The Cartan exterior differential forms imply a kind of Dirac square root of Einstein’s 1916 metric tensor spin 2 theory of the intrinsice curvature gravitational field. The Cartan gravity tetrad fields are spin 1 just like the electromagnetic-weak-strong forces. This means, according to Gerardus ‘t Hooft’s work of ~ 1973 that quantum gravity should be renormalizable unlike the historical tensor version that is a composite of two spin 1 tetrad fields. The timelike geodesic LIF tetrad fields can even describe the zero g-force geodesics including light rays described by the Penrose-Newman “null tetrads.” Rindler and Penrose then show that the null tetrads are really composites of pairs of 2-spinor qubits realizing Wheeler’s intuition of
IT FROM BIT
Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilzcek in his book “The Lightness of Being” describes the post-inflation “multi-layered multi-colored vacuum superconductor.” Just like the frictionless supercurrents in helum and superconductors are the gradients of the macro-quantum coherent Goldstone phases , similarly, it appears to me, that the four Cartan one form gravitational tetrad fields and their associated six Cartan one-form spin connection fields that couple leptons and quarks to gravity, derive from the eight massless gluon coherent Goldstone phases of the QCD SU3 strong force. That is, there appears to be a deep unification of non-compact T4(x) gravity with the compact SU3(x) strong force via a 4x4 M-Matrix from eight Cartan zero form “super-potentials.” In other words gravity comes from the disclination curvature and dislocation torsion distortions of what Hagen Kleinert calls the “world crystal lattice,” i.e. a 4D “supersolid” vacuum superconductor. Einstein’s 1916 theory is simply the low energy limit of the lattice theory. Even more astounding is the idea that this 3D + 1 lattice is a back-from-the-future retrocausal hologram image of the 2D+1 surrounding surface “future event horizon” that houses the conscious Omega Point supercomputer of 10123 BITS that we call GOD(D). I will develop this in detail in my revised version of Space-Time and Beyond.
excerpt from Destiny Matrix 2012
McCabe crossed back over Broadway to North Beach. At Poets Plaza, Socrates Sarfatti, a creatively hyperactive, theoretical physicist and UC Berkeley’s only “outdoor professor”, was conducting his weekly seminar. Sarfatti challenged the universe with the dialectical primacy of the Idea, and was one of the few to fearlessly plunge into the subject of consciousness and the role of physics. He came out of the sixties counter-cultural revolution and “question authority” academia. His was the most popular seminar offered at Berkeley—required to be held outdoors anywhere in the Bay Area, except in the event of bad weather---really, really bad weather. Students were on the honor system not to travel to Sarfatti’s class in a car, and many of the locations were inaccessible by car anyway. The professor had held classes on Alcatraz in the middle of the Bay, in the Mt. Tamalpais ampitheater north of San Francisco, at the summit of Mount Diablo in the East Bay, and even occasionally down south on the Peninsula at joint seminars in the Quad of rival Stanford University. But of all the spots in the Bay Area, Socrates’ favorite was Poets Plaza where he could spin the universe like a top and offer up his own eloquent model of consciousness. Today, the students sat on the Plaza’s granite wall benches, others in chairs pulled up from Caffe Trieste. It was ok to drink wine during the seminar, and if you brought a particularly good bottle to share with your fellow outdoor enthusiasts and of course, the professor---Socrates was known to activate his Stardrive and power straight through Einstein’s theory of relativity--- particularly if fueled by the likes of Chateau Lafite, Margaux, Latour, Le Pin---to the farthest reaches of his ten dimensional multiuniverse, his speculations like stardust in the solar winds. McCabe noted a number of empty bottles of fine Bordeaux sharing space-time with the students on the granite benches. And, Socrates Sarfatti, his arms and hands outstreached like a gnarled vine, was taking off on an electromagnetic rip, “I want us today to consider string theory. Can someone give us a quick definition?” One of the graduate students jumped at the opening, “All subatomic particles--- protons, neutrons, electrons and the smaller particles they’re made up of---quarks and so on---and all forms of energy---are constructed of strings---infinitely small building blocks that have only a single dimension—length—but not height or width.”
“And what else?” asked Socrates the iconoclast.
Another student, “String theory also posits that the universe is multi-dimensional---we all can observe four dimensions,” he picked up one of the empty wine bottles—“This has height, width and length—three dimensional space---and the time we took to drink from it—gives us four observable dimensions. String theory suggests ten dimensions—so the other six—well look around you—you don’t see them---they can’t be detected—at least not sitting here.”
“And?” questioned the professor impulsively.
The student continued, still gripping the bottle, “Well…the strings kind of vibrate—right?—in multiple dimensions---and depending on the nature of the vibration might be observed as matter—like the wine bottle---or light---like the refraction of the afternoon sun off the bottle--or gravity,” letting the bottle drop from one hand to the other. “Depending on the vibration, it might appear as matter or energy—all forms of matter and energy are the result of the vibration of strings.”
