Text Size

Stardrive

Lenny Susskind hopes to save both unitarity and the equivalence principle. He writes: "
In this paper I’ve made no attempt to prove that firewalls are absent in all circumstances. Indeed ER=EPR raises the possibility that an angry Alice can hit Bob with a nasty shockwave as he crosses the horizon [10]. What I have assumed is that firewalls are not inevitable— particularly so if the black hole begins with a smooth horizon—and then asked what new concepts are required to resolve the various paradoxes. In a sense I am trying to turn the firewall inevitability arguments into arguments for new physical concepts needed to reconcile unitarity and complementarity."
 
Lenny makes a mistake here in my opinion: "This is a twist on two commonly held incorrect sci-fi ideas; the first being that super-luminal signals can be sent through wormholes; and the second that superluminal signals can be sent using entanglement. ER=EPR does not allow superluminal signals, but it gets very close, in the sense that there is no limit on how soon after horizon crossing Bob can receive Alice’s message."
 
Yes, what he says is true for orthodox quantum theory, but not for its extension that corresponds to traversable wormholes held open with either exotic matter, or couplings to a scalar field as described in current literature cited by Enrico Rodrigo in his Stargate book.
 
I prefer to keep the equivalence principle and junk unitarity because then we have entanglement signal nonlocality - that's a game changer - Brave New World, Men like Gods and we then understand the physical mechanism for consciousness leading to naturally conscious artificial intelligent androids.
 
“For years it was thought that the Schwarzschild spacetime did in fact exhibit some sort of radial singularity at r = 2GM/c2. Eventually physicists came to realize that it was not Schwarzschild spacetime that was behaving badly. It was his choice of coordinate system. … the true singularity at r = 0.” P. 126, Enrico Rodrigo, “The Physics of Stargates” (Eridanus Press, New York, 2010). This is true, yet it also does not address an important question. While it is true that a freely falling observer Alice can pass through the event horizon of a large non-rotating black hole without feeling lethal tidal stretch-squeeze Weyl curvature tensor forces, nevertheless the universe will start to look weird to her. More importantly, if Bob is in a spaceship hovering at a fixed distance outside the event horizon with rockets firing radially inward, he will quickly find that there is a minimum distance he can get to without being sucked into the black hole. Indeed, if Bob does not want to exceed a 1g weight that minimum distance is even larger. This is because, the real proper acceleration of hovering, also called the “static LNIF” shoots up to a classical infinity at the event horizon because of the square root of the time-time component g00 that approaches zero at the event horizon in the denominator of the relevant equation in Einstein’s General Relativity. One over zero is infinity. Of course quantum gravity will prevent an actual infinity, but practically speaking that does not change the basic situation. Not only that, but Bob will see a very hot thermal blackbody bath of real photons proportional to his actual tensor proper acceleration that will burn him to a cinder. This will be very peculiar and tragic to Alice who passes close by him in her radial free fall into the black hole. Alice will not feel the heat unless she catches fire etc. from Bob’s burning ship that explodes and flings debris hitting her. This is related to recent speculations by Leonard Susskind et-al on black hole firewalls. 
There is a creative tension conflict between Gerard ‘t Hooft’s pontifical proclamation that the S-Matrix must be unitary even in cosmology and Einstein’s equivalence principle that nothing happens to a freely falling observer passing through a horizon g00 = 0 whether that of a black hole whose horizon is observer independent, or whether through our future dark energy de Sitter cosmological horizon, which is observer-dependent. Roughly, unitarity of the S-Matrix of the universe says that there is nothing new under the Sun that quantum information cannot be created or destroyed. This seems to fly in the face of human creativity. Does it really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-firewall-paradox&print=true 
http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/spotlight-live-falling-into-black-holes 
http://physics.aps.org/articles/print/v6/115
Firewall (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
A firewall is a hypothetical phenomenon where an observer that falls into an old black hole encounters high-energy quanta at (or near) the event horizon. The "firewall" phenomenon was proposed in 2012 by Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully[1] as a possible solution to an apparent inconsistency i...

The importance of gyroscopes for the construction of real LIFs[i]

“Local inertial frames have a fundamental role in Einstein geometrodynamics. The spatial axes of a local inertial frame along the world line of a freely falling observer are mathematically defined using Fermi-Walker transport (eq. 3.4.25); that is, along … her geodesic they are defined using parallel transport. These axes are physically realized with gyroscopes. … The most advanced gyroscopes … measure the very tiny effect due to the gravimagnetic field of the Earth: the ‘dragging of inertial frames,’ that is, the precession of the gyroscopes by the Earth’s angular momentum, which in orbit, is of the order of a few tens of milliarcseconds/year. There are two main types of gyroscopes … mechanical and optical. The optical gyroscopes … are usually built with optical fibers or with ring lasers.” (6.12)

Fermi-Walker Transport, De Sitter (Geodetic)&Lense-Thirring Effects

For weak gravity fields in the first Einstein 20th Century correction to Newton’s 17th century gravity theory: Sa is a spacelike 4-vector outside its local light cone that describes the spin of the test gyroscope about its rotation axis. The test gyroscope travels along a timelike worldline xa (s) with tangent vector ua.  Saua = 0 and the equation for Fermi-Walker transport is

Sa;bub = ua (abSb) = ua(ub;gugSb)  (3.4.25)

Where a semi-colon “;” always stands for the covariant partial derivative with respect to the Levi-Civita connection that describes fictitious forces on the test gyroscope that are, in reality, real forces on the detector measuring the motion of the gyro. Repeated upper and lower indices are summed through 0,1,2,3. The local observable objectively real proper acceleration first-rank tensor directly measured by accelerometers clamped to the center of mass of the test gyro is

ab = ub;gug

If the arbitrary timelike world line of the center of mass of the test gyro (remember LIFs have three of them forming a spacelike triad base frame) is a geodesic, then, by definition, the proper acceleration tensor ab = 0. Therefore,

Sa;bub = 0 

This is the equation for Fermi-Walker transport.

“A mechanical gyroscope is … made of a wheel-like rotor, torque-free to a substantial level, whose spin determines the axis of a local, nonrotating frame. Due to very tiny general relativistic effects … that is, the ‘dragging of inertial frames’ and the geodetic precession, this spin direction may differ from a direction fixed in ‘inertial space’ that may be defined by a telescope always pointing toward the same distant galaxy assumed to be fixed with respect to some asymptotic quasi-inertial frame (see 4.8).”

Inertial Navigation From ICBMs to Starships

“Mechanical gyroscopes are based on the principle of conservation of angular momentum of an isolated system … with no external forces and torques. … the spinning rotor maintains its direction fixed in ‘space’ (apart from dragging effects as Earth rotates but, however, a vector with general orientation, fixed with respect to the laboratory walls, describes a circle on the celestial sphere in 24 hours, a spinning rotor … describes a circle with respect to the laboratory walls in 24 hours … In a moving laboratory, using three ‘inertial sensors’, that is, three gyroscopes to determine three fixed directions (apart from relativistic effects…) plus three accelerometers to measure linear accelerations and a clock (and possibly three gravity gradiometers to correct for torques due to gravity gradients, one can determine the position of the moving laboratory with respect to its initial position. This can be done by a simple integration of the accelerations measured by the three accelerometers along the three fixed directions determined by the gyroscopes [held by gimbals]. Position can thus be determined solely by measurements internal to the [starship] laboratory … a priori independently of external information is called ‘inertial navigation’ … an onboard computer integrates the accelerations … one is able to find velocity, attitude, and position of the object.” 

The word “acceleration” here means off-geodesic proper tensor acceleration not the old Newtonian kinematic acceleration measured by Doppler radar in Einstein’s somewhat misleading popular “happiest thought quote” I discussed earlier whose Siren’s song that has shipwrecked many a wannabe physicist-philosopher Flying Dutchman searching for Ithaca. However, for a starship in free float on a timelike geodesic we can dispense with the gyroscopes to preserve “direction.” “Instead one may use gradiometers …”

“The needs of air navigation have generated a powerful drive for a compact, light weight gyroscopic compass of high accuracy … Today, optical gyros have displaced the mechanical gyro … A wave-guide is bent into a circle. A beam splitter takes light from a laser and sends it round the circle in two opposite directions. Where the beams reunite, interference between them gives rise to wave crests and troughs. If the wave-guide sits on a turning platform, the wave crests reveal the rotation of the platform or the airplane that carries it.

While mechanical gyroscopes are based on the principle of conservation of angular momentum, optical gyroscopes (really optical rotation sensors) are essentially based on the principle of the constancy of the speed of light c in every inertial frame. Therefore, in a rotating circuit and relative to the {LNIF} observers moving with it, the round trip travel time of light depends on the sense of propagation of light with respect to the circuit angular velocity relative to a local inertial frame.” [LIF]

From the general connection of continuous Lie groups[ii] of symmetries of closed dynamical systems to conserved local currents and global “charges” that form the group’s non-commuting Lie algebra[iii], we conclude that the operation of the gyroscope corresponds to the three rotational symmetries of Einstein’s 1905 special relativity’s Poincare group. Therefore, the Sagnac effect[iv] basis of the optical gyros correspond to the three Lorentz boosts of that same Poincare group that formally express the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames.  Newton’s action-reaction third law comes from the three space translation symmetry’s conservation of linear momentum and the conservation of energy comes from the time translation symmetry – if these symmetries are not broken. Does the accelerometer’s operation depend on the Rindler boosts of constant proper accelerating hyperbolic world lines of test particles? These are outside of the Poincare group requiring Roger Penrose’s twistor conformal group.[v] The Poincare group is a subgroup of the conformal group that also includes dilations.

 


from my book

Contrary to popular misconceptions, although the local laws of classical physics have the same “tensor” and/or “spinor” form for all motions of detectors measuring all the observable possessed by the “test particles,” nevertheless, there still are privileged geodesic force-free dynamical motions of the test particles in Einstein’s two theories of relativity special 1905 and general 1916.[i]  This was in Einstein’s words “My happiest thought.”

