On Jan 17, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Basil Hiley
Date: January 17, 2014 at 3:11:50 AM PST
To: Ruth Kastner
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Whenever I see the term “Bohm picture" my heart sinks. Bohm never had one picture. I have never had one picture. Our starting point was that we did not find the majority view on quantum mechanics held in the 50s and 60s began to touch the questions we felt deserved answers. Yes we could recite the formal mantra and get results that agreed with experiment but we wanted more. There were too many questions that could not be framed in the available mathematical language physicists had at their disposal then. For me the main question was “Why had the observer become central to the theory?” The universe existed before there were observers and the quantum formalism could not handle that situation.It those days the appeal was to find a “realist” interpretation, but what was the meaning of the term “realist”? There were two extremes: there is no 'realist picture', just the mathematics or at the other extreme we take the classical view as basic and just change it a little, say, by adding hidden variables. What Bohm discovered while playing with the WBK approximation was that up to the first and second approximation we could still maintain the notion of a particle following a trajectory. At what stage of the approximation do we abandon the notion of a particle? There is nothing in the formalism to give us an answer, so don’t truncate the series. Following that line Bohm was led to propose his 52 model. It is remarkable how far that idea offers a way into quantum phenomena.Please note for Bohm and for myself this is only the beginning and leads to number of questions.Firstly: if we take the idea of a classical particle, an object that exists as a solid entity in it own right independent of everything else, then there should be some ‘ultimon’, but there doesn’t seem to be any ‘ultimon'. To every particle there is an anti-particle and we know what happens when they meet! Where is the little rock? There doesn’t seem to be one. The nucleon is a hive of activity. Remember QM was introduced to explain the stability of matter.Secondly: Bohm immediately noticed that his analysis did not cover the photon. The classical limit in this case is the field. Already in the appendix of his 52 paper, he proposed that the field and its conjugate momentum should be treated as the two beables. With one of our students Pan Kaloyerou, we later took this analysis much further. We illustrated the principles lying behind the ideas using a scalar field and later Pan treated the em field. Where was the photon in this approach? What we found was that the energy is stored in the field and can, at best, be quasi localised in an excited state of the field. In our paper (Phys. Reps. 144 (1987) 349-375) we show how the notion of a photon arises as the energy absorbed by an atom. The non-linear, non-local super quantum potential sweeps out an quantum of energy, sufficient to excite the atom to one of its higher energy states. This gives the impression that photon exchange has taken place. We noticed further that the field does not need to contain energy in fixed units of hν. This is where coherent states come in. We also explained how this enables us to explain two-slit interference without the photons travelling along trajectories. NB Photons do not travel on trajectories! We even explained the interference of two independent lasers as observed in the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment. The details are contained in our paper and a later paper by Pan Kaloyerou.Thirdly: Since there is no ‘ultimon’, where do we start? We touched on this question in the last chapter of the Undivided Universe. However since then I have taken the story a lot further. I assume that we must start with activity or process which can be described by what I call the algebra of process. I have recently presented these ideas in Process, Distinction, Groupoids and Clifford Algebras: an Alternative View of the Quantum Formalism, in New Structures for Physics, ed Coecke, B., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, pp. 705-750, Springer (2011). There I show how the basic symplectic and rotational symmetries emerge and can be linked up with the von Neumann-Moyal non-commutative algebraic approach which shows how the Bohm approach emerges from the heart of what are now called quantum algebras that were originally discussed under the title 'Heisenberg matrix mechanics'. We now have the mathematics available to see exactly how to develop the quantum ideas without being trapped in the standard Hilbert space formalism.Basil.On 17 Jan 2014, at 02:14, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:Basically I'm just pointing out that position beables are not field currents, and it's field currents that exchange virtual photons. So not sure about your interpretation of your interesting result, nor whether position beables really apply to Glauber states. But I'll wait and see what Basil has to say.
