Text Size

Stardrive

Dec 31

You do get the torsion 1-form by locally gauging only T4, because the tetrad is the torsion 1-form. The torsion 2-form is what gives the gap in the parallelogram. It is what gives the contortion tensor addition to the Levi-Civita connection. Remember torsion gaps are translational defects. Curvature is a disclination defect - i.e. change in orientation of a vector around a small parallelogram - that won't close if there is a curl in the torsion 1-form.

torsion gap 2-form = D(tetrad) = d(tetrad torsion 1-form) + (spin connection 1-form)/(tetrad torsion 1-form)

IMPOSE BY HAND ad-hoc

torsion gap 2-form = 0

this still permits a spin-connection given by

that CAN have a non-vanishing curl, i.e. a curvature 2-form =/= 0

R(curvature 2-form) = D(spin connection) = d(spin connection) + (spin connection)/(spin connection) =/= 0

I admit this is very tricky conceptually.

Locally gauging SO1,3 is redundant I suppose. The key group is T4(x).

Suppose we have a matter spinor field A in the presence of gravity the covariant derivative operator on the spinor field is symbolically

Du = (tetrad)T4(generator) + (spin-connection)SO1,3(generator)

i.e., Du = eu^IPI + wu^I^JPIJ in the LNIF where I,J are the LIF indices.

where PI, PIJ generate the Poincare group Lie algebra.

We also need the Dirac 4x4 gamma matrices in the LNIFs

(gamma)^u = e^uI(gamma)^I + w^uIJ[(gamma)^I,(gamma)^J]

Then the absolute invariant operator D slash = D/ is

D/(LNIF) = (gamma)^uDu =/= D/(LIF)

On Dec 31, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

That's not true. Locally gauging T4 naturally permits torsion.

I said you don't get torsion by locally gauging T4. Is that not correct?
 
Torsion is the dislocation defect - the gap in closing a parallelogram where one edge is parallel transported about the other. You have to impose zero torsion 2-form as an adhoc constraint and you still can get disclination curvature because you can have a spin  connection determined from the tetrads that has a non-vanishing covariant curl with itself. It's very tricky I admit.

Then why do you need to gauge the full Poincare group to get Einstein-Cartan?

On Gravity & Accelerated Frames
Synge identified the actual gravitational field of GR with non-vanishing Riemann curvature.
Fine, nothing wrong with that. However, Einstein's critics simply quibbling because Einstein was talking about Newton's idea of "gravity force" trying to show how  his new idea fitted in with Newton's in the appropriate limit of small speeds of test particles and weak curvature fields. Also some Pundits mess up by not being clear that Newton's "inertial frame" is Einstein's "static LNIF"!
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
I say that locally gauging *passive* T4 in Minkowski spacetime cannot possibly give you a curved connection field. All it
can give you is GCTs and a "flat space" covariant derivative, an analog of the LC covariant derivative in flat spacetime.

Jack: Red Herring - no one makes that claim.
Look at the analogous problem in U1 electromagnetism.
Start with a spinor field. You need global U1 to get conserved electric charge q Noether's theorem.
But you need U1 --> U1(x) to get Maxwell's equations
F = dA
dF = 0
d*F = &J(q)
from the INVARIANT ACTION S PRINCIPLE 
&S(spinor field, A) = 0
Similarly in GR
Global T4 gives CONSERVED total energy-momentum of the SPINOR FIELD.
T4 ---> T4(x) gives the TETRAD field similar to A in EM.
&S(spinor, TETRAD) = 0
gives Einstein's Guv + kTuv = 0
as shown in detail by Kibble 1962 I think. Note the spin connection determined by the tetrads and the ad hoc constraint of zero torsion - that restricts us to T4(x).
I think Kibble's T4 was passive. The resulting gauge connection field simply compensates for curved coordinate artifacts.
Locally gauging passive T4 just gives you GCTs, which produce coordinate artifacts in tensor field derivatives that are
corrected for by the gauge connection field. Then the gauge connection field is treated as a gravitational field per the
Einstein principle -- watch that pea!

No Z, you are missing the physics here. Kibble's T4 --> T4(x) is completely PHYSICAL active
Alice and Bob are LOCALLY COINCIDENT Alice is LIF, Bob is LNIF, they both measure the same ds^2
ds^2(Alice) = ds^2(Bob)
Tetrads map Alice's data to Bob's data & vice versa.
LC is not merely a FORMAL passive artifact - it describes the "WEIGHT" felt on any object clamped to the LNIF.
On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Fock's vague remark on the "uniformity" of space is unintelligible to me.
He says exactly what he means in his book, and in lectures on gravity published in Rev Mod Phys
in 1957:

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/american-physical-society-aps/three-lectures-on-relativity-theory-vGK2dKg9ZK
"Uniformity of space" is a physical symmetry of spacetime. Not to be confused with covariance.  Both the uniformity of Minkowski spacetime and the non-uniformity of Riemannian spacetime have generally  covariant descriptions. So this has nothing to do with covariance, contrary to what Einstein once believed. That was the position that Fock was arguing against.
OK, I think this is a Red Herring whose proper solution is well known today. Of course all theories can be made covariant under general coordinate transformations T4 ---> T4(x) as you say. That is necessary, but not sufficient. The additional condition we need is the EEP that formally is expressed as for COINCIDENT LIF & LNIF
ds^2(absolute local frame invariant) = guv(LNIF)e^u(LNIF)e^v(LNIF) = nIJ(LIF)e^I(LIF)e^J(LIF)
e^u(LNIF) = (tetrad)^uIe^I(LIF)
 