“The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity. I continued my thought: A falling man is accelerated. Then what he feels and judges is happening in the accelerated frame of reference. I decided to extend the theory of relativity to the reference frame with acceleration. I felt that in doing so I could solve the problem of gravity at the same time. A falling man does not feel his weight because in his reference frame there is a new gravitational field, which cancels the gravitational field due to the Earth. In the accelerated frame of reference, we need a new gravitational field.” [ii]

First note the date 1907. Einstein is using Newton's 1686 theory of gravity not his then future 1916 general relativity way of thinking that he has not yet created. Einstein is struggling with the wrong notion of “acceleration.”

"A falling man is accelerated."

Yes, in Newton, but not in Einstein nine years in the future! The falling man's frame is LIF with zero proper acceleration. In fact it's the surface of static LNIF Earth with proper radial acceleration upward rushing toward the falling man.

Proper acceleration of falling man = Relative 1905 SR kinematic acceleration - Proper acceleration of Earth

Proper acceleration of falling man = D2X/ds2

Relative 1905 SR kinematic acceleration = d2X/ds2

Proper acceleration of Earth = {STATIC LNIF EARTH}(dX/ds)(dX/ds)

X = relative separation test particle to detector on Earth.

{  } = Christoffel symbol used in the Levi-Civita connection

v = dX/ds

In fact when v/c << 1, the 3-vector piece of the above 4-vector equation is:

{STATIC LNIF EARTH}(dX/ds)(dX/ds) ~ -GMEarthr/r3

Proper acceleration of falling man = 0 because an accelerometer pinned to the man shows zero on its pointer. Therefore,

Relative kinematic acceleration = Proper acceleration of Earth

Where a Doppler radar measures the relative kinematic acceleration between the falling man and Earth. In contrast, a second accelerometer clamped to the detector at rest on surface of the Earth measures -GMEarthr/ras the weight divided by the mass of the detector.

“A falling man does not feel his weight because in his reference frame there is a new gravitational field, which cancels the gravitational field due to the Earth. In the accelerated frame of reference, we need a new gravitational field.”

That statement by Einstein in 1907 is how Newton would explain it. Einstein put himself in Newton's shoes for a moment. It's not the way his later 1916 matured GR explains it.

0 = Relative 1905 SR kinematic acceleration - Proper acceleration of Earth

This “cancellation”, the “0” on the above word equation is not a cancellation of two real dynamical fields. Einstein's unfortunate informal language in 1907 has no relevance to his, then, future theory.

"In the accelerated frame of reference, we need a new gravitational field."

That's the LIF, which is not accelerated in the sense of 1916 Einstein GR, but is accelerated in the different sense of 1686 Newton. These subtle oft unnoticed paradigm shifts in the meanings of “acceleration,” “inertia,” “inertial frame” cause many people a great deal of confusion even today,

Einstein was still muddled in 1907 as he struggled to make the great breakthrough. Your understanding is trite and superficial based on semantics and exaggeration of an early remark of Einstein's.

 


[i]  This geodesic premise is Newton’s first law of motion most generally expressed.

 

[ii] On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It, Albert Einstein,

Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat und Electronik 4 (1907) – Re-Published in three parts.

Am. J. Phys. 45, Part I - (6), June 1977, pp. 512-517; Part II – (9), September

1977, pp. 811-816, Part III - (Gravitational Part) – (10), October 1977, pp. 899-

902. This paper addresses only Part III – from Peter Brown’s paper.

 

In this EARLY 1907 quote Einstein (who is still under Newton’s magick without magic spell) means Newton's "accelerated frame", that is, dV(test particle)/ds in Newton's first law (geodesic equation) as written in modern POST-1907 GR language. Suppressing indices:

DV(test particle)/ds = dV(test particle)/ds - {LNIF detector}V2(test particle) = 0

The "cancellation" is precisely

 

dV(test particle)/ds - {LNIF detector}V2(test particle) = 0

 

In other words, in the general case that even applies to Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws is:

 

Einstein's proper tensor acceleration = Newton's apparent acceleration - fictitious LNIF inertial pseudo fictitious forces per unit test particle rest mass = real applied force to the test particle per unit test particle mass 

 

Fictitious forces on test particle = Real forces on LNIF detector of test particle's motion

 

In the case of Newton's 3rd law, when Alice and Bob form an isolated closed system

 

DP(Alice + Bob)/ds = DP(Alice)/ds + DP(Bob)/ds = 0

 

Both must be measured in the same frame by Eve, i.e.,

 

DP(Alice or Bob)/ds = dP(Alice or Bob)/ds + {Eve}V(Alice or Bob)P

 

“I continued my thought: A falling man is accelerated. Gravity and inertia are interrelated." Einstein

 

Here is the source of the confusion.

 

Einstein is naturally thinking in Newtonian terms.

 

However, in GR terms that he still had not invented back then in 1907: "acceleration" above means relative kinematical acceleration between test particle and local frame. It does not mean real (proper) acceleration (off-geodesic) as measured by an accelerometer.

The general law is:

 

Real acceleration on test particle = relative kinematical acceleration between test particle and local frame - real acceleration of local frame.

 

DP(test particle)/ds = dP(test particle-frame)/ds - DP'(local frame)/ds

 

P = mV   for the test particle under observation by the local frame detector

 

V = dX/ds

 

X = relative kinematical displacement between test particle and local frame detector as measured by a Doppler radar clamped to the local frame.

 

D/ds = d/ds - {LC frame connection}dX/ds

 

DP(test particle)/ds 

 

= dP(test particle)/ds - {LC frame connection}(dX/ds)P(test particle)

 

When dm/ds = 0, it follows that

 

D2X/ds2 = d2X/ds- {LC frame connection}(dX/ds) 2

 

{LC frame connection}(dX/ds) 2 = M-1DP(frame)/ds

 

M = mass of frame/detector

 

{LC frame connection} has dimension 1/Length

 

ds is the PROPER TIME element along world line of object.

 

Each term has an independent measurement technique.

 

Real accelerations are measured by accelerometers attached to the objects.

 

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

 

Accelerometers measure off-geodesic "pushes" by real forces.

 

Doppler radars measure the kinematic acceleration.

 

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

 

Therefore,

 

DV/ds is measured directly locally by an accelerometer clamped to the test particle  - real measurement 1

 

dV/ds = d2X/dsis measured indirectly by the Doppler radar clamped to the local frame detector - real measurement 2

 

M-1DP(frame)/ds is measured directly by a second accelerometer clamped to the frame-Doppler radar - measurement 3

 

The BASIC LAW is

 

Measurement 1 = measurement 2 - measurement 3

 

Provided that test particle and frame Doppler radar are not far away from each other relative to the smallest local radius of curvature A1/2. The curvature is of order A-1

The geodesic equation is simply Newton's first law when

 

Measurement 1 = 0

 

Newton's second law is simply when

 

Measurement 1 =/= 0

 

There is never any cancellation of real forces on any one object in this context

 

The LNIF ---> LIF in measurement 3 simply means removing a real unbalanced force on the frame detector according to Newton's 1st law.

 

“Then what he feels and judges is happening in the accelerated frame of reference.” Einstein

 

Einstein's use of "accelerated" here is in Newton's sense - the rest frame of the freely falling man is kinematically accelerated relative to the Earth

 

i.e. d2X/ds2

 

The freely falling man's local frame is LIF - though Einstein did not yet discover that in 1907 and his informal language is still Newtonian because the modern GR informal language of 1916 and after is not yet emerged.

 

“There is a new gravitational field, which cancels the gravitational field due to the Earth.”  Einstein

 

This is Einstein's remark that physics cranks pull out of proper context. Yes, Einstein wrote it back around 1907 before he understood the problem the way he eventually would in 1916 and later. 

 

In fact there is only one gravity field not two.

 

The point is that there was never a real gravity force field on the test particle to begin with.

 

Therefore, you don't need a second gravity force field to cancel what was never there!

 

Indeed, there is no way to measure either of these alleged two real gravity forces to begin with. You can never separate them. Accelerometers on test particles always show zero.

 

Therefore, like the Maxwellian 19th century mechanical aether that acts without being reacted upon that Einstein eliminated in 1905, these two ghostly independently unobservable-in-principle forces are not independently measurable - they are errors of thinking - excess metaphysical informal language baggage. Even the great Einstein got muddled temporarily on this one, though with good reason. Unfortunately many people today who should know better remain muddled. If gravity is not a real force like the electro-weak-strong forces, then what does it mean to unify them?

 
 

The issue before me is how to address them properly in my Stargate book and in my reviews of his book. I will take several weeks pondering this. I will not make Jim's theory a central part of my book as I have plenty of original material myself.


On Oct 20, 2013, at 12:20 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:

Gentlefolk,

The continuation of last night's comments.  Jack and Paul, by the way, have repaired to a shorter list to continue their mathematical discussions.  As far as I am concerned, this process has been like tapping a kaleidoscope.  I've known about Einstein's predilection for Mach's ideas since reading John David North's history of cosmology back in the '60s.  
 
60's - paleolithic times in cosmology and in general relativity. See Feynman's letter to his wife at Warsaw GR meeting - it's online.

And with every pass, I learn a bit more -- though a bit less with each pass, at least recently.

As I said yesterday, much of the confusion [leaving aside the silliness about "fictitious" forces] in this business seems to be an outgrowth of the now allegedly mainstream view that gravity is only present when non-vanishing spacetime curvature is present -- a view that seems to have its origins in a neo-Newtonian view that large constant potentials can be gauged away as irrelevant.  This comports with the widespread view that the Aharanov-Bohm experiment notwithstanding, potentials in classical situations are not real.  Only the fields derived from them are.
 
Jim's writing about fictitious forces in his book is hardly intelligible to me. 
 
Jim also seems to be confused about "potentials"
 
There are superficial formal analogies between Einstein's geometrodynamics and Maxwell's electrodynamics, but one must be very careful in applying them.
 
Jim cites Bohm-Aharonov. OK first look at Maxwell's electrodynamics. I use Cartan's forms
 
We have a potential 1-form A that is a connection for parallel transport of objects in the U1 circle fiber space.
 
The gauge transformations are
 
A --> A' = A + df
 
f = 0-form scalar
 
d^2 = 0
 
It's line integrals of A around closed loops that give the observable quantum phase shifts in the Bohm-Aharonov effect via Stoke's theorem etc.
 