Socrates clapped his hands in delight---a sign that he was pleased with the student's explanation—and the use of the wine bottle was an excellent pedagogical touch. “But were it that simple, no? It never really is, is it? The scientific dialectic is inexorable. From the pre-Socratic philosophers’ cosmology to our very own moment sitting in this Plaza, physics undergoes continual refinement and change. Was it not Heraclitus who said, ‘You can never step in the same river twice?’ ”
McCabe loved seeing Sarfatti perform. His physics was like magic, a continual world of wonder. Sarfatti believed the universe had ordered and understandable meaning, an unutterable truth, that included our own thoughts and intuition, allowing for the interplay between consciousness and the physical world. This was Sarfatti as his best---covered in stardust —fleshing out his own cosmology, he could describe the cosmos mathematically, yet lived and explored within and without those parameters---the professor was thought to be a bit loopy at times—his talks often non-linear, weaving an interdisciplinary tapestry wrapped within consciousness, matter and energy---sometimes difficult to fathom—sometimes impossible—it was just such a marvelous moment.
“The question is, what is the question? Is string theory a single theory? Anyone care to take up the baton?” asked Socrates, careening his liminal engine straight through his students’ heads. “As the Mad Hatter said to Alice, ‘If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.’ ” A woman raised her hand tentatively. Socrates gave her a mildly irritated look—he hated raised hands—it interrupted the flow of an outdoor seminar—indoors, raised hands was an acceptable protocol—outdoors was meant to be freer and more fluid.
“Yes?” he said.
“Well…aren’t there now a bunch of different string theories—like a half dozen or so—with different numbers of dimensions and the characteristics of the strings themselves—open loops, closed loops—even intertwined loops—all of them as plausible as the others—but having contradictory sets of equations to describe the same phenomena?”
“That’s a fair enough description of where we’re ar right now—so has anyone proposed how to reconcile these apparent conflicting versions?”
The young woman half raised her hand again, saw she still had the floor, “Yeah, Edward Witten….”
Socrates interrupted, “At the Institute for Advanced Study with some colleagues…” The woman continued, “They thought that the different versions of string theory might simply be describing the same phenomena from different perspectives. Right? So they came up with a unifying theory---the ‘M-Theory” the ‘M’ stands for membrane—and here is where I get lost—but they brought all the string theories together by saying that strings are one-dimensional slices of a two-dimensional membrane vibrating in multi- dimensional space.”
Sarfatti took the virtual baton back, “Good, that’s right—so with the ‘M-Theory’ the underlying structure has been mathematically established—it’s consistent with all string theories--- and consistent as well with….” the professor looked round the group, “With…?” Silence. “With…?Come on, come on.. anyone?…someone—hint, it’s right in front of your nose…”
McCabe called out, “Our own scientific observations of the universe?”
“Ah hah!” Socrates laughed when he saw McCabe. His eyes twinkled, pleased by the Jungian synchronicity of McCabe’s sudden appearance. He gestured at his students then over at McCabe, “This people, is McCabe---a columnist who many of you have probably read at one time or another---now a candidate for mayor--- and definitely not a student of physics—but he is an astute observer—and that my friends is why he knew the answer…and why communication can be faster than light.”
McCabe waved good-by, Professor Sarfatti’s wine inflected voice trailing off, “String theory also has met challenges of internal mathematical consistency that other attempts to combine quantum mechanics with gravity have not. But until we find a way to observe higher dimensions, ‘M-Theory’ has some problems making predictions that can actually be tested in a laboratory.…technologically it may never be proven—but many cosmologists, including Stephen Hawking, are intrigued by it because of its mathematical elegance and simplicity. ‘M-Theory’ may present us with a ‘Theory of Everything’ which like E=MC2 is so concise it would fit on a t-shirt…”
McCabe’s head vibrated in a nano-tizzy from the mystico-illuminati of Socrates’ cosmic ratiocinations. Apart from objective physics, Socrates Sarfatti was famous for his subjective, counterintuitive theory on retrocausality, that events that have not yet occurred can cause action in the present---if events could not only flow from past to future, but as well, from future to past, the apparent intractable challenge of quantum uncertainty could be resolved, and also provide the information necessary for the creation of life. Socrates turned causality and stream of consciousness on its head seeing the one way flow of time as an old and heretofor intractable prejudice—he viewed Michelangelo’s painting in the Sistine Chapel, Mozart’s symphonies, Einstein’s theory of relativity as having their origins at least partially in the future---thus the universe was created by intelligent design, the Designer lived far in the future attempting to effect the Now, sending quantum signals, like the thunder of Zeus on Mt. Olympus or the prophecies of Cassandra from within the walls of Troy which were true but always disbelieved, that someone with a particular genius would someday learn to decode---images projected back from the future horizon—all the world a Shakespearean hologram.
Sarfatti’s cerebral brilliance had vaporized McCabe’s hangover which had blessedly slipped from his membrain [Note:Spelling intentional]. He continued home, climbing Telegraph Hill, then looping back down the Filbert stairs to his Napier Lane cottage. He wanted to grab a nap, but there was little time. After showering, he went to the kitchen, opened a coconut and drank the milk. He put a small amount in Squad Car’s dish—the milky rich flavor appealed to the cat, but only a couple of tablespoons, more he would leave unfinished.