Synge keeps confounding the two different meanings of "gravitational field" as 1) Newton's g-force and 2) Einstein's curvature. Since EEP only deals with 1) of course its irrelevant to 2) - trivial and exactly as it should be.
Synge identified the actual gravitational field of GR with non-vanishing Riemann curvature.
Fine, nothing wrong with that. However, Einstein's critics simply quibbling because Einstein was talking about Newton's idea of "gravity force" trying to show how  his new idea fitted in with Newton's in the appropriate limit of small speeds of test particles and weak curvature fields. Also some Pundits mess up by not being clear that Newton's "inertial frame" is Einstein's "static LNIF"!
e.g. an accelerating LNIF in zero curvature Minkowski spacetime is equivalent to a static LNIF in a non-zero curvature field - where it is understood that no direct measurement of curvature is made. Also the acceleration can be arbitrary it need not be constant!
The flip side of above is that a LIF in a non-zero curvature field is equivalent to a LIF in a zero curvature field - again no curvature measurement.
But notice both of the above statements compare detectors far apart from each other e.g. on on Earth other far away in space.
The real statement of the EEP is the purely LOCAL tetrad map for locally coincident LNIF & LIF
ds^2(absolute local frame invariant) = guv(LNIF)e^u(LNIF)e^v(LNIF) = nIJ(LIF)e^I(LIF)e^J(LIF)
e^u(LNIF) = (tetrad)^uIe^I(LIF)
He considered the "displacement field strength" LC^u_vw(x) to be purely a matter of the choice of reference frame.
No kidding, so do I. I have been telling you this now for years.
One facet of EEP is that a LNIF in Minkowski spacetime with constant proper acceleration ~ g00^-1/2(LC)^ztt along the z-axis is locally equivalent to a static LNIF in an appropriate curvature field. It is understood that measurements of the curvature tensor are excluded. Synge confuses a static LNIF with an "inertial frame."
He does? Where?
 
Newton's "inertial frame" is Einstein's "static LNIF" - explaining part of a general confusion among the Pundits. Note that curvature is measured as geodesic deviation on pairs of closely spaced force-free test particles.
I don't think Fock or Synge were confused about that.
Again a lot of Pundits have lost sight of the simple physical idea because they get lost in the pipe dreams of too much pure mathematics with a huge amount of excess off-topic formal baggage.
Before Kretschmann, Einstein believed that general covariance meant general relativity. That is what Fock was arguing against. Fock's position was  that once this error is exposed, the term "general relativity" ceases to have meaning, and should no longer be used.
The principle of relativity is that of objective invariance.
Well then you actually agree with Fock. You are not saying that relativity <=> coordinate covariance.
So what's the problem?

 
Alice and Bob measure the same pattern of events out there. They each compute a set of invariant numbers from their independent data according to the program that is the theory. If their numbers agree in many tests then we know
1) the theory is good
2) their measurements are good.
Bob and Alice can also agree on the objective translational uniformity (or non-uniformity) of spacetime.
So you do in fact agree with Fock.
1905 SR is only good when Alice and Bob are inertial observers in flat spacetime.
But it can be extended to accommodate accelerating frames in a globally flat spacetime. This has nothing
to do with gravity -- no gravitational sources. This is simply a matter of general covariance. The spacetime
is still "uniform".

Of course we have tested 1905 in our static LNIFs on Earth's surface. We get away with it because gravity effects are weak compared to the v/c effects in our high energy machines. If we do right kinds of measurements e.g. Pound-Rebka Harvard Tower gravity redshift, and also now our GPS system, we see the small GR corrections to 1905 SR.
Fine. This is a (local) correspondence principle.
The local gauge principle applies to gravity as well as to the electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions in a general way with important differences of detail owing to the EEP (Einstein Equivalence Principle).
Which is *not* Einstein's version of EP. This is a shell game with misnomers for peas!
 
Gravity determines the universal inertial geodesic motions of all particles.
And since the geodesics are covariantly determined by the geodesic equation, this has nothing to do with the choice
of coordinates.

Red Herring, no one claimed that ever. Forces push massive particles off timelike geodesics. Therefore gravity is not a force because it is the dynamical background needed to define "force" in the old Newtonian way. "Interaction" is better than "force" if you want a unified field theory.
I think everyone agrees on that.
Einstein's 1916 GR is simply the local gauging of global translation subgroup T4 to T4(x).
I'm not sure why you think this is so "simple". Gauge gravity is still regarded as controversial by many.
Einstein said he thought two things were infinite, the universe and human stupidity. He added he had his doubts about the universe.
But yes you can generate a gauge connection field that is formally analogous to the torsionless connection
field of 1916 GR by locally gauging passive T4 in a Minkowski spacetime.

Alice and Bob may now each be in arbitrary motion either LIF or LNIF. However, when they test GR they must be in LOCAL COINCIDENCE because of the possibility of curvature, which means anholonomic path dependence. Therefore, there is no unique way compare their invariants when they measure the SAME local differential ds^2, or when they measure the local electromagnetic field Fuv for example.
But isn't that the point of the unique metric compatible LC connection? That it uniquely "connects" one LNIF with another
in curved spacetime? Allowing covariant differentiation of vector and tensor fields on curved Riemannian manifolds independently of the curved geometry?

