jack sarfatti

I defend Einstein's GR below:

"Dear Paul,

A few months ago, I came across one of Jack Sarfatti's
critiques on Hal Puthoff's PV article. Feeling that
the criticism was less than fair (and given the fairly
close correspondence between Yilmaz and PV), I wrote
to him saying he was missing the point, namely that
(whether PV is true or false) between Yilmaz and PV we
could begin to see gravity as emerging from an
intelligible physical system."

I do not understand what you mean by

"between Yilmaz and PV we could begin to see gravity as emerging from an
intelligible physical system"

That is very vague. Also what is, in your terms, an "intelligible
physical system"?
"Intelligibility" like "beauty" is in the mind of the beholder relative
to the beholder's depth and level of understanding of the issues. This
is an unending process of course like an infinite sequence whose perfect
limit we can never attain.
Taking the Einstein -> Weyl -> Wigner -> Bargmann -> Schwinger ->
Utiyama -> Kibble ... path.

1905 Special Relativity later made into elegant 4 dimensional rigid
metric geometry

x'^u = Lv^ux^v + X^u

Where Lv^u is an antisymmetric Lorentz matrix generated by 6 "charges"
in a generalized sense (3 space-space rotations of "Magnetic" ("Vortex")
Rotational Momentum 12,13, 23 plus 3 space-time rotations or boosts 01,
02, 03 between 2 Global Inertial Frames (GIF) in uniform
non-accelerating motion where neither relative speed nor relative
direction changes.

We also have the 4 "affine" displacements X^u generated by 4 more
"charges", i.e., Energy and Linear Momentum.

Physical quantum BIT waves are UNITARY representations of this
space-time symmetry group.

Let psi(x^u) be part of such a wave group representation valued in the
complex numbers.

For example look only at the 0 "time coordinate"

psi(t) = e^iHt/hbar psi(0)

where H is the Hamiltonian generalization of the "Energy" at least for a
conservative system.

This is the rigid 10 parameter continuous Lie Group of Poincare.

There is the deeper 15 parameter Conformal Group. First we have the
global SCALE "dilations" D so that

x'^u = D(Lv^ux^v + X^u)

Then there are 4 more "special conformal translations" between timelike
observers and now its a sticky wicket because they correspond to
transformations from an instantaneous comoving LIF and a "constantly
accelerating" LNIF in the sense of Chapter 6 of MTW "hyperbolic motion"
where already a key error of physical interpretation that Hal Puthoff
and Michael Ibison make becomes apparent in this simplest toy model like
the "hydrogen atom" in atomic physics or the "quantum harmonic
oscillator" in 1 dimension in quantum field theory.

The 4 Special Conformal Translations seem to require NONLINEAR GROUP
REPRESENTATIONS and already display the nonlinearity of General
Relativity demanded by the Einstein Equivalence Principle that is
analogous to the non-Abelian Yang-Mills Local Gauge Symmetry Principle
of compensating gauge force fields that restore the broken rigid
symmetry with additional dynamical degrees of freedom introducing DIRECT
BACK-ACTION where there was none before.

For example, in Special Relativity, Matter-Energy gets its marching
orders from Geometry but NOT VICE VERSA i.e. ACTION WITHOUT REACTION!
Locally gauging the infinitesimal Pu Lie algebra generators of the
Hilbert space unitary representations of the raw spacetime global
displacements X^u in the Poincare group transformations

x'^u = Lv^ux^v + X^u

Gives exactly Einstein's gravity with the compensating gauge field as
du(x) whose strain tensor is

huv(Curved Space-Time) = (1/2)[du(x),v + dv(x),u]

Where Einstein's geometrodynamic field of 1915 is

guv(Curved Space-Time) = nuv(Flat Space-Time) + huv(Curved Space-Time)

I have gone even deeper showing that

du(x) = Lp^2(Goldstone Phase of MACRO-QUANTUM Vacuum Coherence Field),u

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

i.e. Gravity emerges out of a micro-quantum flat vacuum "BCS" \0
instability in the spin 1/2 spin 1 quantum fields along with the dark
energy/dark matter as randomly fluctuating residual micro-quantum zero
point fluctuating "normal fluid" "exotic vacuum: regions of space-time
that anti-gravitate and gravitate respectively on different scales and
with strengths that in the micro-scale are 10^40 G(Newton). This
instability gives inflationary cosmology in the large scale in the sense of "physical wavelets."
Note as c -> infinity h & G fixed there is no gravity. Similarly as h ->
0 G and c fixed there is no gravity etc.
This in addition to G -> 0 with h & g fixed.

