Text Size

Dec 20

## Physical Meaning of Gauge Invariance in Gravity and EM-WEAK-STRONG Interactions

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: weak force, strong force gluons, Starship, James Woodward, Jack Sarfatti, gravity, gauge theory, electromagnetism
##### Jack Sarfatti
2 minutes ago via Twitter
• ##### http://t.co/wYnvApwlL2 updated 12-20-13
Jack Sarfatti - Academia.edu
lnkd.in
More on the physical meaning of gauge transformations in both gravity and the electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions 12-18-13 The subject of gauge transformations is almost always presented in an obscure way as a purely formal mathematical exercise without direct physical meaning. This is all clas...

• Jack Sarfatti On Dec 20, 2013, at 8:58 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Dec 20, 2013, at 6:02 AM, Paul Murad wrote:

So you are calling electric forces which I would call as real forces...

Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC
www.morningstarap.com
pm@morningstarap.com

Electric force is real because it pushes charges off timelike geodesics of Einstein's geometrodynamical field, i.e. the Ruvwl curvature tensor field, which can be zero of course - zero is a good real number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor

My point is perhaps a bit surprising.

The canonical 3-momentum of a charge e of mass m is

P = mV + (e/c)A

Total local momentum of the charge + EM field = Kinetic momentum of the charge + EM field momentum

A gauge transformation is

mV -> mV' = mV + hgradf

(e/c)A -> (e/c)A' = (e/c)A - hgradf

P -> P' -> P + hgradf - hgradf = P

http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/.../QED/GaugeInvariance_2.html

Therefore the canonical 3-momentum P is gauge invariant.

h is Planck's constant, so this is a quantum effect in what first appears to be a purely classical problem.

First surprise!

From the point of view of local field theory if we suppose that the charge and the field at the charge are a closed system so that

dP/dt = 0

then what we have is simply a Newton third law

ACTION + REACTION = 0

where

mV -> mV' = mV + hgradf

is the ACTION of the electromagnetic field A on the charge e of mass m.

(e/c)A -> (e/c)A' = (e/c)A - hgradf

Is the equal and opposite REACTION of the charge e on the field A

This is a LOCAL exchange of a virtual photon of momentum hgradf between COINCIDENT charge and field.

The classical equation of motion in an inertial frame follows trivially

dP/dt = mdV/dt + (e/c)dA/dt = 0

E = - (1/c)dA/dt

Therefore

mdV/dt = eE

Now I can do the same thing for Einstein's GR using the Levi-Civita connection, where now, instead of virtual momentum transfers between particle and field, we have real proper acceleration changes between locally coincident LNIFs measuring the motion of test particles that keep the proper forces on the observed test particles a tensor. This gives direct physical meaning to the inhomogeneous terms in the non-tensor Levi-Civita connection transformation induced by the formal general coordinate transformations. In other words it is a heuristic physical picture of gravity gauge symmetry on the Levi-Civita connection, which is not a tensor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory
http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/.../QED/GaugeInvariance_1.html

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
it's real
On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@yahoo.com> wrote:

What electric force or is that fictitious?

Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC
http://www.morningstarap.com/
pm@morningstarap.com

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:36 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Imagine two bricks taped together with a dynamite stick and timer released from an airplane

The dynamite explodes

There are transient real electric forces on the shattered brick pieces momentarily pushing them off their geodesics
After a while these forces vanish and all the pieces relax to geodesics
Where is the beef?

The fact is that Jim uses an undefined primitive he calls "inertial reaction force" that has no relation to anything in textbooks on the subject unless he means

F = DP/ds

Jim has never given me a straight answer and I cannot find a clear definition in his book either.

Any suggestions?

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 18, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 18, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

But I should add that Jack can give a 'substantivalist' account of what you describe by appealing to the constraining effect of spacetime to keep the remaining block on its geodesic. What you describe as an inertial force, Jack describes as geodesically-constrained motion. Different, irreconcilable, metaphysical pictures. (I happen to question the substantivalist idea that spacetime has these sorts of causal powers. But that's the mainstream view.)

RK

Dec 20

## Classical Mechanics and Gravity From Newton to Einstein Sarfatti Lecture 12-19-13

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Starship, Stargate, Isaac Newton, Gravity - the movie, gravity, Albert Einstein

Classical Mechanics and Gravity From Newton to Einstein

Jack Sarfatti

Excerpted from Stargate

Version 12-19-13

I am taking the contemporary approach, not the historical one. This is a reconstruction of Newton and Einstein’s ideas using modern insights. It’s not exactly how they would have thought of what they did, but what I write does not contradict any essential battle-tested truths of their ideas.

Newton’s dynamics of particles is based on Euclidean geometry for space with absolute time the same for all observers no matter how they move. Newton had no idea that the speed of light was finite. In Newton’s theory the speed of light is infinite.

Newton’s first two laws are basically a single law.

Law 1. Force-free motions of test particles are geodesics independent of the mass and internal constitution of the particle.

A test particle is so small that we can neglect the gravity field it generates.

In Newton’s implicit geometry a geodesic is a straight line in space with a test mass moving at constant speed. There is also a state of absolute rest.

