Text Size

Stardrive

The Kerr-Newman solution is a vacuum solution. First consider Schwarzschild solution - modified to have dark matter in the interior. By dark matter I mean an effective negative AdS cosmological parameter /\ < 0 coming from a virtual particle plasma in which the density of virtual fermion closed loops is greater than the density of virtual bosons.

The effective metric inside 2M is then (G = c =1)

g00 = 1 + 2VNewton = 1 - /\r^2

r < 2M

acceleration of static LNIF

g = - g00^-1/2d(VNewton)/dr = (1 - /\r^2)^-1/2/\r/2   attractive for AdS /\ < 0

i.e.   g(r < 2M) = -(1 + |/\|r^2)^-1/2|/\|r/2

outside the horizon

g00 = 1 - 2M/r

r > 2M

g(r >2M) = -M/r^2(1 - 2M/r)^1/2

continuity at the horizon demands matching g

this is not possible because we have an exterior coordinate singularity with no interior coordinate singularity.

Suppose we use a cutoff at Planck length Lp - at the horizon

g(r > 2M)  ~ - (1 - 2M/(2M + Lp)^-1/2 2M/(2M + Lp)^2

assume Lp << M to first order in Lp/M Taylor series

(1 - 2M/(2M + Lp)^-1/2 ~ (2M/Lp)^1/2  >> 1

matching g

|/\|2M(1 + |/\|4M^2)^-1/2 ~ (1/M)(M/Lp)^1/2

4M^2|/\|^2(1 + |/\|4M^2)-1 ~ 1/MLp

4M^2|/\|^2 ~ (1/MLp)(1 + 4M^2 |/\|)

We end up with a quadratic equation with 2 roots for |/\| in terms of the mass M and the Planck quantum gravity scale Lp. Here M means GM/c^2

4M^2|/\|^2  - (4M/Lp)|/\| - (1/MLp) ~ 0

the dimension of each term here is 1/Area

Is there a real root - and is the whole thing stable or not? - in Ray Chiao's sense

Before going further the above algebra needs to be checked for errors.


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: December 17, 2010 1:44:38 PM PST
To: Raymond Chiao
Subject: Re: From Ray Chiao - UC Merced - instability of black hole horizon?

yes as a matter of principle your argument is correct - but it's similar to Poincare recurrence cycles - practically speaking it won't matter for astrophysics/cosmology - where it does matter is for Bohmian hidden variable models of quarks, leptons, & hadronic resonances as tiny Kerr-Newman black holes - but then you can have T = 0 (zero surface gravity) as I recall in the Kerr-Newman metric. But that may not be stable and that would suggest such a model for the electron for example could not work.


On Dec 17, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Raymond Chiao wrote:

But we are dealing here with matters of principle, not "practically speaking" or FAPP!  --Ray

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:24 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
Oh, OK now that I have read Ray's paper. Yes, technically that's correct, but practically speaking the lifetime of a black hole scales as M^3 very long for astrophysical black holes. :-)

E.g. if Sun were a black hole it would take 10^67 years >>> effective lifetime of matter in the accelerating universe.


On Dec 17, 2010, at 12:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Raymond Chiao
Date: December 17, 2010 12:22:15 PM PST
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Ted Jacobson's hologram derives from Einstein's original LOCAL EEP (Dr. Quantum) v3

Hi Jack, I think that the thermodynamic equilibrium between a black hole and a heat bath at the same temperature (i.e., at the Hawking temperature) is unstable. See the attached memo addressed to the gravity seminar at UC Merced. I find this conclusion very disturbing.
 
--Ray Chiao


We have a chicken - egg problem - a horizon is part of a solution to Einstein's Guv + kTuv = 0. So we need a self-creating back-from-the-future post-selection effect for the whole thing to make sense on the cosmological scale. Note that Jacobson has a local argument based on the EEP/Rindler Horizon - very very clever. It shows to my mind that Zielinski's attempt to try to chuck the EEP is not correct. Similarly with the other philosophers, mathematicians, and theorists that Zielinski cites.

What happens when we replace Jacobson's thermal equilibrium by a Prigogine dissipative structure - a pump preventing thermal equilibrium like a laser, also sub-quantal non-equilibrium's signal nonlocality? Indeed, Jacobson is aware of such a possibility.