Note also c^4/G = String Tension

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = hc(String Tension)^-1
and there is no gravity when Lp^2 -> 0 for whatever reason!

One reason is infinite string tension with hc finite - no gravity since
space-time is too stiff to bend with mass-energy.

Clearly what I am doing here is very profound.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc

http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

Back to the Special Conformal "Relativistic Rocket" Translations and
Puthoff's PV error.

Look at 6.17 p. 173 in MTW where in the approximation that space-time
region scale L of the LIF obeys

L << c^2/g ~ 10^18 cm at Earth's surface - no great restriction.

The instantly co-moving geodesic LIF observer's coordinate differentials
are dx^u where

ds^2 = nuv(FLAT)dx^udx^v

The LNIF coordinates of the constantly accelerating non-geodesic
hyperbolic observer are dx'^u where the same INVARIANT ds^2 is (6.18)

ds^2 ~ - (1 + (gx'^1/c^2))^2(dx'^0)^2 - (dx'^1)^2 - (dx'^2)^2 - (dx'^3)^2

gx'^1/c^2 << 1 is the approximation

x^0 = (c^2/g + x'^1)sinh(gx'^0/c^2)

x^1 = (c^2/g + x'^1)cos (gx'^0/c^2)

x^2 = x'^2

x^3 = x'^3

x^2 - (ct)^2 = c^4/g^2 "hyperbolic world line of the LNIF non-geodesic
observer who feels artificial gravity.

This coordinatization is such that for a Relativistic Rocket with constant g

Distance X rocket goes and time T measured by Earth telescope/radar is

X = (c^2/g)cosh[g(Ship Proper Time)/c^2]

T = (c^2/g)sinh[g(Ship Proper Time)/c^2]

The NONLINEARITY of the 4 Special Conformal Translations is in the
hyperbolic cosh and sinh functions of the accelerated observer's proper
time of actual aging.

* OK Puthoff's basic interpretational error of PV is implicit in MTW's
remark about Fig 6.4 p. 173:

"At a certain distance from the accelerated world line, successive
spacelike hypersurfaces instead of advancing with increasing tau"
(Ship's Proper Time), WILL BEGIN RETROGRESSING (CAPS mine). At this
distance and at greater distances, the concept of 'coordinates relative
to the accelerated observer' become ambiguous and must be abandoned."
Basically we have exceeded the domain of validity of the "coordinate
patch" we started from because when that weird retrogression starts
gL/c^2 ~ 1.

The same essential thing happens in Puthoff's PV with K = e^2GM/c^2r.
There is a critical r* such that when r < r* and r -> 0 the SPACELIKE
surface area of concentric spheres INCREASES rather than decreases.
Indeed, Puthoff, I surmise, uses that argument to explain the scene in
Jacques Vallee's "Fastwalker" where the interior of the alien saucer is
much bigger in surface area than the outer skin area. Using Puthoff's
metric on the micro-geon scale gives entirely the wrong answer that the
electron should look bigger and bigger as the scattering momentum
transfer increases! This false conclusion is based on Hal's naive
"engineering approach" using common sense Euclidean Geometry which is
also the same basic error in Yilmaz's "bi-metric" notion that space-time
is really flat in 4D at all scales that Puthoff also agrees with.
Indeed the need to use an atlas of coordinate patches sewn together is a
triumph of Einstein's Equivalence Principle as a "classical
approximation" far from a curvature singularity and at a scale >> Lp^2 =
hG/c^3.

"That email was quite
widely distributed, and I received a total of seven
replies, including one from a davidg, who strongly
suggested that I should talk to you (I think someone
may even have sent you a copy of the original
correspondence?). He wrote:

'Andrew,
You should definitely talk to Paul Zelinsky,
pzielins@ix.netcom.com , he has given alot of thought
to this issue.'

I was especially interested in why folk reject Yilmaz
so readily. Reminding JS of the fact that GR fails to
conserve the 4-momentum,"

This is simply false because Einstein field equation is precisely local
conservation of all stress-energy density currents that add up to ZERO
in perfect balance!

Tuv(Summed over all dynamical degrees of freedom) = 0

Is the generalized meaning of Einstein's LOCAL Geometrodynamics from
which the covariant 4-divergence trivially vanishes!

