Text Size


One very young Asian girl very studious no doubt ran out of the room screaming in horror as if seeing an evil spirit. ;-)
Most of the speakers in D30 were young specialists in quantum information theory giving very abstract mathematical papers, which like string theory, seemed to have very little contact with experimental physics. However, they all seemed to understand each other and perhaps one day, like string theory, it will pan out - hopefully not like string theory inspired financial derivative WMDs on Wall Street. ;-)
These are big ideas that are Popper falsifiable.
1) entanglement signaling is possible (e.g. Daryl Bem's experiments)
2) dark energy is Hawking radiation back from our future event horizon i.e. hc/Lp^4 at horizon ---> hc/Lp^2A at type 1a supernovae, A = area of FUTURE (not past) horizon.
3) our future event horizon is the 't Hooft-Susskind hologram screen

Tamara Davis PhD 2004 Fig 1.1c modified by me
4) our future event horizon is a Seth Lloyd computer = P.K. Dick VALIS, I.J. Good GOD(D) etc.
5) the unique low energy classical world without Schrodinger Cat states consists of FROZEN virtual Goldstone phase and virtual Higgs amplitude emergent boson quasi-particles and collective modes from spontaneous "More is different" symmetry breaking in the ground states of real particles.
e.g. space crystals are frozen off-mass-shell condensates of longitudinal massless Goldstone phase acoustic phonons and Higgs amplitude (energy gap) transverse optical phonons (in sense of Mexican Hat type potentials) when
continuous Lie T3 group breaks to 3D crystallography discrete groups below phase transition temperature.
f = 0, k = 1/lattice vectors
Similarly for T1 group i.e. Wilczek's "time crystals" note UMKLAPP scattering.
f =/= 0, k = 0

Feb 29

The importance of Being Virtual 2-28-12

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
"I don't play accurately - any one can play accurately - but I play with wonderful expression."
- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest, Act 1

Wilzcek's time crystals fit into this scheme as well. I will try to put Wilzcek's lecture from yesterday in Boston on youtube soon. He actually says some things relevant to the above.

There is an analogy here to Feynman's treatment of EM gauge invariance eliminating the timelike photon polarization getting photon propagator in k,f space with (in rest frame of electron)

1/k^2 as the NEAR FIELD instantaneous VIRTUAL PHOTON Coulomb part (longitudinal polarization) obviously for electrostatics

these virtual photons have f = 0 and all possible k's with a distribution ~ 1/k^2 (Fourier transform)

1/(f^2 - k^2 ) for FAR FIELD  propagating transverse polarization modes as REAL PHOTONS

OK well what is a space crystal?

T3 spontaneously breaks to a discrete crystal group

the photon is the quantum of the locally gauged U1 group - without spontaneous breaking of its symmetry that does happen in a superconductor where the photon gets rest mass. (Anderson-Higgs mechanism)

the phonon is the collective emergent quantum when the 3D translation group spontaneously breaks to a discrete crystal group.

the acoustic longitudinal phonon is then the zero mass Goldstone phase mode

f = csk   for speed of sound in material

there are also massive transverse phonons that are the Higgs amplitude quanta

The crystal lattice itself is a Glauber coherent state of VIRTUAL PHONONS

f = 0 with k = 1/a

a = lattice spacing

note there are UMKLAPP processes from APPARENT VIOLATION OF MOMENTUM CONSERVATION - they have to be there in time crystals as well

Umklapp scattering    Umklapp scattering (also U-Process or Umklapp process) is an anharmonic phonon-phonon (or electron-phonon) scattering process creating a third phonon with a k-vector outside the first Brillouin zone. (references)
Umklapp process [′u?m‚kläp ‚prä·s?s]
(solid-state physics)
The interaction of three or more waves in a solid, such as lattice waves or electron waves, in which the sum of the wave vectors is not equal to zero but, rather, is equal to a vector in the reciprocal lattice. Also known as flip-over process.

Umklapp process
A concept in the theory of transport properties of solids which has to do with the interaction of three or more waves in the solid, such as lattice waves or electron waves. In a continuum, such interactions occur only among waves described by wave vectors k 1, k 2, and so on, such that the interference condition, given by Eq. (1), is satisfied.

The sign of k depends on whether the wave absorbs or emits energy. Since ℏ k is the momentum of a quantum (or particle) described by the wave, Eq. (1) corresponds to conservation of momentum. In a crystal lattice further interactions
occur, satisfying Eq. (2), where b is any integral combination of the three inverse lattice vectors b i, defined by a · b j = 2&pgr;δij, the a 's being the periodicity vectors. The group of processes described in Eq. (2) are the Umklapp processes or flip-over processes, so called because the total momentum of the initial particles or quanta is reversed. See Crystal

The Glauber coherent state is the eigenstate of the non-Hermitian field quantum destruction operator and its time evolution is nonlinear and non-unitary and also local in space-time in an important way that the Fock states are not.

The first order density matrix corresponding to a Glauber macro-quantum coherent state has a macroscopic eigenvalue leading to the local in space order parameter - giant single particle Psi(x) (with a large number of bosons in same single-particle cell h^3 of phase space. (ODLRO of Penrose-Onsager).

Similarly in the Wilczek TIME CRYSTAL

we have a Glauber coherent state of virtual phonons of finite frequency f and zero wave vector k from the spontaneous symmetry breaking of T1 in the ground state of a many particle substrate.

what are the TEMPORAL UMKLAPP apparent ENERGY NON-CONSERVATION scatterings?

f1 + f2 + f3 =/= 0

f1 + f2 + f3 = b

where b is in the 1D reciprocal time lattice?

But in any case, a spontaneous symmetry breaking selects ONE of continuum of energy degenerate ground states that are not unitarily equivalent to each other so we never have the Schrodinger Cat Paradox. This explains why we see ONE WORLD macroscopically because the CLASSICAL WORLD is a set of FROZON OFF-MASS SHELL BOSON CONDENSATES (essentially Glauber coherent states of emergent boson quasi-particles and collective modes of underlying real fermions and bosons.

