From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>

Subject: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] On the locality of classical physics, fictitious forces & the nonlocality of gravity energy as a Landauer thermodynamic computation

Date: December 30, 2012 4:00:57 AM PST

On Dec 30, 2012, at 12:41 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com> wrote:

Gentlefolk,

This conversation has evolved to much the same point as the conversation between Paul, Jack and me a year ago did, and not much has changed. There's a reason for this. People don't generally change their minds about things they believe, even in the face of evidence that they ought to. In Jack's case, he is convinced that all physics is literally local, that distant things and events cannot play a role in how thing occur in our local here and now.

Jack: No Jim what you just said is NOT my belief. You have not understood my writing. I said the classical physics is mostly local, but quantum physics is not. I never said ALL physics is local. I quoted John Archibald Wheeler that "Physics is simple, when it's local." In classical gravity we do have a kind of nonlocality of the energy of the pure gravity field because of the equivalence principle so that is another kind of nonlocality apparently different from quantum nonlocality. In Bohm's ontological quantum interpretation, the quantum potential is both nonlocal and form/context dependent. The violation of Bell's locality inequality proves to my mind that quantum physics is nonlocal - the alternative interpretations are not viable in my opinion. I am also very aware of Wheeler-Feynman's classical electrodynamics, which though retro-causal, is still local in the sense that the back-from-the-future classical advanced EM waves are restricted to the classical light cone.

JW: This belief is widely shared in the physics community, and has been for many, many years.

JS: It's NOT my belief about ALL physics. Rovelli in his free online book Quantum Gravity explains in detail why in CLASSICAL GR we never need Mach's Principle in any real problem.

JW: It was, for example, Faraday's motivation in creating the field concept. And while fields, the gravitational field in particular, are thought to act over "astronomical" distances, until the advent of modern cosmology, those distances were not large enough to encompass enough "matter" to make any difference worth mentioning in local circumstances (other than explaining orbital motion up to the galactic level). This has led Jack to believe that technically "fictitous" forces are literally fictitious.

JS: The mathematics of elementary mechanics in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force#cite_note-Iro-6 shows that in the case of the observation of a geodesic test particle by a non-inertial observer, there are fictitious pseudo-forces that appear to act on the geodesic test particle that are not felt by the test particle. There are, however, real forces on the non-inertial observer. The test is what accelerometers show. The pointer on a properly working accelerometer is always at the zero. The pointer on the accelerometer clamped to the non-inertial observer is always off zero. Indeed, that is the essence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle - "Einstein's happiest thought".

The happiest thought of my life.

physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html

The happiest thought of my life. In 1907, only two years after the publication of his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein wrote a paper attempting to modify ...

general relativity - Einstein's "happiest thought" - Physics

physics.stackexchange.com/.../einsteins-happiest-thought

Aug 10, 2011 – Einstein described his discovery of the equivalence principle as the "happiest thought of my life". Why? What, in broad conceptual terms, is the ...

The Equivalence Principle | Suite101

suite101.com/article/the-equivalence-principle-a43525

Feb 3, 2008 – Einstein's “Happiest Thought”. The answer is that these two phenomenon – gravitational and inertial mass – are not just too different things ...

How Did Einstein Think?

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_think/index.html

Nov 15, 2007 – Its first phase was devoted to systematic constructions that derived directly from Einstein's "happiest thought." In it, acceleration produced a ...

Einstein's Third Paradise, by Gerald Holton

www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm

It contains the passage in which Einstein revealed what in his words was "the happiest thought of my life" [der gluecklichste Gedanke meines Lebens] – a ...

[PPT]
Einstein's Happiest Thought

www.phys.hawaii.edu/~solsen/pub/.../Micro_lect7.ppt

File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick View

Einstein's Happiest Thought. Micro-world Macro-World Lecture 7. Equivalence between gravity & acceleration. a. Man in a closed box on Earth. Man in a closed ...

