Text Size



My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction
  • Jack Sarfatti Sarfatti’s Commentaries on James F. Woodward’s book 
    Making Starships and Star Gates 
    The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes

    The book has many good insights except for some ambiguous statements regarding:

    1) The equivalence principle that is the foundation of Einstein’s theory of the gravitational field. This seems to be due to the author’s not clearly distinguishing between local frame invariant proper acceleration and frame dependent coordinate acceleration. Thus, the author says that Newton’s gravity force is eliminated in an “accelerating frame.” In fact, it is eliminated in a Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that has zero proper acceleration, though it has coordinate acceleration relative to the surface of Earth for example. All points of the rigid spherical surface of Earth have non-zero proper accelerations pointing radially outward. This violates common sense and confuses even some physicists as well as engineers not to mention laymen. It is a fact of the Alice in Wonderland topsy-turvy surreal world of the post-modern physics of Einstein’s relativity especially when combined with the faster-than-light and back from the future entanglement of particles and fields in quantum theory and beyond. 
    2) I find the author’s discussion of fictitious inertial pseudo forces puzzling. I include the centripetal force as a fictitious force in the limit of Newton’s particle mechanics sans Einstein’s local inertial frame dragging from rotating sources. That is, every local frame artifact that is inside the Levi-Civita connection is a fictitious inertial pseudo force. This includes, Coriolis, centrifugal, Euler, and most importantly Newton’s gravity force that is not a real force. The terms inside the Levi-Civita connection are not felt by the test particle under observation. Instead, they describe real forces acting on the observer’s local rest frame. A real force acts locally on a test particle’s accelerometer. It causes an accelerometer’s pointer to move showing a g-force. In contrast, Baron Munchausen sitting on a cannonball in free fall is weightless. This was essentially Einstein’s “happiest thought” leading him to the equivalence principle the cornerstone of his 1916 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field. 
    3) A really serious flaw in the book is the author’s dependence on Dennis Sciama’s electromagnetic equations for gravity. In fact, these equations only apply approximately in the weak field limit of Einstein’s field equations in the background-dependent case using the absolute non-dynamical globally-flat Minkowski space-time with gravity as a tiny perturbation. The author uses these equations way out of their limited domain of validity. In particular, the Sciama equations cannot describe the two cosmological horizons past and future of our dark energy accelerating expanding observable universe. What we can see with our telescopes is only a small patch (aka “causal diamond”) of a much larger “inflation bubble” corresponding to Max Tegmark’s “Level 1” in his four level classification of the use of “multiverse” and “parallel universes.” Our two cosmological horizons, past and future, that are thin spherical shells of light with us inside them at their exact centers may in fact be hologram computer screens projecting us as 3D images in a virtual reality quantum computer simulation. This is really a crazy idea emerging from Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Seth Lloyd and others. Is it crazy enough to be true? 
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) John Cramer’s Foreword: I agree with Cramer that it’s too risky in the long run for us to be confined to the Earth and even to this solar system. British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour” gives detailed reasons. Of course if a vacuum strangelet develops like Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice-9”, then our entire observable universe can be wiped out, our causal diamond and beyond shattered, and there is no hope. That is essentially the apocalyptic worst-case scenario of the Bible’s “Revelations” and we will not dwell on it any further. Let’s hope it’s not a precognitive remote viewing like what the CIA observed in the Stanford Research Institute studies in the 1970’s.  Cramer cites the NASA-DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project that I was involved with in the first two meetings. Cramer’s text is in quotes and italics. There is “little hope of reaching the nearby stars in a human lifetime using any conventional propulsion techniques … the universe is simply too big, and the stars are too far away. … What is needed is either trans-spatial shortcuts such as wormholes to avoid the need to traverse the enormous distances or a propulsion technique that somehow circumvents Newton’s third law and does not require the storage, transport and expulsion of large volumes of reaction mass.”