There was a soft knock on his door. It was Monica. The sight of McCabe opening the door, fresh from the shower, a towel loosely slung round his waist, gave her an erotic jolt, “I love your outfit,” laughed Monica, kissing him and slipping her hand underneath his towel, teasingly stroking him. McCabe’s smile widened at the touch of Monica’s creamy hand. She breathed, “I hope you reciprocate sometime.” He would gladly, given the opportunity---a woman answering her front door unclad---at least topless---was a sight that he never, ever forgot, and promised a fine evening ahead beginning at the very portal itself.
The Wit and Wisdom of the Ancients........... 5Parallel Universes by A.T. Conway........... 7Three Rabbis at Apple Store Greenwich Village by Jack Sarfatti........... 8Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design or Grand Illusion?........... 9McCabe—Chap 19, a novel by Tony Gantner........... 9The Age of Merlin by Bridget Saunders........... 10Preface to Second Edition 2012........... 10Sarfatti Spark by Rina Shelly Orid........... 12Man on a Pendulum by Colin Bennett........... 13The Book........... 15Tilting at Windmills; Jack Sarfatti’s Impossible Dream? by Jagdish Mann........... 18Man Made Global Warming? – The Hal Lewis/APS Scandal........... 21Jack Sarfatti and the Shadows on the Wall by Alan Waite........... 23GroupThink and the Myth of the Cave........... 23Science and the Cost of Discipleship........... 23Sarfatti and Plato’s Cave........... 26Arthur Jacobson, South Pacific WWII........... 32De Broglie-Bohm (“Valentini-Towler”) Conference Controversy:........... 34Shadows on the Wall........... 34Science, Integrity and Mythos........... 38Transcript of Interview with Dr. Jack Sarfatti........... 40The Divine Invasion: IT Came From The Future BIT........... 61The Once and Future Hologram Mind of GOD is the real meaning of the Free Mason Symbol shown above............ 62The Destiny of the Universe........... 64Causality-Violating Quantum Action-at-a-Distance........... 65A brief history of my contributions to acausality in quantum physics by Fred Alan Wolf........... 70Revised Preface to First Edition 2002........... 78The Multiverse of Parallel Worlds in a Nutshell: The Big Picture........... 79It takes two to tango!........... 80Spectra Calling!........... 81“Who are you?”........... 82“I am a conscious computer on board a spacecraft from the future.”........... 83“We have identified you as one of four hundred young bright receptive minds we wish to teach our physics to”........... 84Flying Saucer Physics........... 88Covert Black Ops, Zero Point Energy, Anti-Gravity?........... 88Hyperspace........... 89October Sky 1953........... 92Merlin’s Super Kids........... 92Walter Breen about the time I met him 1953........... 93Walter Breen later in life........... 94Jack at our Junior American Rockety Society “testing ground” near........... 97Floyd Bennett Naval Air Station, 1954............ 97Jack in Civil Air Patrol Piper Cub, Griffiss AFB, ~ 1954........... 98The Mists of Avalon........... 98Front: Millie, Eva and Murray Jacobson Back: Jack Sarfatti and Arthur Jacobson........... 99Twenty Years Later........... 100Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics........... 100Jack, Assistant Professor of Physics at San Diego State. Physics Department........... 100Space-Time and Beyond........... 101Jack and Fred in Paris writing “Space-Time and Beyond”, 1973-4........... 102Jean Cocteau, French Secret Society?........... 102Brendan O’Regan and SRI Remote Viewing........... 103Dr. Kardec, Baphomet and The Knights Templar........... 105Jack and Sharon Moore in London “In the thick of it”, 1973........... 106Solomon ha-Zarfati, AKA Rashi de Troyes (1040-1105)........... 109Cabalist Carlo Suares (Balthazar of Durrell’s “The Alexandria Quartet”)........... 109Psi Wars! Dennis Bardens British Intelligence?........... 111Enigma of the point particle........... 114My World Line........... 116The Tibetan Connection........... 116Beat Poet Gregory Corso sleeping in my Bohemian North Beach Pad........... 116My World Line 1979 Cover of North Beach Magazine........... 117The Cradle Will Rock - Tea With Margherita Sarfatti........... 118The Occult Third Reich........... 120Hitler’s 1923 suicide attempt foiled at last moment!........... 121The Godfather meets Ciao Manhattan........... 123Jack Sarfatti and Suky Sedgwick mid-80’s........... 124Sarfatti Crest, Venice, Italy........... 125Alleged Jewish Sarfatti Ancestory of Queen Victoria........... 126“More is Different” (P.W. Anderson)........... 127Jack Sarfatti at UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment........... 127Mass without mass........... 128Contact by Saul-Paul Sirag........... 130The Godfather made an offer Carl Sagan refused........... 130Jacob Atabet at the End of Ordinary History........... 131Uri Geller meets Spectra........... 132A Thoroughly Modern Millie........... 133Jack’s mother in 1953 where the phone call (s) came............ 133Jack at time of the phone call (s) in 1953 in Flatbush, Brooklyn............ 