On Feb 21, 2012, at 1:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
On 2/21/2012 10:00, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
I was only talking about light rays in free space of course - not refraction of light by lenses etc in materials from multiple scatterings off mainly electrons. Yes, in the usual sense the inertia of light is infinite classically in general relativity in vacuum. If one uses Newton's picture, and considers GM(sun)E(light)/c^2r, one will get orbits for light rays in flat Euclidean space. As I recall this Newtonian calculation is off by a factor of 2.
Z: But if the energy of a photon is given by E = hv, and according to SR m = E/c^2, then how can m be infinite?
JS: That's my point. You are garbling Newton and Einstein again - mixing Apples with Oranges getting paradoxes from mingling different paradigms. I think Jim also has fallen into this quagmire. Of course it's very common and hard not to do. It's the same confusion in the unification of the electro-weak-strong forces with gravity.
In Newton's classical picture, you can use for the zero mass quantum m = E/c^2 where E = pc and you get pretty close to the correct GR answers within a factor of 2 or so for WEAK GRAVITY CURVATURE FIELDS, slow motions.  Of course, the test particle mass cancels out of the gravity orbit equation if dm/dt = 0, which may not be the case here because of the gravity redshift. That is, for each photon in the light beam E = hf changes at different gravity potentials causing the bending of light in Newton's picture?  However, again classically in vacuum -I am not talking about refraction of light by lenses etc or diffraction, i.e. only in the geometrical optics short-wave UV limit relative to radii of curvature, the effective inertia of light is "infinite" because there is no way to push it off a null geodesic. Actually, if you include the weak force, light has some weak charge as I recall - mixture of Z and photon in the Salam-Weinberg theory, so maybe if there was some external macro-quantum coherent W,Z weak near field you could push it off a null geodesic.
Again that's quantum field theory and the classical guv(LNIF) metric picture may simply breakdown there since gravity is probably an emergent low energy macro-quantum coherent effective field similar to the order parameters of superconductivity. Indeed, a set of Higgs-Goldstone amplitude - phase Glauber states of virtual massless Goldstone and massive Higgs bosons inside the post-inflation vacuum give the tetrads e^I and the spin-connections S^I^J and with them Einstein's GR as an emergent space-time theory that has perhaps no meaning on the level of a fermi and less? Sort of like looking for Young's modulus inside the unit cell of a space crystal (spontaneously broken continuous T3 group translational symmetry).
Z: And if the weak equivalence principle holds, wouldn't that imply that the active gravitational mass of each photon is also infinite?
JS: Again, you come up with a paradox by being inconsistent garbling Einstein with Newton.
For Newton everything is consistent with the real photon having a finite inertia M = E/c^2 and E = pc
For Einstein classical rays of light (geometric optics limit) are on null geodesics whose shape is determined by Tuv(matter) sources. No quantum theory there and also no weak forces. Light carries weak charge - but not in Einstein's 1916 GR of course.
So for Einstein's classical GR the notion of inertia as resistance against a push off a geodesic has no meaning for light. Or you could say, that the inertia of light is infinite there. On the other hand since Newton's 2nd law for OFF-GEODESIC world lines is
F = DP/ds
D is the Levi-Civita connection etc.
F and P are 4-vectors both under GCT4 and SO1,3 groups.
P^2  = (E/c^2)^2 - P^2 = 0
You could say that for light F = 0 always. Then the issue of the inertia of light simply does not come up in Einstein's theory.  It's perfectly finite in Newton's theory, but it does not give the correct predictions, though it is not off by much in the appropriate limiting cases.
Z: Doesn't add up. What's wrong with this picture?
JS: I just answered that.
There are many objections to Jim's picture.
1) He uses cosmological metric parameters locally at a scale they do not apply.
Z: Yes but Jim has a separate argument for local phi based on the EP and non-localizability.
JS: I find his argument unintelligible. How can phi = c^2 locally and phi also be a wave traveling at c?
Also in LIFs c is always a constant the same constant.
And in the rotating disk LNIF c is same as in the LIF for a TWO-WAY ROUND TRIP rim-to-rim time of flight measurement for zero rotational "jerk" of the disk. However, the Sagnac effect with ring laser interferometers shows a rotational fringe shift CW =/= CCW corresponding to the one-way doublet in the local speed of light in the rotating LNIF. Irwin Shapiro long distance radar slowing of speed of light by large masses is a completely different kind of experiment.
Z: I don't understand his argument for local phi, but he does have one.
JS: It's obviously wrong in my opinion.
2) He assumes a static Newtonian gravity potential
phi/c^2 = GM/c^2R = 1
where E = Mc^2 is the total mass-energy of the universe
A = R^2 is the area of a horizon infinite redshift surrounding surface of the interior bulk volume
Our universe has two such horizons, one in our past and one in our future.