We have three possibilities when they are LOCALLY COINCIDENT (neglect internal U1, SU2, SU3 - a fourth possibility).
Alice and Bob are both LIFs - SO(1,3) group
Alice is LIF and Bob is LNIF - tetrad group
Alice is LNIF and Bob is LNIF - T4(x) group also with the fancy name of "active Diff4" of Rovelli's Fig. 2.4
I think Kibble's T4 was passive. The resulting gauge connection field simply compensates for curved coordinate artifacts.
Locally gauging passive T4 just gives you GCTs, which produce coordinate artifacts in tensor field derivatives that are
corrected for by the gauge connection field. Then the gauge connection field is treated as a gravitational field per the
Einstein principle -- watch that pea! I say that locally gauging *passive* T4 in Minkowski spacetime cannot possibly give you a curved connection field. All it  can give you is GCTs and a "flat space" covariant derivative, an analog of the LC covariant derivative in flat spacetime.

Shipov's and Waldyr's ideas seem to be related.Start with Einstein-Cartan i.e. localize Poincare group to get a bigger affine connection with the T4(x) GCT contortion tensor added to the Levi-Civita-Christoffel connection- better yet localize the de Sitter group with a local /(x) vacuum energy field. Even better do a conformal group extension of de Sitter with the dilaton and the hyperbolic const g special conformal boosts.
If you locally gauge the active Poincare group you get a gauge connection field with torsion. Starting with tetrad frame fields instead of coordinate frames yes you end up with the Einstein-Cartan formalism.
You are parroting back what I have told you. OK
Add teleparallel constraint that the total curvature is zero. Therefore, the 1916 Einstein curvature is expressed in terms of the T4(x) torsion gap dislocations on Kleinert's world crystal lattice. If the Einstein-Hilbert action density linear in Ricci scalar R is quadratic in the torsion 2-forms then we have a spin 1 Yang-Mills type theory of gravity that should be unitary and renormalizable if quantized in the usual way.
I think Kibble's method locally gauges passive T4 in Minkowski spacetime. To me this just seems like a fancy way of generating GCTs.
I find your perception bizarre - this "fancy way" is profoundly beautiful and unifies gravity with the other interactions - though gravity is not a force in the way electromagnetic Lorentz force is.
Of course an LC-type connection in flat spacetime will then correct for curved coordinate artifacts in tensor field derivatives
which, according to his version of EP, Einstein regarded *in a certain sense* as physically equivalent to a real gravity field. But you  are still just constructing a connection field that corrects for coordinate artifacts. Which is exactly what covariant derivatives are all about, regardless of whether or not you use local gauging to arrive at the connection field.

So what? Quibble, quibble, quibble. Excess verbal baggage

The Einstein-Hilbert action density 0-form ~ *(R^I^J/e^K/e^L)
R is the curvature 2-form = D(spin connection 1-form)
D = d + (spin connection)/
d^2 = 0
e is the tetrad 1-form
* is the Hodge star dual operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_dual
The Yang-Mills torsion field action density 0-form ~ *(T^I/T^J)
T^I = De^I = torsion 2-form.
In the teleparallel theory
*(R^I^J/e^K/e^L) + *(T^I/T^J) = 0
The torsion field is Yang-Mills spin 1.
spin 1/spin 1 ~ spin 2 + spin 1 + spin 0

PHYSICAL REVIEW D    VOLUME 56, NUMBER 8    15 OCTOBER 1997
Gravitational Lorentz force and the description of the gravitational interaction
V. C. de Andrade and J. G. Pereira
Instituto de F?sica Teorica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900 S Sao Paulo, Brazil
Received 21 March 1997
"In the context of a gauge theory for the translation group, we have obtained, for a spinless particle, a gravitational analogue of the Lorentz force. Then, we have shown that this force equation can be rewritten in terms of magnitudes related to either the teleparallel or the Riemannian structures induced in spacetime by the presence of the gravitational field. In the first case, it gives a force equation, with torsion playing the role of force. In the second, it gives the usual geodesic equation of general relativity. The main conclusion is that scalar matter is able to feel any one of the above spacetime geometries, the teleparallel and the metric ones. Furthermore, both descriptions are found to be completely equivalent in the sense that they give the same physical trajectory for a spinless particle in a gravitational field."

Feb 2009arXiv:0902.0560v1 [gr-qc] A formal framework for a nonlocal generalization of Einstein’s theory of gravitation
Friedrich W. Hehl∗
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Cologne, 50923 K¨oln, Germany and
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Bahram Mashhoon†
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University o
"it is known that a gauge theory of the translation group, for spinless matter, yields a teleparallelism theory of gravity that, for a suitably chosen Lagrangian, is equivalent to Einstein’s theory"

Dec 28

Nanomotors with over unity efficiency?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Note also the unusual behavior of a reversible Carnot engine with a hot negative and a cold positive temperature

Work Out/Hot Heat In = 1 + |Tpositive/Tnegative| > 1

This seems to be related - heat from both reservoirs performs useful work. It seems obvious to me that this should have implications for nanomotors.OK

Negative Specific Heat in Astronomy, Physics and Chemistry
D. Lynden-Bell
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, CB3 0HA and Clare College, Senior Fellow visiting The Queen’s University, Belfast. BT7 1NN
Abstract
"Starting from Antonov’s discovery that there is no maximum to the entropy of a gravitating system of point particles at fixed energy in a spherical box if the density contrast between centre and edge exceeds 709, we review progress in the understanding of gravitational thermodynamics.