"Our thermodynamic derivation of the Einstein equation of state presumed
the existence of local equilibrium conditions in that the relation
dQ = TdS only applies to variations between nearby states of local thermodynamic
equilibrium. For instance, in free expansion of a gas, entropy
increase is not associated with any heat flow, and this relation is not valid.
Moreover, local temperature and entropy are not even well defined away
from equilibrium. In the case of gravity, we chose our systems to be defined
by local Rindler horizons, which are instantaneously stationary, in order to
have systems in local equilibrium. At a deeper level, we also assumed the
usual form of short distance vacuum fluctuations in quantum fields when we
motivated the proportionality of entropy and horizon area and the use of the
Unruh acceleration temperature. Viewing the usual vacuum as a zero temperature
thermal state[11], this also amounts to a sort of local equilibrium
assumption. This deeper assumption is probably valid only in some extremely
good approximation. We speculate that out of equilibrium vacuum
fluctuations would entail an ill-defined spacetime metric.

Given local equilibrium conditions, we have in the Einstein equation a
system of local partial differential equations that is time reversal invariant
and whose solutions include propagating waves. One might think of these as
analogous to sound in a gas propagating as an adiabatic compression wave.
Such a wave is a travelling disturbance of local density, which propagates via
a myriad of incoherent collisions. Since the sound field is only a statistically
defined observable on the fundamental phase space of the multiparticle system,
it should not be canonically quantized as if it were a fundamental field,
even though there is no question that the individual molecules are quantum
mechanical. By analogy, the viewpoint developed here suggests that it may
not be correct to canonically quantize the Einstein equations, even if they
describe a phenomenon that is ultimately quantum mechanical.
For sufficiently high sound frequency or intensity one knows that the
local equilibrium condition breaks down, entropy increases, and sound no
longer propagates in a time reversal invariant manner. Similarly, one might
expect that sufficiently high frequency or large amplitude disturbances of the
gravitational field would no longer be described by the Einstein equation,
not because some quantum operator nature of the metric would become
relevant, but because the local equilibrium condition would fail. It is my
hope that, by following this line of inquiry, we shall eventually reach an
understanding of the nature of “non-equilibrium spacetime”.

tying up a loose end
Physics as quantum information processing1
Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano
QUIT Group, Dipartimento di Fisica “A. Volta”, 27100 Pavia, Italy, http://www.qubit.it
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Gruppo IV, Sezione di Pavia

On closer reading the paper did not make any sense to me really - too much informal language - no "there" there in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

The Einstein equation is derived from the proportionality of entropy and horizon area together with the fundamental relation δQ = TdS connecting heat, entropy, and temperature. The key idea is to demand that this relation hold for all the local Rindler causal horizons through each spacetime point, with δQ and T interpreted as the energy flux and Unruh temperature seen by an accelerated observer just inside the horizon. This requires that gravitational lensing by matter energy distorts the causal structure of spacetime in just such a way that the Einstein equation holds. Viewed in this way, the Einstein equation is an equation of state. This perspective suggests that it may be no more appropriate to canonically quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air.

i.e., Rindler horizon points to local equivalence of accelerating LNIF to Newton's gravity force.

Newton's gravity force is zero on a timelike geodesic - real forces are always measured from non-geodesics.

What we think of as Newton's gravity force is always, in reality an electrical reaction force sustaining the LNIF.

"The four laws of black hole mechanics, which are analogous to those of thermodynamics, were originally derived from the classical Einstein equation[1]. With the discovery of the quantum Hawking radiation[2], it became clear that the analogy is in fact an identity. How did classical General Relativity know that horizon area would turn out to be a form of entropy, and that surface gravity is a temperature? In this letter I will answer that question by turning the logic around and deriving the Einstein equation from the proportionality of entropy and horizon area together with the fundamental relation δQ = TdS connecting heat Q, entropy S, and temperature T. Viewed in this way, the Einstein equation is an equation of state. It is born in the thermodynamic limit as a relation between thermodynamic variables, and its validity is seen to depend on the existence of local equilibrium conditions. This perspective suggests that it may be no more appropriate to quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air.

