You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)

"In the post-selected universe the proof appears from nowhere."

This is very good news i.e. retrocausal signal nonlocality.

I have argued for years that this is precisely how creative consciousness works in general!

Presponse is how all new ideas in our minds come into being - a bootstrapped precognitive remote viewing triggered by events in the environment.

However, there will be no paradoxes for the reason Igor Novikov gave. (Google Books "River of Time")

"In this comment on S.Lloyd, et al, Phys.Rev.Lett. 106, 040403 (2011), we show that modelling closed timelike curves (CTCs) as post-selected teleportation allows signalling to past times before the creation of the CTC and allows information paradoxes to form. ...

In their interesting recent letter Lloyd et al [1] propose

post-selected teleportation as an alternative model for

quantum systems interacting with closed timelike curves

(CTCs) - paths through spacetime, apparently allowed

by general relativity, that allow objects to interact with

their own past - contrasting it with the more accepted

model due to Deutsch [2]. The authors suggest that their

post-selected model (P-CTC) is able to avoid certain

paradoxes associated with time travel whilst retaining

all correlations of the interacting quantum system with

other quantum systems. Ref [2] does not allow quantum

correlations with other systems to be retained in general.

Here we show by example that when entanglement is con-

sidered, P-CTCs: (i) allow signalling to past times before

the creation of the closed timelike curve; and (ii) allow

an unresolved unproven theorem" paradox to form in

this epoch."

"By choosing to introduce a phase flip on his qubit

or not, Bob can deterministically send a string of bits (in

the diagonal basis) to Alice in the past. The existence

of this
adio to the past" creates the possibility of new

paradoxes, now in the classical domain. In particular the

unproved theorem paradox [2] can arise. Bob reads the

proof of a theorem in a book and uses the set-up of Fig.1

(top panel) to send it back in time to Alice. Alice sub-

sequently publishes it in the book from which Bob will

read it. Where did the proof come from?"

The particular state transition in the paper is well known to allow

signal nonlocality, i.e. use of entanglement as a stand-alone

Command-Control-Communication channel not needing a classical signal key to unlock it.

On Jul 31, 2011, at 10:56 AM, art wagner wrote:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.4675v1.pdf

Jul
31

Funny that Deutsch is at Oxford but does not seem to agree with Penrose on the non-computability of consciousness.

What's missing from Deutsch's scheme is signal nonlocality that violates orthodox quantum physics. Elitzur has shown that this also leads to a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that is exactly what Danny Sheehan alleged at the other AAAS meeting at USD in June 2011. It may be the Eddington was wrong.

Elitzur wrote

"During the years, the imperative to preserve this unique law has proved fruitful in a wide range of issues, from black-hole physics [21 to CPT-invariance1.Recently, Vaientini [4] has raised the interesting question concerning a possible relation between thetionale for the relativistic prohibition against the three fundamental “impossibility principles”,

(i) the absence of instantaneous signals,

(ii) the uncertainty principle

(iii) the statistical law of entropy increase"

Physics Letters A 167 (1992) 335-340 PHYSICS LETTERS A

North-Holland

Locality and indeterminism preserve the second law

Avshalom C. Elitzur

Department of Chemical Physics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, 76 100 Rehovot, Israel

Received 4 October 1991; revised manuscript received 2 June 1992; accepted for publication 4 June 1992

Communicated by J.P. Vigier

In any case it seems that signal nonlocality (e.g. Antony Valentini's version) and violation of the Second Law must hang together. ;-)

(15) The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges. Organizer: Daniel P. Sheehan (Department of Physics, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA; dsheehan@sandiego.edu).

Sponsored by the Pacific Division section on Physics and Materials Science.

Currently scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, 14 and 15 June.

The second law of thermodynamics is considered one of the central principles of science, engineering and technology. Since its discovery 185 years ago, no counter-example has been recognized by the scientific community, and its status is generally considered absolute. During the last two decades, however, it has come under unprecedented scrutiny by research groups worldwide, as evidenced by the more than two dozen distinct challenges advanced against it in over 60 articles. Several of these challenges have moved into laboratory testing.

In this symposium, the current experimental and theoretical status of second law will be examined. Topics will include nonequilibrium systems, Maxwell’s demon, decoherence, the thermodynamic arrow of time. Emphasis will be given to current and proposed experiments addressing questions of second law universality. It is hoped this meeting will generate new theoretical models by which emerging experimental results can be understood, and stimulate new experiments and collaborations by which the underlying physics of the second law may be more fully exposed.

(16) Quantum Retrocausation: Theory and Experiment. Organizer: Daniel P. Sheehan (Department of Physics, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA; dsheehan@sandiego.edu).

Sponsored by the Pacific Division section on Physics and Materials Science.

Currently scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, 13 and 14 June.

Causation – the notion that earlier events affect later ones but not vice versa – undergirds our experience of reality and physical law. Although it predicated on the forward unidirectionality of time, in fact, most physical laws are time symmetric; that is, they formally and equally admit both time-forward and time-reverse solutions. Time-reverse solutions would allow the future to influence the past, i.e., reverse (or retro-) causation. Why time-forward solutions are preferentially observed in nature remains an unresolved problem in physics.

Laboratory evidence for reverse causation is intriguing but scarce; meanwhile, theoretical models for these results have not yet made deep enough connections with mainstream physics. Even the most basic physical constraints – e.g., whether reverse causation is best explained by energy transfers or simply by correlations without information exchange – remain open questions.

This symposium will explore recent experiments, theory, and philosophical issues connected with retrocausation. In particular, it is hoped that this meeting will help generate comprehensive theoretical models by which experimental results can be understood, and stimulate new experiments and collaborations by which the underlying physics may be more clearly exposed.

http://associations.sou.edu/aaaspd/2011SANDIEGO/Symposia11.html#15

On Jul 31, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

"According to David Deutsch, it is our ability to explain things. We do not yet understand how to design this ability to explain things, otherwise we would be able to create computers that are intelligent, though David Deutsch has no doubt that one day we will. "

A review:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0670022756/n=1/s=rd/f=/ref=aw_cr_i_1?qid=1312111063&sr=8-1

What's missing from Deutsch's scheme is signal nonlocality that violates orthodox quantum physics. Elitzur has shown that this also leads to a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but that is exactly what Danny Sheehan alleged at the other AAAS meeting at USD in June 2011. It may be the Eddington was wrong.