Law 2. A real vector[i] force F causes the test particle with velocity vector and instantaneous position vector  to have a curved motion with varying speed that is not geodesic.

Assume the mass m is constant, that is the calculus[ii] derivative dm/dt = 0.

F = dP/dt = d(mV)/dt = mdV/dt = md2r/dt2 = ma

This equation assumes a global inertial frame. A global inertial frame (GIF) is an imaginary cubic lattice of rigid steel rods across the entire universe with a clock at each vertex. All the clocks are synchronized. There are artificial intelligences with each clock that can communicate with each other by light signals. They all have Doppler radars to track the motions of test particles or UFOs. Jim Woodward, in his book Making Starships[iii], uses a simplistic model of the universe by the late Dennis Sciama that implicitly assumes such a global frame. Of course the equations that Professor Woodward proposes as an engine for spaceships will not work - more on this later.

Now in fact, such structures do not exist. We really only have local frames consisting of a finite network of detectors over a small region of space connected by the internet.

Physics is not mathematics. The crackpots I have dealt with do not understand the difference. Theoretical physics is about what detectors measure. We use mathematical models to do that, but the models have an enormous amount of redundant excess baggage that must be factored out in the sense of equivalence relation classes[iv] and homomorphisms[v] preserving essential relevant structure. It’s the same as a compression algorithm[vi] in computer science. Mathematics is like a high-resolution image. However, what we need to do real physics is a much lower resolution compressed image in which certain non-essential features are erased because only some small subset is needed for the measurements of interest.

Finally we have Law 3.

Newton’s third law of motion[vii] is very limited in its domain of validity and is a specialized case of the more general action-reaction conjecture.[viii] Newton’s third law assumes only central forces, which act instantly at a distance. Therefore, it’s only good really for contact interactions in his original theory. It can be generalized when fields are added to Newton’s particles. Newton did not really have the concept of extended dynamical fields[ix] that have a reality equal to localized hard massy marble-like particles. Today we have Noether’s theorem[x] that relates conservation laws to the symmetries[xi] of dynamical actions[xii] of systems of particles and fields in classical physics. Everything becomes fields in quantum physics, where the real particles are excited out of a very complicated vacuum that is a seething frothy quantum foam of virtual particles[xiii] in an ever turbulent Dirac sea.[xiv] Newton’s third law corresponds to only two systems forming a closed system.  More generally a group of space translation symmetries causes the total linear momentum of closed complex systems of particles and fields to be conserved. Similarly, time translation symmetry causes total angular momentum of closed systems to be conserved and rotational symmetry causes total angular momentum to be conserved. There are also internal symmetries beyond spacetime out of which spring the electromagnetic, weak and strong force fields.[xv] When we go to Einstein’s 1905 special relativity[xvi] where space is fused with time into space-time, then rotations that mix space and time together correspond to the Lorentz boosts[xvii] causing time dilation, length contraction and the equivalence of mass to energy. We can even go beyond that to Roger Penrose’s twistor[xviii] conformal group[xix] that includes uniformly accelerated local frames (LNIFs) with Rindler horizons[xx] as well as a topological stretching dilation symmetry that is badly broken in our world.[xxi]

[viii] Einstein, the reality of space, and the action-reaction principle

(Submitted on 20 Jun 2013)

Einstein regarded as one of the triumphs of his 1915 theory of gravity --- the general theory of relativity --- that it vindicated the action--reaction principle, while Newtonian mechanics as well as his 1905 special theory of relativity supposedly violated it. In this paper we examine why Einstein came to emphasize this position several years after the development of general relativity. Several key considerations are relevant to the story: the connection Einstein originally saw between Mach's analysis of inertia and both the equivalence principle and the principle of general covariance, the waning of Mach's influence owing to de Sitter's 1917 results, and Einstein's detailed correspondence with Moritz Schlick in 1920.

 Comments: To appear in "The Nature of Reality", P. Ghose (ed.), Oxford University Press Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) Cite as: arXiv:1306.4902 [physics.hist-ph] (or arXiv:1306.4902v1 [physics.hist-ph] for this version)

Dec 06

## 100 Year Starship Update Dec 6, 2013 Low Power Warp Drive

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Warp Drive, superconducting meta-material, NASA, DARPA, 100 Year Star Ship
1. @JackSarfatti superconducting metamaterial

Image will appear as a link
2. @JackSarfatti I envisioned such a material for low power warp drive in my 11-1-11 @DARPA @NASA Orlando talk @100YSS

Dec 06

## Dec 6, 2013 more on black hole evaporation lifetime. Did Hawking underestimate it?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Stephen Hawking, evaporating black holes

We compute the total power P by multiplying the far-away redshifted energy density by the area A of the horizon. This may be a conceptual error in Hawking's original estimate of black hole evaporation time. The clock hovering at L distant from A is running much faster than our far away clock where we are. A is an infinite redshift surface, but including L makes it finite but large. Also it takes infinite far away clock time for objects to reach A etc.