The EM curvature is the 2-form
 
F = dA which is gauge invariant
 
F' = dA' = dA + d^2f = dA = F
 
Maxwell's field equations concern the 3-forms
 
dF = d^2A = 0  these are two of Maxwell's equations - no magnetic monopoles and Faradays EMF law (motors, generators ....)
 
d*F = *J   these are the last two - Ampere's law with displacement current and Gauss's law
 
* = Hodge dual
 
Finally
 
d*J = d^2*F = 0
 
is local conservation of electric current densities
 
this is a 4-form in 4D spacetime dual to a 0-form.
 
This gauge theory extends to the non-Abelian unitary groups SU2 and SU3 that describe the weak and strong forces (Yang-Mills).
 
Jim's vector theory if done correctly has
 
g00 = 1 + phi/c^2
 
g0i = Ai
 
However, the analogy to EM as a gauge theory breaks down completely, because the F to Jim's A is the Levi-Civita connection.
 
In fact the proper analogy is that the Levi-Civita connection is the analog to the EM A and the curvature tensor is the analog to EM's F.
 
Conservation of currents is the Bianchi identity in GR.
 
However, to make the analogy more transparent. General relativity as a local gauge theory is a non-Abelian Yang-Mills theory based on the Poincare symmetry group of Einstein's special relativity.
 
Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity mathematically is the representation theory of the global 10-parameter Poincare group.
 
General relativity is properly named because it is a limiting case (zero torsion) of the local gauge theory of the Poincare group with the real gravity field as the curvature 2-form from the connection 1-form just as in Maxwell's electrodynamics.
 
However, the connection 1-form corresponding to Maxwell's A is not the Levi-Civita connection from the usual 1916 GR tensor formulation, rather it is the six spin connection 1-forms AIJ  = - AJI with two LIF indices, IJ analogous to the internal indices Aa in Yang-Mills theory of the SU2 and SU3 internal groups and the 4 tetrad connection 1-forms eI.
 
There are therefore 10 connection 1-forms one for each "charge" generator of the Poincare group (linear-momentum-energy, rotational momentum, Lorentz boosts)
 
The Levi-Civita connection is derivable from the spin connections and the tetrads.
 
The four eI are the base 1-forms for a geodesic LIF dual to the tangent vector fiber space basis.
 
The spin connection allows coupling of gravity to spinors, the Levi-Civita connection does not.
 
Therefore, Einstein's 1916 geometrodynamics reformulated in modern Cartan-forms has the local gauge structure
 
D = d + SIJ/   Cartan exterior covariant derivative
 
summation convention over repeated indices - I am too lazy to put in the ^ for upper indices.
 
TI = DeI = deI + SIJ/eI = dislocation defect torsion field 2-form
 
RIJ = DSIJ = dSIJ + SIK/SKJ = disclination defect curvature field 2-form.
 
Einstein's 1916 theory requires the ad-hoc constraint
 
TI = 0
 
In that limit:
 
Einstein-Hilbert action density is the 0-form scalar without cosmological constant for simplicity
 
*(eI/eJ/RKL)
 
with Euler-Lagrange equation for vacuum is the 1-form equation
 
*(eI/RJL) = 0
 
in ordinary tensor language this is
 
Ruv - (1/2)guv = 0
 
Including the matter-field sources gives
 
*(eI/RJK) = (8piG/c^4)*(TIJK)
 
More details are in Rovelli's lectures http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf
 
 
This may be true for all other physical fields.  But it is not true for gravity.  The vector part of the gravitational potential very definitely does depend on the particular value of the scalar potential calculated.  There are some formal technical details that complicate this a bit.  But the idea that you can ignore cosmic scale matter currents when computing local gravitational effects is still just wrong.
 
I find above comment by Jim unintelligible - at least at the present time.

Tonight, what I want to do, however, is talk a bit about a couple of other matters.  The first is the "origin" of inertia.  You may recall that Jack gave a long list of mechanisms -- the Higgs process, QCD calculations, and suchlike -- that allegedly are the origin of mass, and thus inertia.  The fact of the matter is that none of these processes (valid in and of themselves) account for the origin of mass and inertia.  Frank Wilczek, after telling you about these processes in his book The Lightness of Being, allows as much (on pages 200 through 202).
 
I am staring at those pages and I see nothing in Wilzcek's text that justifies Jim's extraordinary claim above. Certainly nothing that needs Mach's principle that simply replaces one mystery with another. Again Jim is confounding two different meanings of "inertia" just as he and other confound two different meanings of "gravity field".
 
Mach's Principle only is concerned with how matter affects disclination geodesic deviation (aka curvature). The real gravity field of Einstein's geometrodynamics is the field of "geodesic deviation" corresponding to inhomogeneities in Newton's "gravity field", which is a fictitious force field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_deviation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
Mach's principle is not concerned with the origin of rest masses of elementary particles. Einstein briefly confounded the two, but it led nowhere.  Wilzcek is concerned in those pages 200 - 202 with the cosmic landscape/Anthropic principle issue. Why these particular numbers and not others. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_487.html
 
A word on history. What Einstein may or may not have said in 1907 in his informal language as he groped toward GR is completely irrelevant to the modern understanding of general relativity. This is a normal evolution of all good physical theories. I have no patience with cranks that try to make a big deal over that. Such discussions are a waste of time for me.

Inertia is a universal property of stuff.  And the only universal interaction that couples stuff is gravity.  It is thus obvious that if gravity produces inertial forces (that is, the relativity of inertia obtains), that gravity should have a lot to do with the origin of inertia.  (The origin of inertia was the title of Sciama's first paper on this I note.  So I'm not making this up.)
 
Jim's remark above is unintelligible to me. This is what I mean by "inertial force."
 
inertial force  (-nûrshl)
An apparent force that appears to affect bodies within a non-inertial frame, but is absent from the point of view of an inertial frame. Centrifugal forces and Coriolis forces, both observed in rotating systems, are inertial forces. Inertial forces are proportional to the body's mass. See also General Relativity.
 
Newton's gravity force per unit test mass -GMr/r^3 is an inertial force in exactly the same way as centrifugal and Coriolis forces are.
 
They are all part of the Levi-Civita connection which vanishes at the origin of a Local Inertial Frame (LIF).
 
 
The "force of gravity" you feel as weight on Earth is the unbalanced electrical force pushing you off a timelike geodesic of the local curvature real gravity field mostly due to the mass of Earth. You need that unbalanced force on you to keep you still (with respect to Earth) in the curved spacetime we live in. Earth pushes up on you and you push down on Earth etc. - action-reaction Newton's 3rd law.
Therefore, I find Jim's discussion of inertial forces here and in his book unintelligible and not mainstream.

This is more obvious still when you discover that phi = c^2 is the condition that must be satisfied for inertial forces to be due to gravity.  You don't even have to fudge with dimensions to get this to work.  
 
I also find "phi = c^2" unintelligible and not mainstream physics.
 

The dimension of phi is velocity squared.  You may not like this result.  Jack it seems doesn't.  But it is a simple consequence of GRT.  You might think that this means that should the rest of the matter in the universe be made to disappear (or should you screen an object from the gravity of all that matter) the mass of an object would go to zero -- as is assumed in a number of discussions of Mach's principle and the origin of inertia.  But that's not what happens.  Read chapters 7 and 8.
 
Unintelligible to me still as of this date.

The last thing I want to comment on is, how the devil did all this get so bolixed up?  Recent kaleidoscope tapping suggests that there were two crucial mistakes that are largely responsible for all the confusion.  The first mistake was made by Einstein in 1921.  By that time, he had been worked over by Willem deSitter and disabused of his naive Machianism (which is why he started talking about spacetime as an "ether" about this time).  So the claims he put into his Princeton lectures on Mach's principle were more tentative than they had been previously.  One of the things he calculated that he took to be in accord with Mach's ideas was the effect of "spectator" matter (that is, nearby stuff) on the mass of an object.  He claimed that piling up spectator matter would cause the mass of the object in question to increase (because of its changed gravitational potential energy).  A very small amount.  But if the origin of mass is the gravitational influence of cosmic matter, this is just the sort of effect you might expect to see.
 
OK

It turns out that Einstein was wrong about this.  That's what Carl Brans showed in 1962 (as part of his doctoral work at Princeton with Bob Dicke).  The EP simply forbids the localization of gravitational potential energy.  So, the inference that GRT is explicitly non-Machian regarding inertia and its origin is perfectly reasonable.  It's the inference that Brans and Dicke -- and everyone else for that matter -- took away.  Brans and Dicke, to remedy this presumed defect of GRT, resuscitated Pasqual Jordan's scalar-tensor version of gravity, hoping the scalar field part could bring in Machian ideas.
 
OK

The second crucial mistake is the inference everyone made that Brans' EP argument meant that Mach's principle isn't contained in GRT.  Indeed, exactly the opposite is the case.  Brans' conclusion from the EP is absolutely necessary for Mach's principle to be contained in GRT.  It is the conclusion that must be true if inertial reaction forces are always to satisfy Newton's third law, for it guarantees that phi = c^2 ALWAYS when measured locally.  But everyone had adopted the false inference that GRT is non-Machian.  It's no wonder that issues of Mach's principle in GRT has been so confused.  It's no wonder that C+W (really Wheeler I'd guess, for he witnessed the Mach wars of the '50s and '60s) tried to use Lynden-Bell's initial data and constraint equations approach to implement Einstein's parting shot at Mach's principle in the '20s.  The origin of inertia is just too important to let go with the sort of "explanations" now floating around.
 
Unintelligible. EEP follows trivially once one understands that Newton's gravity force is simply the fictitious force on the weightless geodesic test particle as seen visually in a static LNIF from real electrical forces pushing the static LNIF off a local timelike geodesic.
 

On a personal note, I've known that phi = c^2 (locally) is the condition to get all of the Mach stuff to work since around 1992.  But I was focused on inertial forces and how they might be transiently manipulated.  And doing experiments.  I won't tell you how long it took for the other aspect of the origin of inertia to sink in -- even though it was staring me in the face. . . .
 
Unintelligible.

Keep the faith,
 
Sorry Jim but the faith required here is not scientific in my opinion.