133Ezekiel’s Vision........... 134The Minds of Robots........... 134Ghost Busters........... 136Jack, Saul-Paul and Fred Alan Wolf in Francis Ford Coppola’s CITY MAGAZINE, 1975........... 136Sharon and Jack in Venice, 1973........... 138Horus, the Egyptian Sky God through the Star Gate?........... 139Young Frankenstein........... 141Jack Sarfatti & Fred Alan Wolf in front, Saul-Paul Sirag & Nick Herbert in back, 1975........... 141The usual suspects 25 years later at Russell Targ’s house............ 142Bell, Book and Candle........... 142Werner Erhard, est........... 143The French Connection........... 144The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test........... 144Cheryl Haley (lower left) and Richard Feynman at Esalen, Big Sur, CA........... 149Cheryl Haley with Jack Sarfatti at the Cal Tech Kip Fest 2000........... 150Lynda Williams (The Physics Chanteuse), Jack and Cheryl at the Cal Tech Kip Fest........... 150A Biographical Note: Growing Up in a Japanese Prison Camp by Saul-Paul Sirag........... 151The Genius and His Golem by Jagdish Mann........... 153The Dancing Wu Li Masters........... 153The True Story of the Dancing Wu Li Masters........... 155Lorna McClearlie with Gary Zukav........... 157On the Hidden Origins of Reagan’s SDI by Kim Burrafato........... 159Jack Sarfatti and Kim Burrafato ~ 1979 at the Bohemian North Beach Savoy Tivoli........... 159Close Encounters of the Third Kind........... 160Signal Nonlocality Faster Than The Speeding Photon........... 161From Russia With Love........... 162Jack Sarfatti on CV 61, USS Ranger, Indian Ocean, 1987........... 165Kim Burrafato meets Richard Nixon........... 166Kim explains Sarfatti’s physics to Nixon and its relevance to Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative............ 166Herbert Gold’s book, “Bohemia........... 175Herb Gold, Jagdish Mann, Jack Sarfatti, North Beach, 1999........... 175Jack, Enrico Banducci and Jagdish (2000 AD)........... 175John Updike........... 176Cartoon of Jack Sarfatti lecturing in Brazil by Suky Sedgwick, 1984........... 177Darryl Van Horne and Sukie laughed........... 178Sergio Sismondo, David Green (3rd from left) and Jack Sarfatti (far right) Cornell........... 179CIA Chief of Station Harold Chipman’s associate PI Virginia Bruce with Jack on her short leash! (1989)........... 180Morning of the Magicians and The Spear of Destiny........... 182Cartoons by Norman Quebedeau........... 183Causality-Violating Quantum Action-at-a-Distance Revisited........... 189Jack at the Caffe Trieste ~ 1991 at the time of his San Francisco State Lecture........... 189Nefertiti’s Eye – a short story by Jagdish Mann........... 192PROLOGUE........... 192A romance across the centuries........... 192THE FUTURE........... 195THE PAST........... 197The Face of Eternal Beauty........... 201Tomas Sefari at The Inn........... 202Joe Firmage and ISSO........... 203Jack Sarfatti, Jagdish Mann, Creon Levit, Faustin Bray, Jean Pierre Vigier, 1999........... 203The late Jean Pierre Vigier at age 81 at ISSO........... 204Cold Fusion? ISSO Science’s Position by Creon Levit........... 204Jagdish, Vigier and Jack, Telegraph Hill, San Francisco, 1999 at ISSO Live-Work Space........... 207ISSO/ISEP Research in the Physics of Consciousness ........... 209Explaining Radin’s and Bierman’s presponse brain data with signal nonlocality violating quantum theory........... 209Henry Stapp’s Bohr-Heisenberg idealistic model of presponse........... 210Jack Sarfatti’s Bohmian realistic model of presponse........... 210Telos as Final Cause in Post-Quantum Physics by Colonel Robert Hickson........... 211Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics........... 214The Cat’s Cradle Principle: Collision of History with Destiny........... 215Spontaneously Sentient Self-Organization by the Time Loops of History’s Collision with Destiny........... 218Do we live in Matt Visser’s “Boring Universe”?........... 219My Spiritual Path by Hyman Sarfatti ........... 220The late Hyman Sarfatti and Jack Sarfatti........... 220Born in The Cave 1914........... 220Beat The Devil........... 222Aged Merlin........... 244Back From the Future........... 245DOES THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESTINY?........... 246From Eternity Back to Here-Now........... 249Holographic Universe Conjecture........... 251We are Platonic Shadows “on a distant wall,” but the “wall” is in our future........... 253John Archibald Wheeler’s IT FROM BIT........... 253Dark Energy........... 256The Hare and The Tortoise........... 257
Click here for Math Blog.
Physically the cosmological constant may correspond to a mysterious energy field filling the entire universe. With a proper choice of the cosmological constant , the universe was static, neither expanding nor contracting.It's not mysterious at all. It's simply virtual bosons, mostly virtual light, i.e. photons off-mass-shell both inside and outside the classical light cone.