Elitzur wrote

"During the years, the imperative to preserve this unique law has proved fruitful in a wide range of issues, from black-hole physics [21 to CPT-invariance1.Recently, Vaientini [4] has raised the interesting question concerning a possible relation between thetionale for the relativistic prohibition against the three fundamental “impossibility principles”,

(i) the absence of instantaneous signals,

(ii) the uncertainty principle

(iii) the statistical law of entropy increase"

Physics Letters A 167 (1992) 335-340 PHYSICS LETTERS A

North-Holland

Locality and indeterminism preserve the second law

Avshalom C. Elitzur

Department of Chemical Physics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, 76 100 Rehovot, Israel

Received 4 October 1991; revised manuscript received 2 June 1992; accepted for publication 4 June 1992

Communicated by J.P. Vigier

In any case it seems that signal nonlocality (e.g. Antony Valentini's version) and violation of the Second Law must hang together. ;-)

(15) The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges. Organizer: Daniel P. Sheehan (Department of Physics, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA; dsheehan@sandiego.edu).

Sponsored by the Pacific Division section on Physics and Materials Science.

Currently scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, 14 and 15 June.

The second law of thermodynamics is considered one of the central principles of science, engineering and technology. Since its discovery 185 years ago, no counter-example has been recognized by the scientific community, and its status is generally considered absolute. During the last two decades, however, it has come under unprecedented scrutiny by research groups worldwide, as evidenced by the more than two dozen distinct challenges advanced against it in over 60 articles. Several of these challenges have moved into laboratory testing.

In this symposium, the current experimental and theoretical status of second law will be examined. Topics will include nonequilibrium systems, Maxwell’s demon, decoherence, the thermodynamic arrow of time. Emphasis will be given to current and proposed experiments addressing questions of second law universality. It is hoped this meeting will generate new theoretical models by which emerging experimental results can be understood, and stimulate new experiments and collaborations by which the underlying physics of the second law may be more fully exposed.

(16) Quantum Retrocausation: Theory and Experiment. Organizer: Daniel P. Sheehan (Department of Physics, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA; dsheehan@sandiego.edu).

Sponsored by the Pacific Division section on Physics and Materials Science.

Currently scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, 13 and 14 June.

Causation – the notion that earlier events affect later ones but not vice versa – undergirds our experience of reality and physical law. Although it predicated on the forward unidirectionality of time, in fact, most physical laws are time symmetric; that is, they formally and equally admit both time-forward and time-reverse solutions. Time-reverse solutions would allow the future to influence the past, i.e., reverse (or retro-) causation. Why time-forward solutions are preferentially observed in nature remains an unresolved problem in physics.

Laboratory evidence for reverse causation is intriguing but scarce; meanwhile, theoretical models for these results have not yet made deep enough connections with mainstream physics. Even the most basic physical constraints – e.g., whether reverse causation is best explained by energy transfers or simply by correlations without information exchange – remain open questions.

This symposium will explore recent experiments, theory, and philosophical issues connected with retrocausation. In particular, it is hoped that this meeting will help generate comprehensive theoretical models by which experimental results can be understood, and stimulate new experiments and collaborations by which the underlying physics may be more clearly exposed.

http://associations.sou.edu/aaaspd/2011SANDIEGO/Symposia11.html#15

On Jul 31, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

"According to David Deutsch, it is our ability to explain things. We do not yet understand how to design this ability to explain things, otherwise we would be able to create computers that are intelligent, though David Deutsch has no doubt that one day we will. "

A review:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0670022756/n=1/s=rd/f=/ref=aw_cr_i_1?qid=1312111063&sr=8-1

Jul
31

For the record I do not know if the Matthews story is true. Podkletnov may have a different story. I am not taking any position on this.

From: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Subject: Re: The enigmatic Russian paper on the alleged anti-gravity Podkletnov Effect is not torsion physics

Date: July 30, 2011 11:58:41 PM PDT

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

It was in a Robert Matthews story on the withdrawal of one of Pod's papers in the mid-90s. The pipe smoke part wasn't the only tip off. A grad student dropped the story and some papers off in my mail box and suggested we try to do a replication. I explained that a lot more work and money would be involved in any serious replication than he imagined. (The replicators, I am sure, will be happy to attest to this.) And went on to explain that such an effort would be wasted since there were so many indicators that the work alleged was not seriously grounded. I was amazed that Modanese even tried to produce a covering theory for the alleged results. (But look at all the theory papers produced to cover what turned out to be a telephone repeater signal that contaminated the SN 1987a alleged pulsar signal.) Plausibility in physics applies to experiments/observations as well as theory.

---------- Original Message ----------

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

To: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Subject: Re: The enigmatic Russian paper on the alleged anti-gravity Podkletnov Effect is not torsion physics

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:40:36 -0700

I had no idea pod's claim was based on pipe dreams. I never took it that seriously and did not read his experiments. However, when Giovanni Modanese wrote a theory for it, I took some notice. Jim, are you sure, the initial claim was that flimsy?

KGB disinformation? Now seems more likely.

The biggest heist however is the $ 13 trillion. Follow the money. ;-)

On iPhone

On Jul 31, 2011, at 2:23 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:

Arrghhhh. . . . The only reason why I used this particular email was the circulation list. My comments were not intended to say anything at all about the conversation relating to Podkletnov. A conversation I found interesting and by no means at variance with my guidlines. Indeed, after hearing years ago that Pod's "discovery" was made by observing drifting pipesmoke several floors above the apparatus in response to an alleged 2% effect, I found them utterly preposterous. I was amazed that anyone took the "discovery" seriously. I couldn't help suspecting that it was intended as an April fools joke, or a KGB disinformation plot. Nothing since then has given me any reason to change that initial assessment. And the recent traffic here I take to confirm my initial judgment.

The only intent in my email was to give those added to this list without their prior consent to opportunity to opt off if they choose. If you are one such, and you are interested in "advanced" propulsion, I hope you don't so opt. But the choice should be yours.

As for Jack's and my views on Mach's principle and how it fits into contemporary physical theory, I'll have a bit to say on a shorter list where that conversation paused. There is more agreement than meets the eye. And I think Jack's comments on his own scheme are fair and reasonable. It deserves serious consideration, especially given the very small number of even remotely plausible schemes extant for making stargates.

My appologies for any misreadings of my comments,

Jim

From: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Subject: Re: The enigmatic Russian paper on the alleged anti-gravity Podkletnov Effect is not torsion physics

Date: July 30, 2011 11:58:41 PM PDT

To: sarfatti@pacbell.net

It was in a Robert Matthews story on the withdrawal of one of Pod's papers in the mid-90s. The pipe smoke part wasn't the only tip off. A grad student dropped the story and some papers off in my mail box and suggested we try to do a replication. I explained that a lot more work and money would be involved in any serious replication than he imagined. (The replicators, I am sure, will be happy to attest to this.) And went on to explain that such an effort would be wasted since there were so many indicators that the work alleged was not seriously grounded. I was amazed that Modanese even tried to produce a covering theory for the alleged results. (But look at all the theory papers produced to cover what turned out to be a telephone repeater signal that contaminated the SN 1987a alleged pulsar signal.) Plausibility in physics applies to experiments/observations as well as theory.