Jim
____________________________________________________________

 

Common misunderstanding of Einstein's "Happiest Thought" corrected & bogus-bad pseudo-physics critiques of Einstein's Equivalence Principle.
1Like ·  · Share
  • Rata Vuloira likes this.
  • Jack Sarfatti Einstein wrote in ~ 1907: "The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity. I continued my thought: A falling man is accelerated. Then what he feels and judges is happening in the accelerated frame of reference. I decided to extend the theory of relativity to the reference frame with acceleration. I felt that in doing so I could solve the problem of gravity at the same time. A falling man does not feel his weight because in his reference frame there is a new gravitational field, which cancels the gravitational field due to the Earth. In the accelerated frame of reference, we need a new gravitational field.”
    4 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Jack Sarfatti Those quotes are from early Einstein around 1907 and Jim Woodward repeats what I said repeatedly that Einstein himself was still unclear in his own mind on how to use words like "accelerated frame" back then. He was in middle of breaking away from Newton's GRIP on the mind of how to think about gravity.
    3 minutes ago · Like · 1
  • Jack Sarfatti Here is the source of the confusion.

    Einstein is naturally thinking in Newtonian terms.

    In GR terms still not invented then

    "acceleration" above means relative kinematical acceleration between test particle and local frame.

    It does not mean real (proper) acceleration (off-geodesic) as measured by an accelerometer.

    The general law is"

    real acceleration on test particle = relative kinematical acceleration between test particle and local frame - real acceleration of local frame.

    DP(test particle)/ds = dP(test particle-frame)/ds - DP'(local frame)/ds

    P = mV test particle

    V = dX/ds

    X = relative kinematical displacement between test particle and local frame detector.

    D/ds = d/ds - {LC frame connection}dX/ds

    DP(test particle)/ds 

    = dP(test particle)/ds - {LC frame connection}(dX/ds)P(test particle)

    when dm/ds = 0

    D^2X/ds^2 = d^2X/ds^2 - {LC frame connection}(dX/ds)^2

    {LC frame connection}(dX/ds)^2 = M^-1DP(frame)/ds

    M = mass of frame/detector

    {LC frame connection} has dimension 1/Length

    ds is PROPER TIME element along world line of object.

    Each term has an independent measurement technique.

    Real accelerations are measured by accelerometers attached to the objects.

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

    Accelerometers measure off-geodesic "pushes" by real forces.
    en.wikipedia.org
    An accelerometer is a device that measures proper acceleration. The proper accel...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti In contrast, the kinematic acceleration is measured by Doppler radars

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

    Therefore

    DV/ds is measured directly locally by an accelerometer clamped to the test particle - real measurement 1

    dV/ds = d^2X/ds^2 is measured indirectly by the Doppler radar clamped to the local frame detector - real measurement 2

    M^-1DP(frame)/ds is measured directly by a second acclerometer clamped to the frame-Doppler radar - measurement 3

    The BASIC LAW is

    measurement 1 = measurement 2 - measurement 3

    provided that test particle and frame Doppler radar are not far away from each other relative to A^1/2 where A^-1 is smallest local radius of curvature.

    The geodesic equation is simply Newton's first law when

    measurement 1 = 0

    Newton's second law is simply when

    measurement 1 =/= 0

    there is never any cancellation of real forces on any one object in this context

    the LNIF ---> LIF in measurement 3 simply means removing a real unbalanced force on the frame detector according to Newton's 1st law.
    en.wikipedia.org
    A Doppler radar is a specialized radar that makes use of the Doppler effect to p...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti Einstein's use of "accelerated" here is in Newton's sense - the rest frame of the freely falling man is kinematically accelerated relative to the Earth

    i.e. d^2X/ds^2

    the freely falling man's local frame is LIF - though Einstein did not yet discover that in 1907 and his informal language is still Newtonian because the modern GR informal language of 1916 and after is not yet emerged.
  • Jack Sarfatti “there is a new gravitational field,
    which cancels the gravitational field
    due to the Earth.”

    This is Einstein's remark that Z and other muddled philosophers and Laputa Scholastics pulls out of proper context. Yes, Einstein wrote it back around 1907 before he understood the problem the way he eventually would in 1916. 

    In fact there is only one gravity field not two.

    The point is that there was never a real gravity force field on the test particle to begin with.

    Therefore, you don't need a second gravity force field to cancel what was never there!

    Indeed, there is no way to measure either of these alleged two real gravity forces to begin with. You can never separate them. Accelerometers on test particles always show zero.

    Therefore, like the mechanical aether these two forces are not independently measurable - they are errors of thinking - excess metaphysical informal language baggage.

 

Oct 16, 2013 from Jack Sarfatti’s Stargate book under construction
Returning to Wheeler:
1) Equivalence principle
2) Geometry
3) Geodesic equation of motion of point test particles (aka Newton’s 1st Law first-order partial derivatives of the metric tensor field describe fictitious inertial pseudo-forces on the test particle corresponding to real forces on the detector)
4) Intrinsic tensor curvature geodesic deviation (disclinations of vectors parallel transported around closed loops in spacetime) from second order partial derivatives of the metric tensor field describing relative covariant tensor accelerations between two neighboring geodesic test particle each with zero g-force proper acceleration
Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti One must use the LIF to distill the intrinsic geometry of the real Einstein gravity field. The LNIF is fool’s gold, MAYA, illusion, the shadow on the wall of Plato’s Cave that has ship wrecked many a careless mariner including Isaac Newton listening to the wiles of Circe. The LNIF is contingent random noise, all sound and fury a tale told by an idiot, and believed by sorry bastards, a fairy tale, a mask. Only Einstein escaped the Cave that Newton was trapped in. Of course, Newton had a good excuse. Newton’s “gravity force” is simply the real quantum electrodynamic force sustaining the static LNIFs. It is a fictitious pseudo-force as far as the observed test particle is concerned without any intrinsic objective reality, same ontic status as Coriolis and centrifugal pseudo-forces all parts of the LNIF Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols that depend only on first order partial derivatives of the metric tensor field. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) relegates them to Prospero’s phantoms, the illusions of the Wizard of Oz behind the theater curtain of the world stage.
  • Jack Sarfatti There are three levels of the equivalence principle:
    1) Weak – uniqueness/universality of free fall known to Galileo – the motion of any freely falling point test particle (or center of mass of an extended object) in vacuum is independent of its composition and structure. “A test particle is … electrically neutral … negligible gravitational binding energy compared to its rest mass … negligible angular momentum … [negligible] inhomogeneities of the gravitational field within its volume … the ratio of inertial mass to the gravitational passive mass is the same for all bodies.” In every LIF the path of a force-free geodesic test particle is a straight line with constant speed in accord with Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity that works increasingly well as the scale shrinks compared to the scale of curvature radii until quantum gravity is reached where the curvature field itself has large random zero point quantum fluctuations. Although this scale is thought to be 10-35 meters, the hologram conjecture combined with cosmology give a quantum gravity scale that is twenty powers of ten larger at 10-15 meters ~ (Planck length x area-entropy of our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon) 1/3.
    2) Medium strong – metric theories of gravity. Einstein went beyond the weak form to the hypothesis that all the non-gravity laws of physics obey special relativity in a LIF in the same shrinking limit as above.
    3) Very strong – replace non-gravity laws of physics with all the laws of physics.
    In this book we assume 3) the very strong form as there is no experimental evidence yet that it is false.
  • Jack Sarfatti Fermi Normal Coordinates for the LIF’s Image of Intrinsic Geometry
    “The metric tensor can indeed be written using the Riemann (curvature) tensor, in a neighborhood of a spacetime event, in a freely falling non-rotating local inertial frame to second order in the separation δxi from the origin” where i,j,k,l are spacelike (outside local light cones with origins at the spacetime event of interest) 1,2,3 indices. The Taylor series expansion to lowest non-vanishing order for the LIF is 
    g00 ~ - 1 – R0i0jδxiδxj for the gravity redshift
    g0k ~ - (2/3)R0ikj δxiδxj for the LIF drag gravimagnetic field
    gkl ~ δkl – (1/3)Rkilj δxiδxj for the curved spacelike 3-geometry
    Next, consider what the physically coincident LNIF metric looks like including the first order terms that are zero in the LIF. Here u,v,w,z = 1’,2’,3’ for LNIF like i,j,k,l = 1,2,3 for the coincident LIF.
    g’0’0’ ~ - 1 – Γu0’0’δxu – R’0’u0’vδxuδxv 
    g’0’v ~ - Γu0’vδxu - (2/3)R’0’uvw δxuδxw 
    g’uv ~ δuv - Γwuvδxw – (1/3)R’uwvz δxwδxz 
    Newton’s gravity force is purely 100% fictitious and corresponds to the first order in separation δxu from the origin of the LNIF Levi-Civita connection Γ terms, which by the equivalence principle, vanish in the physically coincident LIF.
    Kornel Lanzcos in “On the Problem of Rotation in the General Theory of Relativity” proved that in any LNIF for test particle rest mass m:
    1) mg0’0’-1Γu0’0’ independent of the test particle’s velocity corresponds both to Newton’s gravity fictitious force – GMmr/r3 in the particular contingent choice of the static LNIF and to the centrifugal force mwxwxr in the particular contingent choice of a uniformly rotating LNIF with angular momentum pseudo-vector w along the rotation axis. That we are in the slow speed weak curvature limit is understood.
    2) 2mg0’0’-1Γu0’v’dxv/dτ linear in the velocity of the test particle is the Coriolis fictitious force 2mwxv analogous to the magnetic Lorentz force in Maxwell’s electrodynamics and to the vortex force in irrotational hydrodynamics. The Greek symbol τ refers to proper clock time along the world line of the test particle.
    3) Finally, mg0’0’-1Γuvw (dxv/dτ) (dxw/dτ) quadratic in the velocity of the test particle is also a fictitious force that has no name and is usually too small to measure. 
    All of these fictitious forces blow up at horizons where the LNIF g0’0’ vanishes.
    The relative covariant tensor acceleration between two freely-falling geodesic test particles each with zero local proper tensor acceleration, is
    d2δxα/dt2 ~ Rα0μ0δxμ equation of geodesic deviation
  • Jack Sarfatti On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:31 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

    Wheeler on the relation of gravity to the electro-weak-strong interactions – local gauge and string theories:


