR, so even NG is serioulsy wrong. That new effect has been tested against various experiments and observations as well. We are developing experiments at Flinders university to measure the flow component into the earth (the inhomogeneity of that flow is the cause of the earth's gravity, speed at surface is 11km/s). Because this is small compared to the galactic flow (some 400km/s) the earth in-flow is not easy to measure.
Well we will not settle this now. My position is that everything you see, if corroborated, can be explained simply and directly with only two battle-tested mainstream ideas
1. local gauge symmetry
2. spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry i.e. P.W. Anderson's emergent "More is different".
The Great Temple of Theoretical Physics Today rests firmly on the above two pillars and you are not Samson! :-)
Penrose, Hawking, Rees et-al can sleep in comfort tonite that you will not pull their covers off in the middle of a cold winter's night. :-)
Now what does that all give us? Take the simplest case first. (Classical) Maxwell's equations have a well known spacetime/covariant form. In that form the speed of light in vacuum is always c. But what does that really mean? How does one measure that? Well one can simply use a rod and clock, and sure enough one will find that the speed of light, no matter which observer does the measurment, and even for different observers in relative motion, all will find the speed to be c=300,000km/s. Howver we now know that an observer can measure the velocity of his rods and clocks through space. That motion will have changed their length/ticking rate. Then each observer must correct the data from his experiment..after all his rods/clocks are being affected by their motion. He will then find that the corrected speed is now only c relative to a particular frame, namely relative to a real 3-space.
I would need to see the detailed math for that. When I do the math I always get c as a the fixed point even when there is a preferred frame. Maybe I am doing something wrong? We shall see. However, Hal Puthoff will LOVE your theory here since it sounds very much like his PV theory in his Tables I & II! On the other hand, I bet you are wrong. I could be wrong of course and you could be right - we shall see. :-)
I will come back to this in the coming days.
So Maxwell's equations actually encode real physical effects of absolute motion upon the rods and clocks which are used to `define' the length and time scales. So these equations have BOTH absolute motion effects and the dynamics of the E and B fields. Then one can write Maxwell's equations in a form that explicitly reveals the preferred frame, and so separates these two effects.
Have you done that? Where?
This involves a non-linear change of variables. It leads to PDEs in which the partial time derivative is replaced by the Euler total derivative (which involves the velocity of the observer, and so the rods and clocks, relative to the 3-space). The covariant equations have Lorentz symmetry (of course). The new Maxwell equations have Galilean symmetry. Both symmetries are exact. They are being applied to different forms of the data. In the case of Lorentz symmetry the dynamical effects of absolute motion and the E-B field dynamics are not separated. In the Galilean form the absolute motion effects upon the rods and clocks are separated from the E-B dynamics, and we are left with a clean description of the E-B dynamics.
This sounds terribly complicated and I can assure you you have a steep Cliff to climb that will require a lot of Will. I do not think this story of yours will go over very well with the Top Guns of GR 17 for example. I'm sure you know that? :-) In any case where is this done in detail. I am sure Zielinski will read it for example. Also others. I am sure you will be proved wrong in the end of course. We need a Bookie. :-)
So the whole issue of covariance in physics has been incredibly misleading.
Have you read Tom Phipps "Heretical Vereties"? Some of your stuff about the convective derivative sounds like his?
It was simply gross confusion. Whence it is very misleading to try to understand the new physics by beginning with a covariant language, and then attempting to come up with some symmetry breaking that results in a preferred frame. This one sentence is the main point of this response to your suggestion, Jack.
Well fancy this, me defending the mainstream establishment against The Barbarian at The Gate from Down Under! :-) Time for a beer Mate? In any case you need to explain this in great detail - presumably you have already done so. However, as I say, no one will believe you. Also I think my explanation is better and simpler, but I am biased. :-)
I should add that a great deal of the new physics has been worked out already, particularly re: gravity.
One major discovery has been that the new theory of gravity involves the fine structure constant (that wasn't a prediction..but it emerged from the data). Some 25 paper re all this are available at the Mountanman graphics URL below. Much more in preparation. There is a revolution in progress.