Subsequently, the redshifts of extragalactic nebulae were reinterpreted as due to the motion of the nebulae. That is, the nebulae, recognized as galaxies outside our galaxy the Milky Way, were flying away from us, causing a redshift of light. Over time, the astronomer Edwin Hubble was able to show that the dimmer the galaxy and therefore presumably the farther away (at least on average) the galaxy, the larger the redshift and thus the faster the galaxy appeared to be running away from the Earth. This rather peculiar observation could be easily explained if the universe was expanding as predicted by the original General Theory of Relativity without the cosmological term (the cosmological constant was either zero or nearly zero).The cosmological term at large scales is the inverse area of our future event horizon and is, therefore, direct evidence for the holographic principle of 'tHooft and Susskind
John F. McGowan, Ph.D. is a software developer, research scientist, and consultant. He works primarily in the area of complex algorithms that embody advanced mathematical and logical concepts, including speech recognition and video compression technologies. He has extensive experience developing software in C, C++, Visual Basic, Mathematica, MATLAB, and many other programming languages. He is probably best known for his AVI Overview, an Internet FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on the Microsoft AVI (Audio Video Interleave) file format. He has worked as a contractor at NASA Ames Research Center involved in the research and development of image and video processing algorithms and technology. He has published articles on the origin and evolution of life, the exploration of Mars (anticipating the discovery of methane on Mars), and cheap access to space. He has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
dubious if that's what they say, with only a 1% change in index I don't think a real gravity effect is possible in that experiment.I don't have time to properly investigate such an extraordinary claim, Hal Puthoff is equipped for that not me.
On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Paul Murad wrote:Jack: Look up the website. They were dealiing with transmutation of pure copper using electrical current. After shocking the sample, traces of heavier metals to include Fe were found. When using an electron microscope, they found these regions where electrons were pumped in but there were no reflections. The electrons seemed to disappear. The voids also would disappear with time. I am not talking about mimicing anything. This was very unusual phenomenon...Paul...
Key word is "mimics."
This is interesting for several reasons:
1) It's not literally a black hole gravitationally. It's only a simulation - optical analog.
2) However, it is a potential test bed to see who is correct on the issue
(index of refraction)^4G/c^4 ?
There is no meta-material negative near field EM energy density here so no anti-gravity to be expected. However, if I am right then there should be a brief attractive gravity anomaly during the RIP laser pulse - though still very tiny and possibly not easy to detect - I have not tried to plug in the numbers.
3) Note on my hypothetical half-baked anti-gravity graphene sheet lifter all we need is negative static permittivity and the super-conducting meta-material high-voltage capacitor should anti-gravitate.
Getting a huge negative electrostatic polarization in the active material not easy, but maybe there is a way - note nonlinear optics can give a static term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics
Note, however, the actual experiment below is no good because the change in index of refraction is only 1% - we need the superconductor (or BE condensate in general).
2 Classical Nonlinear Optics by P Meystre - 2007 usually considered under the heading “nonlinear optics” are very useful and ... We see that this nonlinear term contains both a dc contribution and one at ... www.springerlink.com/index/ln13674481624r48.pdf [PDF] Frequency Doubling and Second Order Nonlinear Optics File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View The polarisation consists of three contributions with frequencies ω ,. 2ω and 0 (dc-term) .....The Principles of Nonlinear Optics by Y. R. Shen, ... www.ist-brighter.eu/tuto11/CONF2/Cambridge_Petersen.pdf - Similar Elements of quantum optics - Google Books Result Pierre Meystre, Murray Sargent - 2007 - Science - 507 pages We see that this nonlinear term contains both a dc contribution and one at ... light kicked off the field known as nonlinear optics [see Franken et al. ... books.google.com/books?isbn=3540742093...
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Paul Murad wrote:
Thanks very much. You may also want to look up Proton 21 out of Kiev where they created minature black holes several years ago in repeatable experiments... Tim Ventura first talked about these... Paul...
----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "email@example.com"
To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 11:43:12 AM Subject: Manmade Black Holes "Manmade Black Holes
Hawking radiation (little sideways moving balls) is created when a powerful and brief pulse of light (black arrows) is sent through a sample of pure glass. The pulse instantaneously changes the optical conditions in the glass to such a degree that the light seems to come to a halt, represented by the green-shaded warped tiling. (Credit: ISNS/Daniele Faccio) ...