On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI cited Ted Jacobson:
"The Einstein equation is derived from the proportionality of entropy and horizon area together with the fundamental relation δQ = TdS connecting heat, entropy, and temperature. The key idea is to demand that this relation hold for all the local Rindler causal horizons through each spacetime point, with δQ and T interpreted as the energy flux and Unruh temperature seen by an accelerated observer just inside the horizon. This requires that gravitational lensing by matter energy distorts the causal structure of spacetime in just such a way that the Einstein equation holds. Viewed in this way, the Einstein equation is an equation of state. This perspective suggests that it may be no more appropriate to canonically quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air."
i.e., Rindler horizon points to local equivalence of accelerating LNIF to Newton's gravity force.
Newton's gravity force is zero on a timelike geodesic - real forces are always measured from non-geodesics.
What we think of as Newton's gravity force is always, in reality an electrical reaction force sustaining the LNIF.
"The four laws of black hole mechanics, which are analogous to those of thermodynamics, were originally derived from the classical Einstein equation[1]. With the discovery of the quantum Hawking radiation[2], it became clear that the analogy is in fact an identity. How did classical General Relativity know that horizon area would turn out to be a form of entropy, and that surface gravity is a temperature? In this letter I will answer that question by turning the logic around and deriving the Einstein equation from the proportionality of entropy and horizon area together with the fundamental relation δQ = TdS connecting heat Q, entropy S, and temperature T. Viewed in this way, the Einstein equation is an equation of state. It is born in the thermodynamic limit as a relation between thermodynamic variables, and its validity is seen to depend on the existence of local equilibrium conditions. This perspective suggests that it may be no more appropriate to quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air."
"In thermodynamics, heat is energy that flows between degrees of freedom
that are not macroscopically observable. In spacetime dynamics, we shall
define heat as energy that flows across a causal horizon. It can be felt
via the gravitational field it generates, but its particular form or nature is
unobservable from outside the horizon. For the purposes of this definition
it is not necessary that the horizon be a black hole event horizon. It can be
simply the boundary of the past of any set O (for “observer”). This sort of
horizon is a null hypersurface (not necessarily smooth) and, assuming cosmic
censorship, it is composed of generators which are null geodesic segments
emanating backwards in time from the set O. We can consider a kind of
local gravitational thermodynamics associated with such causal horizons,
where the “system” is the degrees of freedom beyond the horizon. The
outside world is separated from the system not by a diathermic wall, but by
a causality barrier."

That causal horizons should be associated with entropy is suggested by
the observation that they hide information[3]. In fact, the overwhelming
majority of the information that is hidden resides in correlations between
vacuum fluctuations just inside and outside of the horizon[4]. Because of
the infinite number of short wavelength field degrees of freedom near the
horizon, the associated “entanglement entropy” is divergent in continuum
quantum field theory. If, on the other hand, there is a fundamental cutoff
length lc, then the entanglement entropy is finite and proportional to the
horizon area in units of lc^2 as long as the radius of curvature of spacetime is
much longer than lc.
So far we have argued that energy flux across a causal horizon is a kind
of heat flow, and that entropy of the system beyond is proportional to the
area of that horizon. It remains to identify the temperature of the system
into which the heat is flowing. Recall that the origin of the large entropy is
the vacuum fluctuations of quantum fields. According to the Unruh effect[8],
those same vacuum fluctuations have a thermal character when seen from
the perspective of a uniformly accelerated observer. We shall thus take the
temperature of the system to be the Unruh temperature associated with
such an observer hovering just inside the horizon. For consistency, the same
observer should be used to measure the energy flux that defines the heat
flow. Different accelerated observers will obtain different results. In the
limit that the accelerated worldline approaches the horizon the acceleration
diverges, so the Unruh temperature and energy flux diverge, however
their ratio approaches a finite limit. It is in this limit that we analyse the
thermodynamics, in order to make the arguments as local as possible.
Up to this point we have been thinking of the system as defined by any
causal horizon. However, in general, such a system is not in “equilibrium”
because the horizon is expanding, contracting, or shearing. Since we wish to
apply equilibrium thermodynamics, the system is further specified as follows.
The equivalence principle is invoked to view a small neighborhood of each
spacetime point p as a piece of flat spacetime.
Through p we consider a small
spacelike 2-surface element P whose past directed null normal congruence to
one side (which we call the “inside”) has vanishing expansion and shear at p.
It is always possible to choose P through p so that the expansion and shear
vanish in a first order neighborhood of p. We call the past horizon of such a
P the “local Rindler horizon of P”, and we think of it as defining a system—
the part of spacetime beyond the Rindler horizon—that is instantaneously
stationary (in “local equilibrium”) at p. Through any spacetime point there
are local Rindler horizons in all null directions.
The fundamental principle at play in our analysis is this: The equilibrium
thermodynamic relation Q = TdS, as interpreted here in terms of
energy flux and area of local Rindler horizons, can only be satisfied if gravitational
lensing by matter energy distorts the causal structure of spacetime
in just such a way that the Einstein equation holds. We turn now to a
demonstration of this claim."