    Yes, indeed. I conjecture as a working hypothesis based on the UFO evidence that traversable wormhole stargate time travel machines are the only way to go with warp drive used only as a secondary mechanism at low speeds mainly for silent hovering near the surfaces of planets and for dogfights with conventional aerospace craft. The stargates do not have the blue shift problem that the Alcubierre warp drive has although the Natario warp drive does not have the blue shift problem (high-energy collisions with particles and radiation in the path of the starship). Newton’s third law that every force acting on a material object has an equal and opposite inertial reaction force on the source of that force is a conservation law that follows from symmetry Lie groups of transformations in parameters of the dynamical action of the entire closed system of source and material object. This is a very general organizing principle of theoretical physics known as Noether’s theorem for global symmetries in which the transformations are the same everywhere for all times in the universe. For example:
    Space Translation Symmetry Linear Momentum Conservation
    Time Translation Symmetry Energy Conservation
    Space-Space Rotation Symmetry Angular Momentum Conservation
    Space-Time Rotation Symmetry
    Internal U1 EM Force Symmetry Conserve 1 Electric Charge
    Internal SU2 Weak Force Symmetry Conserve 3 Weak Flavor Charges
    Internal SU3 Strong Force Symmetry Conserve 8 Strong Color Charges
  • Jack Sarfatti In a propellantless propulsion system without the rocket ejection of real particles and/or radiation one must include the gravity curvature field (dynamical space-time itself) as a source and sink of linear momentum. Furthermore, if we include quantum corrections to the classical fields there is the remote possibility of using virtual particle zero point fluctuations inside the vacuum as a source and sink of linear momentum. However, the conventional wisdom is that this kind of controllable small-scale metastable vacuum phase transition is impossible in principle and to do so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (extracting work from an absolute zero temperature heat reservoir). Even if we could do the seemingly impossible, propellantless propulsion while necessary is not sufficient for a true warp drive. A true warp drive must be weightless (zero g-force) timelike geodesic and without time dilation for the crew relative to the external observer outside the warp bubble that they were initially clock synchronized with. Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory. For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. Finally, we have the P.W. Anderson’s anti-reductionist “More is different” emergence of complex systems of real particles in their quantum ground states with quasi-particles and collective mode excitations in soft condensed matter in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the quantum vacuum’s virtual particles, in its high energy standard model analog, to the Higgs-Goldstone “God Particle” now found at ~ 125 Gev in CERN’s LHC that gives rest masses to leptons and quarks as well as to the three weak radioactivity force spin 1 gauge W-bosons though not to the single spin 1 photon gauge boson and the eight spin strong force gluon gauge bosons. In this quantum field theory picture, the near field non-radiating interactions among the leptons and quarks are caused by the exchange of virtual spacelike (tachyonic faster-than-light off-mass-shell) gauge bosons continuously randomly emitted and absorbed by the leptons and quarks. To make matters more complicated unlike the single rest massless U1 photon, the three weak rest massive SU2 W bosons and the eight strong rest massless SU3 gluons carry their respective Lie algebra charges, therefore, they self-interact. A single virtual gluon can split into two gluons for example. The SU3 quark-quark-gluon interaction gets stronger at low energy longer separations. This is called quantum chromodynamic confinement and it explains why we do not see free quarks in the present epoch of our causal diamond observable universe patch of the multiverse. Free quarks were there in a different quantum vacuum thermodynamic phase shortly after the Alpha Point chaotic inflation creation of our observable universe that we see with telescopes etc. Indeed, most of the rest mass of protons and neutrons comes from the confined Heisenberg uncertainty principle kinetic energy of the three real confined up and down quarks and their plasma cloud of virtual zero point gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. The Higgs Yukawa interaction rest masses of three bound real quarks is about 1/20 or less than the total hadronic rest masses.