We pinpoint the error in the proof that all systems have positive specific heat and say when it can occur. We discuss the development of the thermal runaway in both the gravothermal catastrophe and its inverse.
The energy range over which microcanonical ensembles have negative heat capacity is replaced by a first order phase transition in the corre- sponding canonical ensembles. We conjecture that all first order phase transitions may be viewed as caused by negative heat capacities of units within them.

We find such units in the theory of ionisation, chemical dissociation and in the Van der Waals gas so these concepts are applicable outside the realm of stars, star clusters and black holes.

1. Two negative CV systems in thermal contact do not attain thermal equilibrium – one gets hotter and hotter by losing energy, the other gets for ever colder by gaining energy. Thus negative CV systems can not be divided into independent parts each with negative CV ; so negative CV systems are NEVER extensive.

2. A negative CV system can not achieve thermal equilibrium with a large heat bath. Any fluctuation that, e.g., makes it temporary energy too high will make its temporary temperature too low and the heat flow into it will drive it to ever lower temperatures and higher energies.

3. A negative CV system can achieve a stable equilibrium in contact with a positive CV system provided that their combined heat capacity is negative. ...

Notice that this stability is lost as soon as Plus has the same |CV | as Minus; i.e., when their combined heat capacity reaches zero from below."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9812172v1

On Dec 27, 2010, at 9:23 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Yes, I already knew that the specific heat is negative for the bh and those stars and thought about mentioning it, but how does that fit in? I am missing something here in connecting the dots.

On Dec 27, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Raymond Chiao wrote:

Yes, "creating the temperature difference is ok so long as the total entropy is increasing to compensate". However, Unruh reminded me recently that the specific heat of a black hole is negative, as Lynden-Bell first pointed out is the case for ordinary, non-relativistic self-gravitating stars. See Ref. [5]; see look up under "negative specific heat" using Google.

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
of course since the area of the right BH is increasing the total entropy of the system is not decreasing  so I am reminded of a refrigerator - creating the temperature difference is ok so long as the total entropy is increasing to compensate?

On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:43 AM, Raymond Chiao wrote:

"Jack, excellent question! You are right that the time scales for the fluctuations could be different for fast fluctuations, such as the fluctuations due to fluctuating photon number in the photon flow from the left to the right cavities, and for the slow, secular changes (perhaps one shouldn't use the word "fluctuations" in this case) in the masses of the two BH's due to a steady flow of radiant energy from the left BH to the right BH. The fast fluctuations will indeed average out and "stabilize", but not the slow, secular changes. However, like in the case of the Jeans instability, one doesn't need to specify the nature of the fluctuation that initiates the instability. The secular instability will always dominate over long time scales. " --Ray

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:09 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
ray
if the time scale of the fluctuations is much shorter than the time scale of the instability won't it stabilize? - statistically average out if a fluctuation happens on the left BH a canceling fluctuation happens on the right BH etc? I wonder if the ratio of the time scale of the fluctuations to the time scale of the instability is independent of the mass of the BH?



signal nonlocality is essential for our own inner consciousness in my opinion.

On Dec 27, 2010, at 11:14 AM, AFGANTNER@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 12/25/10 10:16:36 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:


signal nonlocality is essential for our own inner consciousness in my opinion.


Jack: What do you mean by this?
Tony

"The most beautiful theory is murdered by an ugly fact." Richard P. Feynman

The quantum information field is the intrinsic mental field.

Our material brains have a quantum information field attached to it - by the equations of Bohm's formulation of quantum mechanics.

Our minds are the Bohmian quantum information field Q (quantum potential - or super-potential for classical EM fields - minor distinction at this stage).

Ordinary quantum mechanics is a one-way street in which Q (mind) causes motions in the material brain, e.g. neurons to fire, without any direct back-reaction or feedback-control loop of the neuronal signal back on Q itself.

There is a theorem that under those conditions we have "signal locality" and uncontrollable quantum randomness, it is impossible to clone an arbitrary quantum state etc. All of modern quantum information computer cryptology technology assumes this to be a fact.

However, our inner experiences, the qualia, must be the change in Q induced by our material brain sensors - that change is what we feel.

There is then another theorem that when that feedback-control loop exists we have signal nonlocality in which Einstein's spooky telepathic psychokinetic quantum entanglement between separated material quantum objects can be controlled from one of the objects causing a distant object to do its bidding. This is post-quantum voodoo you might say. Signal nonlocality permits back-from-the-future messages like is seen experimentally in our brains by Ben Libet, Dean Radin, Dick Bierman and most recently Daryl Bem at Cornell. This is strong violation of quantum theory in living conscious matter - a laboratory fact in my opinion. All living matter is far from "sub-quantum thermal equilibrium" so that "signal nonlocality" is Henri Bergson's "elan vital" - the spark of the soul.