Tamara Davis PhD Fig 1.1c modified
Z: Not only that but he argues this from the Einstein EP and non-localizability of gravitational energy-momentum,
which as far as I can see lead you to precisely the opposite conclusions -- namely that there is no local frame
invariant phi in GR!
JS: Alice in Wonderland.
Z: And even if there were a covariant local vacuum energy-momentum density in GR, phi on its own would still not
be GCT invariant, since it would then be only one component of a tensor quantity, which could *not* be invariant
under GCTs -- for purely mathematical reasons.
JS: Right.
Z: So Jim seems to be mixing up Sciama's semi-Newtonian toy model with GR and trying to have it both ways. I think
he needs to look much more closely at the correspondence relationship between Newtonian phi and the metric
components g_uv of GR.
JS: Exactly.  Only the future horizon works.
In fact M is a monotonic increasing function of cosmic time that approaches a constant value de Sitter metric asymptotically, and R does increase in proportion to keep phi = c^2. However, it makes no sense to think of this cosmological scale phi as some kind of local gravity potential that obeys a wave equation and that causes mass fluctuations in a engine of some kind in his laboratory. To me that's magical thinking - astrology.
I don't know if Jim is seeing anything real that may be useful for propulsion. I doubt it. However, if there is a real effect in his device I am sure it will have a mundane local explanation without invoking the old classical ambiguous notion of Mach.
Z: OK.
JS: 3) in addition there is a lot of confusion in terminology around fictitious "inertial forces".
Z: There certainly is.
JS: I always mean the frame acceleration in the Levi-Civita connection by that term.
Z: OK.
JS: There is a clear cut distinction between real and fictitious forces.
Z: There is? Didn't we see that there is a gray area in which a force is not real, but it models the effects of underlying inertial effects that are themselves real and objective?
JS: No, you are not understanding what I have written. Like Bohr's version of quantum theory (Copenhagen) Einstein's GR has a measurement theory. I remember David Bohm talking about this at Birkbeck College London 1971 when I was there for several months.
Einstein's 1916 GR is about COINCIDENT LOCAL OBSERVERS measuring the same events and comparing their data by the computation of invariant numbers the same for ALL of them. That is LOCAL OBJECTIVE REALITY out there. It's Plato's Theory of Ideas in the sense of Roger Penrose.
Einstein's 1905 SR is about observers in GLOBAL INERTIAL FRAMES only doing the same thing, but they don't have to be coincident fundamentally.
The local tetrad/spin-connection --> tensor --> entangled spinor/entangled twistor laws (field equations) are covariant of the same algebraic form for all of these coincident observers independent of their world lines, geodesic or not, rotating or not. The lowest energy stable solutions of these field equations with initial & final boundary conditions need not respect all the symmetries of the local field equations and their global dynamical actions. For example, Frank Wilczek's "time crystals" as the latest, that in this context would be Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" in 4D and David Finkelstein's "chronons."
GR per-se has THREE INTER-TWINED symmetry groups for LOCALLY COINCIDENT observer-detector-frames of reference.
I. Tetrads: LNIF <---> LIF
2. SO1,3:   LIF < ---> LIF'   local Minkowski metric nIJ(LIF)
3. GCT4(x):    LNIF <---> LNIF'  local curvilinear metric  guv(LNIF)
ds^2 = guv(LNIF)e^ue^v = nIJ(LIF)e^Ie^J
Finally the internal fiber groups
4. U1, SU2, SU3 all locally gauged with induced boson fields of electromagnetism, weak and strong forces.
Einstein's 1916 gravity field is simply the induced boson field from localizing the rigid Poincare group T4*SO(1,3) and ad hoc putting in constraint of zero torsion.
If the force is real, then an accelerometer clamped to the object in question will show a non-zero pointer reading.
Z: I think here you are confusing the reality of the applied force with the reality of inertial reaction *treated* as a force. Two different animals.
JS: I'm not confusing anything. The confusion is all yours.
You have two extended particles - the observed test particle and the tiny detector measuring the motion of the test particle.
NEITHER ARE Tuv SOURCES of the gravity curvature field if any. This works also in Minkowski space time, which is why Tuv and Mach's Principle are irrelevant to the basic idea - measurement theory.
Each particle has a still tinier accelerometer clamped to it.
The pointer of the accelerometer stays at zero on a timelike geodesic where there is no rotation about the center of mass of the possibly extended particle - either one.
The pointer of the accelerometer moves off zero on a timelike NON-geodesic where there may also be rotation about the center of mass of the possibly particle - either one.
Newton's 2nd law of motion for the observed test particle is then (suppressing indices)
D(detector)P(test particle)/ds = F(test particle)
D with the Levi-Civita connection is a property of the DETECTOR not the test particle!
When D =/= d, then there is another force F(detector) where
D(detector)P(detector)/ds = F'(detector)
no connection between F and F'.
All the fictitious inertial Coriolis, centrifugal, Newton's gravity force -GM(Tuv source)/r per unit test particle m are CONTINGENT properties of the DETECTOR.
Indeed, Newton's gravity force F(m) = - GMm/r^2 = mg(r) is simply a description of the STATIC LNIF, e.g. clamped to M's surface.
The accelerometer clamped to the observer who in turn is clamped to M's surface has a pointer that moves to -GMm/r^2.
If the test particle is freely falling on a timelike geodesic of the Earth's field its accelerometer pointer stays on the "zero" - no g force.
All fictitious forces on the observed test particle fail to cause the local accelerometer pointer to move. However, the clamped constraint on the detector will cause its accelerometer pointer to move. All real EM weak strong forces on the test particle will cause its accelerometer to move off "zero."
When we look at Baron Munchausen in free fall his local accelerometer's pointer sits at zero. Ours stationary on Earth's surface moves off zero (we are standing on a scale). Therefore, the real electrical reaction force of the rock beneath us pushes us off a timelike geodesic.
Z: Only in combination with the inertia of the Earth. It is the inertia of the Earth that is really pushing on the rock, *mediated* by the electrical forces.
JS: Clear as mud. It's Earth's Tuv tensor field that makes the dominant Ruvwl curvature tensor field that then demands
F = - GMm/r^2 for the static LNIF
More precisely the formula is
F = - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2GMm/r^2
Z: Both the Earth and the rock want to move along geodesics. What creates the phenomenon of "weight:" in GR is the geodesic *deviation*.
JS: No, you are wrong Z. You garble "geodesic deviation" with pushing a single test particle off its geodesic. Two completely different procedures. Indeed, this is the root cause of your persistent confusion about a non-zeor tensor hidden inside the Levi Civita connection! You have been fooled by superficial similarity of the nouns in the informal language.
Geodesic deviation is the relative apparent kinematic acceleration between two neighboring geodesic test particles neither of which experience g-force.
Newton's 2nd law in contrast is completely different operationally - a non-gravity force pushes one test particle off its timelike geodesic.
INERTIA in Einstein's GR is really only a property of motion on timelike world lines. It's measurable only on non-geodesic timelike world lines.
Z: The inertia of the Earth overcomes the much smaller inertia of the rock -- all *mediated* by your electrical forces.
JS: We are really accelerating in place in curved spacetime - that's Einstein's picture.
Z: By "really" I think you must mean "dynamically". This has nothing to do with *kinematical* frame acceleration.
JS: Clear as mud. Real acceleration is what accelerometers measure. Real time is what clocks measure. Etc. LNIFs really accelerate.
Z: Einstein failed to sufficiently emphasize the distinction between kinematical and dynamical acceleration that holds in GR.
JS: Therefore, Newton's "real gravity force" is in fact 100% fictitious inertial force just like the Coriolis-Centrifugal forces are.
JS: I know that you are profoundly confused on that for the reasons I gave above, but I don't expect that your mental block on this hobby horse will allow you to properly process what I am telling you. ;-) Consequently I will not comment further on your remarks below that are based on your wrong premise in my opinion. Let other readers decide who they agree with.
Z: The gravitational deformation of the geodesics of the rock -- which in GR is an objective (i.e. frame invariant) phenomenon -- is what underlies Newton's gravitational force. It is the gravitational deformation of the geidesics that acts like a force. So Newton's gravitational force is NOT "100% fictitious", like Coriolis forces, since it models an underlying objective phenomenon. Coriolis forces in contrast are pure kinematical frame acceleration artifacts that do not point to any underlying objective  physical phenomenon. Coriolis forces really are "100% fictitious".
JS: Consequently, any attempt to explain Newton's gravity force by Mach's Principle is wrong-headed it seems to me because all inertial forces are frozen historical accidents - contingencies, or intelligently contrived experiments with spaceships etc
Z: Jack I think you are still confusing 100% kinameatical artifacts (truly fictitious) with force models for underlying objective inertial effects. Two different animals. Inertial effects are kinematically frame invariant in GR. It is essential to distinguish between dynamical and kinematical frames in discussions of GR. Otherwise there will be endless confusion generated by illegitimate punning.
JS: Einstein's theory explains gravity as the total geodesic pattern (null and timelike primarily) with curvature as geodesic deviation relative tipping of neighboring light cones.
Z: Right. Objective gravitational deformation of the geodesics, the effects of which are modeled as a gravity force in Newtonian physics.
JS: Newton's gravity force in flat space with absolute time is a chimera not at all relevant to Einstein's curved spacetime theory of gravity.
Z: Except by correspondence.
Jim's theory simply confounds the two qualitatively different pictures of Newton and Einstein.
Z: I have to agree that it does seem that Jim is mixing up the Newtonian and Einsteinian pictures of the gravitational potential and trying to have things both ways.
On Feb 21, 2012, at 3:51 AM, qraal01 wrote:
A useful gedankenexperiment perhaps, but boxes and mirrors have inertia - photons don't reflect from photons.
Right only at really high energies where the virtual electron-positrons come into play - a very tiny effect in most cases.
Idealisations sometimes strip away too much. Yet the idea that inertia has something to do with massless sub-units in a confined repetitive pattern doesn't seem to fit Machian inertia either and makes inertia a local phenomena rather than something caused by global constraints.
Right again. It's from the Higgs field and QCD confinement in my opinion.
Sent from my iPad
On 21/02/2012, at 10:09 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" wrote:
Imagine a box with perfectly reflecting walls filled with photons.  You try to "push" the box off of its geodesic.  How much force must you apply to achieve some prestated acceleration?
When I scanned the traffic earlier in the day, I must say I was not encouraged that anything I said last night had made any impression.  Later traffic is more encouraging.  But talk of the issues I left unaddressed last night would be premature at best.  So I'll stay out of the discussion, for a while at least. . . .
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Paul Zielinski To: qraal01 Subject: Re: Who's on first?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:04:10 -0800
Right one even could argue that they have infinite inertia since they
cannot be accelerate away from null geodesics.
Yes, I said that several times.
Maybe we should say that photons have momentum, but that the concept of
inertia doesn't apply.
Tricky point.
However, not really relevant to what I was talking about which was the
meaning of "inertial reaction" of material bodies
with reference to Newton's third law of motion.
Again, Newton's 3rd law is strictly a LOCAL effect from translational invariance --> momentum conservation in the small between pairs of objects - no need for Mach's principle. Formally it's from the general  Tuv^,v(matter) = 0
On 2/20/2012 22:36, qraal01 wrote:
I tend to agree with Jack on this one. It's hard to imagine how "inertia" applies conceptually to photons, which never accelerate, but are always instantaneously at c. They definitely have momentum, but what inertia and inertial reaction could possibly describe phenomenologically about photons...?
Sent from my iPad
On 21/02/2012, at 3:29 PM, Paul Zielinski  wrote:
You wrote,
"The photon has no inertia in the sense of rest mass."
I would say simply that photons have inertia, but zero rest mass.
You can do that in Newton's picture as I suggested above. You don't however get the precisely correct answer - off by a factor of 2 as I recall because Newton does not have the 3p pressure term in the Poisson equation.
(energy density + 3 pressure)
for light w = pressure/energy density = 1/3
The whole point here is to decide on what picture to use Newton or Einstein and then stay consistently within the rules of each picture. Jim is mixing the two and coming up with absurdities in my opinion.

