68 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004
Critique #1
George Divali wrote:
"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so
confused. Although our standard model of cosmology
has been confirmed by recent observations, it still
has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the universe
is accelerating."

JS: I think I do. http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

GD: "If you throw a stone straight up, the pull
of Earth’s gravity will cause it to slow down; it will not accelerate
away from the planet. Similarly, distant galaxies, thrown
apart by the big bang expansion, should pull on one another
and slow down. Yet they are accelerating apart. Researchers
commonly attribute the acceleration to some mysterious entity
called dark energy, but there is little physics to back up these
fine words."

JS: That is false in my opinion. An exotic vacuum phase with net total
cumulative random positive zero point vacuum fluctuation energy density,
hence negative pressure with w = -1, from all physical quantum fields
does the trick. One must realize that the degree of randomness of the
zero point vacuum fluctuations is tempered by the local inflation vacuum
coherence field whose phase variation is the dominant smooth c-number
non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamic field of
Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity upon which precision
cosmology is predicated in the equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

GD: "The only thing that is becoming clear is that at the
largest observable distances, gravity behaves in a rather strange
way, turning into a repulsive force."

JS: Agreed. We can also, I bet, do this on a small scale for exotic
warp drive time travel through traversable wormholes.

GD: "The laws of physics say that gravity is generated by matter
and energy, so they attribute a strange sort of gravity to a
strange sort of matter or energy. That is the rationale for dark
energy. But maybe the laws themselves need to be changed."

JS: That is "too cheap" as Einstein mistakenly told Bohm. However, I am
not mistaken I think in my opinion that a drastic overhaul of the known
laws of physics is needed for this problem.

GD: Physicists have a precedent for such a change: the law of gravity
that Newton formulated in the 17th century, which had various
conceptual and experimental limitations, gave way to Einstein’s
general theory of relativity in 1915. Relativity, too, has
limitations; in particular, it runs into trouble when applied to
extremely short distances, which are the domain of quantum
mechanics. Much as relativity subsumed Newtonian physics, a
quantum theory of gravity will ultimately subsume relativity.
Over the years, physicists have come up with a few plausible
approaches to quantum gravity, the most prominent being
string theory."

JS: Smolin, Ashtekar, Baez, Rovelli et-al will strongly disagree on that
against Greene, Witten, et-al. Of course neither string theory nor loop
quantum gravity have made hard predictions of any facts nor have they
provided compelling explanations of the observational mysteries of
precision cosmology and particle physics. Yet many of the Guardians of
respectability and ideological purity reminiscent of Stalinism in the
Soviet Union on the LANL Cornell Archive and in mass media like
Scientific American and NOVA PBS are quick to embrace these radical
speculations which in fact
are little more than pretty mathematical vaporware.

GD: "When gravity operates over microscopic distances
—for instance, at the center of a black hole, where a huge
mass is packed into a subatomic volume—the bizarre quantum
properties of matter come into play, and string theory describes
how the law of gravity changes.
Over greater distances, string theorists have generally assumed
that quantum effects are unimportant. Yet the cosmological
discoveries of the past several years have encouraged researchers
to reconsider. Four years ago my colleagues and I
asked whether string theory would change the law of gravity
not just on the smallest scales but also on the largest ones. The
feature of string theory that could bring about this revision is
its extra dimensions—additional directions in which particles
can roam. The theory adds six or seven dimensions to the usual
three."

JS: Theorists today are willing to pay any price to avoid signal
nonlocality.

GD: In the past, string theorists have argued that the extra dimensions
are too small for us to see or move in. But recent progress
reveals that some or all of the new dimensions could actually
be infinite in size. They are hidden from view not because
they are small but because the particles that make up our bodies
are trapped in three dimensions. The one particle that eludes
confinement is the particle that transmits the force of gravity,
and as a result, the law of gravity changes.
Quintessence Even from Nothingness
WHEN ASTRONOMERS ENCOUNTERED the cosmic acceleration,
their first reaction was to attribute it to the so-called cosmological
constant. Notoriously introduced and then retracted
by Einstein, the constant represents the energy inherent in space
Maybe cosmic acceleration isn’t caused by dark energy after all
but by an inexorable leakage of gravity out of our world

COPYRIGHT 2004 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.

GD: "A completely empty volume of space, devoid of all matter,
would still contain this energy—equivalent to roughly 10–26
kilogram per cubic meter. Although the cosmological constant
is consistent with all the existing data so far, many physicists find
it unsatisfying. The problem is its inexplicable smallness,"

JS: This is only a problem because The Pundits have not properly used
the idea of "vacuum coherence" in which the cosmological term in
Einstein's equation has a subsidiary equation

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Where the tetrad gravity field Cartan 1-form in the sense of Rovelli's
book on Quantum Gravity is

euadx^a = Kronecker Deltau^adx^a + (Quantum of Area)(argVacuum Coherence),u

A vanishing Vacuum Coherence means maximally random zero point energy
fluctuations from all fields in unstable globally flat spacetime with no
gravity.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

68 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004
Critique #1
George Divali wrote:
"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so
confused. Although our standard model of cosmology
has been confirmed by recent observations, it still
has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the
universe is accelerating."

JS: I think I do.