I have perhaps over simplified - but that's the basic idea.

e.g.

Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0203049v2

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also called the pilot-wave theory, Bohmian mechanics , and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum theory. ...
Overview - The Theory - Extensions - Results
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory - Cached - Similar
David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During his early period, Bohm made a number of significant contributions to ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm - Cached - Similar
Show more results from wikipedia.org
Bohmian Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
by S Goldstein - 2006 - Cited by 61 - Related articles
May 19, 2006 ... Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot- wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics ...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ - Similar
Quantum theory - Google Books Result
David Bohm - 1951 - Science - 646 pages
This advanced undergraduate-level text provides a formulation of the quantum theory in terms of qualitative and imaginative concepts outside classical theory.
books.google.com/books?isbn=0486659690...
Quantum Physics: Bohmian Mechanics: David Bohm. Explaining Pilot ...
David Bohm on Quantum Physics: The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains DavidBohm's pilot wave / hidden variables of Bohmian Mechanics as a Spherical In ...
www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-quantum-bohmian-mechanics.htm - Cached - Similar
Bohm, Bell, and Boom! Quantum Mechanics and the End of Modern Dualism
From History and Philosophy of Science, Fall, 1997. By Dr. Ess.
www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/bell.html - Cached - Similar
Measurement in quantum mechanics FAQ: Bohm's theory
References: D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of " hidden" variables I and II, Physical Review,85, 155-93 (1952). ...
www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-7.html - Cached - Similar
Is Bohm's quantum theory equivalent to standard quantum theory?
by BL Lan - 2008 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
It is conventionally believed that Bohm's quantum theory yields all the ... Bohm's quantum theory, the actual motion of a particle is governed by an ...
iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/128/1/012017/.../jpconf8_128_012017.pdf
[PDF] An Extension of Bohm's Quantum Theory to include Non-gradient ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by RM Kiehn - Cited by 7 - Related articles
At that time the Bohm theory of Quantum Mechanics was unknown to the present author. The original application by this author of these ideas was to the .


The four gravity tetrad Cartan 1-forms e^I are bona-fide GCT invariant SO(1,3) emergent vector field spin 1 boson gravity fields.

Therefore, their torsion field 2-form will have the Yang-Mills Lagrangian ~  (1/4)Trace{*F^I/F^J} with a local energy tensor

F^I = De^I = de^I + w^IK/e^K

w^IJ = spin connection 1-form, that is inhomogeneous under SO(1,3)

Curvature 2-form is

R^I^J = dw^I^J + w^IK/w^KJ

However, in 1916 GR F^I = 0, therefore there is no non-zero local classical gravity vacuum energy-stress tensor.

Of course / =/= 0 does give such a tensor ~ (string tension)/guv.

Also tele-parallel theories where disclination curvature is a disguised torsion dislocation have F^I =/= 0.

Signal locality is the death of spirit - the dissolution of The Holy Ghost in the Machine - The destruction of The Elan Vital if I may wax poetic.

Entropic Dynamics, Time and Dr. Quantum Bohm's Theory Prospero's Ariel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTk_ubzL0dU

"Ariel (pronounced /?æri?l/) is a fictional spirit who appears in William Shakespeare's play The Tempest. Ariel is bound to serve the magician Prospero, who rescued him from the tree in which he was imprisoned by Sycorax, the witch who previously inhabited the island. Prospero greets disobedience with a reminder that he saved Ariel from Sycorax's spell, and with promises to grant Ariel his freedom. Ariel is Prospero's eyes and ears throughout the play, using his magical abilities to cause the tempest in Act one which gives the play its name, and to foil other character's plots to bring down his master.
The source of Ariel's name and character is unknown, although several critics have pointed out his similarities to the Ariel mentioned in Isaiah Chapter 29 in the Bible. The name means "Lion of the Lord", in this sense. Ariel may also be a simple play on the word "aerial". Scholars have compared him to sprites depicted in other Elizabethan plays, and have managed to find several similarities between them, but one thing which makes Ariel unique is the human edge and personality given him by Shakespeare.

Since the stage directions in The Tempest are so precise, critics and historians are better able to see how this play may have originally been performed than with other Shakespearean plays. Several of the scenes involving magic have clear instructions on how to create the illusion required, causing critics to make connections and guesses as to exactly what sort of technology would have been used in Shakespeare's troupe to stage Ariel's role in the play. Also, a line by Ariel in Act IV brings other scholars to ask questions as to whether the original actor for Ariel played the part for Ceres as well, due to a shortage of boy actors.

Ariel is widely viewed as a male character, although this view has wavered over the years, especially in the Restoration, when women played the role, for the most part. Ariel has also been involved, though lightly, in the debate over the colonialist nature of the play, as scholars have tried to determine how he compares to the more rebellious Caliban in terms of service to the European Prospero." - The Very Wickedpedia

 conservation of current

 Bohm's quantum potential

found by Ariel

"But why should the osmotic mass be precisely equal to the inertial mass?
Why can’t we say that entropic dynamics predicts a non-linear generalization of
quantum theory? This question is so central to quantum theory that we devote
the next section to it. But before that we note that the non-linearity is undesirable
both for experimental and theoretical reasons."

Wrong, it's desirable. Indeed, it's necessary for life and consciousness.