---------- Original Message ----------

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

To: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Subject: Re: The enigmatic Russian paper on the alleged anti-gravity Podkletnov Effect is not torsion physics

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:40:36 -0700

I had no idea pod's claim was based on pipe dreams. I never took it that seriously and did not read his experiments. However, when Giovanni Modanese wrote a theory for it, I took some notice. Jim, are you sure, the initial claim was that flimsy?

KGB disinformation? Now seems more likely.

The biggest heist however is the $ 13 trillion. Follow the money. ;-)

On iPhone

On Jul 31, 2011, at 2:23 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:

Arrghhhh. . . . The only reason why I used this particular email was the circulation list. My comments were not intended to say anything at all about the conversation relating to Podkletnov. A conversation I found interesting and by no means at variance with my guidlines. Indeed, after hearing years ago that Pod's "discovery" was made by observing drifting pipesmoke several floors above the apparatus in response to an alleged 2% effect, I found them utterly preposterous. I was amazed that anyone took the "discovery" seriously. I couldn't help suspecting that it was intended as an April fools joke, or a KGB disinformation plot. Nothing since then has given me any reason to change that initial assessment. And the recent traffic here I take to confirm my initial judgment.

The only intent in my email was to give those added to this list without their prior consent to opportunity to opt off if they choose. If you are one such, and you are interested in "advanced" propulsion, I hope you don't so opt. But the choice should be yours.

As for Jack's and my views on Mach's principle and how it fits into contemporary physical theory, I'll have a bit to say on a shorter list where that conversation paused. There is more agreement than meets the eye. And I think Jack's comments on his own scheme are fair and reasonable. It deserves serious consideration, especially given the very small number of even remotely plausible schemes extant for making stargates.

My appologies for any misreadings of my comments,

Jim

Jul
30

On Jul 29, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Ron Stahl wrote:*Jack,
I'm sure we all know many of the intelligence services around the world indulge in counterintelligence scams. I am however curious if this incomprehensible math is what is famously called "Russian Torsion physics".*

I immediately thought of that also because their electro-mechanical device reminds one of Shipov's, but on closer examination it's not at all what Shipov proposes. Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova use Ray Chiao's gravimagnetism g0i, which was one reason at first I took it seriously. Torsion is different - it's a new connection tensor field in addition to the non-tensor Levi-Civita-Christoffel field for parallel transport.

In ordinary GR parallel transport a vector around a parallelogram formed from two non-collinear infinitesimal displacements. If there is curvature the orientation angle of the transported vector is different from when it started, but the parallelogram of one displacement by the other closes without a gap. With torsion there is a gap.

in terms of crystal physics see Hagen Kleinert's homepage

curvature = disclination defect density in 4D world crystal lattice

torsion = dislocation defect density " "

in terms of local gauge theory Einstein-Cartan extension of Einstein GR has curvature and torsion as the Cartan 2-forms from the induced compensating Cartan 1-form connection fields from localizing the 4 translations and the 6 space-time rotations - using the local tetrad frames.

The Cartan 1-form basis of four tetrads e^I represent a zero g-force Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that is not rotating about its origin and that follows a timelike geodesic inside the local light cone - in the absence of torsion.

e^0 is the timelike 4-vector (i.e. actual tangent vector of the local detector making measurements)

e^1, e^2, e^3 are the three orthogonal spacelike 4-vectors

note that the flat Minkowski metric is

nIJ = eI.eJ

A locally coincident non-zero g-force accelerating (including rotating) local non-inertial frame (LNIF) has base set

e^u

Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) in this formalism is the LIF <--> LNIF tetrad map

e^I(LIF) = e^Iue^u(LNIF) and its inverse

the curvilinear metric measured by translationally accelerating/rotating detectors is

guv(LNIF) = eu.ev

for example, the gravimagnetic field is

g0i = e0(LNIF).ei(LNIF)

i = 1,2,3

Note there are also the complex Newman-Penrose "null tetrads" that include Wheeler-Feynman advanced and retarded signals

e0 + er and e0 - er

for spacelike local spherical coordinates with etheta and ephi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman

there is also a geometric relation here to Pauli 2-spinors of quantum theory.

Exactly George, I agree with your assessment. :-)

On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:31 PM, George Hathaway look wrote:

I echo the tenor of John’s email albeit not the details, as I do not know all of them. I do know that we in the West had to dutifully check out all but the MOST outrageous claims of the Russians during and even after the Cold War. I know Podkletnov returned to Russia after finishing his doctorate in Materials Science in Tampere under Prof. Kettunen (in fact, he went back and forth several times) but as far as I know, it was for immigration and employment reasons, not because the KGB yanked him back to the Institute for High Temperatures in Moscow. This is speculation, however. I was quite close to Podkletnov until we published our null result in 2003 at which time he completely stopped all contact with me, claiming I had sabotaged the experiment as an intelligence agent of the US government in the secret service (with the rank of Major, no less!). It would not surprise me, however, if the KGB or other agency did haul Podkletnov “on the carpet” to explain why he sullied the reputation of Russian science. I inquired of several Russian academicians at the time who, to a man, condemned Podkletnov’s methods, results and interpretation.

I also suggest not expending too much time on the Rabounski and Borissova paper as nothing has come out of it so far due to its arcane and generally inscrutable mathematics amongst other reasons.

Cheers - George ghathaway@ieee.org

From: John Brandenburg [mailto:brandenburgj@orbitec.com]

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:32 PM

To: Jack Sarfatti; Puthoff@aol.com

Subject: RE: The new Russian paper on the Podkletnov Effect

As a veteran of several “snipe hunts” during the Cold War, caused by the Russians publishing something outrageous -which we then dutifully had to check out when I was a grad student at LLNL - I would counsel you not invest much time on this Russian article. When the “Pod” first published his stuff , he was working in Finland. The first thing that happened was that the KGB ( with shiney new badges) showed up and took him back to Moscow as if he was an escaped inmate of an asylum ( or cement factory in Siberia- whatever) . We have heard nothing from Podletnikov , since that happened, that makes any sense. I have learned since then, that rattling the intellectual cages of foreigners is not Marxist, it is actually part of the Russian character. They are messing with us and seeing if we respond with anything interesting.

Consider, If Boris and Ivan had actually gotten gravity modification technology from Podletnikov, the last thing they would actually do is publish yet another paper debunking it. The Russians would instead secretly use the gravity modification technology to move Damansky Island closer to the Russian Bank of the Amur river.

We have encountered this shocking “20th century behavior” by the Russians in the Morningstar Searl investigations. They have a strange sense of humor. Where is James Jesus Angleton when we need him?