    “What of the other forces of nature? Every other force – the electric force that rules the motion of the atomic electrons, the weak nuclear force that governs the emission of electrons and neutrinos from radioactive nuclei, and the strong nuclear force that holds together the constituents of particles heavier than the electron – demands … a geometry of more than four dimensions, perhaps as many as ten. The extra six dimensions are envisaged as curled up into an ultra-small cavity, with one such cavity at each point in spacetime. … The theories of the unification of forces with greatest promise today all have this striking feature that they, like the battle-tested, but simpler and older Einstein gravitation theory, build themselves on the [vanishing] boundary of a boundary principle, though in a higher dimensional version … Elie Cartan’s penetrating insight … from the grip of spacetime on mass to the grip of mass on spacetime, and from the automatic conservation of momentum-energy … the unfolding of all this from ‘the one-dimensional boundary of the two-dimensional boundary of a three-dimensional region is zero’ and the ‘two-dimensional boundary of the three-dimensional boundary of a four-dimensional region is zero.’” Pp. 9,10

    All four interactions are boson local gauge theories of different groups of local frame transformations also called “gauge transformations” needing the mathematics of fiber bundles. Maxwell’s electromagnetism mediated by spin 1 massless spin 1 vector photons corresponds to the internal U(1) group that can be pictured as a circle “fiber” at each point on the “base” spacetime. Think of the circle as a one handed Salvador Dali clock. The clock hand can be moved locally at each spacetime point independently of all the other clocks at other spacetime points only because there is an induced connection field, analogous to the Levi-Civita connection (more precisely its more fundamental spin connection from which it derives) connecting the different fibers. Moving each local clock hand arbitrarily induces a gauge transformation in the connection field. The connection field supplies a covariant derivative and parallel transport of objects through the fiber space corresponding to world lines in the projected base space-time beneath it. The disclination curvature in closed loops in the fiber space corresponds to the electromagnetic field tensor. Similarly for the SU(2) group of the weak interaction which has three “flavor” quanta called the spin 1 vector W-bosons with electric charges +1, 0, -1 of the electron’s charge. Now we have a three-dimensional hyper-sphere bounding a four-dimensional internal fiber space not to be confused with spacetime. These W-bosons have rest masses from the Higgs spin 0 boson because of a kind of superconductivity that forms in the moment of inflation from a false vacuum at the Alpha Point creation of our observable universe (aka “causal diamond”) bounded in the past by an observer-dependent particle horizon and in the future by an observer-dependent de Sitter dark energy event horizon. Both of these cosmological horizons have quantum thermodynamic hologram computational capacity and they emit Hawking radiation. Our past history pre-selected particle horizon emits retarded Hawking radiation to us here-now along our past light cone. Our future destiny post-selected de Sitter event horizon sends us back-from-the-future advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation that happens to have the same energy density as the anti-gravity dark energy accelerating the rate of expansion of three-dimensional inter-galactic space. This is not a meaningless random Darwinian coincidence. There is the w-problem that dark energy needs w < -1/3 whilst retarded Hawking radiation has w = +1/3. However, we also have the Unruh effect here that the w = +1/3 Hawking blackbody radiation seen in LNIFs whose temperature is proportional to its local proper accelerometer reading, looks like w = -1 zero point radiation in coincident LIFs both connected to each other by tetrad transformations via the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).

    Returning to the strong interaction, the internal group is SU(3) with eight massless spin 1 vector gluon quanta corresponding to an eight-dimensional hyper-sphere fiber bounding a nine-dimensional internal fiber space at each point in spacetime. The spin 0 Higgs boson does not directly interact with the eight “color” gluons that bind the spin ½ quarks into hadrons. The photon does not directly interact with itself, unlike the three weak massive W-bosons and the eight strong massless gluons which do interact with themselves respectively as well as with each other. Each boson charge of the internal groups is a hermitian generator of the Lie algebra of the unitary Lie group. SU2 and SU3 Lie algebras have non-vanishing commutators of these internal charges. This implies Heisenberg uncertainty relations for simultaneous quantum measurements of the internal weak flavor and strong color charges. It is this incompatibility of the charges that causes the self-interactions.

    We have a similar situation with gravity as a local gauge fiber bundle. We now have four mutually commuting tetrad charges that form the momentum-energy Hermitian observables in the LIF tangent space-fiber over spacetime base space. However, in addition we have the six spin-connection charges consisting of three space-rotation angular momenta and three Lorentz boosts. All ten of these charges form the non-commuting Lie algebra of the Poincare group, which unlike the electro-weak-strong unitary groups is not compact. However, the failure of the ten charges of the Poincare group to mutually commute completely causes the non-linear self-interaction of the massless spin 2 tensor gravitons of classical GR. The classical near fields of all of these four basic interactions consist of “super conducting” macro-quantum coherent Glauber states of off-shell virtual bosons with all possible polarizations. This is in contrast to the far-field radiations consisting of Glauber coherent states of massless photons or massless gravitons with only two transverse polarization states. One point of interest is that the gravity quanta are spin 1 vector bosons at Dirac square root LIF tetrad/spin connection level of the formalism. Einstein’s 1916 GR is a constrained limiting case of the local gauge theory just described in which zero dynamical dislocation torsion is imposed ad hoc giving only dynamical geodesic deviation disclination curvature. In this limiting case, the six spin-connection components are no longer an independent dynamical field, but are determined from the LIF tetrads (consisting of a spacelike triad and a timelike tangent vector). One can also use the complex Penrose light cone null tetrads. These spin 1 vector boson tetrad fields then entangle in pairs to get spin 0, spin 1 and spin 2 “gravitons.” However, the spin 0 and spin 1 must get rest masses via the Higgs bosons because we do not directly detect them at macroscopic distances.
  • Jack Sarfatti Wheeler’s Version of Einstein’s Geometrodynamics
    Rocklike (IT) spacetime, in addition to David Bohm’s thoughtlike (BIT) quantum potential Q that operates from beyond spacetime, tells mass how to move on free-float weightless timelike geodesics where accelerometers measure zero local proper tensor acceleration. That is the action. The reaction is mass telling spacetime how to curve. If Einstein’s 1916 geometrodynamics is merely a limiting case of Cartan’s extension to it, then quantum spin and possibly orbital angular momentum of mass tell spacetime how to torsion causing dislocation cracks in the quantum gravity world crystal lattice of Hagen Kleinert, which must have a Fermi lattice spacing of 10-15 meters not Planck spacing of 10-35 meters if the ‘t Hooft-Susskind causal diamond observable universe is a hologram simulation is correct. This suggests a Yukawa strong finite-range micro gravity picture of nuclear forces with spin 0, spin1 and spin 2 components at the 1 Gev scale. Abdus Salam had such a spin 2 f-gravity idea in the early 1970’s, which, as I pointed out to him corresponded to the universal slope of Regge trajectories of hadronic string theory resonances that could be pictured as Kerr-type quantum black holes. Their Hawking radiation evaporation time would correspond to their instability. As of 2013 there is a newer model connecting two SU(3) theories to quantum gravity.

    Returning to Wheeler:
    1) Equivalence principle
    2) Geometry
    3) Geodesic equation of motion of point test particles (aka Newton’s 1st Law first-order partial derivatives of the metric tensor field describe fictitious inertial pseudo-forces on the test particle corresponding to real forces on the detector)
    4) Intrinsic tensor curvature geodesic deviation (disclinations of vectors parallel transported around closed loops in spacetime) from second order partial derivatives of the metric tensor field describing relative covariant tensor accelerations between two neighboring geodesic test particle each with zero g-force proper acceleration.

    One must use the LIF to distill the intrinsic geometry of the real Einstein gravity field. The LNIF is fool’s gold, MAYA, illusion, the shadow on the wall of Plato’s Cave that has ship wrecked many a careless mariner including Isaac Newton listening to the wiles of Circe. The LNIF is contingent random noise, all sound and fury a tale told by an idiot, and believed by sorry bastards, a fairy tale, a mask. Only Einstein escaped the Cave that Newton was trapped in. Of course, Newton had a good excuse. Newton’s “gravity force” is simply the real quantum electrodynamic force sustaining the static LNIFs. It is a fictitious pseudo-force as far as the observed test particle is concerned without any intrinsic objective reality, same ontic status as Coriolis and centrifugal pseudo-forces all parts of the LNIF Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols that depend only on first order partial derivatives of the metric tensor field. Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) relegates them to Prospero’s phantoms, the illusions of the Wizard of Oz behind the theater curtain of the world stage.
  • Jack Sarfatti Fermi Normal Coordinates for the LIF’s Image of Intrinsic Geometry
    “The metric tensor can indeed be written using the Riemann (curvature) tensor, in a neighborhood of a spacetime event, in a freely falling non-rotating local inertial frame to second order in the separation δxi where i,j,k,l are spacelike (outside local light cones with origins at the spacetime event of interest) 1,2,3 indices. The Taylor series expansion to lowest non-vanishing order is 
    g00 ~ - 1 – R0i0jδxiδxj for the gravity redshift
    g0k ~ - (2/3)R0ikj δxiδxj for the LIF drag gravimagnetic field
    gkl ~ δkl – (1/3)Rkilj δxiδxj for the curved spacelike 3-geometry
    The relative covariant tensor acceleration between two freely-falling geodesic test particles each with zero local proper tensor acceleration, is
    d2δxα/dt2 ~ R^α0μ0δxμ is the equation of geodesic deviation

 

On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

Z: I think Addinall's remarks and suggestions make sense, with the main exception that Jack is not talking about Einstein's theory, he's talking about Wheeler's theory.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on dynamical acceleration and geodesic structure since these are the features of GR that are physically the most interesting.

However, anyone who wants to understand the Machian interpretation of GR (which doesn't mean that they have to agree with it) needs to recognize the basic
differences between Einstein's version of GR and Wheeler's.


Z,
 
RA: I do understand some of the historical debate, and that at least Einstein's initial interpretation of the equivalence principle is different from the modern one (and that Jim is working from Einstein's original EP).
 
JS: I'm not so sure about that. I think Einstein got it right, but the historians of physics have muddled it. The main problem is keeping clear when Einstein is talking about Newton's artificial gravity force fields - the subject of EEP and when he is talking about his new conception of real gravity force fields as curvature. Sure if you go back to 1907 he is not yet clear on curvature until perhaps 1915. 
 