Feb 21

A Passage to India

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dhananjay Pal
Subject: Request to give me your precious comments on the following papers submitted
Date: February 21, 2012 10:05:14 AM PST

From: Professor (Dr.) Dhananjay Pal,
Dean of Research,
Bengal School of Technology,
Sugandha, Delhi Road, Chuchura, Dist.- Hooghly, West Bengal, India, PIN-712102.

Phone: 033-2686 6064/ 2920
Telefax: 03326864281

To: Jack Sarfatti, PhD

  Dated: 21 February 2012

 Subject: Request to give me your precious comments on the following papers submitted for publication in EPJ C:

1. Explanation of the evolution of universe through the consciousness model involving thought-carrying particle (TCP), thought retaining particle (TRP) and thought force (TF) [Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.C (2012)]

2. Scheme-I [Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.C (2012)]

3. Existence of thought force and its characteristics [Submitted to Eur. Phys.

              J.C (2012)]

 4. Scheme-II: Thought force (TF) and its significant roles [Submitted to Eur. Phys.

             J.C (2012)]

5. Interpretation of the origin of matter as well as force: The ultimate constituents of matter and force [Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.C (2012)]

Respected Professor Sarfatti,

I am attaching the above articles for your kind perusal.

I will be highly obliged if you kindly cooperate and give us your precious comments.

Please acknowledge the receipt.
With personal profound regards,

Yours sincerely,
D. Pal


1. Explanation of the evolution of universe through the consciousness model involving thought-carrying particle (TCP), thought retaining particle (TRP) and thought force (TF) [Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.C (2012)]

2. Scheme-I [Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.C (2012)]

3. Existence of thought force and its characteristics [Submitted to Eur. Phys.

              J.C (2012)]

 4. Scheme-II: Thought force (TF) and its significant roles [Submitted to Eur. Phys.

             J.C (2012)]

5. Interpretation of the origin of matter as well as force: The ultimate constituents of

         matter and force [Submitted to Eur. Phys. J.C (2012)]

6. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Temperature Signifying the

               Existence of the Thought-Carrying Particle, Thought Retaining Particle and Thought

                Force [Submitted to Neuroquantology (2012)]

Dear Professor Pal

I do not think there are thought carrying particles etc. That is, I don't think there is consciousness at that low-lying level.  It's an old idea considered by Puthoff (tachyons) I think as well as others back in the 1970s. I do not agree with your basic picture. I think consciousness is an emergent collective effect of a huge number of particles organized by energy-entropy flows keeping them far from thermodynamic equilibrium with a kind of macro-quantum coherent Bose-Einstein type condensate of material elementary excitations as the actual thought field of organized qubits - something like a macro-quantum coherent version of Prigogine's "dissipative structures", see also the papers of Vitiello and Freeman whose model is consistent with mine. I attach the link to my paper on this subject from Journal of Cosmology Vol 14, April 2011


We also need entanglement signaling violating orthodox quantum theory to get inner conscious qualia in my opinion.

Bohm's picture seems best suited here. The conscious mind field in the brain is a giant "superfluid" Bohm quantum potential field that causes collective patterns of micro-tubules, ionic channels, dipolar molecules etc to activate and function in a two-way relation in which the back-reaction from these material particles on the super Bohm Potential INTRINSIC qubit mental field causes the excited states that we experience as "qualia".

I am passing on your papers etc to others with competence and interest who may wish to give you feedback on your interesting thoughts on this most important of all subjects for science. :-)

On the other hand, our future cosmological event horizon related to the dark energy may be a conscious VALIS  Teilhard de Chardin cosmological hologram computer of about 10^123 qubits in which we are its retro-causal back from the future hologram images. Of course this is very speculative. ;-)

e.g. http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

Feb 20

Frank Wilzcek Time Crystals at MIT #1

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

"V. Comments
1. Spontaneous formation of a time crystal represents the spontaneous emergence of a clock from a time-invariant dynamical system.
2. It is interesting to speculate that a (considerably) more elaborate quantum-mechanical system, whose states could be interpreted as collections of qubits, might be engineered to traverse, in its ground configuration, a programmed landscape of structured states in Hilbert space over time.
3. In general, fields or particles in the presence of a time crystal background will be subject to energy-changing processes, analogous to momentum-changing Umklapp processes of ordinary crystals. In either case the apparent non-conservation is in reality a transfer to the background. In our earlier model, O(1/N) corrections to the background motion arise.
4. The usual range of questions that arise in connection with any spontaneous ordering, including the nature of transitions into or out of the order at finite temperature, critical dimensionality, defects and solitons, and low-energy phenomenology, all pose themselves for time crystallization. In addition, there are interesting issues around the classification of space-time periodic orderings (roughly speaking, four dimensional crystals).
5. Semi-macroscopic oscillatory phenomena related in spirit to time crystallization are familiar in the a.c. Josephson effect. In that context, however, a voltage difference must be sustained externally."
to be continued.

On Feb 20, 2012, at 2:29 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Let's start with the rock being swung on a string and then move on to Sciama and other issues.