Your enthusiasm is touching. :-)
PS By sending this reply e-mail to you Jack I'm not sure if others in the group also receive it?
Never fear, they will. They will. We have both drawn our lines in the sand.:-)
best wishes,
Reg Cahill
Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.
Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).
Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.
Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).
OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.
Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.
The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)
Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.
Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.
In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.
OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").
If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where
Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab
eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR
{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)
Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.
Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?
--
A/Prof. Reginald T.Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Decoding The Cipher of Genesis
"quasi-local approach" ... "super-potential, which is a Hamiltonian boundary term" "screen" of World Hologram i.e. local horizon on (anti) De Sitter space-time with Hawking radiation? That is the gravity energy only depends on the horizon surface not on local space volume elements! 3D Space is a holographic image! See p. 16 section E of Brazilian paper. They go on to get a local representation in the complementary or dual gauge-force picture that is physically equivalent to the nonlocal geometrodynamic picture.
The Brazilians Arcos & Pereira (2005) discuss the nonlocality of the gravity energy in Einstein's geometrodynamic representation with curvature and no torsion that is Bohr complementary to the gauge force representation with torsion and no curvature. However the Brazilian "torsion" should not be confused with Gennady Shipov's torsion. They are entirely different and different words should be used.
My own macro-quantum theory, for the emergence of Einstein's curvature in the post-inflationary "Higgs Ocean" (Brian Greene) AKA "multi-layered multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field (Frank Wilczek) AKA partial cohering of the pre-inflationary random micro-quantum zero point false vacuum fluctuations, is more naturally set in the Brazilian gauge force representation initially although I immediately transform to Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical representation as more heuristic for getting new insights.
Recall that the pre-inflationary unstable false vacuum is a conformal vacuum without gravitation or inertia admitting only massless lepto-quark and boson gauge force special relativistic quantum fields. U(1)SU(2)SU(3) is locally gauged in the false vacuum. No part of the 15 parameter conformal group is locally gauged pre-inflation.
Conformal Group C(4)
= Dilation*(Conformal Boosts to Uniformly Accelerating Hyperbolic Motion)*(Translations)*(Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts)
T4 = normal subgroup of translations generated by Wheeler's "mom-energy" = Lie algebra {Pa}
O(1,3) = (Space-Rotations)*(Inertial Frame Lorentz Boosts) = Lorentz Group
Lorentz Boost = space-time rotation
real angles of rotation of an extended rigid body have imaginary extensions that are equivalent to the "rapidities" of the Lorentz boosts.
Spontaneous breaking of O(3) rotation group symmetry in the ground state of many spinning electrons is ferromagnetism. Ferromagnetism is a preferred frame of orientation in space without explicit O(3) breaking terms in the dynamical action.
Similarly, data like Cahill's and Consoli's claiming a preferred Lorentz inertial frame would, if corroborated, merely mean spontaneous breakdown of the O(1,3) group in the physical vacuum, particularly its boost sector. The preferred frame of absolute rest means a set of rapidities are chosen in a finite region of vacuum just like a set of rotation angles (only latitude and longitude on the celestial sphere, twist rotation (torsion field?) about the preferred space direction is another issue using ALL THREE Euler angles, is chosen in a finite domain of the ferromagnetic ground state.
Einstein, not knowing about spontaneous symmetry breakdown in 1905, thought of the space of global inertial frames (pre-GR 1916) as an affine space without a preferred origin. Lorentz thought of this space of frames as a vector space with an origin. This is a real experimental difference, but it is contingent not fundamental. The way the symmetry breaks in a ferromagnetic domain is contingent like a pimple on one's nose. Similarly, for Cahill's claim - a small blemish on Einstein's nose for The Truth! :-)
All dynamics comes from the minimal coupling local gauge principle of different symmetry groups both internal and external in 4D space-time. Roger Penrose says extra space dimensions are unstable so let's see if we can do without them. No supersymmetry needed as yet either since I predict supersymmetry will not be found in the LHC and also that dark matter detectors will never click with the right stuff, e.g. on-mass-shell neutralinos et-al do not exist. These are falsifiable predictions.