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
From: jack
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:27:55 -0800On Jan 16, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:Everettian picture is opposed to Bohm picture. Classical field configs corresponding to Glauber states don't involve virtual particle exchanges between Bohmian particles describable by S. The latter are not field currents.That's not true. In superfluid helium the macro-quantum coherent Glauber state order parameter is a reservoir for incoherent bosons. Indeed there is only about 8% bose-einstein condensate in the ground state of Helium II.In any case I do not think is a formal problem in the theory.The math argument I gave I think is very convincing.In the EM caseA is a Glauber coherent state order parameter of virtual near field photons of all three spin 1 polarizations f =/= ck+ real photons f = ck of only transverse polarizations in the far field.S is the quantum phase of the fermion charge, not of the boson condensate.hGradS is obviously a longitudinal polarized momentum transfer between test charge and its coincident EM vector potential (order parameter) A.It is the cancellation of the hGradS terms in the formal gauge transformation algebra that describes exchange of virtual photon momentum between particle hidden fermion variable and classical boson field.It is this cancellation that keep canonical momentum P = mdr/dt + (e/c)A gauge invariant.hGradS/&t is the action/reaction "force"&E&t < hIn the gravity analog hGradS is replaced by the coincident LNIF -> LNIF' frame transformation XdX for exchange of virtual graviton acceleration betweengeodesic test mass m and non-tidal gravity-acceleration field {Levi-Civita Connection}.XdX/&t is a "jerk" as in EM radiation reaction, but here its the gravity analog.
From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:36:23 -0800
To: RuthParallel universes that phase communicateDavid DeutschHowever bosons have super quantum potential and no problem for themClassical field configurations are already Glauber states
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:
How can particles have definite positions if they might not even exist?
From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:30:01 -0800
To: RuthEven nonrelativistically one can have uncertain knowledge of what total particle number is.I see no problem here either conceptually or formally.The rules are that of Finkelstein's quantum logic
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Ruth Kastner
wrote:
Basil as I understand it has acknowledged that particle position beables are not the right beables for a relativistic version of the Bohmian theory. Basil do correct me if I am wrong...
From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:11 -0800
To: RuthI dont think what u say about coherent states is trueI am sure Basil Hiley has a counter argument?Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:
Ah OK I see that by adding dS you are in effect including a Bohmian 'quantum potential' term as the gauge here. So yes, it does act as an additional effective force on a putative Bohmian particle that is otherwise behaving classically. Thisis of course how the Bohmian theory regains quantum predictions based on assuming the existence of particles pursuing
deterministic trajectories.
Interesting, although as you know I don't buy the existence of Bohmian particles ;) For one thing, assuming a persistent particle is inconsistent with coherent states that must always have an indefinite number of particles.
From: jack
Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:45:04 -0800
To: RuthOn Jan 16, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:Jack that is very interesting. But wouldn't such an exchange give rise to an additional force on the charge--implying a change
in observed E field?
I don't understand your question.The argument below has nothing to do with Jim's gravity theory. It's pure QED.The result of the local gauge invariance is in this simple casemd^2r/dt^2 = eE Newton's second lawfromP = mdr/dt + (e/c)AdP/dt = md^2r/dt^2 + (e/c)dA/dtE = - (1/c)dA/dtUnder an internal symmetry local U1 gauge transformation - that conserves electrical charge generating U1(x)mdr/dt -> mdr/dt + hGradS(e/c)A -> (e/c)A - hGradSS = phase of particle's quantum wave function (Bohm)This is simply an exchange of longitudinally polarized virtual photon momentum between particle (e,m) and classical field A which takes time &tIt is the quantum field mechanism for near field electrical contact force.Under these virtual gauge transformation dP/dt = 0, which is the action-reaction principle.If A exerts near field contact