The rock: I pull on the string as I give it some initial velocity and set it into uniform circular motion.  In order to maintain that motion -- neglecting friction and windage -- I must continue to apply a constant centrepital force on the string that is communicated to the rock.  At any instant I ask: what force(s) are acting on the rock?

Jack: Sure, so what?

Jim: The obvious force in play is that exerted by the string, analyzed microscopically it is electrical,

Jack: Correct.

Jim: but that is not important.  What is important is that this force is the one that figures into Newton's second law, the equation of motion.  

Jack: True, of course. That real electrical force pushes the rock off a timelike geodesic in the real geometrodynamic field most aptly expressed by the GCT local scalar invariants (same in every coincident set of LNIFs) {e^I, S^I^J} from which ds^2, Ruvwl etc. can be computed.

Jim: But Newton's laws of mechanics tell us that that is not the whole story.  The third law tells us that whenever a force acts on a massive object (the string on the rock), there is an equal and opposite reaction force (the rock on the string).  

Jack: This is expressed LOCALLY in classical field theory simply by  Tuv^;v = 0 in a LNIF. Locally 1905 SR works. That's the EEP, so that we also have in a coincident LIF TIJ^,J = 0 for all the matter fields. One can go from a classical field theory to a particle picture if one likes, but this is good enough.

Action-reaction 3rd law is contained in TIJ^,J = 0 from local spatial translation invariance. End of story, no need for cosmology here - no need for some ineffable nonmeasurable meta-theoretical phi = c^2.


Jim: That means that when the string acts to produce the centrepital force, the rock -- because it has inertial mass -- exerts an equal and opposite force on the string.  As Paul notes, if a spring scale is inserted between the string and the rock, it is the inertial reaction force of the rock on the string that causes the scale reading to be non-zero.  This is Newton speaking I note.  I trust you don't find him obscure.

Jack: I still find your writing a bit obscure. So now do we agree

1) "inertial mass" = "gravitational mass" = relativistic mass M = m0(1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2?

Newton's 2nd law is

2) DP^u/ds = F^u

3) P^u = Mdx^u/ds

4) ds^2 = guv(LNIF)dx^udx^v = nIJ(LIF)e^Ie^J  EEP

Newton's 3rd Law is contained in LOCAL

5) TIJ^,J (Matter) = 0

Yes? No?

Jim: The question is: what is the origin of the reaction force -- an inertial reaction force -- on the string?  This has nothing to do with the Higgs process.  That's a red herring.  Read Wilczek's book.

Jack: I have read Wilczek's book. I find your above remark still unintelligible.

The Higgs process + QCD + nuclear + atomic +solid state physics "explain" the origin of m0 for any material object. So what precisely are you saying here? What mathematical object in the theory are you talking about?

Jim: Paul's answer is that the force is produced by the rock as a consequence of it having mass.

Jack: Right, it comes from m0.

Jim: He chooses not to call it a force acting on the rock that is transmitted through the rock to the string.

Jack: Unintelligible to me. What's the problem? The string pulls the rock off a geodesic with an electrical force. The rock pulls back on the string with an equal and opposite ELECTRICAL FORCE according to the equation

TIJ^,J(LIF) = 0

One must include all relevant LOCAL degrees of freedom of source fermion particles and gauge force mostly VIRTUAL bosons. What we have however is a coarse-grained lumped parameter description with many microscopic details averaged out - as in elasticity theory.

Jim: I assume he affects this position because he wants to explain inertial forces as some local action of the quantum vacuum on the rock that produces a force on the string, but not on the rock.

Jack: I see no need to invoke the quantum vacuum here as any zero order dominant factor.

Jim: My position is that a force -- gravity in fact -- acts on the accelerating rock to produce the inertial reaction force -- a real force,

Jack: Your position then, Jim, I find completely wrong from the git-go. Newton's theory of gravity force is not adequate for these fundamental questions. There is no such thing as a real gravity force in Einstein's theory.

Newton's gravity force F = - Gmm'/r^2 is completely contained in the Levi-Civita-Christoffel torsion-free metric connection {^uvw} in the GEODESIC FORCE-FREE equation

DP^u(test particle)/ds = 0  i.e. Newton's FIRST LAW of MOTION

Newton's 2nd law of motion is

DP^u(test particle)/ds = F^u(electromagnetic-weak-strong)

Newton's 3rd law of motion of action-reaction is

DP^u/ds = 0

for pairs of interacting particles.

See Feynman's Lectures Vol 1 for complications in 3-particle ---> N-particle systems - and one must include the EM field (e/c)A vector potentials, i.e.

P^u(charge) = MdX^u(charge)/ds + (e/c)A^u(EM field)

TO AVOID PARADOXES WITH NON-CENTRAL LORENTZ FORCES ON TWO CHARGES MOVING AT RIGHT ANGLES TO EACH OTHER, FOR EXAMPLE where the Lorentz magnetic forces do not cancel and are in different directions!

Also there is the issue of retardation and advanced time delays, though for the string-rock problem that can be ignored to good approximation I think.

Jim: though it gets called fictitious because being gravitational, the passive gravitational mass and inertial mass cancel in the equation of motion for this force (I know, you will find this obscure; but it isn't; I wrote out the math for this several emails back) -- and that inertial reaction force on the rock is communicated through the rock to the string producing the equal and opposite force required by Newton's third law.

Note that if you deny the existence of the inertial reaction force acting on the string as it exerts a centrepital force on the rock, you are violating Newton's third law.

Now, as to whether Paul's view of inertia as something that's not really a force, though it results in a force versus my claim that the force is gravity.  It is a matter of simple calculation -- Sciama's calculation in fact -- to show that in the vector approximation to GR, the inertial reaction force is due to gravity.  If GR is right (it is), then in our universe at the present epoch, inertial reaction forces are due to gravity.  You can't have it more than one way here.  It's what the theory says.

Why is my last assertion true?  Because we now know as a matter of fact that the universe is spatially flat.  That means that "critical cosmic matter density" obtains.  And that in turn means that phi = c^2.  This is not my interpretation.  This is standard GR cosmology.  It's the reason why Steven Weinberg years ago talked about a three pound universe, and Laurence Krauss now talks about a universe from "nothing".  The gravitational energy just balances the non gravitational energy in a critical cosmic matter density universe; and that means phi = c^2.  To see this, multiply through by the mass M of the universe M phi = Mc^2.

Armed with the knowledge that phi = c^2 for us here and now, we can put this knowledge into Sciama's vector approximation calculation of the gravitational action of the universe on an accelerating object (due to the action of a non-gravitational force pushing it off it's local geodesic).  What we find is:

       E(grav) = - grad phi - (1/c)dA/dt

where A is the gravimagnetic vector potential.  The vector potential has mass current sources, and as Sciama notes, in the instantaneous frame of the accelerating object, all of the matter in the universe appears to be moving past the object with velocity - v.  So when we integrate the mass currents rho v, we can take the v out of the integral and just compute the matter density rho contribution to the integral.  Amazingly enough, that integral just turns out to be phi (times 1/c), so we get:

       E(grav) = - (phi/c^2) dv/dt = - (phi/c^2) a.