John E. Brandenburg Ph.D.

Senior Propulsion Scientist

Orbital Technologies Corporation

1212 Fourier Drive

Madison Wisconsin 53717

(608)-827-5000-x2790

From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]

Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:54 PM

To: Puthoff@aol.com

Subject: Re: The new Russian paper on the Podkletnov Effect

I'm not going to waste more time on it unless some thinks they understand it etc

On Jul 29, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

Bottom line: “Using equipment 50 times more sensitive than available to Podkletnov, the group found no evidence of a gravity-like force.” Not a good sign.

Hal

In a message dated 7/29/2011 1:41:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time,sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

I am having second thoughts. It's a very strange paper. Some of their statements seem off the wall and make no sense to me.

e.g. section 2.1 on "topology" and "drift fields"

July, 2007 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 3

SPECIAL REPORT

A Theory of the Podkletnov Effect based on General Relativity: Anti-Gravity

Force due to the Perturbed Non-Holonomic Background of Space

Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova

E-mail: rabounski@yahoo.com; lborissova@yahoo.com

*We consider the Podkletnov effect — the weight loss of an object located over a*

superconducting disc in air due to support by an alternating magnetic field. We

consider this problem using the mathematical methods of General Relativity. We

show via Einstein’s equations and the geodesic equations in a space perturbed by

a disc undergoing oscillatory bounces orthogonal to its own plane, that there is no

rˆole of superconductivity; the Podkletnov effect is due to the fact that the field of

the background space non-holonomity (the basic non-othogonality of time lines to

the spatial section), being perturbed by such an oscillating disc produces energy and

momentum flow in order to compensate the perturbation in itself. Such a momentum

flow is directed above the disc in Podkletnov’s experiment, so it works like negative

gravity (anti-gravity). We propose a simple mechanical system which, simulating the

Podkletnov effect, is an experimental test of the whole theory. The theory allows for

other “anti-gravity devices”, which simulate the Podkletnov effect without use of very

costly superconductor technology. Such devices could be applied to be used as a cheap

source of new energy, and could have implications to air and space travel.

SPECIAL REPORT

A Theory of the Podkletnov Effect based on General Relativity: Anti-Gravity

Force due to the Perturbed Non-Holonomic Background of Space

Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova

E-mail: rabounski@yahoo.com; lborissova@yahoo.com

superconducting disc in air due to support by an alternating magnetic field. We

consider this problem using the mathematical methods of General Relativity. We

show via Einstein’s equations and the geodesic equations in a space perturbed by

a disc undergoing oscillatory bounces orthogonal to its own plane, that there is no

rˆole of superconductivity; the Podkletnov effect is due to the fact that the field of

the background space non-holonomity (the basic non-othogonality of time lines to

the spatial section), being perturbed by such an oscillating disc produces energy and

momentum flow in order to compensate the perturbation in itself. Such a momentum

flow is directed above the disc in Podkletnov’s experiment, so it works like negative

gravity (anti-gravity). We propose a simple mechanical system which, simulating the

Podkletnov effect, is an experimental test of the whole theory. The theory allows for

other “anti-gravity devices”, which simulate the Podkletnov effect without use of very

costly superconductor technology. Such devices could be applied to be used as a cheap

source of new energy, and could have implications to air and space travel.

Thanks this is an important paper that appears to be consistent with my general picture that our future de Sitter dark energy cosmological event horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber. However, see text I put in italics. They don't seem to like retro-causality?

On Jul 26, 2011, at 9:46 AM, art wagner wrote:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.4733v1.pdf

ITP-UU-11/29, SPIN-11/22 CCTP-2011-22, UFIFT-QG-11-06*Gauging away Physics*

S. P. Miao∗

Institute for Theoretical Physics & Spinoza Institute, Utrecht University

Leuvenlaan 4, Postbus 80.195, 3508 TD Utrecht, NETHERLANDS

N. C. Tsamis†

Institute of Theoretical Physics & Computational Physics, and Department of Physics, University of Crete

GR-710 03 Heraklion, HELLAS

R. P. Woodard‡

Department of Physics, University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611, UNITED STATES

ABSTRACT*We consider the recent argument by Higuchi, Marolf and Morrison [1] that a nonlocal gauge transformation can be used to eliminate the infrared divergence of the graviton propagator, when evaluated in Bunch-Davies vacuum on the open coordinate submanifold of de Sitter space in transverse-traceless- synchronous gauge. Because the transformation is not local, the equal time commutator of undifferentiated fields no longer vanishes. From explicit examination of the Wightman function we demonstrate that the transformation adds anti-sources in the far future which cancel the bad infrared behavior but also change the propagator equation. The same problem exists in the localized version of the recent argument. Adding such anti-sources does not seem to be legitimate and could be used to eliminate the infrared divergence of the massless, minimally coupled scalar. The addition of such anti-sources in flat space QED could be effected by an almost identical gauge transformation, and would seem to eliminate the well known infrared divergences which occur in loop corrections to exclusive amplitudes. *

On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Teofilo, Vince wrote:

Well Jack you could have least shared with us the Link to your paper: http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf

I was on my i-phone in a car that my girlfriend was driving. Easy enough for anyone to Google as you obviously did.

*It would have been really cool if you could have related this to Puthoff’s research when he was at SRI .*

Oh you mean I should have sent the physics work from 2011 back from Puthoff's future in 1973 via Ingo Swann's precognitive remote viewing? Good trick for an Alpha. Back in 1973 no one knew $hit from $hinola about this stuff. Dark energy was only discovered in 1998 though both Steven Weinberg and Michael Turner independently anticipated it but had a failure of nerve like Einstein had about the expanding universe.

Jul
24

Tagged in:

Gareth Lee Meredith

*Doctor, there seems to be among many things concerning consciousness, a problem which consists of how the human being has the ability to have a choice. Interestingly, quantum theories application of superpositioning which is the statistical probability of having a system exist in two states seems analogous to the idea that we can have two existing choices. Do you think it is possible that the ability for consciousness to deal with two possible outcomes at one time, could be related to the statistical nature of superpositioning principles? Indeed, has it not been suggested that everytime we decide something, a collapse in the wave function occurs?*

Jack Sarfatti The rules change because of signal nonlocality as I explain in the journal of cosmology paper

Gareth Lee Meredith* Is it always non-local, or can certain phenomena be tagged as a local event?*

Gareth Lee Meredith*See, the way I understand it is that probability fields govern everything, even macroscopic objects. If there is a state wave function governing everything, from micro to macro events, then surely it can be extrapolated that decisions, and the ability to have a multitude of choices arise from a probability field as well, which could be seen in it's most profound form of superpositioning?*