force hGradS/&t on e, then e has equal and opposite back-reaction force on A and vice versa.This is intuitively obvious, elegant beautiful and I have never seen it explained this way before, so I claim it as an original insight in the LOCAL physical meaningof all internal symmetry transformations and how they connect to spacetime conservation-symmetry laws.An analogous argument for gravity - is not momentum transfer but proper tensor acceleration transfer between test particle and Levi-Civita LNIF field in time &t,i.e. the kinematical jerk d^3r/dt^3 - mathematically it's the XdX term in the LC LNIF transformation, where X = GCT{LNIF} -> {LNIF'} = XXX{LNIF} + XdXThe origins of LNIF and LNIF' are PHYSICALLY COINCIDENT ALWAYSROVELLI EXPLAINS THIS NICELY IN HIS CH2 QUANTUM GRAVITY FREE ONLINE LECTURESd^2r/ds^2 -> d^2r'/ds^2 = Xd^2r/ds^2 + XdXThis keeps proper acceleration of the test object invariant!D^2r/ds^2 -> D^2r'/ds^2 = Xd^2r/ds^2 + XdX - XXX{LNIF}X^-1dr/dsX^-1/dr/ds - XdX= XD^2/ds^2The "jerk" transferred between test particle and gravity acceleration field (first order non-tidal Newtonian field LC connection of EEP)is simply XdX/&t from virtual spin 2 graviton exchange. It's not a momentum transfer as in all spin 1 gauge theories.IN EFFECTi.e. D^3r/ds^3 = 0THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY ONE NEEDS THE STRESS ENERGY PSEUDO-TENSOR.Alex Poltorak's PhD was based on a common misconception
> Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:05:03 -0800
> To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
>
> Yes of course, also it corresponds to charge conservation
> But I am talking about a direct local physical meaning to
>
> A -> A' = A + (hc/e)dS
>
> hdS is virtual photon momentum exchange between charge kinetic momentum and field momentum (e/c)A
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:56 AM, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 05:22, Jack wrote:
> >>
> >> gauge invariance is usually treated very abstractly as a purely mathematical device
> >> There is a picture of it in terms of fiber bundles but not in terms of physics
> >
> > In the case of electromagnetism, there is a direct physical correlate, the Eherenberg-Siday-Aharonov-Bohm effect.
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > ------
> > Brian D. Josephson
> > Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
> > Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
> > Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
> > WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
> > Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254
> >
Jack Sarfatti NOW FOR THE REAL PHYSICAL MEANING OF THE LEVI-CIVITA THEOREM THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN TWO LC CONNECTIONS IS A TENSOR
THAT TENSOR IS THE PROPER ACCELERATION OF THE LOCAL NON-INERTIAL FRAME.
On 1/8/2014 9:55 PM, Jacob Sarfatti wrote:
Its physical significance is pretty simple:
The non-tensor inhomogeneous term in the transformation of the Christoffel symbol connection field is the change in proper acceleration of the lnif.
Sent from my iPad
More precisely,
What I meant was that the XdX inhomogeneous term in the GCT gauge transformation LNIF -> LNIF' CANCELS OUT in the computation of the proper acceleration of the LNIF detector, which by definition is a property of its REST FRAME, i.e. the reading of the accelerometer clamped to its center of mass. We are here talking about the local rest frame of the detector not that of the test particle the detector is monitoring.
It's this cancellation of the two equal and opposite XdX terms in the respective rest frames of the detectors that maintains the tensor property of the proper accelerations of the two coincident LNIF/LNIF' connected by GCT X.
GCT X is a an element of the local translational gauge group T4(x).
So in EM we have
A -> A' = A + (hc/e)dS
this keeps
P = mV + (e/c)A gauge invariant.
mV -> mV' = mV + hdS
S = quantum phase of wave function of test particle with inertia m and with charge e.
(e/c)A -> (e/c)A' = (e/c)A - hdS
hdS is the momentum carried by a longitudinally polarized virtual photon that is the CONTACT electrical force in quantum field theory.
dP/dt = 0 is ACTION-REACTION principle between electric charge and coincident EM field.
dP/dt = 0 is the real force law
mdV/dt = eE
since E ~ (1/c)dA/dt
Now for gravity, we focus on the proper acceleration of the detector (a rest frame property of the detector) not the test particle.
The GCT X induces an XdX kinetic acceleration term which is canceled by the equal and opposite XdX term in the LC transformation.
This keeps the tensor property intact for
DV^i(LNIF)/ds = {LNIF}^i00
in every rest frame
i.e.