The ****in' lunatic is at least worth a few chuckles now and
then,

[snipped cloud of primeval gas]

The galaxies are accelerating outward because the universe is a
"bubble" inside an infinitely dense mass of packed quantum
singularities, each of which is a previous galaxy. That messes
up space such that the outward direction is always downhill, so
the universe is literally falling apart. This might seem a bit
too speculative, or even dumb as hell, but it's a lot shorter
than Sarfatti's freaky jabbering.

I'm not for or against this guy (J.S.), but I do have a question about this
"exchange" in the original post. Is the exchange in this post an actual
dialogue between the person who wrote the SciAm article and this guy, or is
this guy writing a monologue of comments to what writer in the Sci Am
article wrote? If it's the latter then I'm confused, as I always thought
that the "comments" and "notes" sections in well respected journals were the
appropriate places to really conduct a dialogue of this sort.

Jack

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Jack Sarfatti wrote:

68 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004
Critique #1
George Divali wrote:
"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so
confused. Although our standard model of cosmology
has been confirmed by recent observations, it still
has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the
universe is accelerating."

JS: I think I do.

The ****in' lunatic is at least worth a few chuckles now and
then,

[snipped cloud of primeval gas]

The galaxies are accelerating outward because the universe is a
"bubble" inside an infinitely dense mass of packed quantum
singularities, each of which is a previous galaxy. That messes
up space such that the outward direction is always downhill, so
the universe is literally falling apart. This might seem a bit
too speculative, or even dumb as hell, but it's a lot shorter
than Sarfatti's freaky jabbering.

"Jack Zamat" wrote:

I'm not for or against this guy (J.S.), but I do have a
question about this "exchange" in the original post. Is the
exchange in this post an actual dialogue between the person
who wrote the SciAm article and this guy, or is this guy
writing a monologue of comments to what writer in the Sci
Am article wrote? If it's the latter then I'm confused, as
I always thought that the "comments" and "notes" sections
in well respected journals were the appropriate places to
really conduct a dialogue of this sort.

I doubt that the SciAm writer would give Sarfatti a moment of
attention. Sarfatti seems to be addressing newsgroup readers
only. He has no input mode, so there won't be an actual dialog.

I believe that Sarfatti would score very high on a "physics
vocabulary test," but he doesn't express himself coherently
enough to allow any guesses about whether he really knows
anything.

Jack

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

68 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004
Critique #1
George Divali wrote:
"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt
so confused. Although our standard model of cosmology
has been confirmed by recent observations, it still
has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the
universe is accelerating."

JS: I think I do.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:39 -0500, Jack Zamat wrote:

I'm not for or against this guy (J.S.), but I do have a question about
this "exchange" in the original post. Is the exchange in this post an
actual dialogue between the person who wrote the SciAm article and this
guy, or is this guy writing a monologue of comments to what writer in
the Sci Am article wrote?

The latter. Moreover, all the quotes come from the first six paragraphs
of a ~7 page article; JS may not have even read the whole thing.


If it's the latter then I'm confused, as I always thought that the
"comments" and "notes" sections in well respected journals were the
appropriate places to really conduct a dialogue of this sort.

Alas, well respected journals have higher standards than Usenet does,
making it hard for some "experts" to get their views aired there.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

68 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FEBRUARY 2004
Critique #1
George Divali wrote:
"Cosmologists and particle physicists have seldom felt so
confused. Although our standard model of cosmology
has been confirmed by recent observations, it still
has a gaping hole: nobody knows why the expansion of the
universe is accelerating."

JS: I think I do.

The ****in' lunatic is at least worth a few chuckles now and
then,

[snipped cloud of primeval gas]

The galaxies are accelerating outward because the universe is a
"bubble" inside an infinitely dense mass of packed quantum
singularities, each of which is a previous galaxy. That messes
up space such that the outward direction is always downhill, so
the universe is literally falling apart. This might seem a bit
too speculative, or even dumb as hell, but it's a lot shorter
than Sarfatti's freaky jabbering.

I have to admit, I don't understand what he's talking about, by my own
personal favorite line is: "One must realize that the degree of randomness
of the
zero point vacuum fluctuations is tempered by the local inflation vacuum
coherence field whose phase variation is the dominant smooth c-number
non-perturbative background-independent geometrodynamic field of Einstein's
1915 general theory of relativity upon which precision cosmology is
predicated in the equation..."

Kinda reminds me of the T-shirt with the "what part of ... some hellaciously
long eqn follows.. don't you understand?"

Jack

"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote in message du...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:17:39 -0500, Jack Zamat wrote:

I'm not for or against this guy (J.S.), but I do have a question about
this "exchange" in the original post. Is the exchange in this post an
actual dialogue between the person who wrote the SciAm article and this
guy, or is this guy writing a monologue of comments to what writer in
the Sci Am article wrote?

The latter. Moreover, all the quotes come from the first six paragraphs
of a ~7 page article; JS may not have even read the whole thing.


If it's the latter then I'm confused, as I always thought that the
"comments" and "notes" sections in well respected journals were the
appropriate places to really conduct a dialogue of this sort.

Alas, well respected journals have higher standards than Usenet does,
making it hard for some "experts" to get their views aired there.


I wasn't aware that Scientific American was still being published.
Then too, I stopped reading it when it was sold and "dumbed down"
about 10 years ago.

Harry C.