I am giving a paper on this Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:40 pm at California APS
meeting at Lawrence Berkeley Lab

http://pdg.lbl.gov/aapt-aps/


On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 12:55 PM, A,, wrote:

Jack,

Your recollection is absolutely correct. A Levi-Civita connection may
be represented as the sum of Affine connection (noncovariant entity) and
a covariant tensor of nonmetricity (which, by the way, in my view,
describes gravitational field preserving energy-momentum, as described
in my papers, which I e-mailed you after our chat in SF).

Best regards,

A

How do you mean "nonmetricity."?

I use "metricity" in Hagen Kleinert's sense

guv^;v = 0

i.e. Diff(4) divergence vanishes.

I rewrite Einstein's zero torsion 1915 geometrodynamic "classical" local
field equaton

Guv = -(8piG/c^4)Tuv

as

Guv = -alpha'Tuv

alpha' = (string tension)^-1 = Witten parameter

Infinite string tension means no gravity because space-time geometry is
too stiff to bend.

The local stress-energy density tensor of pure geometry is then trivially

Tuv(Geometry) = (alpha')^-1Guv

Einstein's field equation is then simply the balance

Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Ordinary Mass-Energy) = 0

Adding random micro-quantum zero point energy density from all quantum
fields of spin 1/2 lepto-quarks and spin 1 gauge force bosons gives
additional term

tuv(zpf) = (alpha')-1/\zpfguv

/\zpf 0 is exotic vacuum "dark energy" with w = -1 negative pressure.

/\zpf 0 is exotic vacuum "dark matter" with w = -1 positive pressure

"Dark matter" detectors will never "click" except by false positives in
my theory.

Einstein's equation is then

Tuv(Geometry) + Tuv(Ordinary Mass-Energy) + tuv(zpf) = 0

In the 1915 theory with /\zpf = 0

Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0

from the Bianchi identities.

However these identities FAIL IMHO when /\zpf =/= 0 and is variable
and if there are torsion fields.

In my theory (with Witten's h = c =1 convention)

/\zpf = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2[|MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE|^2 - 1]

guv = Minkowski metric + Kleinert World Crystal Lattice Strain Tensor

Make the Levi-Civita connection from guv in the usual way.

World Crystal Lattice Distortion Field = du(x) = alpha'(Goldstone Phase
of MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE),u

Strain Tensor = du(x),v + dv(x),u

Diff(4) Landau-Ginzburg eq for VACUUM COHERENCE in a two-way feedback
loop between IT World Crystal Lattice Distortion Field and
BIT VACUUM COHERENCE in sense of Bohm's interpretation of IT(hidden
variable) + BIT(Pilot Wave of "Active Information")

Torsion fields mean

du(x),v - dv(x),u =/= 0

The ordinary 1915 GR theory with the Bianchi identities decouples the
geometry stress-energy density currents from the ordinary
matter-radiation stress-energy density currents i.e.

Tuv(traditional mass-energy sources)^;v = 0

This is no longer true in the extended theory.

There are profound technological applications from this conjecture if
true and I bet it is.

The point is, contrary to Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today, my
bet is that we can and will "bottle dark energy."



On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 01:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


"I think we are so confused that we should keep an open mind to
tinkering with gravity," said Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the
University of Chicago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/11GRAV.html

previously

Q to Ed Witten: How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero
but not zero?

Ed Witten's answer: "I really don't know. It's very perplexing that
astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological
constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests,
definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime.
In my career that is."


My answer to the same question is at http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

and http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc or same with .pdf
extension for Acrobat

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/11GRAV.html contains

"General relativity predicted the bending of light, the expansion of the
universe and black holes, and has served as the foundation for modern
cosmology, but theorists have never presumed that it would be the last
word on gravity.

For one thing, it is mathematically incompatible with the quantum laws
that govern subatomic particles. In order to describe what happens at
very small distances or very high energies corresponding to the first
moments after the Big Bang, where space and time become discontinuous,
general relativity has to be merged with quantum theory, a project that
has engrossed the present generation of physicists.

But recently some experts have been wondering out loud if it is time to
rewrite Einstein's version of the law as it applies to the other end of
the length scale, to very long distances. The motivation comes from the
predominance of what is sometimes called "the dark sector" in the universe.

According to what has recently become a highly celebrated "standard
model," ordinary atoms make up only 5 percent of the "stuff" of the
cosmos. Some kind of mysterious dark matter, perhaps consisting of
elementary particles left over from the Big Bang, makes up 25 percent,
while the rest — a whopping 70 percent — consists of something even more
mysterious, known as "dark energy."

Obviously a theory that leaves 95 percent of the universe unexplained is
less than a complete triumph.

Neither dark energy nor dark matter has been observed or detected
directly. Each has been inferred from its gravitational effects on the
tiny fraction of stuff we can see. As a result, some scientists have
suggested that what astronomers have discovered in the last 20 years is
their own ignorance of gravity.

In particular, the discovery, five years ago, that the expansion of the
universe is apparently accelerating, under the influence of that dark
energy, has occasioned a re-evaluation of the old certainties.

The simplest explanation for dark energy is something called the
cosmological constant, first invented by Einstein, a cosmic repulsion
caused by the energy residing in empty space. But attempts to calculate
this energy have resulted in numbers 1060 bigger than what astronomers
have measured — so large that the universe would have blown apart before
atoms or galaxies could have formed — causing theorists to throw up
their hands.

"I think we are so confused that we should keep an open mind to
tinkering with gravity," said Dr. Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the
University of Chicago.

As a result of all this, physics literature has become peppered with
suggestions of ways to change gravity. This fall, given a choice of
explanations for dark energy during cosmology workshop at the Kavli
Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif., 20 of the 44
participants voted for some variation of "Einstein was wrong."

Some of these proposals take their cue from the science-fiction-sounding
string theory, the putative theory of everything, which holds out the
possibility that our universe might be a 4-dimensional membrane (or
"brane") in an 11-dimensional space.

Most of the vibrating strings that make up the particles and forces of
nature in string theory would be stuck to the brane, like the nap on a
rug. But the strings responsible for transmitting gravity would be able
to drift away or "leak" into the meta-space surrounding the brane as
they traveled along it from distant objects, according to a theory set
forth in 2000 by Dr. Gia Dvali, Dr. Gregory Gabadadze and Dr. Massimo
Porrati of New York University. The effect, they say, would be to make
distant galaxies appear as if they were accelerating as they moved away
from us.

Also in a stringy vein is Cardassian expansion, named after the
villainous race on "Star Trek," and dreamed up by Dr. Katherine Freese
and Dr. Matthew Lewis of the University of Michigan. According to their
theory, the universe accelerates as a result of other branes tugging on
our own. "One can get an accelerating universe without having any dark
energy," Dr. Freese said.

Other theorists are going back and modifying general relativity
directly, noting that when he wrote it down Einstein chose the simplest
possible equations that would carry out his ideas. But more complicated
equations might be necessary. That was the approach taken by Dr. Turner
and his colleagues, Dr. Sean Carroll and Dr. Vikram Duvvuri of Chicago,
and Dr. Mark Trodden of Syracuse. The result was a universe that would
speed up as it got bigger and emptier.

That might sound crazy, Dr. Turner said, but not any crazier than the
idea 80 years ago that the universe would be expanding.

The model raises as many questions as it answers, but it and others like
it are still worth pursuing, Dr. Carroll said.

"Something funny is going on when the universe gets to be 10 billion
years old," he said, "and none of our current ideas is standing up and
declaring itself to be the right answer, so we have to be bold."