    The author, James F. Woodward (JFW), introduces Mach’s Principle though in an ambiguous way to my mind. He says that the computation of the rest mass from local quantum field theory as has been in fact accomplished for hadrons by MIT Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek et-al using supercomputers is not sufficient to explain the inertia of Newton’s Second Law of Particle Mechanics. This does sound like Occult Astrology at first glance, but we do have the 1940 Wheeler-Feynman classical electrodynamics in which radiation reaction is explained as a back-from-the-future retro causal advanced influence from the future absorber on the past emitter in a globally self-consistent loop in time. Indeed, Feynman’s path integral quantum theory grew out of this attempt. Hoyle and Narlikar, and John Cramer have extended the original classical Wheeler-Feynman theory to quantum theory. Indeed, the zero point virtual photons causing spontaneous emission decay of excited atomic electron states can be interpreted as a back from the future effect. The electromagnetic field in the classical Wheeler-Feynman model did not have independent dynamical degrees of freedom, but in the Feynman diagram quantum theory they do. However, the retro causal feature survives. Therefore the only way I can make sense of JFWs fringe physics proposal is to make the following conjecture. Let m0 be the renormalized rest mass of a real particle computed in the standard model of local quantum field theory. Then, the observed rest mass m0’ equals a dimensionless nonlocal coefficient C multiplied by the local m0 renormalized rest mass. Mach’s Principle is then C = 0 in an empty universe of only real test particles without any sources causing spacetime to bend. Furthermore, C splits into past history retarded and future destiny advanced pieces. Now is there any Popper falsifiable test of this excess baggage?
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Springer-Praxis Books in Space Exploration (2013)
    2) Einstein in Zurich over one hundred years ago read of a house painter falling off his ladder saying he felt weightless.
    3) I have since disassociated myself from that project, as have other hard
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) Roughly speaking, for particle mechanics, the dynamical action is the time integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The classical physics action principle is that the actual path is an extremum in the sense of the calculus of variations relative to all nearby possible paths with the same initial and final conditions. Richard P. Feynman generalized this classical idea to quantum theory where the actual extremum path corresponds to constructive interference of complex number classical action phases one for each possible path. There are more complications for velocity-dependent non-central forces and there is also the issue of initial and final conditions. The action is generalized to classical fields where one must use local kinetic and potential analog densities and integrate the field Lagrangian density over the 4D spacetime region bounded by initial history and final teleological destiny 3D hypersurfaces boundary constraints. Indeed, Yakir Aharonov has generalized this to quantum theory in which there are back-from-the-future retro causal influences on present weak quantum measurements made between the past initial and future final boundary constraints. Indeed, in our observable expanding accelerating universe causal diamond, these boundary constraints, I conjecture, are our past cosmological particle horizon from the moment of chaotic inflation leading to the hot Big Bang, together with our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon. Both of them are BIT pixelated 2D hologram computer screens with us as IT voxelated “weak measurement” 3D hologram images projected from them. The horizon pixel BIT quanta of area are of magnitude (~10^-33 cm or 10^19 Gev)^2. The interior bulk voxel IT quanta of volume are of magnitude (~10^-13 cm or 1 Gev)^3. This ensures that the number N of BIT horizon pixels equals the number of IT interior voxels in a one-to-one correspondence. The actually measured dark energy density is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the geometric mean of the smallest quantum gravity Planck length with the largest Hubble-sized scale of our future de Sitter causal diamond ~ 10^28 cm. This, when combined with the Unruh effect, corresponds to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation that started quantum physics back in 1900. However, this redshifted Hawking horizon blackbody radiation must be coming back from our future de Sitter cosmological horizon not from our past particle horizon.
  • Jack Sarfatti 5) Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”
  • JackSarfatti's comment on A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox via @nytimes http://t.co/I671P9aoP3 1 of 2
    A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox
    A paradox around matter leaking from black holes puts into question various scientific axioms: Either information can be lost; Einstein’s principle of equivalence is wrong; or quantum field theory needs fixing.
  • Jack SarfattiActually I was the first to propose a connection between gravity wormholes and quantum entanglement back in the early 1970's when I was at Abdus Salam's Institute in Trieste, Italy. The idea is explicit in the zany book Space-Time and Beyond (Dutton, 1975) that I co-authored with New Age artist Bob Toben and physicist Fred Alan Wolf. MIT Professor David Kaiser describes this history in his award winning book "How the Hippies Saved Physics." Curious that this article thinks that traversable wormholes are impossible. Many physicists think otherwise. Traversable wormholes held open by gravitationally repulsive exotic dark energy without horizons would of course permit faster-than-light communication via entanglement in violation of orthodox quantum theory. Indeed, Antony Valentini has written papers on such signal nonlocality using David Bohm's interpretation of quantum theory when the "beables" are not in thermal equilibirium.
  • Jack SarfattiThe black hole horizon is already quite physical without violating Einstein's equivalence principle for the hovering observer who must have an increasingly large proper acceleration the closer he gets to the horizon. By the Unruh effect, the hovering observer Bob sees a large temperature of real thermal photons. If Bob burns up from hovering too close to the horizon, and if Alice free falls into the black hole in close contact with Bob, then it seems plausible that Alice will feel Bob's heat and indeed catch fire herself. Furthermore, the virtual electron-positron pairs stuck to the horizon in Hawking's radiation mechanism will also feel the photon heat high temperature and will get enough energy from the gravity field to excite into a real electron positron plasma within a Compton wavelength thickness, so that free-falling Alice should see that as a quantum firewall. The equivalence principle is a classical physics idea prior to quantum corrections. Hence, I see no real paradox if looked at from this perspective.
Wheeler's old idea that there is only one electron works well with his mass without mass, charge without charge idea in a Kerr-Newman wormhole if Gmicro = 10^40Gmacro because the positrons are unstable white hole mouths leaving only stable black hole electron mouths. So C-violation (matter-antimatter asymmetry) is explained. This also requires Bohm's ontological beable (IT) quantum potential (BIT) pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch

Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Star Ship Engine the way I understand it.
I have reformulated it using Feynman's Rule
What I cannot construct independently
I do not understand

Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...

OK here I agree with Menas.

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

"Agree with Paul.

So now let’s move on.

What is next?"

Jack writes: Glad u asked.

My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE

C = Mach Effect

Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame

F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2

effective "dark energy" potential

V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2

In Einstein's GR this goes into g00

and a nonunitary dissipative friction term

In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0

Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0


C = CDestiny + CHistory

The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82

therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18

In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.

g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)

  1. The Mach Propulsion Star Ship glows hot.
    Like · · Share
    • Jack SarfattiOn Jul 5, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:


      Obviously you take a different view to Jim on what is a fictitious force and therefore how stargates would work, which is well-recorded in Jim’s e-mail list correspondence. You seemed to have comprised with his views slightly when you developed your analysis of Rindler redshifted back from the future radiation as explaining dark energy last month. I find your interpretation interesting and plausible as well, so keep writing…

      Jack says: Not really. Jim never bothered to put numbers into his theory here. Yes there is a cosmological blue shift, but it's tiny at z = 1/2 compared to the enormous gravity redshift z = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 ~ (10^28/10^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^30

      Beowolf says: A few comments:

      1. Is it necessary to assume that flying saucers get here through stargates,

      Jack says: Yes. See Enrico Rodrigo's book to see why.

      or is it just as well to assume a broader range of mechanisms which use negative energy densities to alter the curvature of space-time (ie. Alcubierre metrics as well as Kip Thorne’s wormholes)?

      Jack says: Stargates are Kip Thorne's wormholes. Also, as I have said and as Rodrigo says the physics of wormholes and warp drive are the same - if you can do one, you can do the other.

      Beowolf says: 2. I did watch the one Susskind video you linked to (the talk he gave in Toronto), discussing analogies between black hole and observable universe event horizons. I will watch his other lectures this summer if I have time, but finding time is always difficult. There is too much to do in life and not enough time. Life extension technology would be nice.
      3. Your grammar is unclear to me in the phrase: “measuring all the observables possessed by the “test particles”;” you obviously mean something like all the observable motion(s) or all the observable properties of the test particles but it is not precise.