In contrast, in the totally different total experimental arrangement when the test particle is constrained by real electromagnetic-weak-gravity forces, then what is a fictitious centripetal force mw x (w x r), for example, in the geodesic test particle, shows up as the effect of a real local contact force pushing the test particle off geodesic. For example, in the cyclotron in an inertial frame

Newton's 2nd law F = ma in the inertial frame is

e v x B/c = mw x (w x r)

i.e. a radially inward centripetal effect of the real magnetic Lorentz force.

v = w x r

when B is uniform and constant over all parts of the test particle's off-geodesic worldline.

therefore, the cyclotron frequency is

w = eB/mc

the orbit radius r is computed from

r = veB/w^2mc = v(eB/mc)/(eB/mc)^2 = mvc/eB = v/w

i.e. the bigger the linear momentum of the test particle, the bigger the orbit, the bigger the magnetic field the smaller the orbit.

A force that is fictitious for a geodesic test particle can re-appear in the same form as the effect whose cause is a real local contact force pushing that same test particle off-geodesic.

Newton's third law is always obeyed locally by EM-weak-strong gauge forces. In the cyclotron case, for example, the test charge pushes back with an equal but opposite radially outward centrifugal - m w x (w x r) electrical contact back-reaction force on the magnetic flux field.

My other point is that the inertial = gravitational masses m (active and passive) are free parameters in classical Einstein GR and Mach's Principle can't compute them. If you deny that, then compute the electron mass for us using Mach's Principle. No, you need Quantum Chromodynamics to compute hadron masses from the rest masses of quarks. The rest masses of leptons and quarks from the Higgs vacuum field are still basically free parameters leading to the controversial multiverse cosmic landscape conjecture.

Amazon.com: The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion ...

www.amazon.com › ... › Physics › Mathematical Physics

Starred Review. As modern physics has developed a better understanding of how the universe operates at its most fundamental levels, one thing has become ...

The Cosmic Landscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cosmic_Landscape

The Cosmic Landscape is a non-fiction popular science book on the Anthropic principle and String theory landscape. It is written by theoretical physicist Leonard ...

The Cosmic Landscape | Not Even Wrong

www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=307

Dec 7, 2005 – Susskind's new book, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design is now out. It's basically a lengthy version for ...

The Cosmic Landscape - The New York Times

www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html

Jan 15, 2006 – A founder of string theory explains the idea that our universe is just one among many, and explores its implications.

JW: And what cannot be attributed to mainstream classical physics and run of the mill quantum theory gets laid off on the supposedly magical properties of the quantum vacuum -- this notwithstanding that the vacuum is measured to be empty. A lot of people believe this too. Perhap even you?

What century are you in Jim? The is the 21st Century and you seem to be stuck in the 19th. There is lots of direct evidence for the reality of random incoherent virtual particles in the quantum vacuum as radiative corrections, e.g. Lamb shift. Also near fields are coherent Glauber states of virtual quanta beyond the one random zero point quantum per field oscillator of the Casimir force etc.

Search Results

[PDF]
Radiative Corrections in Quantum Field Theory - Nikhef

www.nikhef.nl/~t45/Tini80Fest/Iliopoulos.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Radiative Corrections in Quantum Field Theory. Martinus Veltman 80th birthday. J. Iliopoulos. Amsterdam, June 24, 2011. – p. 1/47 ...

[PDF]
Calculating Radiative Corrections - SUSY 10

susy10.uni-bonn.de/data/Signer-PreSusy.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Aug 21, 2010 – this is about calculating radiative corrections not looking at radiative corrections. • no plots (with one exception). • no motivational blah blah (if ...

Radiative Correction - Encyclopedia - The Free Dictionary

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Radiative+Correction

The change produced in the value of some physical quantity, such as the mass or charge of a particle, as the result of the particle's interactions with various ...

Oblique correction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_correction

In particle physics, an oblique correction refers to a particular type of radiative correction to the electroweak sector of the Standard Model. Oblique corrections ...