to be continued
Note how clever and elegant Jacobson's argument is. He uses Einstein LOCAL EEP (in sense of Pauli 1921 Encyclopedia article) to get the local
Guv + kTuv = 0

General Relativity is the local gauging of the four-parameter translation group T4, but the four spin 1 tetrads are the natural compensating gauge potentials not the spin 2 graviton second rank tensor metric field's Levi-Civita-Christoffel connection components. In all the quantum gravity schemes 't Hooft describes the tetrads are not mentioned.
"A point made repeatedly by this author is that it is quite likely, at least philosophically
more acceptable, that the quantum properties of black holes are indeed sharply defined
by some theory."
OK
"It would be premature to assert that this would be at odds with general
relativity. That would involve assumptions concerning behavior of matter near the
Planck scale, and such assumptions nay be suspected to be wrong. Ingoing particles that
encounter outgoing ones at a Planckian distance away from the horizon do indeed influence
them, while passing through. If not the ordinary standard model interactions perturb the
outgoing particles, then certainly the gravitational force, due to graviton exchange, will do
the job. But the job done by gravitons is difficult to compute: it diverges."
OK
"It was attempted to make the next step: compute such effects. To some extent we
succeeded in obtaining a unitary scattering matrix for black holes, but its Hilbert space
still contained more states than allowed by the value (5.6) as dictated by the entropy.
The only way to obtain the correct density of states appears to be by assuming that
there really are no more states to be discussed than just that number. By itself, this
appears to be an interesting and physically meaningful piece of information: the number
of mutually orthonormal states to be employed in the description of the horizon of a black
hole is limited by Eq. (5.6)."
OK
"But its consequences are far-reaching: these states seem to be
distributed at the horizon, which is a two-dimensional plane. Yet the states one started off
with, using general coordinate transformations to describe the properties of a black hole
once the properties of the vacuum world experienced by a local observer near the horizon
are understood, appear to be distributed in a three-dimensional space!"
OK
"This led us to formulate the so-called ‘holographic principle’:
The complete set of degrees of freedom for all particles populating a certain region
in space and time, can be represented as if they were all situated on the boundary
of this space-time. Roughly, there is one Boolean degree of freedom for every
4 ln 2 Planck lengths squared.

This complete rearrangement of the physical degrees of freedom in the theory of quantized
particles in the Planck regime, has far reaching implications for this theory. It invalidates
the unusual distinction between intensive and extensive variables. Usually, extensive variables such as total mass, charge and energy may be seen as integrals of the corresponding
densities over three-space. This will no longer be true; most integrations will be over some
surface instead."
OK
"When we arrived at the holographic principle, we took this surface to be
the horizon of a black hole, but for a local observer this surface would be indistinguishable
from any other surface. Thus, one must conclude that the physical degrees of freedom may
be projected onto any (infinite) surface at any time in three-space."
NOT OK
Obviously not any surface will do. Horizons are different because static LNIFs outside the black hole horizon need infinite acceleration at the horizon to stand still and they are destroyed by "infinite" temperature black body radiation. Of course the coincident LIF will not see those black body photons.

"In several cases, the violation of Bell’s inequalities was verified experimentally. Any hidden
variable theory that cannot accommodate these facts must be discarded. The remainder
of this paper will describe the present author’s approach in more detail. Although it is not
clear how violations of Bell’s inequalities can come about in this theory, it is also difficult to
prove that they cannot be violated."

't Hooft does not mean Bohm's hidden variables.
"The cosmological constant in the real world seems to be extremely accurately tuned
to zero, whereas the only known mechanism that might be related, supersymmetry, is
strongly violated. How can a crippled symmetry produce a cancellation over 120 orders of
magnitude?"

't Hooft's paper was written in 2000 before he knew about dark energy and he does not associate the dark energy density with the inverse area-entropy of our future horizon. Indeed, back then he did not even know there was such a future horizon with which to apply Yakir Aharonov's idea of post-selection.

"Cosmologists have long been puzzled about why the conditions of our universe—for example, its rate of expansion—provide the ideal breeding ground for galaxies, stars, and planets. If you rolled the dice to create a universe, odds are that you would not get one as handily conducive to life as ours is. Even if you could take life for granted, it’s not clear that 14 billion years is enough time for it to evolve by chance. But if the final state of the universe is set and is reaching back in time to influence the early universe, it could amplify the chances of life’s emergence."