      Jack says: It's perfectly clear to me.
    • Jack SarfattiIn response to Beowolf I wrote:
      The view I take is the standard mainstream view in every top textbook on the subject - the way it's taught at Cal Tech and every other top university.
      The Wikipedia article on fictitious forces is good on this.
      You must understand that Jim's view that the fictitious inertial pseudo-forces, i.e. centrifugal, Euler, Coriolis as well as Newton's F = - GMmr/r^3 are caused by a Mach influence from distant matter is considered "fringe" at the very best and totally cracked at the very worst.

      In Einstein's theory all of these fictitious inertial pseudo-forces are part of the Levi-Civita connection in the covariant derivative D/ds with respect to proper time. Newton's 2nd law in GR is

      Real EM-weak-strong 4-force on test particle =

      Special Relativity proper time derivative of 4-momentum of test particle - Levi-Civita Fictitious Force Term

      Einstein's Equivalence Principle EEP is that the Levi-Civita Fictitious Force Term = 0 in any Local Inertial Frame (LIF)'s CENTER OF MASS (COM)

      All of this is LOCAL PHYSICS true even in the total absence of gravity and even of the distant matter. You can imagine a universe with only a test particle and a detector - nothing else and these equations would work.

      Now, Jim keeps shooting himself in the foot with all this Mickey Mouse Sciama toy model that even Sciama rejected as simpler than is possible. It was only an off the cuff back of the envelope half-baked notion of Sciama's.

      What I can accept, is the CONJECTURE:

      Real EM-weak-strong 4-force on test particle =

      {Special Relativity proper time derivative of {(Response from Distant Matter) (4-momentum of test particle) }

      - (Levi-Civita Fictitious Force Term) (Response from Distant Matter)}

      In which the coefficient (Response from Distant Matter) has both advanced Wheeler-Feynman back from the future Destiny pieces and retarded past to present History pieces in the sense of Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurements" with pre and post-selection. Fred Hoyle already had this idea in his book "The Intelligent Universe" (~ 1984 ).

      In formal language suppressing indices

      P' = (Mach)P

      F = D{(Mach)P}/ds = (Mach)DP/ds + Pd(Mach)/ds

      Pseudo-forces are completely irrelevant to any Mach propulsion effect.

      Suppose we are in a LIF and F = 0 then

      (Mach)dP/ds + Pd(Mach)/ds = 0

      Pd(Mach)/ds is the CONJECTURED MET effect clearly & properly expressed by me perhaps for the first time?

      In this Machian picture added AD-HOC to Einstein's GR if no distant matter, then

      P' = 0 since (Mach) = 0

      Shed all the excess baggage of fictitious forces that are a distraction of absolutely no relevance.
    • Jack SarfattiFrom: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:adastra1@me.com]
      Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 7:03 PM
      To: Exotic Physics
      Subject: Star Gate Book Notes 1


      Making Star Trek Real

      Jack Sarfatti


      I adopt as a working hypothesis that the flying saucers are real and that they get here through stargates. The task is then to see what modern physics has to say about such a scenario even if it’s not true. Whether or not it’s true is beside the point. I will also write about quantum theory and its relation to computing, consciousness, cosmology, the hologram universe and ending in a scenario for Stephen Hawking’s “Mind of God.” That Hawking thinks God is not necessary is again is beside the point. A good background reference here is Enrico Rodrigo’s “The Physics of Stargates: Parallel Universes, Time Travel and the Enigma of Wormhole Physics.” If you have the patience, Leonard Susskind’s Stanford University lectures in physics online videos are also worth the effort for the serious student.