Jack Sarfatti No, you are not understanding my paper. Born probability breaks down in emergent "more is different" order parameter. Macro-quantum theory has different rules from micro-quantum theory. It's a whole new ball game. It's a metamorphosis from linear unitarity in entangled configuration space to nonlinear non unitary unentangled 3D physical space with the former as noise coupled to the latter. Of course not even t'Hooft and Susskind understand this. ;-)

Gareth Lee Meredith*Well, I am trying to understand it, mind you, I doubt my intelligence comes even near close to the likes of t'Hooft! :) That is to say also, it takes an intelligent man to make something only a handful can appreciate in it's fullest! .... so, as I seem to be understanding you, the Born probability, which is simply finding the square of the amplitude does not apply to a classical consciousness?*

Jack Sarfatti Right ... also there is no such thing as a classical consciousness. Our consciousness is macro-quantum coherent with signal non locality with different rules from micro-quantum randomness with signal locality. The orthodox quantum theory of measurement breaks down completely when we have spontaneous breakdown of a continuous symmetry of the Hamiltonian in the ground state of an open complex system pumped far from thermodynamic equilibrium. The Born probability distribution rule breaks down for the rigid phase of the emergent macro-quantum coherent order parameter that is a local c-number field in ordinary 3D physical space. This results in signal non locality, i.e. controlled action at a distance at least within the macro-quantum coherence length.

Jack Sarfatti The rules change because of signal nonlocality as I explain in the journal of cosmology paper

Gareth Lee Meredith

Gareth Lee Meredith

Jack Sarfatti No, you are not understanding my paper. Born probability breaks down in emergent "more is different" order parameter. Macro-quantum theory has different rules from micro-quantum theory. It's a whole new ball game. It's a metamorphosis from linear unitarity in entangled configuration space to nonlinear non unitary unentangled 3D physical space with the former as noise coupled to the latter. Of course not even t'Hooft and Susskind understand this. ;-)

Gareth Lee Meredith

Jack Sarfatti Right ... also there is no such thing as a classical consciousness. Our consciousness is macro-quantum coherent with signal non locality with different rules from micro-quantum randomness with signal locality. The orthodox quantum theory of measurement breaks down completely when we have spontaneous breakdown of a continuous symmetry of the Hamiltonian in the ground state of an open complex system pumped far from thermodynamic equilibrium. The Born probability distribution rule breaks down for the rigid phase of the emergent macro-quantum coherent order parameter that is a local c-number field in ordinary 3D physical space. This results in signal non locality, i.e. controlled action at a distance at least within the macro-quantum coherence length.

Jul
19

Tagged in:

For the record I am not buying what Cornwall says about relativity.

It is logically independent from his quantum argument.

Entanglement signaling if it exists need not be faster than light.

It can be timelike as well as spacelike.

The space-time interval between sender and receiver measurements is completely arbitrary.

In curved spacetime, global intervals are not unique - they are path dependent - although one can look for geodesics connecting the sender and receiver measurements.

Entanglement signaling, slower than light, faster than light and even backwards in time depends on the contingent conditions of the apparatus, delay lines for light for example.

If one used entangled quantum dots for example, you have even more latitude.

David Kaiser describes this to some extent in his Hippies book in the context of the 1982 Chickering letter to DOD.

Entanglement signaling is topological, i.e. non-metrical and there is no need to change Einstein's theory of relativity (both special and general).

Einstein's relativity is based on light signals and it is correct as it stands.

It is logically independent from his quantum argument.

Entanglement signaling if it exists need not be faster than light.

It can be timelike as well as spacelike.

The space-time interval between sender and receiver measurements is completely arbitrary.

In curved spacetime, global intervals are not unique - they are path dependent - although one can look for geodesics connecting the sender and receiver measurements.

Entanglement signaling, slower than light, faster than light and even backwards in time depends on the contingent conditions of the apparatus, delay lines for light for example.

If one used entangled quantum dots for example, you have even more latitude.

David Kaiser describes this to some extent in his Hippies book in the context of the 1982 Chickering letter to DOD.

Entanglement signaling is topological, i.e. non-metrical and there is no need to change Einstein's theory of relativity (both special and general).

Einstein's relativity is based on light signals and it is correct as it stands.

Jul
19

Tagged in:

http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rocornwall/Excerpt_from_paper_2.pdf

http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rocornwall/

http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/rocornwall/non_local_communication_timeline.pdf

Secure Quantum Communication and

Superluminal Signalling on the Bell Channel

Remi Cornwall

Future Energy Research Group

Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS

Abstract

"A means and protocol is presented to send information on the Bell Channel to achieve the effect of superluminal signalling. The method is to use detection of a photon entangled state as one binary digit and either of the collapsed states as the complement digit – this is the protocol. The means to affect this detection is by use of an interferometer set-up able to resolve two interfering pathways corresponding to the two polarization states of the photon. To achieve interference of the horizontal and vertical components Faraday rotators are used to bring both components into diagonal polarization, this operation is unitary. Modulation is caused by the remote signaller collapsing one aspect of the photon wave function; a physically secure channel sending information superluminally results. A preliminary discussion into the clash and the hopeful resolution with Relativity theory is presented – it is noteworthy that at the instant of transmission between the two stations that there is no transfer of mass-energy to instigate communication but the transmission of a quantum state - pure information only."

There does not seem to be a problem with the polarizing beam splitter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer

See the pdf file I just uploaded 7/18/2011 to Library Resources Quantum Computing on the above.

From: art wagner <wagnerart@hotmail.com>

Sent: Mon, July 18, 2011 8:17:30 AM

Subject: 2 SL Papers

arXiv:1106.2258 [pdf, ps]

Title: Is the Consequence of Superluminal Signalling to Physics Absolute Motion through an Ether?

Authors: R.O. Cornwall

arXiv:1106.2257 [pdf, ps]

Title: Secure Quantum Communication and Superluminal Signalling on the Bell Channel

Authors: R.O. Cornwall

Jul
18

Jack Sarfatti

Modified Theories of Gravity: Traversable Wormholes http://bit.ly/ojY86N

Quotes from Miguel A. Oliveira

(Submitted on 13 Jul 2011)

"This MSc thesis is divided in to two parts. The first, covers the foundations of theories of gravitation, and, the second incorporates original work on the subject of the existence of traversable wormholes in $f(R)$ modified theories of gravity.

A short incursion in the field of scalar-tensor theories had to be made, owing to an apparent inconsistency in the result previously found."

"In this work, we consider these modifications, but focus on the existence of a specific type of exact solution: traversable wormholes. These are hypothetical tunnels in space-time, and are primarily useful as “gedanken-experiments” and as a theoreticians probe of the foundations of general relativity, although their existence as a solution of the field equations may be regarded as a viability condition of the theory."