On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:45 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
On Dec 13, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
"I don't get it. Why can't we say that the Born interpretation works, except when it doesn't? That it applies
contingently in case unitarity holds, but not otherwise?"
That is what I say. Antony Valentini's Bohmian model shows it explicitly formally.
Also, even in my original back-reaction idea of 1996 given at Tucson II (abstract in their proceedings)
For simplest toy model of a single particle in a box
Bohm's post-quantum potential is Q*(X,x) where X is the coordinate of the actual particle and x is the variable covering the whole box.
In ordinary QM with unitarity we only have Q(x) no X-dependence i.e. action of Q on particle X without any direct back-reaction of X on Q.
"It's not hard to come up with examples from classical physics where a stochastic variable is associated
with a wave disturbance. The wave disturbance evolves deterministically, while the probability distribution
for the associated stochastic variable passively reflects the effect of the wave disturbance. In such cases
the nature of the probability distribution has no bearing on the underlying wave phenomenon, which is
determined independently of whatever statistical distribution is derived from it.
Why can't the Born interpretation be understood in the same way?
Isn't this the tail wagging the dog?"
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:11 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
On Dec 13, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Google Alerts wrote:
Web    1 new result for Gerard 't Hooft
 
"Fun with big numbers" | Myspace Forums
This may help: Gerard 't Hooft OBSTACLES ON THE WAY TOWARDS THE QUANTIZATION OF SPACE, TIME AND MATTER www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gthpub/foundations.pdf ...
www.myspace.fr/forums/t/4861891/p/72754643
"The theory of Quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of general relativity have been equally successful. Both are based on principles that are assumed to be exactly valid: quantum mechanics requires a hermitian hamiltonian to describe the evolution of vectors in a Hilbert space. Hermiticity is mandatory in order to ensure the conservation of probabilities, and giving up the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function would imply a big departure from the (highly successful) first principles of quantum mechanics. General relativity is based on invariance under general coordinate transformations. Any violation of the principle of coordinate invariance would imply the existence of some preferable set of coordinates of a kind never observed in Nature.
Thus, what these two theories have in common is that small deviations from their principal starting points cannot be tolerated since these would invalidate the underlying logic; the starting points must be exactly valid. The theories also have in common that they allow large varieties of secondary ‘laws of Nature’: in quantum mechanics, we could call the Schr ?odinger equation the primary law; the secondary laws of Nature here are the ones that determine the interaction potentials and coupling strengths. In general relativity, Einstein’s equation for the gravitational field is the primary equation, but the details of the matter field equations are secondary; they are not prescribed by the theory.
... A theoretical study of black holes leads to the so-called holographic principle ... Superstring theory claims some successes in reproducing the requirement of holography to its heaviest (black hole) states, at the cost of a very indirect physical interpretation of its foundations. This author tends to be more and more inclined towards the suspicion that the problems of quantum gravity are much more than purely technical ones; they touch upon very essential philosophical issues."
Gerardus introduces the temporal gauge, which requires zero geomagnetism, i.e. g0i = 0, i = 1,2,3. This is no good as it does not permit the Kerr solution, nor even the Rindler horizon solution for a uniformly accelerating frame in Minkowski spacetime. For example, see Ray Chiao's papers on EM-GW transducers.



The black body radiation density ~ T^4

but T ~ /\^1/2

Therefore the Unruh radiation density back from our future cosmological horizon is Lp^2/\ too small compared to the actual dark energy density.

That is, the Unruh acceleration effect energy density is  hc/\^2 

The observed dark energy density is hcLp^-2/\

from Einstein's GR field equation

/\ ~ (G-string tension)^-1(vacuum energy density)

G-string tension = hc/Lp^2

where /\ = 1/(area of future horizon)

T'day
Hi Jack! Snowing in your part of the USA? It's hot, humid and raining here in Oz.
never snows in san francisco- warm here
Nor here in Brisbane. But it sure does rain!
Did you see the preprint on making electron-positrons via pair-production via an intense laser pulse?

yes no big deal
I think the new thing is the computation. It's been theorised for years, but tough to compute.
So how would you make antimatter? Or is that passe?

maybe but it's standard QED no new physics there at a fundamental level
True enough. Weird when the media exaggerate the novelty factor.
passe - it's made at CERN it's standard physics from more than 50 years ago
Tiny bits at woeful efficiency. I mean making it for propulsion.
PET scans done with anti-electrons
From radioisotopes.
No betatron sitting around in a PET lab usually.

propulsion maybe but still it's only a damn rocket with g-forces - no good for interstellar - it ain't warp drive
Quite so. So how do we get around the energy density issues of Alcubierre warp-drives?
hopefully superconducting meta-materials graphene based - look at blog http://stardrive.org
Hmmm... Superconducting metamaterials? Casimir engineering right?
we want large negative indices of refraction - should increase coupling of EM fields to gravity - Casimir no!
coupling ~ (index)^4
Really? That'd be interesting to see in a lab. What's current coupling? Really low isn't it?
G/c^4
too low
(index)^4G/c^4 much better
if index ~ 10^10
stopping light in its tracks should dramatically increase matter's ability to warp spacetime
that's my conjecture

Interesting conjecture. Wonder if there's anywhere in the Universe where it happens naturally?