Grad phi is zero as there are no local mass concentrations of importance by assumption.  We now multiply this calculated value of the gravelectric field strength seen by the accelerating object by the mass of the object to get the force on the object due to the gravitational action of the universe and take into account our factual knowledge that phi/c^2 = 1 (from the WMAP results) to get:

       F(grav) = E(grav) m = - ma.

This is the inertial reaction force required by Newton's third law.  It is due to the action of gravity, not the quantum vacuum or the Higgs process, or whatever.  You may not like this.  But this is what standard GR says.

I'm going to leave most of the questions about Sciama and the speed of light to another email tomorrow to let this sink in.  But I will make one comment.  You may be wondering: Why aren't there effects like this in electrodynamics?  After all, it's a vector theory too, and almost identical to vector approximation gravity.  The answer is simple.  When you integrate the sources of the EM vector potential -- electric charge currents -- over the universe, you get zero.  Why?  Because the universe, at cosmic scale, is charge neutral.  So rho on average is zero and the vector potential vanishes.  In the case of gravity this isn't so; and the vector potential does not vanish.

If you want to object that Sciama's calculation is just an approximation, be careful.  Inertial reaction forces are not small effects that might be artifacts of the approximation used.  They are as large as the forces that excite them.  That is, very large and not an approximation artifact.  After all, we're talking about the action of the whole blasted universe.

Tomorrow I'll deal with the stuff about the speed of light in GR and why phi, like c, is a locally measured invariant.  Unless, that is, we're still stuck on what an inertial reaction force is and what produces them.  :-)

On Feb 19, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Paul Murad wrote:

I have sat quietly over this for about a week regarding this conversation. I have two trivial questions.
First, Einstein did this about a century ago.

Jack: That's correct.

Murad: How come you all are still arguing about these issues?

Jack: Good question.

Murad: One would have assumed by now, we should know what is going on by now.  If not, then mankind is really dumb!

Jack: Excellent observation! ;-)
Murad: Second, you have a Coriolis force that works but other forces makes no sense?

Jack: That's not what I said. I don't know what Jim or Z said. Coriolis, centrifugal - all inertial fictitious forces are coded into the the symmetric torsion-free metric Levi-Civita-Christoffel connection that works in globally flat Minkowski space-time of 1905 SR as well as the curved space-time of 1916 GR. The former is a limiting case of the latter. "Fictitious" means there is no g-force on the observed test particle from them. However, there are real g-forces on accelerometers clamped to the detectors measuring the motion of the test particle.

Murad: That sounds like nonsense. Forces have to go into the stress-energy tensor unless you are pulling out the Coriolis force into the curvature tensor. The issue is how do you segregate it from the force balance to do this and still satisfy conservation or is this the crux of the issue?

Jack: Fictitious forces are at the level of the connection. Curvature is the covariant curl of the connection with itself in a self-referential way.

All the UNIVERSAL inertial fictitious forces are already there in Minkowski spacetime.  Therefore, curvature is independent from them. Fictitious forces are an optical illusion caused by the purely arbitrary contingent non-geodesic motion of the detector/observer.

The fault Dear Murad lies not with the test particles, but within ourselves. ;-)

pun on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
Murad: Sorry for my ignorance...
Paul Murad
Morningstar Applied Physics, LLC


From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com>
To: "jfwoodward@juno.com" <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Misner Thorne Wheeler p. 63 no centrifuge redshift & speed of light in accelerating frames

If you interpret this as meaning that centrifugal forces are not really forces, but only *look* like forces in rotating frames of reference. then it makes sense.

Jack: That's been my crystal clear position all along.

Z: The underlying inertial effects are real, but they are not really due to the operation of *forces*.

Jack: That's right if you mean the observed test particle. It's not right if you mean the CLAMPED observer-detector forced to move off a time-like geodesic in the objectively real local tetrad-spin connection fields that are general coordinate transformation invariant local scalar 0-rank tensors. The four tetrad Cartan 1-forms e^I transform as 4-vector under the local LIF --> LIF' Lorentz group, and the six spin connection Cartan 1-forms S^I^J are not an antisymmetric 2nd rank tensor under the local Lorentz group.

Z: Then it becomes clear that purely kinematical fictitious forces (such as Coriolis forces) are fictitious in the much deeper sense that  there is no underlying objective effect, that they are *purely* a matter of appearances.

Jack: Yes, for test particle. No, for the CLAMPED accelerometers on the detectors whose pointers move off zero when their twins CLAMPED on the test particle do not!

Z: As long as we clearly distinguish between these two different definitions of "fictitious", there should be no confusion.

Jack: Subject to the distinction above that you did not make.

On 2/19/2012 03:05, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

All of the confusion about inertial reaction forces, I think, can be traced back to elementary physics where we all learned that centrifugal forces were allegedly not "real".  Rather, they were allegedly fictive, and the only "real force" was the centrepital force causing the rock on the end of the string being swung around you to deviate from inertial motion in a straight line.

So Jim I am still in the dark about how you related the fictitious forces to Mach's Principle. I would not do so. I would related the "jerk" radiation reaction force to Mach's principle, but that is not an F = ma force at all.

Jim your format is confusing who wrote what.
I will try to fix it.

On Feb 18, 2012, at 2:52 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Subject: Re: Misner Thorne Wheeler p. 53 no centrifuge redshift & speed of ligh t in accelerating frames
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:13:58 -0800

Jack: I think Z means kinematical vs dynamical

Kinematical means in Minkowski space where Tuv = 0

Of course that split is real and can be measured in sense of EEP locally by the tetrad map connecting locally coincident LIF with LNIF.

But the only non zero tensors in the connection are torsion and nonmetricity both zero in 1916 GR they would be real forces on test particle not fictitious.

Indeed locally gauging the dS conformal group gives the old LC connection for inertial fictitious forces on test particle = real forces on coincident detector + real forces on both!

Jim: Yes, but Paul's and my point is that the "fictitiousness" of the inertial force on the test particle that registers as a real force in the detector is not a consequence of the the force actually being unreal.

Jack: What do you mean by "real"? Remember I took philosophy of physics with Max Black at Cornell. It's real on the detector. It's not real on the test particle. Also I was brainwashed by the Cornell Wittgensteinians - fortunately.

Definition of "real force" - a force on an material object is "real" IFF an accelerometer CLAMPED to the object registers a not-null value. In other words, only if the object is literally pushed off a timelike geodesic of the LOCAL GEOMETRODYNAMICAL FIELD (i.e. the GCT INVARIANT tetrad e^I and spin connection S^I^J Cartan 1-forms.

Jim: It is a consequence of the fact that like gravity, it can be removed with geometry (suitable choice of connection).

Jack: That's EEP (formally the tetrad mapping LNIF <---> LIF), but I fail to see your logic here. What is your point? In the LIF there is no g-force on the detector. The test particle does not give a wit about what the detector is or is not feeling (measured by pointer readings of the CLAMPED accelerometer).

