Jack sarfatti2009-11-02 20:14:26

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.

## Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.