"However, despite this astonishing success, the mere fact that GR is a scientific theory makes it provisional, tentative or probational! Inevitably, provided scientific research follows it’s normal course, some piece of informa- tion (experimental or otherwise) will come along, that doesn’t easily fit within the framework of any given theory, regardless of how well constructed it may be. For General Relativity, the acceleration of the universe, — prompting the introduction of dark energy —, the rotation curves of galaxies and the mass discrepancy of clusters of galaxies — supporting the existence of dark matter (see [1] for a review), and finally, on a more fundamental plane, GR’s obstinate resistance to all attempts at it’s quantization [2], constitute a set of instances that strongly motivate the introduction of Modified Theories of Gravitation (MTG’s)."

"Summarizing, Einstein’s approach was embodied in heuristic principles that guided his search from the beginning in 1907. The first and more lasting one was the ‘Equivalence Principle” which states that gravitation and inertia are essentially the same. This insight implies that the class of global inertial frames singled out in the special relativity can have no place in a relativistic theory of gravitation. In other words, Einstein was led to generalize the principle of relativity by requiring that the covariance group of his new theory of gravitation be larger than the Lorentz group. This will lead him through a long journey and in his first step, already in his review of 1907, Einstein formulated the assumption of complete physical equivalence between a uniformly accelerated reference frame and a constant homogeneous gravitational field. That is, the principle of equivalence extends the covariance of special relativity beyond Lorentz covariance but not as far as general covariance. Only later Einstein formulates a Generalized Principle of Relativity” which would be satisfied if the field equation of the new theory could be shown to possess general covariance. But Einstein’s story appealing to this mathematical property, general covariance, is full of ups and downs."

"Also, around the same time (1920), there were discussions about whether it is the metric or the connection, that should be considered the principal field related to gravity. In 1924, Eddington presented a purely affine version of GR in vacuum. Later Schro ?dinger, generalized Eddington’s theory to include a non-symmetric metric [10]. These are vacuum theories and, great difficulties are encountered when any attempt is made to include matter into them. It is worth mentioning here, one other approach to this question, that is, to have both a metric and a connection that are at least to some extent independent. A good example is the Einstein-Cartan theory, that uses a non symmetric connection and, Riemann-Cartan spaces. This theory allows the existence of torsion and relates it to the presence of spin."

"We could also have, in addition to the tensor field two others, namely, a scalar and a vector one, which is the case of Bekenstein’s Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) theory proposed in 2004 [11]. It has a curious motivation: to account for the anomalous rotation curves of galaxies, Milgrom proposed to avoid introducing dark matter by changing Newton’s laws [12], this is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND); since this theory is not relativistic, TeVeS was crafted to be the relativistic extension of MOND. Einstein-Aether theory is another theory of this kind. In this one, a dynamical vector (but not a scalar) field is added. The aether is a preferred frame, (whose role is played precisely by this vector field), that would have to be determined on the basis of some yet unknown physics. It is interesting to note this frame may lead to Lorentz invariance violations."

"The search for quantum gravity, has produced a theory, known as string theory, (which we will simply describe as a perturbative, and hence background- dependent theory, that uses objects known as strings as the fundamental building blocks for interactions), this is believed to be a viable theory unifying all (four) physical interactions. One of the predictions of this theory is the existence of extra spatial dimensions. Moreover, recent developments in string theory, have motivated the introduction of the brane-world scenario, in which the 3-dimensional observed universe, is imbedded in a higher-dimensional space-time. Although, most brane-word scenarios — notably the Randall- Sundrum type — produce ultra-violet modifications to General Relativity, i.e., extra-dimensional gravity dominates at high energies, there are those that lead to infra-red modifications, i.e., those in which extra-dimensional gravity dominates at low energies."

"A different class of these brane-word scenarios, exhibits an interesting characteristic, that consists in the presence of the late-time cosmic acceleration, even when there is no dark-energy field. This exciting feature is called “self-acceleration”, and the class of models where it arises, is named the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) models. It is important to note, however, that these DGP models offer a paradigm for nature, that is fundamentally different from dark energy models of cosmic acceleration, even those with same expansion history [1]."

"The Gauss-Bonnet invariant is also important because recent developments in String/M-Theory suggest that unusual gravity-matter couplings may become important at the present low curvature universe. ... Finally, since we mentioned string theory, we feel obligated to refer, if only briefly, it’s main alternative, that is, Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). LQG, unlike string theory, is only (and this is already a lot), a quantum theory of gravity, it is not a unified theory of physics."

"It also does not predict the existence of extra spacial dimensions. LQG is an example of the canonical quantization approach to the construction of a quantum theory of gravity. It is a fully background-independent and non-perturbative quantum theory of gravity [2]. There are no experimental data whatsoever, supporting or disproving, any of these two theories. For the moment, all we have to compare them are consistency checks and aesthetic principles."

"It has been pointed out [3], that the so called, experimental tests of General Relativity (namely, the deflection of light; the shift in the perihelion of Mercury; and, the gravitational redshift of distant light sources eg. galaxies), are in effect, tests of the underlying principles, rather then tests of the theory itself. ...

Dicke proposed that the two following basic assumptions should be included[14]:

1. The set of all physical events is a 4-dimensional manifold, called Space- time;

2. The equations are independent of the coordinates used – Principle of Covariance.

This is called the Dicke Framework."*"Coordinates" really mean local frames of reference, i.e. tiny detectors of light and particles. The transformations are always between locally coincident detectors separated from each other spatially and temporally by distances and times small compared to the inverse square root of the local curvature field tensor components. - wrote Jack Sarfatti*

"Wald [15] give a different definition of covariance and distinguish between:

• General Covariance: there are no preferred vector fields or no preferred basis of vector fields pertaining only to the structure of space which appear in any law of physics.

• Special Covariance: if O is a family of observers and, O′ is a second family obtained from the first by “acting” on it with an isometry, then if O makes a measurement on a physical field, then O′ must also be able to make that same measurement. The set of physical measurements are the same for the two families.

Dicke added two more requirements, that gravity should be associated with one or more fields of tensorial nature (scalar, vector or tensor), and that the field equations should be derivable from an invariant action via a stationary action principle."

In addition to the above notion of "general covariance" i.e. comparing locally coincident small detectors each on an arbitrary world line (including accelerating detectors), Einstein introduced a second organizing principle: "a version of the principle of equivalence was already present in Newtonian Mechanics. It was even mentioned in the first paragraph of Newton’s Principia (see, [14] page 13 and Figure 2.1 there). In that context, this principle states that the inertial and passive gravitational masses are equal, mI = mp,1. In this form the principle can also be equivalently stated in the following way: all bodies fall (when in free-fall) with the same acceleration, independently of their composition and mass."