Orthodox quantum theory works only for dead matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHnRfw9qqvk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u07oXPKefQ&feature=related

Signal locality is the death of spirit - the dissolution of The Holy Ghost in the Machine - The destruction of The Elan Vital if I may wax poetic.

"On one hand, various types of non-linearities have been ruled out experimentally to an extreme degree
through precision experiments on the Lamb shift [22] and even more so in hyperfine
transitions [40]. On the other hand, from the theory side it is the fact that
time evolution preserves linear superpositions that leads to the superposition
principle and makes Hilbert spaces useful. In addition, there is a consistency
argument that links the linearity of the Hilbert space and the linearity of time
evolution [10]. Retaining one and not the other leads to inconsistently assigned
amplitudes showing that the very concept of quantum amplitudes is a reflection
of linearity. And, as if that were not enough, it has also been shown that in
the presence of non-linear terms entangled particles could be used to achieve
superluminal communication [41]. Therefore it is extremely probable that the
identity of inertial and osmotic mass is exact."

"The puzzle of the arrow of time has a long history (see e.g. [38]). The standard question is how can an arrow of time be derived from underlying laws of nature that are symmetric? Entropic dynamics offers a new perspective because it does not assume any underlying laws of nature – whether they be symmetric or not – and its goal is not to explain the asymmetry between past and future. The asymmetry is the inevitable consequence of entropic inference. From the point of view of entropic dynamics the challenge does not consist in explaining the arrow of time, but rather in explaining how it comes about that despite the arrow of time some laws of physics turn out to be reversible. Indeed, even when the derived laws of physics—in our case, the Schr ?odinger equation—turns out to be fully time-reversible, entropic time itself only flows forward."

I am not sure what the above paragraph means. In the hologram universe, we have a natural post-selected 2D boundary hologram screen our future event horizon whose entropy is the entropy of the 3D bulk universe because the 3D universe is its back from the future hologram image.


On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:29 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote to Creon Levit:

This is the Ed Jaynes approach. Jaynes was the Ph.D. advisor of my Ph.D. advisor. Jaynes got his Ph.D. under Eugene Wigner at Princeton. Wigner was a major innovator on the use of symmetry groups in quantum mechanics and he was interested in consciousness generating the collapse of the state vector in the Copehagen Interpretation of Niels Bohr.

On Dec 25, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2357v2

"Entropic dynamics resembles general relativity in one important respect. According to general relativity the geometry of space-time dictates how matter must move, and matter reacts back and dictates how the geometry must change in response. The lesson of general relativity, if there is one at all, is that there is no fixed background: space is a dynamical entity."

Compare Bohm's quantum potential Q to spacetime geometry. In my post-quantum theory Q is dynamical just like geometry is in GR. However, dynamical Q getting direct back-reaction from the spin 1/2 fermion particles on definite trajectories and the classical spin 1 boson fields including the gravity tetrad LIF spin 1 boson fields, violates the signal locality no-cloning a quantum Born statistical rule of orthodox quantum theory.



Dec 25

Misconceptions About the Big Bang

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Here I must clarify it's not pure pre-selected retarded past to present causation alone, there is also, even more important post-selected back from the future telos final causation from our future event horizon boundary.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jonathan Post <jvospost3@gmail.com>
Date: December 25, 2010 11:49:57 AM PST
To: Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Dr. Quantum Back From The Future Arrow of Time: was Perfect Computers that Run Forever?" By Jonathan Vos Post


=======================
Dear Dr. Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis,

I adored your feature article "Misconceptions about the Big Bang"
Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You're not alone. Even
astronomers frequently get it wrong
By Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis February 21, 2005
Scientific American.

Are you okay with my submitting the below to Scientific American or other venue?

I attach a formatted copy as a 31 KB Word file.

Misconceptions About the Big Bang:
Verse from Charles H. Lineweaver & Tamara M. Davis,
Scientific American, March 2005
By
Jonathan Vos Post

"You are misconceiving the whole Big Bang.
I am believing you can get the hang.
It is a fact that the universe expands,
Yet writer and teacher misunderstands.

You would not read this poem otherwise,
There’d be no human beings, seas, nor skies –
Some focus this demands, do not be fooled –
Unless the universe had stretched and cooled.

From a hot, dense, primordial state
There remains a cooler afterglow
We see in microwaves.  Our future fate
Reflects what happened, very long ago."

Here I must clarify it's not pure pre-selected retarded past to present causation alone, there is also, even more important post-selected back from the future telos final causation from our future event horizon boundary.

"Expansion and cooling are the central theme,
Account for the noise on a TV show,
Not the stupid dialog, the speckled gleam
Of analog TV, the random snow.

Like Darwinian Evolution,
Without which Biology makes little sense,
Expansion is the cosmic revolution
Which bad writing still misrepresents.

What were those microwaves? The clear solution
Won Penzias and Wilson’s Nobel Prize.
Pigeon dropping and local pollution
Delayed confirming Gamow’s wild surmise.

Like Darwin’s ideas, cosmic expansion
Provides the context wherein structures form
And develop over time; his mansion
Has many houses, into cool, but starting warm.

Most scientists think that they understand
But few agree on what it really means.
Expansion’s a fact, on the other hand
General Relativity intervenes.

What Edwin Hubble did for galaxies,
What Darwin and Mendel did for genes,
What red shift meant, caused terrible unease,
Changed plot, changed character, and all the scenes.