Newton's artificial gravity force fields exist in real curvature gravity fields (and even in zero curvature). In, e.g., the real static gravity near field of a spherical mass M
 
g00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r  etc
 
2GM/c^2r < 1
 
with real Einstein gravity field curvature components ~  GM/c^2r^3 ~ Ahorizon^1/2/r^3
 
radii of curvature A(r)^1/2 ~ (c^2r^3/GM)^1/2 ~ square root of thermodynamic entropy
 
(based on local Rindler horizon version of EEP - see Ted Jacobson's papers)
 
Newton's artifical gravity force field per unit mass is the unbalanced quantum electrical force (mostly molecular Van der Waals)
 
Fe/m = +(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2GMr/r^3
 
needed to keep the test mass m stationary at fixed r in the curved spacetime g00 etc.
 
Note that this static electrical reaction force is classically infinite at the black hole horizon.
 
If you make the horizon Lp thick in sense of r-coordinate thickness not proper thickness, doing Taylor series to first order
 
1 - A^1/2/(A^1/2 + Lp) ~  1 - 1/(1 + Lp/A^1/2) ~ 1 - 1 + Lp/A^1/2 ~ Lp/A^1/2
 
(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2 ~ A^1/4/Lp^1/2 >> 1
 
(GM/c^2)r/r^3 ~ A^-1/2
 
Therefore
 
(Fe/m)max ~ c^2/(A^1/2Lp)^1/2
 
A = area-entropy of the corresponding black hole horizon with Hawking temperature T
 
kBT ~ hc/(A^1/2Lp)^1/2
 
T ---> infinity in the classical limit Lp = (hG/c^3)^1/2 ---> 0
 
 
RA: Jack has expressed an interest in avoiding the historical debate, so my suggestions to him were based on that.
 
That's why in my second set of points (the first set are numbered 1 to 6, the second 1 to 5) I suggested that Jack describe Einstein's theory in point 3, and move on to focusing the reader on dynamical frames in point 5. I could be missing something, but I didn't find Jack's simplified description of Einstein's GR terribly controversial. It's when Jack moves to dynamical frames and electrical contact forces that he's non-Machian.
 
JS: I am not Machian in the sense that Jim Woodward understand's Mach - yes. Whether Jim, or Sciama properly understood Mach is another story. Perhaps, perhaps not.
 

RA: With regard to the apple falling on Newton's head - well, as far as I can gather it's correct to say that the apple is moving inertially on a timelike geodesic (it is in a LIF) and Newton is accelerating (in a LNIF). Earth's mass determines that the geodesics will be curved.
 
JS: Correct.

RA: Frame dragging doesn't seem important over a relatively short distance.
 
JS: Correct, for Jim to invoke frame dragging as necessary for Newton's third law seems totally off the wall. Jim's handwaving is unintelligible to me when he mentions frame dragging a very tiny effect hard to measure e.g. Gravity B NASA.

RA: My impression is that the Machian question comes into play in determining why the apple immediately goes into a LIF... is the rest of the matter in the universe the origin of the inertia? Or is it just an intrinsic property - something will move along a geodesic until it is forced off it?
 
JS: This is the confusion apples and oranges.
 
apples = "inertia" as geodesic pattern for the apple's path
 
oranges = "inertia" as rest masses
 
Mach only meant apples.
 
In a vague sense of apples and Wheeler's "voting power", sure the universe as a whole determines inertia. But that's not very useful.
 
RA: This is different than Mach's and Jim's example of standing in place and then spinning around and having your arms pulled out to your sides - that is a more convincing Machian argument. However, the apple falling seems to work in either a Machian or non-Machian interpretation.
 
JS: The whirling dervish - Newton's rotating bucket is also a confusion. In modern GR the rotation is simply and off geodesic motion relative to the local geodesics. There is no mystery.
Rotation is relative to the local geodesic field. Of course the local geodesic field is partly determined by distant matter (at least in its past light cone) via Einstein's field equations, propagators and all that.
 
Please explain the distinctions in greater detail if I'm still confused.
 
Rob
 
On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:20 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

 


On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

I think Addinall's remarks and suggestions make sense,
 
Yes, unlike most of yours! Addinall is a smart fellow.

with the main exception that Jack is not talking about Einstein's theory, he's talking about Wheeler's theory.
 
This is a good example of a trite waste of time quibble. I made it very clear that for my purpose I don't give a damn about the historical ups and downs of Einstein's rocky road to his 1916 final version except for his later clarifications with action-reaction and other issues in the 1920s till his death. The action-reaction idea is key to my work in quantum theory and beyond as well as in geometrodynamics.
 
Wheeler's version is the one most useful for experimental physicists and engineers.


There is nothing wrong with focusing on dynamical acceleration and geodesic structure since these are the features of GR that are physically the most interesting.
 
So why do you waste every one's time with red herrings?

However, anyone who wants to understand the Machian interpretation of GR (which doesn't mean that they have to agree with it) needs to recognize the basic
differences between Einstein's version of GR and Wheeler's.
 
The important points for the proper understanding of Jim's proposal is
 
1) "inertia" means the pattern of zero-g force timelike geodesics for Mach' principle (also light cones). It does not mean computing rest masses of actual elementary particles.
 
2) phi = c^2 is not even wrong in my opinion in the context of modern cosmology.
 
3) Sciama's vector theory is way too simplistic. My bet is that what Jim sees in the lab is a systematic error like the faster than light neutrino at OPERA. I could be wrong, but that is my bet.

On 10/12/2013 2:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Oct 12, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

Jack,
 
In terms of audience you seem to have decided to increase your focus on engineers and people from various other fields interested in UFOs or building stargates.
 
right

  This version seems a lot better towards that end – it is a lot simpler/clearer (with the emphasis on avoiding difficult math). 
 
right

My overall comments:
 

1.       There were points that emerged from the e-mail discussion of the last week or two which seemed quite clear to me.  I suggest that you might include versions of these statements at key points:

2.       Z’s description that you want to focus on “dynamical frames, such that all local frame acceleration in GR is defined with reference to the geodesics.”

 
I keep emphasizing that. The geodesics are physically privileged, i.e. zero g-force weightlessness as measured locally by real accelerometers. They are mathematically not privileged i.e. the classical local differential equations for the natural laws can be written in any real set of possible physical frames on timelike worldlines geodesic or not - makes no difference. That is what the tensor calculus does for any theory including Newton's Galilean limit and the limit of special relativity.
 
Mach's Principle is all about zero g-force geodesics - that's what he means by "inertia" not "rest mass." In Wheeler's language, Mach's principle is "100 % voting power" - however Jim's phi = c^2 is not an adequate consequence of that in my opinion.
 
1916 GR -> 1905 SR -> Newton's mechanics

 

3.       Your response that focusing on dynamical frames is “good physics… physics should be about real things – phenomena and how they are measured… real accelerometers etc.”

 
Yes, this is the Cornell 1950's 60's disiderata for good physics - keep the math to a minimum.
If you look at archive today things going in opposite direction. Mathematics is the opiate of the theoretical physicist.
 

 

4.       You could also use the version of the statement in #3 from another email: “good physics                   is about real phenomena measured with real instruments… keep it simple stupid… but not simpler than possible.”

Key theme in my philosophy of physics - from Mach, Einstein, Dirac, Wheeler, Feynman ...

 

5.       Your statement that: “Einstein’s proper tensor acceleration = Newton’s apparent acceleration – fictitious LNIF inertial pseudo fictitious forces per unit test particle rest mass = real applied force to the test particle per unit test particle mass.”

 
This is in words what in Einstein's math is (sans tensor indices)
 
DP/ds = dP/ds - {Levi-Civita connection}VP = F(electro-weak-strong)
 
P = mV (test particle)
 
{Levi-Civita connection} describes the detector not the test particle
 
it is zero for a LIF detector - that is EEP.
 
 

 

6.       Your observation that: “What is lacking – except in the Wheeler-Thorne books is a clear description of GR measurement theory – how the symbols connect to real lab procedures” is also good – you seem to have started to include this in the latest version of the chapter.  I suggest finding more detailed examples to use to round out the chapter as you progress.

 
Of course. 

 

An observation of my own: I find that, apart from when theory absolutely demands otherwise, it’s easiest to explain things by simply following the historical sequence of events.  My phd is interdisciplinary in military history and political science.  When I’m writing as a historian this is usually pretty easy.  When I’m writing as a political scientist it gets more difficult.  Nonetheless, taking the above six points into account, I suggest that you organize things as follows:
 

1.       Explain Newton’s theory.

2.       Explain how Einstein’s theory is different.

3.       Explain, in very basic terms, as you have done below, the question that Einstein’s theory answers as well as how it answers it.

4.       Explain the difficulty of the math and how it causes even experienced physicists to have difficulties.

5.       Focus on getting the reader to understand: (a) dynamical frames; (b) how to connect GR theory to real lab procedures.

6.       Provide detailed examples of lab procedures.

I made a few comments in red and blue as I read over the chapter, based on where I had to stop and re-read something a couple of times.  These were either minor stylistic grammar points, or places where as a non-expert in physics I didn’t quite follow the argument.  If you find my comments useful let me know and I’ll comment in the future when I have time.  If you don’t like my style and don’t find anything useful tell me and I won’t comment again.  I’m trying not to interfere with your stream of consciousness “beat” point of view, but simply to provide input on how to organize your comments enough that you can keep the engineers reading.
 
Like some of the engineers, my interest is in ideas that could be experimentally tested within a feasible budget in order to build starships and stargates.  That’s why I find Jim’s work interesting.  If your book inspires people to test the Bose-Einstein condensate and Einstein-Cartan curvature + torsion with anti-gravitating dark energy term ideas, I’ll be happy.
 
That actually reminds me: in the overall introduction to the book, in addition to the section “what is a stargate?”, you might want to state the BEC and Einstein-Cartan ideas as your two main proposed solutions to the task of figuring out how stargates work.  This will get the attention of experimental physicists and engineers who will then keep reading because there is something they might actually get to build and play around with.
 
Right - I have not gotten yet to the actual stargate stuff these are just the preliminaries.
 