"Several current forms (and several different formulations throughout the literature) of the equivalence principle may be distinguished [3]:

• Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP): the trajectory of an uncharged test particle (for all possible initial conditions ) is independent of its structure and composition;

• Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP): this assumes that the WEP is valid and, that non-gravitational test experiments have outcomes that are independent of both velocity (Local Lorentz Invariance - LLI), and position in space-time (Local Position Invariance - LPI);

• Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP): this assumes that the WEP is valid both for test particles and self-gravitating bodies, and also assumes LLI and LPI for any local test experiment."

"The EEP allows us, (after rescaling coupling constants and porforming a conformal transformation) to find a metric gμν that locally reduces to the Minkowski flat spacetime metric ημν. ... the geodesics of gμν, are the trajectories of free falling bodies.

As for the SEP, it additionally enforces: the extension of the validity of WEP to self-gravitating bodies; and the validity of the EEP (that is, the LLI and LPI, of course), to local gravitational experiments. The only known theory that satisfies the SEP is General Relativity."

"The definition of ‘test particles’, i.e., how small must a particle be so that we can neglect its gravitational field, (note that the answer will probably be theory-dependent)"

"Thorne and Will proposed the following metric postulates:

1. Defined in space-time, there is, a second rank non-degenerate tensor, called a metric, gμν ;

2. If Tμν is the stress-energy tensor, associated with non-gravitational mater fields, and if ∇μ is a covariant derivative derived from the Levi Civita connection associated with the metric above, then ∇μT μν = 0 .

Theories that satisfy the metric postulates are called metric theories. We note two things about the metric postulates: first, that geodesic motion can be derived from the second metric postulate [3, 17]; second, that the definition of T μν is somewhat vague and imprecise, as is the notion of non-gravitational fields [18]."

"Mach’s principle, (which we will discuss briefly later) a sort of philosophical conjecture about inertia and the matter distribution of the Universe; the principle of equivalence; the principle of covariance; the principle of minimal gravitational coupling, which is stated as saying that “no terms explicitly containing the curvature tensor should be added in making the transition from the special to the general theory”; and, the correspondence principle, that in the case of gravitation means that GR must, in the limit of weak gravitational fields reduce to Newton’s gravitation."

"In the context of theories of gravitation, as was already stated, spacetime is a 4-dimensional manifold, where we define a symmetric non-degenerate metric gμν, and a quantity related to parallel transport called a connection (see [19] for an introduction, and [20] for a more advanced treatment), Γλμν. This connection, by its relation with parallel transport leads naturally to a definition of derivative adapted to curved manifolds, this is the covariant derivative denoted ∇ ? , in general. It’s definition is:

∇μTνσ =∂μTνσ +ΓνμαTασ −ΓαμσTνα. (2.2)

It is important to note, that we have made no association of the connection Γνμν with the metric gμν. This will be an extra assumption and, there will be a connection related to the metric called the Levi-Civita connection. We will use the symbol ∇ ? to denote this general covariant derivative, and ∇ denotes the one obtained from the Levi-Civita connection ... The notion of curvature of a manifold is given by the Riemann Tensor, which can be constructed from this generic connection as follows:

R^μνσλ = −∂λΓ^μνσ + ∂σΓ^μνλ + ΓμασΓανλ − Γ^μαλ Γ^ανσ ,which does not depend on the metric and is antisymmetric in it’s last indices. To describe the relation between the connection and the metric, we introduce the non-metricity tensor: Qμνλ =−∇ ?μgνλ (2.4)

and, the Weyl vector:

Qμ = (1/4)Q ν^μ^ν (2.5)

which is just the trace of the non-metricity tensor in it’s last two indices. Moreover, the antisymmetric part of the connection is the Cartan Torsion Tensor:

Sμνλ = Γλ[μν] ."

"One of the traces of the Riemann tensor is called the Ricci Tensor. Now, there are two possibilities for this contraction, either the first and the second indices or, the first and the third are contracted (due to the antisymmetry of the Riemann tensor, a contraction of the first and the fourth indices is equal to a contraction of the first and the third, with an additional minus sign), ... Rμν ≡ Rσμσν = −Rσμνσ or, We will thus obtain that the second tensor R ′ will be the antisymmetric

R′μν ≡ Rσσμν .(2.7) part of the first Rμν for a symmetric connection. The tensor quantity Rμν

is, of course, nothing but the usual Ricci tensor: Rμν = Rλμλν =∂λΓλμν −∂νΓλμλ +ΓλσλΓσμν −ΓλσνΓσμλ (2.8)

R′μν = −∂νΓααμ+∂μΓααν"

"Using the metric, — up to now the tensors have been independent from it —, to contract Rμν , we may obtain the usual Ricci scalar, whereas through the use of R′μν we get a null tensor, since the metric is symmetric and R′μν is antisymmetric. That is:

R = gμνRμν and, gμνR′μν ≡ 0. (2.10)"

"The principles stated above, are too general if we want to restrict ourselves only to GR. If we are to obtain Einstein’s theory, we will have to make further assumptions. This section will explore these assumptions.

We state them here briefly for future reference.

1. Torsion does not play any fundamental role in GR: Sμνλ = 0;

2. The metric is covariantly conserved: Qμνλ = 0;

3. Gravity is associated with a second rank tensor field, the metric, and no other fields are involved in the interaction;

4. The field equations should be second order partial differential equations;

5. The field equations should be covariant."

"One of the features of the above discussion was the independence of the connection relative to the metric, this was an attempt to get a general set of characteristics that a theory must obey. However, the second metric postulate calls upon a notion of covariant derivative — and consequently of connection —, that is linked to the metric. This choice of connection — the Levi-Civita connection —, is one of the most fundamental assumptions of GR. To fulfill this, it turns out that we need two things: firstly, the symmetry of the connection with respect to it’s two lower indices, that is:

Γαμν =Γανμ ⇔ Sλμν =0. (2.11) Secondly, the metric must be conserved by the covariant derivative — or,

covariantly conserved: ∇ ?λgμν =0 ⇔ Qλμν =0. (2.12)

The assumption (2.11) means that space-time is torsionless, while (2.12) implies that the non-metricity is null. With these choices, the connection takes the Levi-Civita form

{^αμν} = (1/2)g^α^β(∂μgνβ + ∂νgμβ − ∂βgμν) (2.13)"

"In Newtonian Gravity, the equation that describes the dynamics of the gravitational potential, is Poisson’s equation, ∇2φ = 4πρ. Einstein, in his original derivation of the field equations of GR, relied on a close analogy with this equation. In fact, the equations of GR in empty space are simply Rμν = 0, where this Ricci tensor has been constructed not from the most general connection but, out of the Levi-Civita affinity (2.13). This is in good analogy with Laplace’s equation ∇2φ = 0, since the Ricci tensor is a second order differential expression on the components of the connection."