Radiative Corrections to Electron Scattering - APS Link Manager

link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.97.1162

by RG Newton - 1955 - Cited by 9 - Related articles

mation of the one-photon radiative corrections to the scattering of electrons by nuclei. Nonrelativistic and high-energy approximations are calculated explicitly for ...

Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry ...

link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

by S Coleman - 1973 - Cited by 3326 - Related articles

(Received 8 November 1972). We investigate the possibility that radiative correctionsmay produce spontaneous symmetry breakdown in theories for which the ...

Radiative Corrections to the Ground-State Energy of - APS Link ...

link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.1256

by PK Kabir - 1957 - Cited by 183 - Related articles

to be —1.26&0.2 cm ', where the error includes an estimation of the Zn' terms which are not calculated. The corresponding radiative corrections are calculated, ...

Radiative corrections to the atomic photoeffect - APS Link Manager

link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.15.1537

by J McEnnan - 1977 - Cited by 20 - Related articles

The radiative corrections to the photoeffect are evaluated for the K-shell of ...transfer), the radiative corrections tend to reduce the photoeffect differential cross ...

Radiative Corrections Helpdesk

www.jlab.org/RC/

May 12, 2004 – This page is designed to help JLab users deal with the issue ofradiative corrections in inclusive, semi-exclusive and exclusive electron ...

[PDF]
Radiative Corrections to Compton Scattering

authors.library.caltech.edu/3611/1/BROpr52.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

by LM Brown - 1952 - Cited by 251 - Related articles

the radiative corrections requires a knowledge of the double Compton cross section, we have computed this also, for the case that one of the emitted photons ...

Searches related to radiative corrections

radiative corrections higgs mass

radiative corrections wiki

1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next

JW: Paul, I suspect, shares much of Jack's core beliefs. But he is also a follower of Hans Ohanian (and formerly, Husein Yilmaz). Ohanian believes, if memory serves, that the Equivalence Principle is actually wrong

JS: Yes, that is what's wrong with all of Z's "original" work in the foundations of GR in my opinion. But I think Jim that's also true of your Sciama Machian theory.

JW: -- because tidal effects supposedly make it possible to discriminate gravity from accelerated reference frames.

JS: Of course that is hogwash based on a misunderstanding of Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP). All Einstein said was that special relativity works locally. Einstein never said that the curvature tensor must vanish locally. That is a RED HERRING. The actual equation is

Ruvwl(LNIF) = eu^Iev^Jew^Kel^LRIJKL(LIF) & its inverse

where the e's are the 16 tetrad components connecting COINCIDENT geodesic/non-rotating LIFS with off-geodesic and/or rotating LNIFs.

It's the Newtonian fictitious inertial pseudo-force represented by the torsion-free symmetric Levi-Civita connection {uvw}LNIF that is zero in the coincident LIF.

JW: This confers and "objective" status on the gravitational field that it does not have in standard general relativity. The motives of those who hold this belief are complicated and not necessarily universally shared in this community.

JS: In my opinion it's crank pseudo-physics to hold that opinion based on a mis-understanding of Einstein's idea.

JW: I'm not sure why Paul in particular is motivated to believe in this "objectification" of gravity. But whatever that motivation may be, it does lead him to the correct inference that gravitational and inertial forces are physically fundamentally different from truly fictitious forces -- Coriolis forces in particular.

JS: Your sentence here Jim is "not even wrong" in Wolfgang Pauli's sense in my opinion because, as I showed a jillion times now you simply muddle the geodesic test particle seen from an accelerating non-inertial frame with the off-geodesic test particle case seen from an inertial frame. Indeed, your view violates Einstein's Equivalence Principle as much as Z's does in the end.

JW: While Paul is willing to confer real physical status (that is, in his words, dynamical) on inertial forces, he is not willing it seems to entertain the possibility that inertial forces are really just gravitational forces produced by the chiefly most distant "matter" in the universe.