 
Rob
 

updated V2 Oct 12, 2013

Chapter 1 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a Nutshell

“I was dissatisfied with the special theory of relativity, since the theory was restricted to frames of reference moving with constant velocity relative to each other and could not be applied to the general motion of a reference frame. I struggled to remove this restriction and wanted to formulate the problem in the general case.”  Albert Einstein[i]

 

“Nowhere has a precise definition of the term ‘gravitational field’ been given --- nor will one be given. Many different mathematical entities are associated with gravitation; the metric, the Riemann curvature tensor, the curvature scalar … Each of these plays an important role in gravitation theory, and none is so much more central than the others that it deserves the name ‘gravitational field.’[ii]

 

The physical meaning of Einstein’s relativity, both special (1905) and general (1916) is quite simple in contrast to the mathematics, which quickly gets very difficult. Except for the books by John Archibald Wheeler and his students like Kip Thorne, most books on the general theory get too mathematical leaving the physical meaning obscure.

 

“The Question is: What is The Question?” John Archibald Wheeler

 

The question that Einstein’s relativity is the answer to is this: Alice and Bob have measuring instruments and they decide as voyeurs to watch Eve’s dance. How do they compare their data?  Relativity is an algorithm, a set of rules, which takes the raw measurement data input and processes it to give a set of “invariant” output real numbers. If Alice and Bob get the same set of invariants, then they can be quite confident, in the sense of Bayesean probability estimates, that they measured the same set of events and that their measurements were good within the accuracy and precision limits of the technology of their measuring instruments. This is basically classical because Heisenberg’s quantum uncertainty principle will provide a barrier when Alice and Bob attempt to measure the same individual quantum events.

Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity at first only considered inertial frames of reference. What is a frame of reference? Basically it is a local set of detectors. What kind of detector? It’s necessary that an accelerometer, like the scales we weigh ourselves with, be included along with other devices like telescopes, Doppler radars etc. The test for an inertial frame is simple, the pointer of the accelerometer reads zero. Every object in the inertial frame is weightless in free-float like the astronauts in the International Space Station shown in the movie “Gravity.”  In this case of free-float zero g-force, we say that the center of mass of the local inertial frame (LIF) moves on a timelike geodesic world line in Einstein’s four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Therefore, we here on Earth are not in inertial frames. We are in non-inertial frames. Unfortunately, Newton defined the word “inertial frame” differently from Einstein and this continues to lead to much confusion when physicists attempt to communicate with each other because Newton’s theory is in closer accord with our common sense. Einstein’s relativity is counter-intuitive.  In Newton’s theory, points on the surface of Earth are approximate inertial frames if we ignore its rotation about the poles. However, in Einstein’s theory, any point on Earth, approximated as an ideal non-rotating spherical surface has a real local objective tensor proper acceleration pointing radially outward from the center of the sphere. Of course, we are not moving relative to the center of the idealized spherical Earth yet we are accelerating and this is counter-intuitive violating common sense. It only makes sense in the curved space non-Euclidean differential geometries of Karl Friedrich Gauss and Bernard Riemann. Proper dynamical acceleration is what accelerometers measure. There is also the apparent kinematical acceleration that Doppler radars measure. Therefore, these two quantities can be measured independently by different kinds of detectors. Ideally in principle must be accelerometers on both the test particle and the detector.  In addition, the detector is equipped with Doppler radar to measure both the kinematic velocity and kinematic acceleration of the test particle relative to the detector. The general rule is:

 

Proper dynamical local acceleration of a test particle = Kinematical nonlocal acceleration of a test particle – Proper local dynamical acceleration of the detector.

With the additional rule:

Proper dynamical acceleration of the detector = Fictitious pseudo-acceleration on the test particle = Levi-Civita connection terms

= Real force on detector per detector mass

 

Let us consider all four physically interesting possibilities.

1)   Accelerometer on test particle shows zero, accelerometer on detector shows zero. This is then a geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an on-geodesic LIF detector. Of course, these are two different geodesics in general.

2)   Accelerometer on test particle shows zero, accelerometer on detector shows not-zero. This is then a geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an off-geodesic LNIF detector. The LNIF observer looking at his Doppler radar tracks mistakenly thinks that there is some kind of universal force on the test particle proportional to its mass causing it to move in a curve at different speeds along it. Indeed, Newton called this “gravitational force” when he looked at the parabolic orbits of apples falling off trees and cannon balls, especially the latter to see a good parabola. Similarly for the elliptical orbits of the planets about the Sun. The Coriolis and centrifugal motions are essentially the same as Newton’s gravity force field because they too are universal proportional to the mass of the test particle. Newton could not have conceived that his apple was on a timelike geodesic straightest possible world line in Einstein’s future idea of the curved four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Newton could not have conceived that it was him who was really accelerating to the apple, which was not really accelerating at all!  Indeed, many engineers and ordinary people – and even some physicists still cannot properly and consistently conceive of it so stuck are they in the persistent illusions of common sense.

 

Both 1) and 2) correspond to Newton’s first timelike geodesic law of test particle motion:

Proper dynamical local acceleration of a test particle = Kinematical nonlocal acceleration of a test particle – Proper local dynamical acceleration of the detector = 0

We are only interested in the center of mass of the test particle and ignore rotations about some axis through its center of mass.

 

3)   Accelerometer on test particle shows not-zero, accelerometer on detector shows zero. This is then an off-geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an on-geodesic LIF detector.

4)   Accelerometer on test particle shows not-zero, accelerometer on detector shows not-zero. This is then an off-geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an off-geodesic LNIF detector.

Both 3) and 4) correspond to Newton’s second off-geodesic law of test particle motion whose equation in words is

Proper dynamical local acceleration of a test particle = Kinematical nonlocal acceleration of a test particle – Proper local dynamical acceleration of the detector =

Real local force on test particle per mass of test particle.

 

The proper tensor acceleration of any object is described by the “covariant derivative of the velocity tensor of the object with respect to proper time along the world line of the object in four-dimensional spacetime.

 

Einstein’s 1905 special relativity showed that if Alice and Bob were each on different zero g-force timelike geodesics, then they would measure the same invariant speed of light c ~ 3 x 108 meters per second in vacuum. However, Alice looking at Bob’s clock would see it running slow (time dilation) and vice versa. A moving meter stick shrinks along its direction of motion relative to the observer for simultaneous measurements of the edges of the meter stick by the observer. However, a more careful analysis of light rays coming from a fast moving object by Richard Terrell in the 1950’s revealed that the object looks rotated rather than contracted.

 

We all know about E = mc2 and I will not dwell on the details of special relativity here. What is not well known however, even by physicists is that one can use special relativity to deal with properly accelerating frames of reference. However, to do so, one must use the full tensor language of Einstein’s 1916 general relativity. The only difference is that the curvature tensor computed from the “covariant curl” of the Levi-Civita connection with itself vanishes everywhere. Special relativity still works for artificial Newtonian gravity fields without curvature that appear in a rotating space station for example where the normally fictitious centrifugal pseudo force balances a real quantum electrical force in a rigid constraint connecting the test object to its detector.

 

Alice and Bob working together do the actual measurement of the local spacetime curvature tensor field. It’s important that they are both on timelike geodesics and what they measure is their relative kinetic acceleration from each other (aka “geodesic deviation”) in different spatial orientations to get all ten components of the Weyl tensor in space. The Weyl tensor causes stretch-squeeze elliptical distortions in a set of geodesic test particles initially configured in a circle.  There are also ten other components of the Ricci tensor coincident with mass-energy sources, but that is harder for Alice and Bob to directly measure.  The Ricci tensor causes the radius of the circle of geodesic test particles to contract for positive mass-energy sources and to expand for the negative mass-energy exotic sources needed for warp-wormhole advanced super-technology. The full Riemann curvature tensor in four-dimensional spacetime is the sum of the Weyl vacuum and the Ricci matter tensors.

 

Curvature introduces a severe restriction on measurements not found in Minkowski spacetime empty of real gravity fields. When the curvature is not zero Alice and Bob, both watching Eve’s activities, must be “physically coincident” in order to compare their data by calculating invariants. This means that the actual physical separations between Alice and Bob must be less than the smallest radius of curvature in the components of the Riemann curvature tensor. Eve, however, can be arbitrarily far away with Alice and and Bob getting light signals and/or cosmic rays from her.  The mathematics of tensor general coordinate transformations only connects physically coincident local frames of reference. In fact there are three groups of these reversible coincident frame transformations.

1)   LNIF  à LNIF’ general coordinate transformations corresponding to the local translation group T4(x).

2)   LIF  à LIF’ local Lorentz transformations corresponding to the local Lorentz group SO(1,3)

3)   LIF à LNIF tetrad transformations corresponding to Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) for cancellation of Newton’s artificial gravity force field. Of course there is no cancellation of Einstein’s real gravity curvature field.



[i] How I created the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein, Translated by

Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, pp. 45-47 (August 1982) cited by Peter Brown in http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0204044v2.pdf

 

[ii] Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, (W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973)

 

 

Excerpt from my Starship book (in progress)

On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:39 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Of direct importance to the advanced super-technology of warp drive and wormhole star gates from our alleged visitors from our own future is the problem of classical curvature singularities in Einstein’s 1916 battle-tested standard geometrodynamics of the gravitational field.

“Together with the great theoretical and experimental successes of Einstein standard geometrodynamics, come two main conceptual problems.[i] First, the theory predicts the occurrence of spacetime singularities, events which are not part of a smooth spacetime manifold,[ii] where usually the curvature diverges and where the Einstein field equation and the known physical theories cease to be valid. Second, Einstein’s theory of gravitation, unlike the other fundamental interactions, has not yet been successfully quantized.”

Einstein’s 1916 classical GR geometrodynamics in the weak field first order perturbation approximation against the non-dynamical globally flat Minkowski spacetime of his 1905 special relativity has “achieved an experimental triumph” with “direct confirmations” of gravitational time dilation, gravitational bending of light (lensing), lunar laser ranging, de Sitter geodetic effect, GPS. Transverse polarized far field gravity waves have been indirectly detected from the orbital energy loss of binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16. Gravimagnetism, a very weak effect, has recently been measured in NASA’s Gravity B space experiment.