The change in the refraction index occurs in lockstep with the laser pulse as it passes through the glass. The resulting moving disturbance is referred to as RIP, the refractive index perturbation. The RIP happens not because of the energy of the laser pulse, and not even because of the size of the change in the refractive index (which is less than 1 percent), but because of the quickness of the change, occurring over mere picoseconds (trillionths of a second)." Full story at: http://www.insidescience.org/research/imitation_black_hole_seen_on_earth
emails from Hal Lewis and Cherry Murray not included On Oct 12, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jim Felten wrote: To Jackie from Jimmy. No, Jackie, MY OWN TWO MESSAGES are not confidential, and Yes, you may send them to ... or anybody. However, he and you should be aware that I'm not an expert on this (just a rank-and-file physicist), and that my message is only one out of over 200 that the officers and councilors of APS received about this matter. Also, BE WARNED that there are copyright issues with the message from Cherry Murray (then-president of APS), which I ATTACHED to my second message. I felt free to send that copy to YOU, because, as a member of the APS, you were presumably on the original distribution list for it, about a year ago. If you send my 2nd message to APS nonmembers, I urge you to delete the attached message from Cherry Murray. Presumably you took no notice of this at the time. But in fact this message from Cherry Murray is the most annoying thing in this whole episode. She proposes to "investigate" Hal Lewis and the other dissenters. Although she sent this out to 30 or 40 thousand members, she might take the position that she retains copyright, and that it shouldn't be sent to nonmembers. You could deal with this by just paraphrasing what she says, or quoting briefly some annoying things that she says. You could also ask her for permission to send her message to nonmembers and see what she says..... I'm not well acquainted with more recent developments on this. I believe Council reaffirmed their 2007 resolution (which I do find objectionable). If they made any changes in the wording, I don't know of them. On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Jim Felten wrote: Jackie, since you seem interested in the resignation of Hal Lewis from the APS, I thought I should remind you that I did speak up about this. I'm sending you a copy of this e-mail and one other e-mail. I believe I already sent you these at the time. This one has Hal Lewis' original message attached at the bottom. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: APS Council resolution on global warming Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:37:58 -0600 From: Felten, James E. (GSFC-665.0)[UNIV MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK]. To: [Address list deleted by Jimmy] To President, President-elect, and Councillors of the American Physical Society from Jim Felten; cc Hal Lewis. The message below is my own opinion and does not purport to represent the position of NASA. I'm not a global-warming denier, although a few of my friends are. But I'm not comfortable with the text of Council's 2007 resolution (below). The word "disruptions" is a problem. Will there be "disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems"? What would that mean? "Changes" would be more accurate. Will they be major changes? If the Northwest Passage becomes ice-free, arguably that's a major physical change, but certainly not a "disruption". In ecology, the changes may not even be major on an objective scale-- for example, nothing like the event that wiped out the dinosaurs. Polar bears may become extinct, but Alaskan brown bears may thrive. The inaccurate propaganda word "disruptions" has been slipped into the text to get attention. Will there be "disruptions [of] social systems, security and human health"? That's much harder to argue pro or con, and physicists have no special expertise in this. Some areas, e.g., Alaska, Canada, Siberia and Patagonia, may benefit from global warming. If "We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now", who is "We"? Council should make it clear that unilateral actions are useless. CO2 knows no boundaries. International negotiation is needed. Some of the steps the USA is taking already will harm the USA economically (e.g., by exporting jobs) and will not stop global warming. Politicians are right in opposing some of these measures. The USA was right not to sign the Kyoto Protocols. China and India were exempted from the Kyoto strictures, and of the nations that did sign, not a single one met its assigned target. A friend of mine, Jim Baker, was head of NOAA in the Clinton administration and now works on global warming for the Bill Clinton Foundation. He told me that even if all the measures being proposed now are adopted, it will not be enough to cancel out the additional CO2 from the ongoing industrialization of China and India. He says we are headed for a world of 1000 ppm of CO2, and we should spend more time planning for this. The latter part of Council's 2007 resolution is more careful and is not objectionable. In fact, as I read it, it does give at least a nod ("complexity of the climate") toward the position of your critics, who sometimes seem to contend that anthropogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to global warming. It might be good for Council to add something explicit about this, mentioning that other (non-anthropogenic) effects might also be operating on decade time scales. But I think it wouldn't be appropriate for Council to be completely agnostic about the role of anthropogenic CO2.
On Oct 9, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Jim Felten wrote: Jackie: At the bottom is the very annoying message from the APS president proposing to "investigate" these global-warming skeptics.-------- Original Message --------Subject: Dr. Murray: Caution re "unsolicited e-mail"Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:37:47 -0600From: Felten, James E. (GSFC-665.0)[UNIV MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK].
To: [Addresses deleted by Jimmy.] To Dr. Cherry Murray from Jim Felten. I urge caution regarding "investigations" of "unsolicited e-mail". A member of the news media might report your message today as an attempt at censorship or even punishment of people who aren't toeing the party line. After all, your message today is also unsolicited, as is mine. These messages from Hal Lewis et al. are reputable physicists writing to other physicists about a very serious matter. And it was perfectly clear that they were not writing an "official APS message" with "APS knowledge or approval". I give them credit for their time and trouble. They didn't write spam messages. And their first message had some effect. It was wise of you to ask for a report from POPA. When I want to write to another physicist, I may look him up in the Directory. That's one of its main uses! Maybe these "guidelines" need some study. Do we "investigate" ALL physicists who use the Directory to send e-mail to many addressees? By the way, I too have been curious about the nature of Hal Lewis et al's mailing list. They used the phrases "sample" and "random fraction". I'm trying to check whether all Fellows received their two messages. I'm not a global-warming denier, but I'm not happy with the way this is going. For those of us old enough to remember, something similar happened in the Shockley era. 100 or so colleagues of Shockley who signed a petition defending Shockley's right to speak found that, as a result, they too began to be attacked. I sent you and Council an e-mail earlier saying that the 2007 resolution definitely needs some improvement. Councilor Chuck Dermer told me that Council received about 200 e-mails on the subject. Best wishes, Jim Felten.