The universe expands, by small degrees,
With vast effect.  What is it, anyway?
Why does it cool until we freeze?
Allow me, please, forever and a day.

A sprain, empire, and exploding bomb
Get bigger, moving into empty space.
But read this book, play this CD-ROM:
There is no such imaginary place

into which the universe penetrates
towards the edges, outward from the center.
“Things fall apart,” said William Butler Yeats,
“the center cannot hold.”  But now we enter

something with no edges, with no center
unlike the sprain, bomb, or Roman Empire,
Einstein and Hubble were inventor
Of a balloon, or automobile tire

Inflating without having an outside
In which to move into.  I hear you kvetch.
Galaxies grow remote, though some collide,
The space between the galaxies can stretch.

Galaxies move at random, but at rest
Are clusters of them; photons now provide
The universal reference frame, the test
Against which motion’s measured.  Push aside

The notion “galaxies are flying.”  Still,
They still would move apart.  Just take in stride
This valuable hundred dollar bill.
Hubble and Einstein, Jekyll and Hyde.

Imagine ants, crawling on the balloon
as it expands.  They are farther apart
even if each stays put.  Watch the cartoon –
the rubber’s stretched.  This is a work of art,

this idea of expansion without motion
into anything.  Imagine Killer Whales
if we, shore to shore, enlarged the ocean --
they’d spread apart without waving tails.

Balloon picture stretches just so far.
We see 2-D rubber stretch in 3-D space
But 3-D cosmos, of planet and star,
Does not need 4-D.  In this case

Space is dynamic, it can curve,
Expand, or shrink without being embedded
In 4-D geometry.  We observe
What takes nerve to accept.  Albert wedded

space and time to something which succeeds
in matching observation, strange as it seems
in our universe, everything recedes
from everything else; rub your eyes, the dreams

that the Big Bang was small, just fade away.
Nor was it someplace else.  It was everywhere.
Space itself exploded.  Independence Day
Fireworks lit, and went up in a flare.

What caused the expansion?  Nobody knows.
The model fits the data.  So we think
we’re asking the right questions.  We suppose
confusion about expansion will shrink.

Now you should understand the whole Big Bang
With every nerve, in your brain or spinal.
Now I’m done, after all this sturm und drang,
Furthermore, this will be on the Final.


1515-1735
8 July 2010


=======================
Dr. Charles H. Lineweaver
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/

Senior Fellow, Planetary Science Institute (PSI)
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics (RSAA)
Research School of Earth Sciences (RSES) (Earth Chemistry)
Australian National University (ANU)

=======================
Tamara M. Davis

http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/download/tamarad/astro/index.html

MY RESEARCH

Welcome to my research page. I am a cosmologist, and spend most of my
time trying to figure out why the expansion of the universe is
accelerating. That sort of research can sometimes take you down
surprising paths, as some of the summaries below will show. Here's
some highlights of what I get up to. Follow the links for some more
detailed descriptions of the more exciting and weird aspects of the
universe.

SUPERNOVA COSMOLOGY:

Supernovae are exploding stars. In the early 1990s it was discovered
that one particular type of supernova makes a great standard candle.
That means that we know how intrinsically bright they are. In
astronomy that is incredibly useful, because just by measuring how
bright it appears you can measure how far it is away. We can also
measure the redshift of the supernovae, and thus determine how fast
they are receding from us. This discovery allowed astronomers to
measure the expansion rate of the universe in the distant past and
compare it to the expansion rate now. Much to our surprise the
expansion appears to be accelerating, contrary to everything we
thought we knew about gravity.

Here's some of the work I do on supernova cosmology.
Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) — supernova survey
SDSS gallery snippet (original http://sdssdp47.fnal.gov/sdsssn/sdsssn.html)

The SDSS Supernova Survey has discovered hundreds of supernovae in the
region between redshifts 0.1 and 0.3, known as the 'redshift desert'.
Ironically this intermediate redshift range was more difficult to get
to than the more distant supernovae because you need a telescope with
an enormous field of view in order to be able to cover a large enough
region of sky. In late 2009 we published a series of three papers
covering the results from the first year of data. An additional 103
supernovae revealed some interesting issues, perhaps most importantly
that we need to better understand the supernovae and their light
curves. There are tantalising hints that some of the more exotic
cosmological models may improve on our standard cosmological constant
explanation of dark energy, but as yet it is too early to make any
conclusions.

SDSS homepage: http://sdssdp47.fnal.gov/sdsssn/sdsssn.html

=======================
BigBang96.doc    BigBang96.doc
31K   View   Download

Tamara Davis
to me, Charles
   
show details Nov 24
   
Hi Jonathan,
I enjoyed your poem.  Submit it wherever you like but there is no need
to attribute it to Charley or I, that's your own work.  It would be
inappropriate to put the bios of Charley or I at the end.
Do you mind if I forward it to some of my astro-friends who might like
to read it?
All the best,
Tamara