JS: There is no such thing as a real gravity force in Einstein's GR as there is in Newton's gravity theory. Therefore what you say here is nonsense from muddling the two different paradigms Einstein's and Newton's. What about gravity collapse you might say? Imagine a gas of particles all on geodesics falling into a proto-star. When these geodesic particles collide with each other the electromagnetic-weak-strong forces take over and the particles are mutually pushed off their initial geodesics. The gas heats up from the EM-weak-strong interaction collisions and the nonlocal energy of the gravity field from the less random kinetic energy of the geodesic particles is converted to more random local heat increasing the thermodynamic entropy. Note that when you walk uphill the work done is actually from electrical contact forces. Your original world line is off-geodesic and remains so in the entire process. When you fall off the cliff you transit from an off-geodesic world line to an intermediate geodesic world line but end up an another off-geodesic, so again just like the formation of the proto-star to a hot star the nonlocal low entropy energy of the gravity field is transformed into higher entropy heat energy. If you are in a parachute, then you are no longer on a geodesic in the descent. Admittedly how this nonlocal energy of the gravity field is converted into local energy of the matter field is not intuitively obvious. In the case of an adiabatic process for a sequence of static LNIFs

g00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r ----> g'00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r'

for example. In Newtonian terms, the difference in LOCAL gravity potential energy is

GM/r - GM/r' = (c^2/2)GM(1/r - 1/r') now this is supposed to be the the path independent line integral of F.dx where F is a real force, and so it is, but it's not the gravity force at all, its the electric force of constraint that adiabatically changes to maintain the sequence of static LNIFs. Next question is what happens when the process is not adiabatic. Looking at the test particle motion'

Dp^u/ds = F^u

p^u is the 4-momentum of the test particle

F^u is the EM-weak-strong real force on the test particle

D/ds is the covariant proper time derivative along the world line of the test particle which in off-geodesic parts of the worldline of the process has non-zero Levi-Civita connection.

Dp^u/ds = dp^u/ds + {^uvw}p^vp^w/m

Therefore,

THE LOCALIZED EXCHANGE OF NONLOCAL GRAVITY ENERGY WITH THE KINETIC ENERGY OF THE TEST PARTICLE ONLY HAPPENS ON THE OFF-GEODESIC PIECES OF THE TEST PARTICLE'S WORLD LINE WHERE THE LEVI-CIVITA CONNECTION IS NON-ZERO.

THIS IS DICTATED BY EINSTEIN'S EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE.

indeed there is an analogy here with computation, that the entropy only increases in the erasure of information

Landauer's Principle, first argued in 1961[1] by Rolf Landauer of IBM, is a physical principle pertaining to the lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of a computation. It holds that "any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computation paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase in non-information bearing degrees of freedom of the information processing apparatus or its environment". (Bennett 2003)[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle

JW: It has been obvious, even from the time of Newton, that inertia is correlated to the distant stuff in the observable cosmos.

JS: This is nonsense. It's not obvious. It's simply muddled sloppy thinking based on primitive magical astrology. Particles are the same every where. Not only that, but 96 % of the gravitating stuff of the universe is not in the form of real particles at all! Most of the stuff is virtual particles!

JW: Before the 1920s, that meant, in Mach's turn of phrase, "the fixed stars". Inertial frames of reference do not rotate with respect to the "fixed stars".

JS: We now know that to be nonsense. Rovelli explains this quite well in detail. But basically, the local gravity near fields, and more specifically their patterns of geodesics, are determined by matter Tuv sources inside their past light cones - and possibly future light cones from Wheeler-Feynman Hoyle-Narlikar effect as in Tamara Davis's modified conformal diagram

Since the universe is expanding and indeed now accelerating for past few billion years there is an obvious asymmetry between past and future influences in the here-now that Sciama's 1950's quaint model that Jim relies on did not even conceive of.

JW: The obvious inference is that the "fixed stars" somehow determine local inertial frames of reference.