From Stormy Dirac Sea to Calm Higgs Ocean (Oil upon The Waters of Creation)
Looking only, for now, at the low-energy tail of the false pre-inflationary conformal vacuum sans gravity and inertia, both emergent properties, the Dirac negative energy virtual Fermi energy is E = 0 and the zero point PV virtual electron-positron pairs in a small thickness of the Fermi surface form virtual bound states fusing into the zero entropy BEC vacuum condensate "Higgs Ocean" that trigger the inflation and the emergence of Einstein's gravity along with all rest masses m and both dark energy and dark matter.
Post-inflation, the Cartan tetrad encoding the important part of the equivalence principle (EEP) is
eu^a = (Kronecker Delta)u^a + Bu^a
Bu = Bu^aPa/h = (Higgs Ocean Goldstone Phase),u
{Pa} is Lie algebra of T4
i.e. the non-trivial curved intrinsic part - the actual or "real" gravitational field that is locally equivalent to an inertial field in a local non-inertial frame of reference, AKA "LNIF"
This is a spontaneous broken locally-gauged U(1)em vacuum symmetry exactly like in the BCS superconductor where, instead of on-mass-shell charged 2e electron pairs, we have neutral virtual electron-positron pairs in an off-mass-shell "bound state". The result is a locally-gauged T4 dynamical non-trivial tetrad field eu^a emergent from the spontaneous broken U(1)em vacuum symmetry. The release of binding energy of the virtual electron-positron pairs powers the Big Bang.
Message from Cahill
bcc
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Hi Jack,
What a story! It seems to me that you are approaching the issues from the wrong direction and whence the incredibly complicated path.
Seems pretty simple to me. Local gauge invariance and spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. :-)
The first issue is to get clear picture of what has emerged. The interferometer experiments have shown that (i) absolute motion is detectable, and (ii) that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Yes, I understand that. I have not understood all the technical details of the experiments in your paper(s) nor those of Consoli. The two of you seem to differ in some important details although generally you are reporting the same kind of qualitative effect. You get different absolute speeds in different directions I think? But neither are zero and that's the point. By "Newtonian physics" I assume you mean specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian relativity, i.e.
x -> x' = x - vt
t -> t' = t
is wrong (e.g. Ch 15, Panofsky & Phillips)
x -> x' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(x - vt)
t -> t' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(t - vx/c^2)
is correct even when there is a preferred global inertial frame that we call "absolute rest". Also for now we try to neglect general relativity, although that may not be possible in the end for these measurements.
This followed after the discovery that a theory for the interferometer must take account of relativistic effects and the effect of the refractive index of the gas present (Cahill and Kitto 2002). The results were confirmed by two coaxial cable experiments, which being 1st order in v/c don't need relativistic effect corrections. Then it follows that we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. This fits neatly in with the original 19th century Lorentz interpretation, namely that absolute motion is the cause of relativistic effects.
Can you elaborate on that? Exactly how is it the "cause"?
It also means that the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of these same effects is wrong..there is no spacetime.
Can you elaborate on that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanation. :-) My position, as you may have gathered is that there is no major change of interpretation needed assuming your experiments and Consoli's similar ones, stand the test of scrutiny. Renouncing the battle-tested special relativity i.e.
Require dynamical actions to be Lorentz-invariant with Lorentz-covariant Euler-Lagrange equations, with standard modifications of general relativity, is not at all affected, with all its consequences for the computation of scattering cross sections, atomic & nuclear spectra etc.
We do not have put in O(3) violating terms in the action for the Heisenberg ferromagnet with the Coulomb exchange interaction in order to explain the O(3) violation in the ferromagnetic ground state. In exactly the same way, we do not need to put O(1,3) violating terms in the actions of the fundamental quantum fields of physics (lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons) to explain your reports of O(1,3) violation in the vacuum.
Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state of a given model of quantum dynamics is the very definition of what a "preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions. This is an explanation "for all seasons" as it were. :-)
So the speed of light is c only relative to this space, and not relative to all non-accelerating observers.