Sum Tuv^;v = 0

That is in Wheeler's words "local conservation of momenergy" even if the
zero torsion metricity Bianchi identities fail.
Indeed their failure is a necessary condition for practical "Metric
Engineering" of Star Gate Time Travel, Alcubierre type Weightless Warp
Drive and, NOW FOR THE BAD NEWS Sir Martin Rees's "Doomsday WMD" in
Chapter 9 of "Our Final Hour" in which like Mickey Mouse in Disney's
"Sorceror's Apprentice" we can set off a "rip in space" that will
destroy our whole universe at the speed of light. Lev Okun says Andrei
Sakharov was deeply disturbed over this and rightly so.

"and why Yilmaz insists n the
Freud identity, I sent him the relevant equations from
Yilmaz's letter to nuovo cimento. He "couldn't read"
them from my emailed script. So I asked for his fax
number - nothing comes back. So I scan and send him
the article. Now he is "overseas"."

The point is that this is a BOGUS ISSUE. There is no problem of local
conservation of
the stress-energy density currents when the problem is properly formulated.

Guv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

of the 1915 special case of NON-EXOTIC VACUUM and NO TORSION and
METRICITY means

Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Matter...) = 0

where

Tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

This is a trivial degenerate case from the POV of Metric Engineering
because the Bianchi identities in that too simple case tell us

Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0

There is no problem. You, Yilmaz, Puthoff et-al are asking the WRONG
QUESTION.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" (Wheeler)

There are problems of gravity waves with the pseudo-tensor stuff.

The more interesting case is

Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Exotic Vacuum Zero Point Energy) ~ 0

where Tuv(Geometry)^;v =/= 0

Now THAT'S REAL METRIC ENGINEERING!

"At the end of the
day, what I received back from a dozen emails all
raising actual content was, in effect, a bunch of
marketing content surrounding a muddled and
meaningless "Yilmaz is asking the wrong questions"."

That is the truth IMHO.

"At that time, I wasn't taking PV all that seriously
and even agreed with some of JS technical criticisms
(that HP was playing fast and loose with lorentz
factors in a dielectric). Since then I've looked into
the references in Hal's article and concluded that,
inter alia, his usage of the lorentz factors is fine.
It also turns out that the physical analogy I'm
investigating is, for better or worse, much closer to
PV than I'd understood."

In that case clearly expound in a coherent way how
you understand those Lorentz factors in Puthoff's
"Tables I & II" and how they are relevant to any
real issues in Physics Today.

"That's basically background. Just this morning I've
been looking at a bunch more correspondence between JS
and HP, and also between JS and you. No wonder I
couldn't get any sense out of the man! In effect, his
discussion of why Yilmaz is so wrong can be thought of
in two parts: first it is wrong because it does not
conform to certain implications of the original GT,
and second it is wrong because (list of names
including MTW) agree with the "battle tested" status
quo. In short, I'd brand JS's entire error ridden
position as disingenous tosh. I can't see any problem
with Yilmaz's derivation of the equivalence principle
nor with his argument that it is actually impossible
to demonstrate the full principle from within the GT."

In that case give your careful detailed defense of Yilmaz's
thesis and I will read it carefully to see if you are making any
sense to my mind.

"The problems he raises about the GT failure to reduce
to ST, about its overdetermination and so on are deep
and unequivocal."

If by this, you mean that when there is curvature there is
a non-vanishing local curvature tensor even in the LIF, that
is true. However, the error in Paul's argument is in making
the over strong demand that EEP requires that the curvature
vanish exactly at a point in the LIF. That is a misunderstanding
of EEP. EEP only requires that the tidal acceleration between
two neighboring free float LIF observers 1 & 2 separated by (X1 - X2)^u
be comfortably weak in accord with the Geodesic Deviation Equation:

d^2(X1 - X2)^u/dtau^2 = R^uvwl (dX1^v/dtau)(dX2^w/dtau)(X1 - X2)^l << g

That the local laws of physics obey special relativity is only meant in this
approximate sense.

This condition breaks down in the fall into a space-time singularity and when
quantum gravity zero point fluctuations are large i.e. scale L^2 --> Lp^2.

Yilmaz's arguments strike me as the Academy of Laputa struck Gulliver.

I did try to read Yilmaz and his over-complicated obscure papers seemed
incomprehensible.
So I am wondering if you can coherently explain what you think it is
you are understanding about them? I do admit I did not try very hard
to understand Yilmaz it seemed so obvious wrong to me intuitively.