DV^i'(LNIF')/ds = {LNIF}^i'0'0'
The LC connection in flat spacetime is exactly like the LC connection in curved spacetime.
Flat spacetime is simply an unstable solution of Einstein's field equations.
Mathematically the LC connection has zero self curl in flat spacetime. The self curl of the LC connection is the curvature tensor.
The LC connection is not zero in flat spacetime in non-inertial frames.
The inhomogeneous term is the change in proper acceleration of the frame.
Symbolically X = GCT which physically is the transformation between two COINCIDENT LNIFs each with proper acceleration encoded in their corresponding LCs.
LC --> LC' = XXXLC + XdX
I must have the patience of a saint.
More accurately of a demon!
The proper acceleration of the test particle is the tensor
DV(test particle)/ds = dV(test particle)/ds - LC(LNIF)V(test particle)V(test particle)
The proper acceleration of the LNIF in its rest frame is
DV(LNIF)/ds = dV(LNIF)/ds - LC(LNIF)V(LNIF)V(LNIF)
but in the rest frame, for the 3-vector parts
V(LNIF) = 0
dV(LNIF)/ds = 0
Therefore
DV^i(LNIF)/ds = - LC(LNIF)^i00V^0(LNIF)V^0(LNIF)
V^0 = 1 in the REST FRAME always
therefore,
DV^i(LNIF)/ds = - LC(LNIF)^i00
Under the GCT in the REST FRAME of LNIF'
DV^i'(LNIF)/ds = - LC(LNIF')^i'0'0'V^0'(LNIF')V^0'(LNIF') = - LC(LNIF')^i'0'0'
Because, just like in the U(1) EM gauge transformations
dV(LNIF)/ds -> dV(LNIF')/ds = dV(LNIF)/ds + XdX
Whilst
- LC(LNIF)^i00 -> - LC(LNIF)^i'0'0 - XdX
Therefore the XdX inhomogeneous terms cancel out for the transformation LNIF -> LNIF' when we calculate the proper acceleration change of the center of mass /origin of the LNIF.
I'm enjoying Rob's analysis which I think is very helpful.
Based on his comments it occurred to me that it might be useful to recall that Aristotle talked about four kinds of explanatory causes for any phenomenon: material, efficient, formal, and final. In these terms Jack is content with a formal cause (the symmetries) as an explanation,
while Jim and Paul regard that as inadequate. Instead they seem to be looking for a material and/or efficient cause.
I think this points up how important it is to be aware there is a meta-question involved here concerning what constitutes an adequate explanation and that this is probably what most of the disagreement is really about. Is there a 'right answer' to this? I doubt it, but it's probably good to have as many of the 'causes' addressed as possible (except perhaps for 'final cause' which invokes notions of design and takes us farther away from modern science as usually understood).
Ruth
Jim,I anticipated that part of your criticism might be that Jack is accepting things as primitives that aren't - that circles around the sun are nice and symmetrical but that circles being an observed fact doesn't explain why they are there. Sounds like you intend to do a detailed note or two here - so thanks, this should be more interesting than rehashing the fictitious forces argument as it stood (although I realize that this discussion will likely at some point lead right back into it).One thing I'm curious about is where does the inertial reaction force fit into, align with or contradict Jack's gauge invariance math? I can make a verbal argument of sorts about how such a force would relate to the conservation law (along the lines that it is what causes an opposite and equal reaction), but I don't know where to try to plug it into the sort of detailed discussion going on here.Also, I'd like to add Happy New Year to everyone here who uses the standard western calender!Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
From: jfwoodward@juno.comSent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 3:24 AMTo: beowulfr@inteSubject: RE: About to watch Downton Abbey new series - but before I forget a me
mory about Sylvan Schweber at BrandeisRob,
Paul will tell you, I expect, that Jack's "explanations" in terms of transformation invariance and Noether's theorem and the like aren't really explanations at all. And I agree. Saying that a conservation law is the physical cause of mass and inertia is really just silly. It's like saying that the Sun and Moon are circular because circles have the most perfect symmetry. Sounds profound. And says nothing about the physics of gravitational accretion and energy minimization.