 Jim: Paul, I think, would like to see this force arise from the action of the quantum vacuum, whereas I am convinced that it is just the force of gravity due chiefly to cosmic matter.

Jack: You lost me completely. You are not making any sense to me. I don't know what you mean in terms of P.W. Bridgman's operational definitions. What is being measured on what? We have two objects here. The test particle and the detector of the the test particle's motion. Your sentences are not precise and detailed enough for my mind to get their meaning. As a question of style I always understand John Archibald Wheeler's writing on these topics. Please try to emulate him.

Operationalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
P.W. Bridgman, Einstein's Theories and the Operational Point of View, in: P.A. Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court, La Salle, Ill., ...
Operational definition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is in contrast to Operationalization that uses theoretical definitions. ... The idea originally arises in the operationalist philosophy of P. W. Bridgman and ...
Overview - Limitations - Application - Examples
Operationalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Jul 16, 2009 – Section 1 introduces Bridgman's key ideas on operational analysis, ......“P. W. Bridgman's Operational Perspective on Physics”, Studies in ...
Percy Williams Bridgman: Biography from Answers.com
www.answers.com › Library › Science
Percy Williams Bridgman American physicist (1882–1961) Bridgman, the son of a ...advocated operationalism, and he coined the term operational definition.
Jim: In the connection of universality arising from local masses m dropping out of equations of motion, let me respond to Paul's criticism of my comments on inertial forces.  The proper way to show that is:

     Egrav = - grad phi - (1/c)dA/dt            (Sciama)

Jack: I do not understand this equation at all in terms of Einstein's gravity theory.

if phi = c^2,  then you have grad c^2 =/= 0? What does that mean?

phi is pure timelike polarization

A 3-vector is transverse + longitudinal polarization

gauge invariance is

wphi* + k.A*longitudinal = 0 for zero mass spin 1 vector boson

no spin 2 here.

w = frequency, k = wave vector

* is 4D Fourier transform

"Lorenz gauge

See also: Covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism
The Lorenz gauge is given, in SI units, by:

and in Gaussian units by:

It may be rewritten in terms of the electromagnetic four-potential :

It is unique among the constraint gauges in retaining manifest Lorentz invariance. Note, however, that this gauge was originally named after the Danish physicist Ludvig Lorenz and not after Hendrik Lorentz; it is often misspelled "Lorentz gauge". (Neither was the first to use it in calculations; it was introduced in 1888 by George F. FitzGerald.)
The Lorenz gauge leads to the following inhomogeneous wave equations for the potentials:

It can be seen from these equations that, in the absence of current and charge, the solutions are potentials which propagate at the speed of light.
The Lorenz gauge is incomplete in the sense that there remains a subspace of gauge transformations which preserve the constraint. These remaining degrees of freedom correspond to gauge functions which satisfy the wave equation

These remaining gauge degrees of freedom propagate at the speed of light. To obtain a fully fixed gauge, one must add boundary conditions along the light cone of the experimental region.
Maxwell's equations in the Lorenz gauge simplify to , where is the four-current. Two solutions of these equations for the same current configuration differ by a solution of the vacuum wave equation . In this form it is clear that the components of the potential separately satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation, and hence that the Lorenz gauge condition allows transversely, longitudinally, and "time-like" polarized waves in the four-potential. The transverse polarizations correspond to classical radiation, i. e., transversely polarized waves in the field strength. To suppress the "unphysical" longitudinal and time-like polarization states, which are not observed in experiments at classical distance scales, one must also employ auxiliary constraints known as Ward identities. Classically, these identities are equivalent to the continuity equation .
Many of the differences between classical and quantum electrodynamics can be accounted for by the role that the longitudinal and time-like polarizations play in interactions between charged particles at microscopic distances."

Jack: However, the above is not quite correct since near fields exist over macroscopic distance. Indeed most of electrical power engineering is primarily concerned with near fields. The above is really only for S-Matrix theory.

I understand it for Maxwell's electromagnetic field theory.


It is a part of

F = dA

F = electromagnetic field 2-form

A = electromagnetic field 1-form aka potential, connection etc.

U1 gauge transformation is

A --> A + df

f is a 0-form

df is an exact 1-form

d^2 = 0


F ---> F' = dA' = dA = F

this fails in Yang-Mills theory and GR is like Yang-Mills theory in this regard.

Jim; - grad phi is zero for the case of cosmic matter, but dA/dt is not as A is the integral of matter currents which are not zero if your test object is moving (as the universe appears to move in the opposite direction with velocity v).  This leads to:

     Egrav = - (1/c^2)phi dv/dt

so the force on a test particle is

     m Egrav = - (phi/c^2) m dv/dt = ma

where setting m Egrav equal to ma is just the equation of motion.

Jack: This still does not make sense to me.

Jim:  When dv/dt =/= 0, there is a force on m.  But note that m on the LHS of this equation is the passive gravitational mass, whereas on the RHS it is the inertial mass.  By the EEP they are equal and cancel, just as in the case of Newtonian gravity, establishing the universality of real inertial forces that makes them "fictitious" in the conventional sense of the term, notwithstanding that they are real forces.

Satisfied Paul?

Jack: I'm not. I gave a physical definition of real vs fictitious forces in terms of pointer readings of accelerometers clamped to the several material objects in the measurement algorithms. I don't understand Jim's metaphysics above, e.g. "By the EEP they are equal and cancel, just as in the case of Newtonian gravity, establishing the universality of real inertial forces that makes them "fictitious" in the conventional sense of the term, notwithstanding that they are real forces." First of all the notion of global rigid motions is not physically meaningful in Einstein's theory.

PPS of course relative to the distant "book keeper" observer (Wheeler) far from the black hole the speed of light slows down near the event horizon. This is observed for radio signals back and forth Earth - Sun - Mars (Irwin Shapiro). So one has to be clear as to precisely what the measurement is, same as in quantum theory (Bohr's total experimental arrangement).

On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:33 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

PS I still haven't a clue of what

phi = c^2 means operationally in terms of possible local measurements to test its correctness.

I don't see its value added.

As I. Rabi said of Pauli's neutrino "Who ordered that?"

Of course there are neutrinos.

From what I do understand Sciama used

phi = c^2 in some toy model cosmological argument around the very obscure "Mach's Principle" with about 8 different meanings according to Rovelli.

Well cosmological metrics do not work locally without a lot of justification. A point in a cosmological metric is an entire galaxy so you can't use it in the lab in a local thrust measurement for example. The only way one could use it perhaps is to invoke some kind of fractal dilation scale invariance in the sense of the conformal de SItter group extension of the Poincare group?

Remember my argument, that seems to go over all the Pundit's heads so far that

If the Hawking temperature in a Planck thickness of our future cosmological event horizon is

kT(horizon) = hc/Lp


g00(r) = 1 - r^2/RH^2

we are at r = 0

Then advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation back from our future to us at r = 0 will be redshifted down to

kT(us) = hc/(LpRH )^1/2

Then Planck's et-al's black body law T^4 for real photons gives the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2RH^2 that we see as zero point vacuum fluctuations (virtual photons).

