Text Size


Nov 01
Gerry is correct.

The physical content of relativity is how detectors compare their measurements of the same events. This is inherently classical without Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This is why quantum gravity is so difficult.

1905 SR is for GIF flat global space-time geodesic inertial zero g-force detectors. You can extend it with the Christoffel symbols to represent arbitrarily global accelerating detectors GNIFs. The covariant self-curl of the Christoffel symbols always vanish in that case.

The analogy to U1 EM is A =/= 0 with F = dA = 0.

With 1916 GR the detectors must be locally momentarily coincident. Global G is now local L.

LNIF <===> LIF  are the tetrads

LIF <===> LIF' are the local Lorentz transformations

LNIF <====> LNIF' are the GCT general coordinate transformations.

In all cases the name of the game is to compute local frame invariants like

ds^2 = guv(LNIF)dx^udx^v = nIJ(LIF)dx^Idx^J

R = Ru^u(LNIF) = RI^I(LIF) = Ru^u(LNIF') = RI^I(LIF')


On Oct 31, 2011, at 04:29 PM, GNPellegrini@aol.com wrote:

Yes, you can "just treat it as just another geometric model for an underlying physical
theory".  As a matter of fact that's all you can do with it.
The point I'm making is that the observer-experimenter is free to choose any system of description he wants, so long as it uniquely represents individual events.  What's to stop him?  However, this arbitrary choice cannot contain within it the outcome of experiments.
In a message dated 10/31/2011 7:19:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, iksnileiz@gmail.com writes:
One can construct geometric models for all kinds of theories. Whenever you have an algebraic relationship like

s^2 = a^2 + b^2 + c^2

you can model it in terms of 3D Euclidean metric -- even if it has nothing to do with geometry at all.

Same a relationship like

s^2 = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2

in relation to 4D Euclidean geometry.

If we apply the same reasoning to the "semi-Euclidean"

s^2 = a^2 + b^2 + c^2 - d^2,

why need relativity theory be any different? Can't we just treat it as just another geometric model for an underlying physical

On 10/31/2011 4:10 PM, GNPellegrini@aol.comwrote:
I think the argument that is going on demonstrates what I have come to believe is the fundamental problem with relativity theory itself, especially GR but even SR.
That is: Although a noble goal, geometry all by itself does not contain sufficient information of the physics.  I think this is at the core of your dispute of the physical significance of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the gravitational field.
The geometry of space-time (i.e., an operational system by which the laboratory observer uniquely represents individual events) is quite arbitrarily set up by the observer.  Something else needs to be put in to predict how nature correlates these events.  Classical mechanics of LaGrange had the correct approach.  He wrote the laws of physics for any "space-time" (i.e., the "space-time" did not contain the physics)!  I think this was Einstein's over-simplistic error.  I know most physicists do not want to consider this, but why not?  If relativity theory cannot survive the scrutiny it needs to be replaced.
If someone wants to talk about the failures of SR, I will be interested in a discussion.  The background being that the 1913 W-W experiment supposedly confirming SR, does nothing of the sort.
In a message dated 10/31/2011 6:36:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, adastra1@mac.com writes:

Nonsense. Ideas evolve. Also I have my doubts about your version of the actual history of Einstein's views on local objective reality. Your basic methodological error is to obsess on early immature ideas of geniuses like Einstein.

No one of any weight in mainstream spacetime physics agrees with you that there is a measureable non-zero third rank GCT tensor hidden inside the torsionless metric connection Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols.

Your invoking of the Levi-Civita theorem is completely irrelevant in my opinion.

On Oct 31, 2011, at 01:37 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

Can't you see that there is a fundamental inconsistency here?

On 10/31/2011 1:36 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
If what turned Einstein on at the end of his life were invariants like ds^2, then why wouldn't he be turned on by first
order invariants like the gravitational deformation tensor G^i_jk? And why are you putting up so much resistance to
an objective gravity field represented exclusively by such tensor quantities?

Just doesn't add up Jack, What's wrong with this picture?