That's so in a more general sense for all instances of spontaneous symmetry breakdown leaving the kinematics and the dynamics intact. Every symmetry group G defines its own class of "frames of reference" i.e. base states for a given representation of G. In the case of O(1,3) in real space-time we have the class of global inertial frames. The only significantdifference between Einstein's interpretation of O(1,3) and Lorentz's is that Einstein says that the space of frames is affine, and Lorentz says that it's a vector space with an "origin" = "preferred frame" = a chosen "rapidity" in the space-time vacuum just like the chosen "space orientation" in the ferromagnetic ground state. Occam's Razor is with me here. More with less.
So Einstein's main postulate is disproved by experiment.
I do not think you have proved that. Indeed, I think I just proved the very opposite! :-)
Nevertheless one can use a mathematical spacetime, because the spacetime encodes absolute motion effects, albeit in a manner that is well hidden.
You need to explain that in a lot more detail. :-)
So we have a 3-space and separately a time phenomenon. The 3-space is in relative motion, that is, different regions of it have relative motion, as well that motion is time-dependent.
I am not sure what you mean. Let's think of a ferromagnet. Is it like the buckling of tectonic plates? The different ferromagnetic domains are pressing against each other? This is no problem in vacuum because the vacuum has a local macro-quantum order parameter, e.g. Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered, multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field. (Nature Jan 20, 2005 "In Search of Symmetry Lost").
Presumably this space has some substratum structure, and that structure has relative motion. These two effects cause gravity.
How? Now I have shown exactly how. No if's and's and but's - but the actual equations.
An interferometer or coaxial cable device can detect motion relative to that space.
Yeah, no problemo, once one has the idea of spontaneous broken symmetry with the vacuum condensate as the "aether" or substratum. Frank Wilczek explains this pretty well in Jan 20, 2005 Nature. I suggest you look at it. :-)
That by itself does'nt imply some preferred direction intrinsic to the space..rather it simply means that the device is moving through that space.
You do not get my point. The ferromagnet is only an analogy. I never said that your data show a preferred direction in space. What I said was that your data, and Consoli's, if true show a preferred direction in space-time i.e. rapidity i.e. absolute velocity. So the preferred direction in space is a Red Herring. :-)
The intrinsic local direction in space is determined by the direction of the convective acceleration (=the spatial inhomogeneity direction) and the time-dependence of the velocity field.
I don't understand this. I assume this is your "flow" theory that I have not read in detail. It is not needed. It is too ad-hoc, too Rube Goldberg and we already have exactly what we need in the two battle-tested ideas of modern theoretical physics
1. Local gauge symmetry inducing compensating connection fields.
2. Spontaneous breaking of the meta-stable state of lowest energy for the covariant dynamics relative to the above local gauge symmetry.
It works in the heavens of the internal dimensions (electro-weak/strong) as well as on the ground of being (space-time with gravity and maybe torsion and other fields).
We now know all this because (i) the Miller data is so extensive that one can extract from it the flow past the earth towards the sun (some 42 km/s), as well as galactic flow and turbulence (novel non-Einsteinain gravity waves) in that flow, (ii) both Newtonian gravity and GR (in those cases where it has been successfully tested) can be written in the form of a flow theory. Most importantly these flow formalisms can be generalised, and the new dynamical effects turn out to be the so-called `dark matter' effect.
I have a complete explanation of both gravitating "dark matter" and anti-gravitating "dark energy" in terms of Einstein's
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
and spontaneous breakdown of U(1)em vacuum symmetry. Done elsewhere.
This non-relativistic gravity effect is not in either NG or GR, so even NG is serioulsy wrong. That new effect has been tested against various experiments and observations as well. We are developing experiments at Flinders university to measure the flow component into the earth (the inhomogeneity of that flow is the cause of the earth's gravity, speed at surface is 11km/s). Because this is small compared to the galactic flow (some 400km/s) the earth in-flow is not easy to measure.
Well we will not settle this now. My position is that everything you see, if corroborated, can be explained simply and directly with only two battle-tested mainstream ideas
1. local gauge symmetry
2. spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry i.e. P.W. Anderson's emergent "More is different".