On Feb 18, 2012, at 10:16 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:13 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:05:32 -0800

Z: Glad to see you guys are coming around to my way of thinking re: GR. :-)

JW: I don't think Jack is coming around to your way of thinking.  Neither really am I.  :-)  I was sloppy in lumping Coriolis forces in with inertial forces.  I still think the standard interpretation of GR and the EEP are basically correct.  Because it's the non-localization of gravitational potential energy aspect of the EEP that makes the identification of the scalar part of the gravitational potential [GM/R] as a locally measured invariant along with c.  But I will say that the conversation has been very helpful in sharpening the issues for me, and I thank you and Jack for that.  Seriously.  I'm revising chapters 1 and 2 of the book accordingly.  And the two of you will be acknowledged for the helpful exchange.

JS: I still fail to see the mathematics of what you mean Jim by inertial forces? Do you mean formally essentially the Levi-Civita connection {  }? That's what I mean.

Formally Newton's 2nd Law on a test particle with coordinates x^u and REST MASS m, charge q is (neglecting special relativity, radiation reaction jerk, and rocket ejection effects)

D^2x^u/ds^2 = d^2x^u/ds^2 + {^uvw}(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds) = (q/m)F^uvdx^v/ds

This equation works in Special Relativity for an accelerating detector in Minkowski space - and it also works generally in curved spacetime in the limit when variations in test particle m are small.

More generally use

DP^u/ds = qF^uvdx^v/ds + radiation reaction

Pu = Mdx^u/ds

ds^2 = guv(LNIF)dx^udx^v = nIJ(LIF)e^Ie^J

M = 1905 SR total mass as in

E = Mc^2 for the localized test particle

The fictitious inertial forces are the term  {^uvw}(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds)

The pointers of accelerometers measure the deviation of the object's motion off a local timelike geodesic in an arbitrary curvature field.

The reason that they are "fictitious" is that an accelerometer CLAMPED to the test particle does not register any g-force from them.

In contrast,  (q/m)F^uvdx^v/ds will cause the pointer on the test particle's accelerometer to move off zero. So will the radiation reaction force.

{^uvw} indicates a real non-gravity force on the detector! An accelerometer's pointer CLAMPED to the detector will move off zero independent of the test particle.

Fictitious inertial forces on test particles correspond to real forces on their detectors.

The LOCAL FIELD equations of Einstein's GR always express a relationship between LOCALLY COINCIDENT observed test particle and detector.

Mathematicians never seem to grasp this.

When for example one writes

g00 = 1 - rs/r

That is only for static LNIF detectors held by real forces at fixed r.

On 2/17/2012 14:57, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
OK, you are partly right.  The "kinematical" part of rotation effects that show up in Minkowski spacetime are "Coriolis" type "fictional" forces.  These are what should be called "fictional fictional" forces because the motion of the test objects observed is inertial and the "forces" they appear to experience are a consequence of the rotation of the observers frame of reference.  This is what Paul challenged me on when I made a comment about "fictional" forces now seemingly a long time ago.  He was right.  There are two types of "fictional" forces.

But, and I think Paul agrees with me here, there are "real fictional" forces.  They are inertial forces generally, and in the case of rotation, centrifugal forces.  They get lumped in with gravity as "fictional" because, like gravity, with a suitable choice of geometry they can be made to disappear.  Why, because with gravity, they are universal and satisfy the EEP.  For gravity you have:

        F = GMm/r^2 = ma

and the ms cancel as is universally acknowledged.  For inertial forces Newton's third law applies and if

        F = ma,


        Finert = - ma

and just as for gravity, when these are equated, the ms cancel.  That means that inertial forces are exactly like gravity forces and satisfy the EEP.  Why?  Because they are gravity forces too -- that arise from the g0i that correspond the the matter currents in Tuv (and generally currents that arise from everything that gravitates).  That's what Einstein and Sciama were after with Mach's principle.  Paul doesn't agree with the last part of this (yet).  But he does agree with the reality of inertial forces (unless he's changed his mind since our last exchange).

As for inertial structure in Minkowski spacetime, a little explanation of my earlier comment is likely in order.  In the era before Einstein, GRT, and his attempts to explicitly show that "Mach's principle" was a part of GRT, everyone looked around at local space and saw that the Pythagorean theorem applied to reality exactly, at the limit of observation of course.  (In this era, gravity gets treated as a force, so those complications do not arise.  And gravity is very weak anyway.)  Inertial reaction forces, of course, are an obvious feature of Newtonian mechanics, and the generalization to SRT involves only treating energy as having inertia (via Einstein's second law (according to Wilczek) m = E/c^2.  Since they are generally decades of orders of magnitude larger than Newtonian gravity forces, no one imagined that inertial forces might be caused by gravity.

Now from GRT cosmology and the WMAP results we know that at cosmic scale space is flat.  We also know from Sciama's calculation (and Einstein's calculation of 1921 and Nordtvedt's of 1988 if we extend their time derivative of the vector potential term to include cosmic sources) that spatial flatness implies phi = c^2 (up to a numerical constant of order unity perhaps) which in turn means that as a matter of calculation, not assumption, that inertial reaction forces are due to gravity.  But locally, because the cosmic effect of gravity is universal and the ms in EEP situations cancel, there seems to be no gravity effects present.

This explains why folks before Einstein (and a lot after too) could assume that Minkowski spacetime, assumed empty, has inertial structure, notwithstanding that in our reality the inertial structure of spatial flat spacetime is in FACT due to the gravitating stuff chiefly at cosmological distances from us.

I don't expect to convince anyone.  But I hope to hear your criticisms -- and that you understand what it is that I am saying:  This is all built in to standard 1915 GRT.  There's no "new" physics involved in this.

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jack Sarfatti<sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: Paul Zielinski<iksnileiz@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Misner Thorne Wheeler p. 53 no centrifuge redshift&  speed of ligh     t in accelerating frames
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:00:47 -0800

The math is simple clear and in text books. Jim disputing that fact is not rational. Of course Tuv will also give a contribution to g0i in addition to the part from simply spinning the disk or accelerating a clock translationally.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Paul Zielinski<iksnileiz@gmail.com>  wrote:

Jack is saying you can get g_0i =/= 0 for some i even in Minkowski spacetime, in certain frames of reference.

That means you can have g_0i =/= 0 in the absence of all gravity.

You don't seem to agree with that.

On 2/16/2012 01:08, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
only now you do not explicitly talk about the gravitational vector potential, though it is still there in your paper unidentified.

Feb 16

Interstellar Propulsion

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
just ran across this


perhaps of some interest?

I'm not endorsing the content at this time. Reader beware.
indian porn sexnxxx.cc xvideos Amateur Porn video porno amatoriali filmeporno.top lupoporno film porno gratuit porno mature xnxx film porno gratuit
bisexuel gay porno gay porno देसी सेक्स एचडी पॉर्न ऊपर ऊपर से चुदाई Големи цици