      Chapter 1 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a Nutshell

      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”, there are privileged dynamical motions of the test particles in Einstein’s two theories of relativity special 1905 and general 1916. This was in Einstein’s words “My happiest thought.” These privileged motions are called “geodesic” motions or “world lines.” Test particles are distinguished from “source particles.” It is an approximation that test particles do not significantly modify the fields acting on them. They are, strictly speaking, a useful contradiction of the metaphysical principle of no action of Alice on Bob without a direct “back-reaction” of Bob on Alice. Massless point test particles in what physicists call the “classical limit” move on “null” or “lightlike” geodesics. Test particles with mass m move on timelike geodesics that are inside the “light cone” formed by all the light rays that might be emitted from that test particle if it were electrically charged and if it were really accelerating. The latter is a “counter-factual” statement. Look that up on Google. The key point is that Alice is weightless when traveling on a timelike geodesic inside her two local light cones past and future. There are no real forces F acting on Alice. On the contrary, Bob who is measuring Alice with a detector (aka “measuring apparatus”) need not be on another timelike geodesic. He can be off-geodesic because real forces can be acting on him causing him to feel weight. The real forces acting on Bob appear as “fictitious” “inertial pseudo-forces” acting on Alice from Bob’s frame of reference. The only real forces in nature that we know about in 2013 are the electro-magnetic, the weak and the strong. Gravity is not a real force in Einstein’s theory. Gravity is one of the fictitious forces described above. Real forces on test particles, unlike all fictitious forces on them, are not universal. Fictitious inertial forces that appear to, but are not really acting on the observed test particles all depend on the mass mass m of the test particle. Consequently, if Alice and Eve are each on separate timelike geodesics very close to each other and if Bob who is not on a timelike geodesic of his own due to real forces acting on him, then Alice and Eve will have the same kinematical acceleration relative to Bob and they will both feel weightless though Bob feels weight – also called “g-force.” This causes a lot of confusion, especially to aerospace missile engineers and high-energy particle physicists, because Newton did consider gravity to be a real force, but Einstein did not. Gravity is not a force. Gravity is the curvature tensor of four-dimensional space-time. What Newton thought of as a real gravity force, is demoted to a fictitious inertial pseudo-force in Einstein’s theory. In the language of the late John Archibald Wheeler, gravity is a “force without Force”. The best local frame invariant way to think about gravity in an objective local frame-independent way is the pattern of both light like and timelike geodesics whose source is the “stress-energy density tensor field” Tuv of matter. By matter we mean spin 1/2 leptons, quarks, and the spin 1 electromagnetic-weak-strong gauge bosons as well as the spin 0 Higgs vacuum superconductor field that formed only when our observable piece of the multiverse called the “causal diamond” popped out of the false vacuum about 13.7 billion years ago.

      Sent from iCloud
Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Thruster for Star Ships
Like · · Share

Jack Sarfatti "Recently (Anderson 1995; Bonnor 1996) there has been a revival of interest in the question as to whether the cosmological expansion also proceeds at smaller scales. There is a tendency to reject such an extrapolation by confusing it with the intrinsically unobservable
”expansion” (let us refer to this as ”pseudo-expansion”) described above.
By contrast, the metric of Friedman–Robertson–Walker (FRW) in general relativity is intrinsically dynamic with the increase (decrease) of proper distances correlated with red–shift (blue–shift). It does so on any scale provided the light travel time is much longer than the wave period. Thus, the cosmological metric alone does not dictate a scale for expansion and in principle, it could be present at the smallest practical scale as real – as opposed to pseudo–expansion, and observable in principle.

However, it is reasonable to pose the question as to whether there is a cut–off at which systems below this scale do not partake of the expansion. It would appear that one would be hard put to justify a particular scale for the onset of expansion. Thus, in this debate, we are in agreement with Anderson (1995) that it is most reasonable to assume that the expansion does indeed proceed at all scales. However, there is a certain ironical quality attached to the debate in the sense that even if the expansion does actually occur at all scales, we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale."

It's not clear yet if this is fatal for Jim's theory. It may not be if Jim is simply invoking an advanced Wheeler-Feynman radiative reaction effect. In spin 1 electromagnetism the Mach effect back from the future ~ "jerk" d^3x(test particle)/dt^3, however Jim claims that for spin 2 gravity this same retro-causal effect ~ d^2x(test particle)/dt^2

Electromagnetic radiative reaction is dual to local zero point vacuum energy, i.e. random ZPF virtual photons responsible for spontaneous emission. Therefore, MET if it worked would be a ZERO POINT spin 2 graviton reaction-less engine analogous to the random spin 1 virtual photons in Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar theory are a past effect whose future cause are the photon absorbers with our future event horizon as the final absorber of last resort. Jim's device uses spin 2 virtual gravitons not spin 1 virtual photons, but the idea is the same.