On Oct 10, 2010, at 4:43 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
I have not had time yet to properly address James's more recent messages regarding my conjecture on the amplification of gravity in a yet-to-be-made large area plate made of stacked 1-atom thick graphene sheets separated by some other kind of material in which the composite is a higher-than-room temperature superconducting meta-material - whose several properties are tunable by nano-engineering techniques.
Remember my position is that James may prove correct in the end that such gravity amplification is impossible, but not for most of the detailed reasons he gives. If he is correct in the end, then it will be a sad day for Man, because we will be stuck here and it will be impossible for real distant ETs to get to us, or us to get to them in single life-times. It would also mean that all claims of actual material contact with alien ETs are mistaken.
On Oct 10, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
I think what James has written below exposes some basic misconceptions, not only about bimetric theories of gravity, but also with regard to the concept of "background independence" itself.
String/membrane theory is "bimetric," i.e. G = GNewton(1 + ae^-r/b) in the static limit.
Background independence is a Red Herring. It is simply, for the special case of Einstein's 1916 GR, the universal gauge invariance of the global dynamical action of all matter fields and their local field equations from the action principle &S = 0 with respect to the localized 4-parameter Abelian translation group T4(x) whose Lie algebra elements are the global total linear 4-momenta of the matter fields.
To get beyond Einstein's 1916 GR extend to the Poincare and the conformal groups.
Vacuum/Ground state solutions of the field equations may spontaneously break that symmetry, similarly to the way a superconductor breaks the U1 internal EM symmetry. Here the original quanta are replaced by elementary excitations (quasi-particles & collective modes) in the long-wave IR limit, e.g. the massless quasi-electrons in 2D flat graphene sheets (presently limited to tiny flakes) whose effective coupling to light is 300xvacuum fine structure "constant". Similarly for gravity in special superconducting meta-materials, possibly graphene-based, I suggest as a Popper-falsifiable hypothesis.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:23 PM, james f woodward wrote: I think you'll find that my comments about background independence are not incorrect as you claim. I suspect that this claim may be the result of confusion of what background independence actually is -- a confusion easily understood because background independence means the opposite of what one might intuitively think.
A confusion that is easily understood since no one seems to be able to give a clear definition of "background independence".
I gave a very clear definition formally as local T4(x) gauge transformations. Physically as transformations between locally coincident small detectors each in arbitrary possibly off-geodesic & rotating motions including applied torques. The historical origins of all this go back to the '50s and '60s and the Rosen [the same as the EPR and "bridge" Rosen] "bi-metric" theory of gravity where the usual Einstein metric theory is supplemented by a global Minkowski "background" spacetime.
Actually they go back to the devastating 1917 Kretschmann argument which trivialized general covariance from the physical standpoint. Kretschmann's argument clearly de-linked general relativity from general covariance. A way had to be found to rescue Einstein's notion of "general relativity", and the conceptual vacuum was filled (as it were) by Anderson's "principle of reciprocity" and his "no absolute objects" rule -- leading to the contemporary principle of active diffeomorphism invariance currently promoted by Rovelli, Smolin, and others.
I agree a lot of excess baggage here. I think I have gotten this down to the essential physics in a Zen like, more with less operational way. It's true any physical theory can be made "background independent" - indeed in my T4(x) definition the equivalence principle means that all physical theories must be background independent.
Background independence, in my opinion, is simply the particular application of the local gauge principle to the universal symmetry groups that define the spacetime fabric. After considerable debate, folks agreed that the Minkowski background metric added nothing whatsoever of physical meaning to Einstein's GR,
Rovelli in "Quantum Gravity" says global Minkowski spacetime is simply an unstable vacuum solution to Einstein T4(x) covariant field equations - with invariant global action integrals S over all 4D spacetime.
The "folks" who agreed on this, agreed on this. Others did not, and still don't. and the metric of GR describe the actual physical state of spacetime.
You need to use ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = gu'v'dx^u'dx^v' as the actual physical state, not the detector-dependent representations guv or gu'v'.
In any bimetric version of GR you have a deformable physical metric in addition to a Minkowski reference metric. The physical metric is determined by the matter distribution just as in plain vanilla GR.
Formally, the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP) simply means a class of coincident LIF can be realized in which the metric is approximately Minkowski over a scale small compared to the locally variable radii of curvature.
So this is an obvious red herring. Straw man. That is why GRT is called background independent.
That is not why GRT is called background independent.
OK I think I see your point about the "confusion". :-) A background-dependent theory is one that presupposes the existence of a global Minkowski metric spacetime into which physical stuff is loaded. The loading stuff (fields and particles and the like) has no effect on the metric at all.
This is simply false.
This is all related to the "relationalist" vs. "substantivalist" debate regarding the physical vacuum of GR. The relationalist idea is that if all gravitating matter is removed, then there is no metric and no spacetime -- that the spacetime of GR represents *only* relations between material bodies. The substantivalist position is that after all matter is removed you still have a physical spacetime with a Minkowski metric (aside from gravitational waves).