In our skies - flying saucers

That Penrose recycling Universe concept would be bad news for intelligent life. Means extinction is inevitable.


Most UFOs are mistaken identity. Which ones convince you that some are actual space-vehicles?

It's wrong I think. Three new papers out showing it's a wrong inference. Even Penrose can be wrong at times. With time travel you can have immortality anyway even if universe comes to an end - I mean if you can conquer aging simply keep going back in time to virgin planets in other star systems.

Indeed.

"Most" not "all" - this is no place to discuss the saucer data. I think they are real - alien ET with warp/stargate technology. Of course, I may be wrong. But I know too many military intelligence guys obsessed with them - as well as several very rich powerful people like the late Laurance Rockefeller and the still living Bob Bigelow in Las Vegas.

You don't have to justify the ET hypothesis to me. I believe ETs are amongst us in human-form to observe. But we find it very easy to impute meaning to things we see in the sky.
Any UFOs we see that are ET are shown to us deliberately.
Observations don't happen by chance
Though "ET" might really be our future selves
Come back through time for some reason, perhaps to get us through a crisis.
But that's a theory.

That's my theory for several decades now.

Dec 08


On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
I wasn't talking just about the mathematical equations, but also about the physical reasoning behind the equations.
Me: The two really powerful ideas in physics today are
1) local gauging of fermion fields - as a generalization of Einstein's relativity principle
New dynamical fermion-boson interactions still keeping the total dynamical action invariant under the extended global to local symmetry group.
this includes Einstein's gravity from T4 --> T4(x)
Maxwell's EM from U1 ---> U1(x)
Weak-Strong Forces from SU(2) SU(3) ---> SU2(x) SU3(x)
2) spontaneous broken vacuum/ground state symmetries for the emergence of new long range order - the above total dynamical action remains invariant, only the vacuum/ground state has smaller symmetry than the dynamics.
this includes seed rest masses of leptons & quarks, W-mass
superfluid helium
superconductors
crystal formation
ferromagnets et-al
absolute cosmological rest frame - Hubble flow, isotropic CMB - absolute temperature as measure of time since Big Bang.
Z wrote: For example, Weyl's second gauge theory. What is the *physical* reasoning behind local gauging of the electron phase? In 1929 Weyl (and others) first posited electron phase invariance as a gauge symmetry, and then used physical arguments about the local nature of propagating disturbances being limited by the speed of light in order to motivate local gauging. Do you take that seriously?
Of course.
Z: And if you don't, what more is Weyl's local gauging of the electron phase than a mathematical recipe that for some unknown reason seems to work?
The key is that it does work even if we do not fully know why. Obviously local gauging is motivated by the light barrier for classical signals.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
On Dec 7, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
OK fine, but I think it's important not to neglect theory. Measurement in physics involves more than operations.  And here I am echoing the older and wiser Albert Einstein.
Be specific I have no idea what you mean. I am not proposing to neglect
Guv + kTuv = 0
etc.
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

By treating gravity as a "gauge field" and showing a formal analogy with gauge fields in particle physics. Or by treating gravity as a quantum field in flat spacetime.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Paul Murad wrote:
 
Regarding gravity, if it is not a force and it is curvature of a spacetime continuum, then how could the physics community develop a unification of forces if gravity is not one of them?
Ufoguy...


Me: The four spin 1 gravity tetrad fields e^I = (Minkowski GIF TETRAD)^I + A^I(LIF)

are formally SO(1,3) vector fields on a non-dynamical background.

A^I is the locally gauged  INDUCED T4(x) field.

Physically we know they are only LIFs with different LIFs in non-overlapping coordinate charts separated by more that the curvature radii.

The dynamical physical curved spacetime comes from

ds^2 = (Minkowski Metric)IJe^Ie^J

Note that A^I is GCT invariant.

Non-rigorously ds ~ (e^IeI)^1/2


On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I think your Kibble-Utiyama gauge gravity model comes under the first heading.