Therefore, we can argue that the Wikipedia calculation is wrong. That is, for Hawking's surface gravity case, replace

P ~ A (energy density) ~ A^-1

by

P ~ g00(L)^1/2A (energy density)
~  [1 + z(L)]^-1A (energy density)
~ (L/A^1/2)^1/2A^-1

Therefore, even in Hawking's case,

P ~ dM/dt ~ L^1/2/A^5/4

Therefore,

dM/dt ~ L^1/2/M^5/2

tHawking ~ M^7/2 /L^1/2  not M^3

remember there is no actual evidence for M^3.

Next our new case

P' ~ AT'^4 ~ A/L^2A ~ L^-2 ~ mp^-2

dM'/dt ~ mp^-2

P' ~ [1 + z(L)]^-1AT'^4
~ (L^1/2/A^1/4)A/L^2A
~ 1/L^1/2A^1/4

dM'/dt ~ 1/L^1/2M^1/2

t' ~ L^1/2M^3/2

to be continued

Putting in some numbers
From Wiki

Stefan–Boltzmann–Schwarzschild–Hawking black hole radiation power law derivation:
For a solar mass black hole
Putting in the gravity time dilation factor L^1/2/A^1/4

L ~ 10^-35 meters

L^1/2 ~ (1/3) 10^-17

A^1/2 ~ 10^3 meters

A^1/4 ~ 3 x10

L^1/2/A^1/4 ~ 10^-17/3x3s10 ~ 10^-19

so

P ~ 10^-28 x 10^-19 ~ 10^-47 watts

Next for our gravity radiation

P' ~ [1 + z(L)]^-1AT'^4 ~ (L^1/2/A^1/4)A/L^2A ~ 1/L^1/2A^1/4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_constant

P' ~ 6 x 10^-8T'^4

Our T' = (A^1/2/L)^1/2T ~  10^23(M/mp)^1/2(1/M) ~ 10^23/(mpM)^1/2  deg K

Therefore, energy density is

6 x 10^-8 x 10^92/mp^2M^2

Multiply by the area A and the gravity time dilation factor L^1/2/A^1/4

So that's effective area    L^1/2A^3/4

Total power is then

P' ~ 10^85 L^1/2A^3/4/mp^2M^2  Watts

for a solar mass scale black hole that's roughly

P' ~ 10^85 (1/3) 10^-17 (10^6^)3/4 10^10 x 10^-60  Watts

P' ~ 10^23 Watts - very roughly in gravity wave black body radiation ~

peak wavelength ~ 10^-16 meters ~ 10^24 Hz

to be continued - next order of biz evaporation lifetime

The 10^23 Watts is only the initial output - that increases as the black hole evaporates

Putting in some numbers
From Wiki

In our new theory this is I think

t'ev = c^2(mpM)^3/2 /3Kev

(mpM)^3/2 = xM^3

x = (mpM)^3/2/M = (mp/M)^3/2

t'ev = (mp/M)^3/2 tev ~  (mp/M)^3/2 10^-16[M/kg]^3

For a ~ solar mass black hole

(10^ -35)3/2 10^67 years ~ 10^-52 10^67 ~ 10^15 years

On Dec 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

From the beginning:

First Hawking

L = Schwarzschild radial coordinate distance to horizon classical 2D surface g00 = 0.

Newton's surface gravity ~ A^-1/2

A = area-entropy of g00 = 0

What they do in Wikipedia above comes down to this

Redshifted Unruh temperature a long distant from the black hole is

THawking ~ A^-1/2

Stefan-Boltzmann law

energy density ~ THawking^4 ~ A^-2

Total redshifted power

P ~ A (energy density) ~ A^-1

A ~ M^2

P ~ dM/dt

OK now my new prediction following the same argument as above

The redshifted thickness gravity Unruh temperature is

T' ~ (LA^1/2)^-1/2

If we take

Lp ~ mp = Planck mass

T' ~ (mpM)^-1/2

P' ~ AT'^4 ~ A/L^2A ~ L^-2 ~ mp^-2

dM'/dt ~ mp^-2

t' ~ mp^2M << t ~ M^3
Dec 04

## Dec 5 2013 Revised calculation of black hole evaporation rate - error in Hawking's original?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Stephen Hawking, firewall paradox, evaporating black holes, Black Hole, black body radiation

On Dec 5, 2013, at 8:00 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

From the beginning:

First Hawking

L = Schwarzschild radial coordinate distance to horizon classical 2D surface g00 = 0.

Newton's surface gravity ~ A^-1/2

A = area-entropy of g00 = 0

What they do in Wikipedia above comes down to this

Redshifted Unruh temperature a long distant from the black hole is

THawking ~ A^-1/2

Stefan-Boltzmann law

energy density ~ THawking^4 ~ A^-2

Total redshifted power

P ~ A (energy density) ~ A^-1

A ~ M^2

P ~ dM/dt

OK now my new prediction following the same argument as above

The redshifted thickness gravity Unruh temperature is

T' ~ (LA^1/2)^-1/2

If we take

Lp ~ mp = Planck mass

T' ~ (mpM)^-1/2

P' ~ AT'^4 ~ A/L^2A ~ L^-2 ~ mp^-2

dM'/dt ~ mp^-2

t' ~ mp^2M << t ~ M^3