The Great Temple of Theoretical Physics Today rests firmly on the above two pillars and you are not Samson! :-)
Penrose, Hawking, Rees et-al can sleep in comfort tonite that you will not pull their covers off in the middle of a cold winter's night. :-)
Now what does that all give us? Take the simplest case first. (Classical) Maxwell's equations have a well known spacetime/covariant form. In that form the speed of light in vacuum is always c. But what does that really mean? How does one measure that? Well one can simply use a rod and clock, and sure enough one will find that the speed of light, no matter which observer does the measurment, and even for different observers in relative motion, all will find the speed to be c=300,000km/s. Howver we now know that an observer can measure the velocity of his rods and clocks through space. That motion will have changed their length/ticking rate. Then each observer must correct the data from his experiment..after all his rods/clocks are being affected by their motion. He will then find that the corrected speed is now only c relative to a particular frame, namely relative to a real 3-space.
I would need to see the detailed math for that. When I do the math I always get c as a the fixed point even when there is a preferred frame. Maybe I am doing something wrong? We shall see. However, Hal Puthoff will LOVE your theory here since it sounds very much like his PV theory in his Tables I & II! On the other hand, I bet you are wrong. I could be wrong of course and you could be right - we shall see. :-)
I will come back to this in the coming days.
So Maxwell's equations actually encode real physical effects of absolute motion upon the rods and clocks which are used to `define' the length and time scales. So these equations have BOTH absolute motion effects and the dynamics of the E and B fields. Then one can write Maxwell's equations in a form that explicitly reveals the preferred frame, and so separates these two effects.
Have you done that? Where?
This involves a non-linear change of variables. It leads to PDEs in which the partial time derivative is replaced by the Euler total derivative (which involves the velocity of the observer, and so the rods and clocks, relative to the 3-space). The covariant equations have Lorentz symmetry (of course). The new Maxwell equations have Galilean symmetry. Both symmetries are exact. They are being applied to different forms of the data. In the case of Lorentz symmetry the dynamical effects of absolute motion and the E-B field dynamics are not separated. In the Galilean form the absolute motion effects upon the rods and clocks are separated from the E-B dynamics, and we are left with a clean description of the E-B dynamics.
This sounds terribly complicated and I can assure you you have a steep Cliff to climb that will require a lot of Will. I do not think this story of yours will go over very well with the Top Guns of GR 17 for example. I'm sure you know that? :-) In any case where is this done in detail. I am sure Zielinski will read it for example. Also others. I am sure you will be proved wrong in the end of course. We need a Bookie. :-)
So the whole issue of covariance in physics has been incredibly misleading.
Have you read Tom Phipps "Heretical Vereties"? Some of your stuff about the convective derivative sounds like his?
It was simply gross confusion. Whence it is very misleading to try to understand the new physics by beginning with a covariant language, and then attempting to come up with some symmetry breaking that results in a preferred frame. This one sentence is the main point of this response to your suggestion, Jack.
Well fancy this, me defending the mainstream establishment against The Barbarian at The Gate from Down Under! :-) Time for a beer Mate? In any case you need to explain this in great detail - presumably you have already done so. However, as I say, no one will believe you. Also I think my explanation is better and simpler, but I am biased. :-)
I should add that a great deal of the new physics has been worked out already, particularly re: gravity.
One major discovery has been that the new theory of gravity involves the fine structure constant (that wasn't a prediction..but it emerged from the data). Some 25 paper re all this are available at the Mountanman graphics URL below. Much more in preparation. There is a revolution in progress.
Your enthusiasm is touching. :-)
PS By sending this reply e-mail to you Jack I'm not sure if others in the group also receive it?
Never fear, they will. They will. We have both drawn our lines in the sand.:-)
best wishes,
Reg Cahill
Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.
Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space. General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the translations T4 instead of internal U(1).
Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is "phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation on that.
Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).
OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.
Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3) symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.
The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)
Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.
Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the "origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.
In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.
OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's "multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer". The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet").
If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion field Tu, where
Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab
eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR
{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)
Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in 1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.
Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is moving?
--
A/Prof. Reginald T.Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417
Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882
School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905
Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au
Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