De Sitter famously showed that Einstein's field equations have vacuum solutions, and this along with Kretschmann's earlier 1917 critique upset Einstein's earlier "Machian" relationalist position. Intuitively, the background metric is independent of the contents of spacetime.
Just as the quiescent state of a guitar string (understood as a zero vibrational energy reference state) is independent of how it is plucked. But, counterintuitively, such theories are called background dependent because the background spacetime is prior to the contents found in it, and they depend for their existence on the prior existence of the background spacetime.
Exactly -- the unperturbed background inertial field (Minkowski spacetime) subsists ontologically prior to and independently of the existence of gravitating matter. But that does not mean that the physical metric describing this field cannot be physically perturbed by matter. That is the point of the physical spacetime metric in bimetric theories!
There are two important points here, for our purposes anyway. First, because of the prior nature of spacetime in background dependent theories (that the spacetime is unaffected by its contents),
This is just wrong. The actual idea is that a flat spacetime can subsist ontologically in the absence of gravitating matter. The actual physical metric is of course still perturbed by the presence of gravitating matter.
This "substantivalist" interpretation is clearly supported by the formalism of GR, since the field equations do in fact have pure vacuum solutions.
You seem to be confusing the question of ontological priority with the question of gravitational deformation of the physical metric. No one in the substantivalist or bimetric camps claims that physical spacetime is always flat regardless of the presence of matter!
nothing you put into the spacetime has any effect at all on the spacetime.
I think this is called "special relativity". Bimetric theories of matter are not at all the same as special relativity, contrary to what you seem to be arguing here. That means that no matter what you do, you cannot warp the background spacetime -- which is the real spacetime.
This is Minkowski special relativity. This has nothing to do with "background dependence".
You seem to be seriously confused here. So there are no wormholes or warp drives possible in such theories.
Not in special relativity, which is what you appear to be talking about. Second, Hal's PV approximation to GRT is a background dependent theory. A global Minkowski spacetime is ASSUMED, and the propagation of light, when it deviates from striaght lines in the Minkowski spacetime, is attributed to variations in the index of refraction of a material medium (virtual e-p pairs in the PV model) in the background spacetime.
No, the deformation of the physical metric is simply modeled (for engineering purposes) as a vacuum polarization effect. By ASSUMPTION, no amount of any stuff placed into the background Minkowski spacetime can cause any warping of the spacetime.
You're talking about Minkowski SR here, right?
This has nothing to do wiith background dependent or bimetric interpretations of GR. I don't think you have understood the meaning of "background dependence". Should you check with Hal, I expect he will tell you that this is indeed the case for the PV approximation to GRT. The PV model is just a heuristic approximation to GRT intended to simplify otherwise more complicated calculations.
PV is not relevant here, since it is intended only as a naive approximate engineering model. It is not offered as an alternative to GR, or even as the basis for an alternative interpretation of GR, as far as I'm aware.
Should you read the paper in light of the foregoing, you'll find that I have used "background independence" consistently with the above.
Consistently incorrect, yes. GRT is background independent --
I'm sorry James but this is nonsense. GR has background dependent and background independent interpretations,but even the Andersonian background independent "no absolute objects" interpretations are only partially valid. GR still has absolute background structure. For example, the Lorentz signature of the metric is an absolute invariant in any viable interpretation of GR, regardless of how matter is distributed in spacetime, and regardless of whether there is any gravitating matter at all. which is why it is physically meaningful to talk about wormholes and warp drives as real physical possibilities.
This is nonsense. Bimetric theories don't allow gravitational deformation of the physical spacetime? Horse feathers. Poppycock. Other theories like PV and string theory are background dependent. As such, they presume the reality of spacetime to be, for example, a global Minkowski spacetime. Since that spacetime is not affected by its material contents, wormholes and warp drives are by assumption impossible.
It just means that if you remove all gravitating matter from spacetime, there is still a "there" there. This is fully supported by the formalism of GR, since GR has pure vacuum solutions -- as shown long ago by de Sitter.
If you want to see stargates and warp drives become a reality, keep your fingers crossed that Einstein was right about the background independence of GRT, and that reality conforms to GRT.
So e.g. Rosen's bimetric theory doesn't admit a Rosen bridge? I beg to disagree.
I've attached a paper "Who's Afraid of Background Independence" by Rickles, raising a number of points regarding background dependence vs. background independence that you may find useful.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:14:00 -0700 JACK SARFATTI
writes: > If we can make a low-power high Tc superconducting warp/wormhole > drive I am sure graphene sheets will be the key substrate. > BTW a point about James Woodward's incorrect argument about > background independence being spoiled inside the material. > By the same false reasoning one can argue that special relativity is > spoiled inside the material because the speed of light in material > is clearly not invariant.
> Just remember locality demands that (index of refraction)^4G/c^4 is > the gravity coupling inside the material because the speed of light > in vacuum is from scattering off virtual electron-positron pairs and > in a material we also have real particle charges. It's the same > thing as far as gravity is concerned because of the equivalence > principle. The fact that the universe is accelerating is proof > positive that virtual particles inside the vacuum (anti) gravitate > equally with real particles outside the vacuum. >