To characterize my position as in some sense a theory that is independent of general relativity and so dismissable without doing violence to general relativity is also wrong. I assert that general relativity and the standard procedures of field theory, with the WMAP results, accounts for inertia and inertial forces without ANY further theoretical assumptions. Those determined to believe that the quantum vacuum has something to do with inertia are, understandably, not please with this as it renders their speculations irrelevant. But physics is about what's right, not what makes us feel warm and fuzzy.
I had planned on addressing this tonight. But it is late; and I have an early trip into LA in the morning. And I want those who are not professional physicists on the list to be able to follow the main points of the argument. That means providing some historical context, for this stuff is hard enough to follow when you know the context. Without the context, it's all a bunch of symbol salad for most. So I'll tackle this maybe tomorrow. And do it in as many digestible pieces as seems warranted. Jack can then tell everyone it's a bunch of word salad. And Paul can correct my errors. :-)
Best,
Jim
____________________________________________________________
One point I should add: when I talk about the causally connected universe from the point of view of Jim's phi=c^2 gravity, I talk about the future cosmological horizon (where the event horizon and hubble sphere coincide) because we've been assuming that Wheeler-Feynman advanced radiation-reaction is the mechanism for some of this stuff. Basically an effect propagates (ie. radiates) through spacetime in the "forward" time direction and interacts with other matter in our future, which then sends a reaction wave back through spacetime in the "backwards" direction.There would be a different (more complete) definition if you were talking about the causally connected universe extending into our past.However, I didn't get into such details (which have been argued over before) because I wanted to stay with relatively simple analogies that I wouldn't get terribly wrong ;)Rob
There is actually potentially a really interesting discussion here. We have Jack’s theory that particles with mass exhibit inertial resistance to being pushed off geodesic because action-reaction arises purely locally based on gauge invariance and gauge transformation – a local theory. And, we have the opposite, a distance approach – Jim’s argument that the origin of inertia is to be found in the gravitational interaction of all matter in the causally connected universe. Both claim to be consistent with GR, but are at opposite ends of a spectrum.If we agree that spacetime curvature around sources and off-geodesic acceleration are frame invariant objective realities, then we all agree that objects in free fall will “fall” towards the COM of the Earth and that objects “hovering” in the Earth’s gravity field on the surface of the Earth due to electrical contact forces always weigh the same on a scale. So, then the question of whether there is a real Newtonian gravity force comes down to whether a force is needed to explain why objects remain on inertial trajectories until pushed off them by electrical contact forces (ie. an “origin of inertia”) or whether the gauge invariance idea is sufficient.So in terms of Jack’s gauge invariance discussion – is it wrong? If so, why? Is it not wrong but incomplete? If so, why? Then we can compare its strengths and weaknesses to the strengths and weaknesses of Jim’s argument.Again, Jack’s argument (highlighted in red):I actually have not seen it in any textbooks, which treat the gauge transformations purely as formal manipulations with no direct physical meaningAgain because the basic idea is so simple and beautiful that it's amazing that not even Feynman noticed itIn the case of Maxwell's electromagnetic field the argument goes like thisThe Canonical momentum of a test charge isP = mv + eAP is gauge invariant under U1 internal symmetry gauge transformationsmv -> mv + hgradSeA-> eA - hgradSS = quantum phase of test particle of inertia m and electric charge emv is charge's kinetic momentumeA is the electromagnetic field momentum sitting smack on the center of mass of the chargeThis is as local a contact force as one can imaginehgradS is the momentum exchange of a virtual longitudinal near Field photonTherefore newton's third law of action with equal and opposite reaction is trivially automatically obeyed locally between field and charged particledP/dt = 0Canonical momentum is conserved in time when there were only virtual photon exchanges between particle and field forming a closed systemOf course A depends on faraway sources via the greens function propagator integrals with the source distributionsImpliesmdv/dt = - edA/dt = eEE = electric real force fieldWhen we do this in special relativity we get more termsI know how to extend the same kind of argument to the gravity field