"It is quite clear from our
correspondence that JS has never actually read the
Yilmaz source material. I don't want to be so
impolite, but so many impolite JS allegations (you
guys don't understand the physics, are arguing
nonmathematically and are indeed crackpots) render him
fair game in my book. He should reserve such language
for people like me. (I'm copying this to JS, by the
way.)

When I came to gravity (just a couple of years ago) I
had not thought to look beyond the GT, and would
definitely have considered myself very much
pro-einstein, but just looking for a different, more
physical method to complement the status quo rather
than to replace it. It rapidly become clear that there
are no physical systems corresponding to the GT,
whilst there is a host of technical problems no one
talks about outside the field."

What are you talking about? GR is one of the best tested theories in
physics today. What you say here is false. Read Cliff Will's papers on
Experimental General Relativity. Read Roger Penrose in both
The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind on GR.


"Although I can no
longer accept the GT, this in no way diminishes
Einstein's seminal contribution to the subject.

I'm a long way from saying here that either Yilmaz or
PV is the final word for even a classical theory of
gravity, and at present I'm trying to understand an
area where these two otherwise similar structures
diverge i.e. N-body metrics."


This is another bogus issue. There is a huge field of
"Computational Relativity" where computer simulations
of black holes in collision for example are done.

There is plenty of evidence now for the reality of
black hole horizons. Eric Davis mentioned some
gray hole data anomalies about 3 years ago and then fell strangely
silent about it. PV does not allow a black hole
horizon and it is wrong for that alone.

"The mass transformation
in a gravitational field seems to make the source
terms in Yilmaz's exponential metric, sum(m_i/r_i),
non-superposable in the PV context. HP (and Dicke and
others working in related veins) talks about his ideas
extending to symmetries other than the spherical, but
seems to concede in saying that that there is no
general N-body metric for PV.

I'd like to understand better why, even given that his
masses don't transform, Yilmaz is able to superpose
the various m_i/r_i terms in spite of the metric
changes along radii in the N-body context. Has he
discussed this point in any published article, or
perhaps would you be able to explain it?

Then I'd like to ask a question: After coming to the
exponential metric, why did Dicke and Puthoff each do
the parameter fitting so as to put the mass into the
constant in the exponent?"

Where is the PV in Hal's PV?
By that I mean PV is a term in QED i.e. Vacuum Polarization
zero point fluctuations from virtual electron-positron pairs.
There is no h in any of Hal's PV mathematics. Also if he
used QED to calculate real PV distortions of his K he would
get nothing large enough to matter for his quest for
"Metric Engineering."

His K is completely ad-hoc and phenomenological designed
to agree with GR when GM/c^2r << 1, which he has
overblown as a great achievement - it ain't IMHO.

"It seems to me that these
theories necessitate a distinction between the two
concepts, mass and energy, that we use in physics to
put "stuff" into equations. For these theories M and
E are not simply connected by c^2, a constant, but
rather the relationship depends on the space within
which a system is instantiated."

This IS amateurish no doubt about that.

"So we must be careful
to choose the correct variable: is it exp(2GM/rc^2) or
exp(2GE/rc^4), where c goes in as a constant?"

This shows you are not competent to judge these things and
in fact have very little understanding of real physics.
We need not be "careful" in this case.


"In the
second expression, E and r both transform the same, so
the ratio E/r is at least observer independent, right?"

What are you talking about? That is gibberish.

E and r transform under what group?

Write down the mathematical transformation you have in mind here?

Is this what you are getting from Hal's nonsensical Table's I and II?

If so, this is a good example of how Hal's theory is leading ardent
amateurs astray.

"I appreciate, from the correspondence between JS and
HP, that Hal's r is "the value we would get if we
could carry undistorted rulers into the field","

What does that mean scientifically? It means nothing to me.

"
and
would like to extend that to say that, for any
observer, r is the value he would get if he could use
his rulers for the measurement. Is that even possibly
reasonable?"

No, it is "not even wrong" (Pauli).

Ask ,why don't you ,what the rods and clocks of the momentarily coincident
LIF weightless observer measures compared with those of the LNIF
observer who feels
weight measures?

"Apart from those, you do seem to be somewhat open to
Yilmaz gravity without being an advocate. Perhaps you
would be able to provide some insights into the
original questions I had been addressing to JS? If
you would be prepared to do so, I'll send over some of
the old correspondence.

Many thanks in advance.

regards.... andrew.