“the concept of gravimagnetic field generated by mass currents, in partial analogy with electrodynamics, … its measurement of the dragging of inertial frames” constitutes “direct experimental evidence against an absolute inertial frame of reference and … experimentally displays the basic role in nature of the local inertial frames.” [iii]

[i] Enrico Rodrigo’s Stargate book updates the singularity problem and shows that there are now several ways of dealing with it since the classical energy conditions assumed by Penrose and Hawking are actually false in quantum theory. The discovery of anti-gravity dark energy accelerating the space expansion of our observable universe (aka “causal diamond”) also is a game changer.

[ii] My “Destiny Matrix” conjecture that we live inside of a hologram conscious computer simulation has the “brane of GOD(D)” (I. J. Good’s “superluminal telepathic” cosmic consciousness) at our future de Sitter event horizon of asymptotic area-entropy A. The dark energy we see now in our past light cone is actually gravitationally redshifted back-from-the-future (as in Yakir Aharonov’s post-selected destiny quantum wave and John Cramer’s TI) Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body gravity wave radiation from the Planck length thickness of that future horizon. The surface of the horizon is discrete pixelated into quantum area bits whose images are voxelated quantum volume bits of what Hagen Kleinert calls the World Crystal Lattice. However, the 3D lattice spacing is only Fermi 10-15 meters not the 2D lattice pixel spacing of 10-35 meters. The problem here is that we need w = pressure/energy density < - 1/3 for dark energy, whilst blackbody radiation has w = +1/3. This is because of the Einstein factor (energy density)(1 + 3w) in the stress-energy current density source of his geometrodynamic field equation. When w < - 1/3 the positive energy density giving universally attractive gravity switches over to the “exotic matter” regime of universally repulsive antigravity, which stops the crunch to oblivion of the black hole singularity. Now it may well be that back-from-the-future advanced Hawking radiation does have w < - 1/3 from the kinds of EPR correlations that Lenny Susskind talks about that cause deviations away from the Planck black body spectrum preserving the unitarity of the S-Matrix of the world. This is still, speculation of course. Another approach is the Unruh effect, which says w = -1 random zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations seen in LIFs morph to w = +1/3 black body radiation in a coincident LNIF and vice versa. The effective LNIF that we see in our detectors has a Hawking temperature that when raised to the fourth power according to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law gives the correct number measured for dark energy density in the anomalous redshift data from Type 1a supernovae.

[iii] The recent book Making Starships by James Woodward (Springer-Verlag) proposes a theory with an actual experiment based on Dennis Sciama’s 1950’s “vector theory of gravity”. I consider this model to be ill-posed, too simplistic, and from what I can understand of it, it presupposes an absolute inertial frame that conflicts with the gravimagnetism of Einstein’s GR.
 


Sent from my iPad

On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:36 PM, jack <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

"Einstein continues by pointing out how things fare better in GR:

By the way, physical space possesses reality according to the general theory of relativity, too, but not an independent one; for its properties are completely determined by matter. Space is incorporated into the causal nexus without playing a one-sided role in the causal chain.

The second half of the first sentence is also striking, as Einstein had previously recognised that Mach’s principle only holds for certain solutions of the Einstein field equations, not for all of them — but of course, at the time he considered those solutions for which it held as the only physically relevant ones. At any rate, we here see the complete position which would first be presented in the 1921 Princeton lectures: in Newtonian mechanics space acts without being acted upon, while in general relativity it interacts."

For twenty years I have made the same point for quantum theory.

Signal nonlocality happens when the matter beables and their quantum information mental pilot waves obey the very same AR action reaction principle. This opens Pandora's Box.

See Lecture 8 of http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

Entangled Glauber coherent states seem to violate no signal arguments in quantum theory.

"As we mentioned in section 3.3 above, Norton argued in 1999 that AR was in the back of Einstein’s mind well before 1920, and indeed formed the stimulus of his original Machian tendencies. Here is a further quote from Norton’s study:

This view of the deficiency of earlier theories [their violating the action–reaction principle] and general relativity’s achievement is not one that grew in the wake of Einstein’s disenchantment with Mach’s principle. Rather, it was present even in his earliest writings beneath the concerns for the relative motion of bodies and the observability of causes.78 

 

Next year the eclipse is supposed to show whether light rays are bent by the sun, whether, in other words, the fundamental assumption of the equivalence between ac- celeration of the frame of reference on the one hand and the gravitational field on the

79Einstein [1913], p.1260-1261.

80It is true that Einstein rejected his own 1912 scalar field theory (mentioned footnote 32 above) when he discovered that it failed to satisfy Newton’s third law of motion concerning action–reaction. But this is a case of the existence of both action and reaction, which happen not to be equal and opposite, thus giving rise to an unacceptable force-free accelerative phenomenon. As we stressed in section 2, AR is not be to be conflated with Newton’s third law, which is a much stronger constraint on the way bodies act on each other. 

 

 

Einstein is explicit in regard to the claim that gravitation is an interaction, with the clarification that the interaction is said to be mediated by gμν. The outcome, incidentally, is a revised description of the 1916 thought experiment of the two rotating spheres:

'Mr. Reichenb ̈acher misunderstood my considerations regarding two celestial bodies rotating with respect to one another. One of these bodies is rotating in the sense of Newtonian Mechanics, and thus flattened by centrifugal effects, the other is not. This is what the inhabitants would measure with rigid rods, tell each other about it, and then ask themselves about the real cause of the different behaviour of the celestial bodies. (This has nothing to do with Lorentz contraction.) Newton answered this question by declaring absolute space real, with respect to which one but not the other allegedly rotates. I myself am of the Machian opinion, which in the language of relativity theory can be put in the following way: All masses of the world together determine the gμν- field, which is, judged from the first celestial body, a different one than judged from the second one; for the motion of the masses producing the gμν-field differ significantly. Inertia is, in my opinion, a (mediated) interaction between the masses of the world in the same sense as those effects which in Newtonian theory are considered as gravitational effects.'

 

To summarise, it seems fair to say that Einstein did not need a variant of the action–reaction principle as a reason to adopt the relativity of inertia in 1913. His strong belief in the equivalence between gravity and inertia, together with his retention of the Newtonian tenet that gravity is an interaction between bodies, could be seen as reason enough.85 Furthermore, it is the pairing of the equivalence principle and the principle of the relativity of inertia, together with the principle of relativity, that Einstein mentions repeatedly up until 1920 as the cornerstones of GR, whereas AR only really takes centre stage in 1920 in the correspondence with Schlick and in subsequent publications. For these reasons, we are inclined to believe that the 1920 correspondence brought out a watershed in Einstein’s thinking, marking an unprecedented shift in Einstein’s interpretation of the superiority of GR over preceding theories of space-time: its superiority now rested on satisfaction of the action–reaction principle, rather than implementation of Mach’s original analysis of inertia.

 

Einstein’s frequent references to GR’s vindication of the action–reaction principle in the years following his 1921 Princeton lectures have been noted in a number of studies.86 A particularly telling quotation is from a letter Einstein wrote a year before his death to Georg Jaffe:

'You consider the transition to special relativity as the most essential thought of relativity, not the transition to general relativity. I consider the reverse to be correct. I see the most essential thing in the overcoming of the inertial system, a thing which acts upon all processes, but undergoes no reaction. The concept is in principle no better than that of the centre of the universe in Aristotelian physics.87'

For Einstein, the glory of GR rested partly on its alleged superiority to preceding theories of space-time which involve absolute structure. His 1924 essay “On the ether” contains a particularly clear denunciation of Newtonian mechanics in terms of its violation of AR.88 But caution should be exercised when extrapolating backwards, as it were, in the history of physics. It doesn’t automatically follow from the fact that GR satisfies AR, that NM and SR don’t, as we mentioned in section 1 above. To repeat, Einstein was content in his 1905 development of SR to explicitly borrow the inertial frames from NM, without any fretting about the correct metaphysics of action. Of course, if AR is to be respected in these theories, inertia must be taken as a brute fact, a position advocated, in different ways, by Schlick and others, as we have seen. Such a position is surely defensible in the context of these theories. 

The two epigrammatic Einstein quotations cited at the beginning of this essay underscore how Einstein’s thinking changed between 1905 and 1913, and again between 1913 and 1924. In the years 1912 and 1913, when Mach’s influence on him may have been greatest, Einstein had convinced himself that the phenomenon of inertia required a causal explanation, while regarding as absurd the notion of immaterial space acting as such a cause. By 1924, he was stressing that the metric field in GR is as real and efficacious as the electromagnetic field, and in particular could indeed be seen as the origin of inertia. (But it is worth stressing here that Einstein did not view GR as furnishing a geometric explanation of gravitational phenomena; he continued to reject the notion of space, or space-time, as providing the cause of inertia.89)

 

Nowadays, acceptance of Einstein’s 1924 claim should be seen to rest not simply on the nature of gμν and its geodesics, but rather on the so-called geodesic theorem, which demonstrates that the form of Einstein’s field equations, along, it must be noted, with other plausible universal assumptions about matter fields, imply that the world-lines of test particles are time-like geodesics as defined by the metric field.90 Note that the theorem deals with an idealisation; it states that extended, but truly freely-falling bodies only approximately move inertially.91 In fact, it is a subject worthy of investigation as to whether the details of the theorem are strictly consistent with Einstein’s insistence that a violation of AR holds in theories with absolute space-time structure.92 But such an investigation must be pursued elsewhere. It is our hope that in the present essay, some further light has been shed on the circumstances which led Einstein to bring to the fore the role of the action–reaction principle in his new theory of gravity. 

83Einstein [1920a].

84Einstein [1921] p. 12 see also Vol.7, Doc. 31 CPAE for a similar statement from December 1919 / January 1920. 85Compare Norton [1989b], p. 24: “[I]t was natural for expect that the extended theory, which dealt with general gravitational effects, would explain the observed disposition of inertial frames of reference in terms of the matter distribution of the universe. For the structure that determined this disposition would behave in many aspects like a traditional gravitational field and therefore be strongly influenced by any motion of its sources, the masses of the universe.” 

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Jack <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:



Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:45 PM, Max Comess <mcomess@gmail.com> wrote:
 
 
[Add more about details relating to stargates (e.g. metrics, exotic matter requirements, etc), why is this approach different from previous wormhole literature? Also, is there a particular experimental approach you suggest pursuing, or any experimental work that has already been done to validate your hypothesis?]

Obviously i will