JS: This is numbo-jumbo mystification Jim. Basically there is, in the conventional view a retarded Green's function G(x,x') that takes the Tuv(x') source distribution in the past light cone of the field point here-now and ROUGHLY SPEAKING the integral of G(x,x)Tuv(x')d^4x' gives the guv(x) metric field locally. Rotation is defined relative to that local guv(x) metric field from the collective influence of all the stuff in its past light cone out to the past particle horizon. This is prior to Wheeler-Feynman modifications from our future de Sitter event horizon.

JW: I am not going to rehash the arguments over this -- Mach's principle as Einstein called it. I will point out that exactly the opposite of what Jack claims has taken place in the last 15 or 20 years. "Precision" cosmology has shown the universe to be spatially flat at cosmic scale, and that means that "critical" cosmic matter density is present, and that in turn means that gravitational actions do indeed account for inertial effects.

JS: This a complete RED HERRING. That the universe is spatially flat does not contradict anything I have said. Jim is making a purely polemical bogus hand-waving argument here. Indeed, I am just giving here the standard text book view that gives as one possible solution the spatially flat k = 0 FRW metric on a large scale that with the positive cosmological constant / gives the acceleration for the past few billion years.

JW: Likely, this would be universally acknowledged were it not for the fact that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous -- and the only way to account for this fact without violating the principle of relativity is with a Wheeler-Feynman "action-at-a-distance" formulation of gravitation.

JS: In EM the Wheeler-Feynman radiation reaction is proportional to D^3X^u/ds^2 for the test particle. Now Jim claims he gets the analogous radiation reaction term for gravity to be D^2X^u/ds^2. I have yet to see how this allegation works in detail. Jim seems to claim that the ma term in Newton's second law of motion

F = ma for OFF-GEODESIC motion

where F is a non-gravity force, comes from the future light cone. Suppose it did somehow, that still does not determine what numbers to sick into m for the different elementary particles.

Furthermore, there are no gravity radiation waves of any significance - no one has detected them directly locally, and if and when they do they will be so weak that they cannot explain the NEAR GRAVITY field as in

g00 = 1 - 2GMEarth/c^2r

Indeed, there is no coherent narrative in what Jim is saying that I can see at this moment.

JW: This type of formulation, by the way, is well-known to apply to electrodynamics. And John Cramer has shown that it can be used to "interpret" quantum mechanics which has seemingly instantaneous "entanglement" interactions. So, we're not talking completely off the wall physics here.

JS: You have not connected John Cramer's mathematics with your mathematics - maybe you do in your book? Cramer is talking about quantum BIT PILOT waves which have very different properties than classical matter field waves. This distinction is clear in Bohm's formulation of the quantum potential Q. Entangled quantum waves have their domains in PHASE SPACE using the Wigner density and their range in Hilbert space - very different from local EM waves. Indeed, the superquantum potential of the classical electromagnetic and gravity fields are infinite dimensional in Hilbert space - one dimension for each point of the spacetime continuum. In fact for gravity we have to go into a higher level of numbering Wheeler's many-fingered super-space where each point is an entire spacelike 3-Geometry. So it's not at all clear if Cramer's picture based on primitive particle mechanics only can even deal with gravity. It's not clear it can deal with even the Dirac spinor fields. Wheeler and Feynman tried to get rid of the EM field using direct light cone limited particles only. They had to give up on that and modern quantum field theory gives independent existence to the spin 1 boson gauge fields. Indeed, supersymmetry and string theory demand it - though they are still not established empirically. That may change soon in the LHC.

JW: In the last analysis, notwithstanding that the roles of theory and experiment are no longer what they were even 100 years ago, experiment is the final arbiter of what's real and what isn't. While looking for a way to get around spacetime quickly, I've blundered onto some effects that are predicted by Mach's principle -- effects that are otherwise not expected. So, should those prove real, the Machian view should eventually prevail -- and maybe we'll be able to get around spacetime quickly.