But at the same time you insist that gravity is not a force.

Does that mean that the "forces" of the Standard Model are also not really forces?

Jeez Z you make the most ridiculous inferences. Of course not. Don't you see the difference I am driving at? Let me spell it out again for the jillionth time.

Real forces come from NON-UNIVERSAL compact internal symmetry groups U1, SU2, SU3

e.g. leptons don't carry the eight strong SU3 charges

Gravity pseudo-inertial forces, IN CONTRAST, come from the UNIVERSAL non-compact "spacetime" symmetry groups - the lowest one is T4 is all we need locally gauge for Einstein 1916 GR -- followed by SO(1,3) Einstein's 1905 SR - both subgroups of Poincare group, which in turn is a subgroup of the conformal light cone group.

Roy's question is thus answered, but Roy lacks the concepts to properly grasp the answer and even to ask intelligible questions in the field.
If not, what's the difference? That one is based on an "external" gauge symmetry, while the other is based on an "internal" one?

By Roy, I think you grokked it!





Dec 07

Wall Street Nightmare - hanging by a string

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Dec 7, 2010, at 1:04 PM, david mosier wrote:
Imagine how bad Ginsberg would sound if he was writing Howl today:
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, on Wall Street,
dragging themselves through compromised formulas at dawn, looking for an angry fix of quantitative analysis,
greed-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo of rigged program trading on the New York Stock Exchange,.......:-)
--- On Tue, 12/7/10, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
From: JACK SARFATTI Subject: mathematician's and string theorist's role in wall street collapse of 9/15/08
To: "JACK SARFATTI" Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 2:06 PM
"I regard the amount of brain power going into money management as a national scandal. We have armies of people with advanced degrees in physics and math in various hedge funds and private-equity funds trying to outsmart the market. A lot of…older people…can remember when none of these people existed…At Samsung, their engineers meet at 11 p.m. Our meetings of engineers [meaning our smartest citizens] are also at 11 p.m., but they're working on pricing derivatives. I think it's crazy to have incentives that drive your most intelligent people into a very sophisticated gaming system."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44457









Dec 07
Jack: Yes, I meant mathematically. It's not clear if it has any physical meaning at all. Maybe it does. Most theory papers today are really conceptual art - fantasy worlds of pure mathematics with only a very tenuous grip on the phenomenal world.

Z: OK.

Jack: My P.W. Bridgman approach may not be that obvious to many mathematicians working in relativity. It's basically Wheeler's ideas.

Z: Yes you do seem to follow Wheeler's approach pretty closely.

Jack:Yes, because it makes sense to my mind grounded in Einstein's use of gedankenexperiments.  One can imagine fleets of little micro-drones in space with rocket propulsion and all the sensors and detectors needed to make measurements -- well there will be bandwidth limits for small detectors,  but they can use the interferometer trick for long wavelengths. Rocket motor firing LNIF, rocket motor off LIF - all the measurements of space-time structure GMD fields in a finite region of 4D spacetime vacuum can pictured in terms of them:

Tetrad LIF <-> LNIF

GCT T4(x) LNIF <-> LNIF'

SO(1,3) LIF <-> LIF'

all explained clearly in operational terms.


On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Yes I have to agree that while the spectral action/commutative geometry approach to GTR is mathematically
very sophisticated, unless it is capable of producing falsifiable predictions it is really nothing more than
applied mathematics.

On first glance it certainly looks like the kind of *post hoc* tailoring of an abstract formalism to already known
empirical content that I tend to associate with string theory.

As for being more "advanced" than what we've been talking about here, I'm not so sure. Mathematically, perhaps,
but what we have been debating has fundamental implications for the physical meaning of the GTR. I doubt that
the same can be said of this paper. 

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:54 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Hi Jonathan
Her work looks interesting, but much more advanced than what we are discussing - foundations of Einstein's GR and its physical/operational meaning what David Bohm called "GR's measurement theory" in analogy with "quantum measurement theory". I don't see off hand how her work can be Popper falsified and is relevant to the pressing anomalies today, i.e. dark energy, dark matter, Pioneer anomaly, matter-antimatter asymmetry etc.


On Dec 6, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Do you feel this might be relevant to what we were talking about? Or are you just trying
to change the subject?

Sure the topologies of solutions of the E-H field equations can be physically significant.