That is, if I understand his claim correctly Jim claims a modified off-geodesic Newton 2nd law of motion

F = (D/ds)[(Mach Cosmology Effect)P]

D/ds is the covariant derivative with respect to proper time of the test particle

F is the non-gravity 4-force on the test particle

P is the 4-momentum of the test particle

D/ds = d/ds + Inertial pseudo forces including Newton's gravity "force without force" (Levi Civita terms).

The future horizon, if it's a total absorber, gives

(Mach Cosmology Effect) ~ 1 on the average.

OK Jim's idea of the MET thruster is very simple if you accept the above

If there is a dynamic Machian oscillation then even when F = 0 and even in a local inertial frame where the pseudo forces vanish by the Einstein equivalence principle

0 = Pd(Mach Coefficient)/ds + (Mach Coefficient)dP/ds

However, the fly in Jim's ointment is

"we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale"

On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:30 PM, JACK SARFATTI <instbio@gmail.com> wrote:

This paper is essential for Jim's MET

the issue is how large scale cosmic structure influences the small-scale of Jim's machine

On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:45 PM, David Mathes wrote:

29. arXiv:astro-ph/9803097 [pdf, ps, other]
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems
F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (University of Victoria)
Comments: To appear in the Astrophysical Journal, Latex
Journal-ref: Astrophys.J. 503 (1998) 61
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)

  • The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel http://t.co/zNuT1Ru94e
    The Quantum Mechanics of Time Travel
    Dr. Seth Lloyd, an MIT professor and self-described "quantum mechanic," describes the quantum mechanics behind time travel during a guest lecture at the Inst...
  • Jack Sarfatti Nice intuitive explanation of quantum teleportation in terms of Cramer's transaction explanation of entanglement - due to Charlie Bennett. Post-selected Aharonov weak measurement CTC not same as David Deutsch's. Indeed time traveler to past loses all memory in Deutsch's scheme, though not in Seth Lloyd's. Aephraim Sternberg actually did a real experiment proving that Gerard 't Hooft's claim about Grandfather Paradox is wrong. Some argue that it's only a simulation not the real thing. Hmmnn I have heard that one before.

On Jun 27, 2013, at 12:04 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

there are results in A that may be more relevant because it deals with bound states.
None of the S-Matrix papers deal with mundane electrical power engineering
i.e. quasi-static non-radiative near fields of say capacitors, solenoids, electric motors and dynamos, power lines with small radiative leaking.
Of course classical EM provides a practical theory for electrical engineers, but our problem is to see how this very practical world fits in with QED S-Matrix. We are not interested here in scattering input real particles into output real particles. We are interested rather in the quantum description of the near EM fields.

Also, ordinary S-Matrix never deals with coherent Glauber states only with Fock states.

Of course a classical current Ju makes Glauber coherent states - but for near fields the photons are virtual not real.

The Gorkov method for BCS superconductor is more to the point - there the Glauber coherent states of Cooper pairs is an emergent non-perturbative effect from summing I think and infinity of tree Feynman diagrams? So that is one way to think of spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in many particle systems.

Note that the key LNIF metric representations for Schwarzschild, de Sitter, Kerr are all Glauber coherent states of virtual gravitons.

Ordinary space crystal lattice ground states are Glauber coherent states of virtual phonons f = 0 & ki ~ n/ai, ai lattice spacings of unit cell.

Ferromagnetic ground states are Glauber coherent states of virtual spin wave quanta

In contrast, superconductor ground states are Glauber coherent states of real Cooper pairs?

Superfluid helium 4 ground state is a Glauber coherent state of virtual phonons as well f = 0 with a continuum of ki.

Except for the Cooper pairs - the we have above ground states whose Landau-Ginzburg order parameters are Glauber coherent states of the massless Goldstone boson in virtual off-mass-shell form.