JS: Your effects so far are marginal and probably systematic errors like the short-lived superluminal neutrino.
JW: That brings me to the weekly update. The lesson of the last year or two, and especially the last month or two, is that the behavior of the PZT stacks presently in use can be very irritatingly cranky. The production of thrust effects depends on getting things to work correctly that, in an ideal world, would take care of themselves automatically. You know about the marginal performance eeked out of the system of a few weeks ago. After that, I took the device that had been run into the ground with a single frequency driving signal and tried running it with a dual frequency signal. For mundane technical reasons, in this system that means a smaller effect, if any, from the earlier work. Smaller signals of the sort expected were obtained.

The signals in the attached PPT file (which also has some pictures of lab upgrades), however, are with the single frequency signals and a different device of the same design that has not yet been run into the ground. And most recently, the run into the ground device has been mounted with a new mount for testing of that arrangement. I won't bore you with the technical details. Suffice it to say that finding improved, more reliable materials has risen to the top of the priority list. Discussions like that you've endured the past week or so may be diverting. They won't get starships built. Only real hardware that can be made to work reliably has any chance at all of getting that done. So work in the lab goes on. . . .

May you all have a very enjoyable New Year's holiday,

Jim

1 comment

Jack Sarfatti • There is both outcome dependence & parameter dependence. Orthodox quantum theory's no-signaling arguments assert both are violated. In Stapp's simple proof using the set of four Bell pair states {|Alice, Alice', Bob,Bob'>} Here "Alice" & "Bob" denote actual OUTCOME eigenvalues Stapp also assumes Born's probability rule - an axiom of quantum theory like Euclid's Fifth has signal strength S S(Alice) = Partial Trace over Bob & Bob'{|Alice><Alice| |Alice, Alice'; Bob, Bob'><Alice,Alice';Bob,Bob'|} = 1/2 This result has both parameter and outcome (eigenvalue) independence consistent with Abner Shimony's "passion at a distance". However, the PARAMETER INDEPENDENCE only works when <Bob|Bob'> = 0. For the normalized hybrid entangled state (1/2)^1/2[|1>Alice|z>Bob + |0>Alice|w>|Bob] where z & w are complex numbers each representing amplitude and phase of a coherent Glauber state displaced minimum Gaussian wave packet with Poisson Born statistics in Fock space, where |z| is the square root of the mean boson occupation number The usual "Born" trace rule is then S(1)Alice = (1/2)[1 + |<z|w>|^2Bob] |z> & |w> are MACROSCOPICALLY DISTINGUISHABLE NON-ORTHOGONAL STATES that naturally arise as "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) Higgs-Goldstone local order parameters from spontaneous symmetry breaking in the ground states of complex many-boson systems. Not only that, but the bosons need not be real, they can also be virtual off-mass shell as what we are surrounded by the near electromagnetic fields as distinct from radiation fields. The above state has entanglement signal nonlocality in the form of PARAMETER DEPENDENCE. Bob signals Alice without the need of a classical signal key to decrypt Bob's message. The Born probability rule is VIOLATED. Forcing a parameter-dependent normalization is ad-hoc and is an additional postulate not found in orthodox quantum theory that must be independently tested. e.g. S*(1)Alice = (1/2[1 + |<z|w>|^2Bob])^1/2[|1>Alice|z>Bob + |0>Alice|w>|Bob] = 1/2 Other examples: the electrostatic field of a charge in its rest frame is a coherent Glauber state of zero frequency virtual photons with a continuum of 3D wave vectors k whose density ~ 1/k^2 Similarly, ordinary crystals of daily life are coherent Glauber states of zero frequency phonons with a discrete spectrum of wave vectors k that are harmonics of the inverse lattice spacings of the unit cell. Wilczek's time crystals have a discrete spectrum of finite frequencies in addition - no big deal. The static gravity fields of the Sun and Earth et-al are coherent Glauber states of virtual spin 2 gravitons - possibly also virtual spin 1 and spin 0 of finite range - needs investigation.