On 10/31/2011 1:25 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
I am talking about Einstein's mature views as in his essay in the Schlipp volume. His early ideas are irrelevant here. 

On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:


Ya I agree with Paul, you should have known this before!
Shame on you!
From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: Removal Detail! (Re: Doctor Sarfatti's V6 DARPA-NASA Star Ship paper MindWarp)

On 10/31/2011 11:06 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Z forgets what turned Einstein on were the frame invariants like ds^2 and any scalar formed from tensors&  spinors - objective local reality - Plato's Forms.

Excuse me Jack but that was not the way it went down. Einstein's version of relativity was not originally based on spacetime geometry at all. That was Minkowski's contribution to relativity theory. Einstein's approach was quite different. There was no invariant spacetime interval in Einstein's 1905 version of relativity.

For a long time Einstein rejected Minkowski's geometric model and its invariant geometric interval "s" as superfluous. It was only after he was unable to develop a relativistic theory of gravity using coordinate frames alone that he finally caved in and adopted Minkowski's geometric model. And even then it took years for him to grasp the physical significance of the interval ds^2 = g_uv dx^udx^v in generally
covariant formulations of GR and SR.

Your Platonistic "forms" above are simply covariant quantities of the kind that were well known in classical physics. In fact the word "tensor" itself came from the theory of solids, with the stress tensor being the paradigm case. The only difference in relativity theory is the use of a 4D geometric model, and the adaptation of spacetime coordinate systems to represent observer reference frames *by convention*.

What is incoherent in the textbook version of GR that you adhere to so religiously is that a single solitary exception is made for the gravitational field, which is represented by a non-tensor quantity, with very dubious physical justification based on Einstein's heuristic "equivalence" argument.

And even Einstein himself essentially admitted (in his 1916 "Über Fr. Kottlers Abhandlung: Einsteins Äquivalenzhypothese und die Gravitation" -- "Reply to Kottler...") that his version of the  equivalence principle was merely a *heuristic device*.

> Even QM has unitary frame invariants in a sense.
> (a|U*U|b)  =(a|b)
In a sense.

Instead of observer frames in spacetime, we have alternate supposedly mutually exclusive experimental arrangements, which I suppose are analogous to observer frames in SR.


The basic idea is the same: the state of the system can be viewed from different experimental "angles", but it's always the same state regardless of how it is viewed. So there is a weak kind of objectivity tied to the use of tensor invariants in various Hilbert spaces (state vectors, and operators representing "observables").


Note in contrast, there is no unitary transformation connecting the orthogonal Fock number basis |n>  to the non-orthogonal Glauber coherent state |z>  basis. This is key to my latest idea on signal nonlocality with entanglement.

This holds in any linear space Jack. Of course you need to apply a non-unitary tranformation to go from an orthogonal basis to a non-orthogonal basis. Otherwise you just get another orthogonal basis. Don't read to much into it.

Wrong Z. I did the calculation. Entangle two coherent sender states |z> and |w>  (z & w are in the complex plane) with an ordinary qubit.

The probability to measure say a "1" at the qubit receiver is

P(1)receiver = (1/2)(1 + |(z|w)|^2sender)

modulate (z|w) to get the non-metrical entanglement signal, which can be faster than light, slower than light, or at light speed contingent on free choices of when to encode and when to decode.

This is a strong violation of orthodox quantum mechanics because of the non-unitary map from the incoherent Fock states to the coherent Glauber states.

> |n)  is an eigenstate of the Hermitian a*a number operator for a field oscillator
> |z)  is an eigenstate of the non-Hermitian a operator.
> |z)  in BCS theory is non-perturbative -  sum of an infinity of Feynman diagrams in micro-incoherent normal -->  macro-quantum coherent superconducting ground state in BCS model

> On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:12 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>> And yet Einstein started it all with his observer dependent physical time and his observer
>> dependent gravitational field.
>> On 10/30/2011 7:57 PM, Demo Hassan wrote:
>>> But the existence of
>>> 'reality' being entirely due to human observation really
>>> bugged both Erwin Schrodinger and Albert Einstein.
>>> Can't say I really blame them.