In the post-inflation vacuum we also have Glauber coherent states of virtual massive Higgs bosons.

Actually to be more precise the order parameter is in simplest case e.g. center of mass of Cooper pair

<0|Psi|0> = R(x)e^iS(x)

Psi is a second quantized annihilation operator in ordinary spacetime

|0> is the broken symmetry ground state

x = ordinary 3D + 1 event

R(x) is a condensate of massive Higgs bosons

S(x) the coherent state is a condensate of massless Goldstone particles.

|R(x)e^IS(x)> is the Glauber coherent state

On Jun 26, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

I had it at one time but can't seem to find it. But as I recall it is superseded by the two that I sent you, which give a more comprehensive and general treatment.


> From: adastra1@me.com
> Subject: Davies paper A
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:20:36 -0700
> To: rekastner@hotmail.com
> > Do u have it? Apparently it's a prequel to the two you sent.

On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:33 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

I agree with Brian. And as far as M-theory is concerned, it is offered as the complete theory of everything, in my view to avoid the problem of consciousness.

I have yet to watch all the Stanford Susskind videos on string and M-theory to see if there is any "there" there?

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Josephson [mailto:bdj10@cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Ruth Kastner

Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility

On 25 Jun 2013, at 15:45, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Brian, I will look at this, but first let me clarify something.

By 'complete' in the book, what I'm really getting at is that the theory doesn't need either

(1) the addition of beables a la Bohm

Bohm's idea which is very natural actually starts with Bohr, but goes beyond it.

In my own formulation for the masses:

The EM 2-form F = dA is the REAL IT beable. It has a BIT super-Q as described by Basil Hiley. All pointer reading of all experiment on all matter fields in the final analysis ends up with F. I think Geoffrey Chew first emphasized this at the Berkeley meetings described by David Kaiser in "How the Hippies Saved Physics."

The classical world corresponds to Q negligible - with the exception of spontaneous broken ground state symmetries giving emergent  over-complete distinguishably non-orthogonal Glauber coherent states of both real and virtual quanta. That's a lot of exceptions including crystals (both space and time), superfluids, lasers, ferromagnets, ferroelectrics, nematics, superconductors, and finally life and consciousness itself. See P.W. Anderson's "More is different."

(2) ad hoc modifications such as 'spontaneous collapse' theories

The point has to be made though that unless there is a theory of everything QM cannot be considered complete.  QM is no use unless it has a Hamiltonian to work with, and all we have at present is approximations that work only in a limited domain, or theories such as M-theory that are a kind of 'vapourware', having no existence in the form of written text.  This is independent of any considerations relating to life.


Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge Director, Mind-Matter Unification Project
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254

Jun 26

Discussion with Ruth Kastner

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

 Jack, it's really not correct to say that Bohmian beables are 'obviously required'.

JS: I think it is correct. It's a matter of opinion.

RK:  I give an alternative account in my book
that allows for the emergence of the 'classical macroscopic world'.

JS: I think that you have replaced one mystery with another. This word "possibility" is "real". I see no essential physical difference between how you use "possibility" and how Bohmians use "Q". Also the Bohmian beable is Wheeler's IT and Bohm's Q is Wheeler's BIT in


RK:Others give different interpretations that I don't agree
with for various reason (e.g. MWI because it doesn't provide a good physical reason for Born Rule, and splitting of worlds via decoherence is ultimately observer-dependent), but those don't rely on beables either.
JS: Valentini has explained the origin of the Born rule as a contingency in terms of the statistical mechanics of beables. Now Valentini may have erred in his recent stability claims. But even if we fall back on what he calls de Broglie dynamics instead of Bohm dynamics we still have the Born rule as a contingency and not an absolute truth.
RK:You may prefer the Bohmian account, but that's certainly not a basis for saying that it's 'obviously required'.
JS: Show me how you get the basic beable which is Maxwell-Cartan 2-form F for the electromagnetic field.

F = dA

dF = 0

d*F = *J

d*J = 0