=======================


Dec 21

True Tales of High Strangeness

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Henry Hudson, according to Catskill Hudson Valley legend met “little people” on top of a mountain who said they came to Earth every twenty years. Washington Irving, who knew the Henry Hudson story, has Rip Van Winkle “sleep” for twenty years. Allegedly this story was based on a real man who reappeared after twenty years after a hike to that same Catskill Mountain. Thousands of people allegedly saw huge silent triangular craft flying over that area in the early 1980’s. Several security police at the nuclear reactor at Indian Point reported a silent hovering triangular craft hovering over nuclear reactor 3 to Imbrogno that they allegedly tried to shoot down. “As an example of the ultraterrestrials, Imbrogno shared the story of famed explorer Henry Hudson's encounter with little gnome-like entities in 1609. While exploring the river that would eventually bear his name, Hudson was warned by Native Americans to avoid the "little men" in the nearby mountains. One night during the expedition, he heard music and saw flashes of light coming from a mountain top. Deciding to investigate, Hudson and his men climbed the mountain and discovered a party of gnomes that were dancing around the fire and playing games. Welcomed by the little people, Hudson was told that they were from "somewhere else" and that they come into our world every twenty years. Though this may seem like simple folklore, Imbrogno observed that similar stories of celebratory gnomes in the region seem to resurface every twenty years and there were even reports as recently as 2009.” “Ultraterrestrial Contact: A Paranormal Investigator's Explorations into the Hidden Abduction Epidemic,” Phil Imbrogno on Coast to Coast AM, December 19, 2010. See also Jacques Vallee’s books. The book by George Knapp and Colm Kelleher “The Hunt for the Skinwalker” reports similar, though more sinister, more recent tales of high strangeness at a Utah Ranch owned by Las Vegas hotel tycoon Robert Bigelow who has funded UFO, paranormal and commerrcial space programs.
Violation of Leggett's inequality

"Physics has generally accepted that the quantum world flouts "local realism", but in 2003,
Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign tried to restore realism
by sacrificing locality. If two entities can arrange their correlations through instantaneous
communication, then perhaps it is still possible that they each have definite properties.
Leggett’s real but non-local scenario passes the Bell test, but could it really describe the
quantum world?

Four years later, physicists in Austria, Switzerland and Singapore answered with data.
Instead of measuring the linear polarization states used to violate Bell’s inequality they
looked for correlations between elliptical polarizations – combinations of linear and circular
states. Even assuming that entangled photons could respond to one another instantly, the
correlations between polarization states still violated Leggett’s inequality. The conclusion
being that instantaneous communication is not enough to explain entanglement and
realism must also be abandoned.

This conclusion is now backed up by Sonja Franke-Arnold and collegues at the University
of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde who have performed another experiment
showing that entangled photons exhibit entangled photons show stronger correlations
than allowed for particles with individually defined properties – even if they would be
allowed to communicate constantly. But rather than polarization, they studied the
properties of each photon’s orbital angular momentum."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44580

Thanks to Saul-Paul Sirag for alerting me to this.



In the case of Bohm's particle mechanics, does violation of Leggett's inequality mean that definite particle trajectories cannot exist?


Dec 19

Ouch! You stepped on my TOE.

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

"TOE" = string Theory Of Everything
Also Roger Penrose's reincarnation cyclic universes model thrown into grave doubt.
http://stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2895:cosmic-reincarnation-idea-may-be-dead&catid=43:science&Itemid=82
good news for my competing cosmology of the post-selected back-from-the-future hologram Destiny Matrix self-creating universe

On Dec 19, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag wrote:

Jack,
    The lack of micro black holes is a strike against a particular version of string theory, the ADD theory (of Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali). In this theory the extra dimensions of string theory are large. See, for example, "Large Extra Dimensions: a New Arena fro Particle Physics" by these authors, Phys. Today, Feb. 2002.
    So string theories with microscopic hidden dimensions are NOT ruled out by this lack of black holes at the LHC. At the end of the Wired article we read:

    "Contrary to some reports, this result doesn’t mean the death of string theory, only the particular flavor that predicted black holes at these energies. Eliminating some models is a critical process of narrowing down what’s possible, but most theoretical constructs have a range of possible models, and string theory is no different. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the ADD model was generated simply because physicists were looking for something they could possibly test in the LHC."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/lhc-black-holes-string-theory/    Page 2 of Missing Black Holes Cause Trouble for String Theory | Wired Science |
All for now ;-)
Saul-Paul


FACEBOOK
Jack Sarfatti
No black holes found at LHC – yet http://bit.ly/gVj5zG
Yesterday at 11:34am via AutoTweet Connector ·  · Like · Comment
Nicole Tedesco, Xavier Terri Castañe and Jerri Lynn like this.
Richard Jensen is that good new or bad news?
Yesterday at 12:21pm · Like ·  1 person
Nicole Tedesco Well, so much for their new automatic garbage collection facility! ;-)
Yesterday at 2:53pm · Like
Xavier Terri Castañe Bad news for theory of relativity.
http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0031
11 hours ago · Like ·  1 person
Jack Sarfatti wrong - not bad news at all general relativity is experimentally tested many times over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
3 hours ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti It's bad news for string theory's extra space dimensions not bad news for Einstein's 1916 classical geometrodynamics.
43 minutes ago · Like ·  1 person
Nicole Tedesco Darned reality, always getting in the way of our long hoped-for dreams of Universal Conquest!
2 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti The most beautiful theory is murdered by an ugly fact - Feynman
2 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti Ouch! You stepped on my TOE!
2 seconds ago · Like