"However, to extend this analogy to the case where we have matter, some extra assumptions must be made. The choice of the field(s) is the first assumption: in GR the only field of the theory (the only one whose dynamics we want to describe), is the metric. All other fields, are considered ‘matter fields’, i.e., sources of the ‘gravitational field’. Therefore, we impose (only in GR) that gravity is associated to no field other than the second rank tensor field that represents the metric. This also means of course, that the field equations should have a left side depending only on the metric and, a right side containing the dependence on all other fields, the ‘matter fields’. As it will turn out, the object that generalizes the distribution of the ‘matter’, and hence plays the role of the source of the field is, the Stress-Energy Tensor Tμν see [21] for a detailed discussion, and [3, 18] for some problems related to the definition of this quantity.

Second, if we are to have an analogy with Poisson’s equation, then our field equation must be a second order differential equation. As for the last requirement above, it stems from the second point in the Dicke framework, mentioned in section (2.1).

With these assumptions, if we follow the original derivation by Einstein see [15, 21, 22], we will obtain the field equations for GR:

Gμν = Rμν − (1/2)gμν = kTμν . (2.14)"*"Wormhole" generalizes to Star Gate Time Travel Machine that is also an effective teleporter for large objects. This is not the same as "quantum teleportation." Do not confuse the two. - wrote Jack Sarfatti*

"Some of the exact solutions to Einstein’s equations are so important, that they merit investigations about whether or not they are still solutions to a general MTG. That is to say, for example: we know of the existence of a static, spherically symmetric, (possibly asymptotically flat), solution to Einstein’s equations, but is there such a solution (and, is it the same one) in, say, scalar- tensor theories or, in f(R) modifications of gravity? (For just on example see [25].) Similarly, are there any spatially homogeneous and isotropic, constant curvature solutions to a generic MTG? The two solutions just mentioned are, of course, Schwarzschild’s solution and Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker type solutions respectively.

We devote this section, therefore, to a brief exposition of these two solutions, along with a third type of exact solution called wormholes. This is a rather different type of solution, since no known astrophysical objects are described by this type of solution, that is, there are no wormholes that we know of. Wormholes are just a theoretician’s probe of the foundations of a gravitational theory, they are “gedanken-experiments”, and we consider them as such."*Jack Sarfatti did write: The flying saucers are coming through real wormholes or Star Gates" like in the sci-fi TV series.* *Don't believe the naysayers. Damn their torpedos full warp ahead. Check out the thriller "The Star Gate Conspiracy" by Picknett and Prince.*

"A wormhole solution is characterized by the following space-time metric:

ds^2=e^2Φ(r)dt^2 -(1−b(r)/r)^-1dr^2 -r^2(dθ^2 +sin^2θdφ^2) , (2.69)

where Φ(r) and, b(r), are arbitrary functions of the coordinate r. The function Φ(r), is related to the gravitational redshift and, is therefore called the redshift function; as for b(r), it is termed the shape function, since it determines the shape of the wormhole throat, as will be shortly seen."

"There are also a set of conditions, aimed at insuring that a traveler could actually use a wormhole. These are called traversability conditions, see [31, 32], for a detailed account. We refer explicitly, two of these conditions: one is linked with the gravitational acceleration felt by an observer at the initial and final points of his journey, this is, g = −(1 − b/r)^−1/2Φ′ ? −Φ′, and should be less the or equal to earth’s acceleration so that the condition |Φ′| ≤ g⊕, must be met; the other, is related to the redshift of a signal sent from the initial or final point, towards infinity, this is, ?λ/λ = e^−Φ −1 ≈ −Φ so that, we must have |Φ| ? 1. Given the first condition, a usual choice is to have the redshift function constant Φ′ = 0."

"Recent developments in observational cosmology brought about the need for two different phases of accelerated expansion of the universe. The first is inflation, that supposedly occurred in the early stages of the universe, and was succeeded by a radiation dominated expansion era. The second phase is the late-time cosmic acceleration, that is occurring in our present era. For the reasons we stated above, in section, 2.6.2, (equation 2.56), there is an intrinsic difficulty in the description of accelerated expansion since the condition for it’s occurrence in FLRW models is ρ + 3p < 0, and therefore if we use a fluid with an equation of state ω = p/ρ, this condition becomes ω < −1/3, which in turn implies the use of a negative pressure fluid.

There is a ‘natural’ choice for the source of this acceleration. The cosmological constant Λ, corresponding to a ωΛ = −1. The introduction of this constant, leads to a period of accelerated expansion."

"This interpretation however, suffers from serious drawbacks since this cosmological constant can not be easily (if at all), interpreted as a vacuum density in the context of field theories. The Λ term, in equation (3.2), is the source of another problem: once the possibility of a non-null cosmological constant has been introduced, setting this term (near to) to zero needs to be justified, just as setting any other term in any other equation to null. One is thus led to the so called ‘cosmological constant problem’ [34].."

* Jack Sarfatti comment: However, this problem is solved in my future hologram model discussed in my Journal of Cosmology paper Vol 14, April 2011 on line. There is also a natural explanation for the Arrow of Time and why we age as the universe accelerates speeding up its expansion rate.*

"Another possibility, for the source of these accelerated expansion periods, comes from scalar fields φ, with slowly varying potentials. These have been extensively studied and many variations of this theme exist — Quintessence, K-essence, Tachyon Fields, models using the Chaplygin gas, to name but a few [30]. However, no particular choice of field and potential, seems to generate a model in perfect accord with the experimental data. A particularly thorny problem appears to be, the possibility that the dark energy equation of state “crosses the phantom divide” (see [30], sec. V-D), that is, it may be in the region ωφ < −1."

"Wormholes — as mentioned in section 2.6.3 — are hypothetical tunnels in spacetime, possibly through which observers may freely traverse. However, it is important to emphasize that these solutions are primarily useful as “gedanken-experiments” and as a theoretician’s probe of the foundations of general relativity. In classical general relativity, wormholes are supported by exotic matter, which involves a stress-energy tensor that violates the null energy condition (NEC) [32, 33]. Note that the NEC is given by Tμνkμkν ≥ 0, (Eq. 2.61), where kμ is any null vector. Thus, it is an important and intriguing challenge in wormhole physics to find a realistic matter source that will support these exotic spacetimes."

*Jack Sarfatti comment: Virtual bosons anti-gravitate as dark energy. Virtual fermion-antifermion pairs (closed loop spinor Feynman diagrams) gravitate as dark energy - at least in free quantum field theory combined with the equivalence principle (SEP) and local Lorentz invariance.*