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Jonathan Post wrote:
Have you guys been following the exciting work of Matilde Marcolli,
currently on faculty at Caltech? You can download a PDF from:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0780
   Title: The coupling of topology and inflation in Noncommutative Cosmology
   Authors: Matilde Marcolli, Elena Pierpaoli, Kevin Teh
   Comments: 30 pages, LaTeX, 11 pdf figures
   Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Cosmology and
Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); Mathematical Physics
(math-ph)

   We show that, in a model of modified gravity based on the spectral
action functional, there is a nontrivial coupling between cosmic
topology and inflation, in the sense that the shape of the possible
slow-roll inflation potentials obtained in the model from the
nonperturbative form of the spectral action are sensitive not only to
the geometry (flat or positively curved) of the universe, but also to
the different possible non-simply connected topologies. We show this
by explicitly computing the nonperturbative spectral action for some
candidate flat cosmic topologies given by Bieberbach manifolds and
showing that the resulting inflation potential differs from that of
the flat torus by a multiplicative factor, similarly to what happens
in the case of the spectral action of the spherical forms in relation
to the case of the 3-sphere. We then show that, while the slow-roll
parameters differ between the spherical and flat manifolds but do not
distinguish different topologies within each class, the power spectra
detect the different scalings of the slow-roll potential and therefore
distinguish between the various topologies, both in the spherical and
in the flat case.


On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 9:47 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>>
>> I meant,
>>
>> "And why should the concept of the true value of a metric derivative be
>> any different in a curved
>> spacetime?"
>>
>> Stupid question. Independent of curvature, there is no true value of the
>> ordinary partial derivatives of the metric.
>
> Well my "stupid question" is: Why not?
>>
>> The first order ordinary partials of the metric are artifacts of the
>> detector's non-geodesic motion.
>
> OK that's clear. This is a dynamical interpretation of g_uv, w =/= 0.
>
> So you fuse the dynamics of the detectors with the kinematics of the
> observer's reference frame in the concept on an "LNIF".
>>
>> In Minkowski spacetime you can still have LNIFs with induced LC
>> connections, but every time you calculate their self-referential covariant
>> curls you get zero.
>
> Shouldn't this be telling you something? You are constructing the covariant
> curl of the Minkowski metric and getting zero. In other words
> you are covariantly differentiating a constant covariant derivative, and
> naturally getting zero.
>
>>
>> Minkowski spacetime is simply a boundary in the space of solutions - that
>> subspace with vanishing curl of any PHYSICAL connection you choose on it.
>
> No question that Minkowski spacetime is globally Riemann-flat. But
> mathematically speaking this is a theorem, not a definition.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Paul Zielinski
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:31 PM, JACK SARFATTI
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, in the case of LNIF ---> LIF the true derivative is the
>>>> ordinary partial derivative with respect to the LIF coordinate chart since
>>>> the LC connection is zero via EEP
>>>
>>> Even in a flat spacetime? If the geometry is uniform, how can the true
>>> values of the metric derivatives not be zero?
>>>
>>> And why should this be any different in a curved spacetime?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
@pacbell.net>
@gmail.com>
@pacbell.net>
@gmail.com>
@gmail.com>
@pacbell.net>






Dec 04

Subject: Most of differential geometry is excess baggage
There is no such thing as a bare manifold, for example, in physics.
All we have in physics for good measurements in Einstein's GR are tiny detectors in close proximity measuring the same external fields, computing their invariants, and comparing their numbers. When their numbers match, then they know they each made a good measurement.
All the theorems of differential geometry and other branches of math are excess baggage, they are opiates, Sirens luring you to the rocks. Of course, I have no objection to using the pure mathematics as a tool, but it should always be the slave not the master - and used with extreme caution like any powerful narcotic.
On Dec 3, 2010, at 6:45 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
PS I don't demand a "direct connection" to experiment either, but there must be some connection or it's bad and bogus.
Also clearly wrong statements like Z's assertion g = -m/r^2 is a "first order tensor invariant" in Einstein's GR are not acceptable. Z's ":" covariant derivative connection is ill-posed both mathematically and physically. The formal trick of putting more than a single connection on a manifold is bad and bogus physics even if it is correct mathematics.
I mean, of course connections that are not-gauge equivalent - unless there is some kind of topological obstruction so that there are topologically inequivalent connections each of which will lead to a distinct observable effect, e.g. magnetic vortices in a superconductor with different numbers of quanta of magnetic flux, different winding numbers.
On Dec 3, 2010, at 6:28 PM, Paul Zielinski  aka Z wrote:
Jonathan,
Please note the distinction I am making between operationalism *per se*, and naive operationalism.