On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 11:57 PM, andrew laidlaw wrote:

Dear Jack,

Well that worked! Thank you (at long last) for a
reply that I CAN (and will) study in detail.
Amateurish? Of course, if you want to interpret what
I'm doing as Physics, it is totally amateurish - in
fact avowedly so, since it is a major consideration of
mine to keep things as simple as is possible,
consistent with making the point.

You are making them simpler than is possible and also making
some false statements about General Relativity.

There has been some sloppiness on the informal language
surrounding the EEP. This is Paul Zielinski's key point, which,
however, he over state IMHO as "there is no General Relativity" etc.
The curvature tensor is a local observable. If it is not zero at a point
it is not zero
in all local frames at that point. In that sense you cannot say that
spacetime is
EXACTLY locally flat. What is meant by EEP is that the geodesic deviation
tidal acceleration can be made arbitrarily small in the sense of the
epsilon-delta
algorithm for the continuity of functions in calculus. That is, given any
curvature detector resolution (inverse bandwidth) epsilon, one can find a
scale L for the size of the timelike geodesic LIF at event P such that
the relative
curvature tidal acceleration delta, between two neighboring geodesic
test particles
separated by L, is smaller than epsilon. This algorithm breaks down under
two conditions:

1. Approach to a singularity.

2. L ^2 Lp^2 = hG/c^3

No matter how many obsolete quotes from Einstein, Eddington, Bergmann
Paul brings up from the early days does
not change the fact that the above is the proper way to understand EEP.
Similar picayune objections can be made of any great theory. At most
they warrant minor footnotes in the evolution of the understanding of
the theory at the informal language level.

The Yilmaz problem trying to localize the energy of the pure
gravitational field is a bogus problem as explained in Chapter 20 of
MTW. It is asking the wrong question. The problem there is the global
one of defining a total 4-momentum Pu and a total angular momentum Muv
for any gravitating system.

First note that Pu and Muv are NOT local Diff(4) tensors. My remarks
about recasting Einstein's local field equations as the simple detailed
balance of ALL stress-energy density currents, i.e.

Sum over i Tuv(i) = 0 IS Einstein's local Diff(4) tensor field equation

i = "Marble"(Geometry), "Wood"(On-mass-shell matter, far and near EM
fields), exotic vacuum fields, torsion fields, dilatation field,
non-metricity hyperspace fields - is a DIFFERENT PROBLEM from the
problem in Ch 20 of MTW
which deals with special global properties of ASYMPTOTICALLY 4D FLAT
SPACE TIMES relevant to the detection of gravity waves. This is not the
same as the large scale FRW 3D spatial flatness where Omega = 1 result
of inflationary cosmology relevant to the discovery of dark energy +
dark matter as ~ 96% of all the "stuff" of our local brane world that we
are stuck on as surely as Eddie Abbott's "Flatlanders" and Dean Swift's
"Laputans" :-). O Brane New Worlds that has such M-theory in IT FROM BIT
+ BIT FROM IT.

Where in general the result of the metricity zero torsion Bianchi identities

Tuv(Geometry)^;v = 0 BREAKS DOWN

is the necessary condition for METRIC ENGINEERING, i.e. bending the
geometry of spacetime to our will and desire like Q in Star Trek in a
"soft way" not via the brute force (String Tension)^-1Tuv*(On-mass-shell
matter, far and near EM fields) term, which we ignore in practical
metric engineering unless we can lower the string tension.

Sorry typo corrections in this version, the most important one is

X = (c^2/g)cosh[g(Ship Proper Time)/c]

cT = (c^2/g)sinh[g(Ship Proper Time)/c]


Refuting Hal's theory here is important because Nick Cook's book hypes
Hal's theory and the related theory with Haisch as a viable program to
advance Space Science. Hyping vaporware is big business these days as we
also see in NOVA's "Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene. However, there
is a big difference. I think there is a lot of value in string theory
and its extensions M theory to parallel brane worlds. I do not think
that Hal's approach will ever bear fruit in terms of "Metric
Engineering" the zero point exotic Dark Energy/Matter resources of Super
Cosmos in our quest to Make Star Trek Real.

On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 11:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Essence of my refutation of Hal Puthoff's PV model of gravity.


On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 07:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 04:10 PM, andrew laidlaw wrote:

Dear Paul,

A few months ago, I came across one of Jack Sarfatti's
critiques on Hal Puthoff's PV article. Feeling that
the criticism was less than fair (and given the fairly
close correspondence between Yilmaz and PV), I wrote
to him saying he was missing the point, namely that
(whether PV is true or false) between Yilmaz and PV we
could begin to see gravity as emerging from an
intelligible physical system.

I do not understand what you mean by

"between Yilmaz and PV we could begin to see gravity as emerging from an
intelligible physical system"

That is very vague. Also what is, in your terms, an "intelligible
physical system"?
"Intelligibility" like "beauty" is in the mind of the beholder relative
to the beholder's depth and level of understanding of the issues. This
is an unending process of course like an infinite sequence whose perfect
limit we can never attain.

Taking the Einstein - Weyl - Wigner - Bargmann - Schwinger -
Utiyama - Kibble ... path.

1905 Special Relativity later made into elegant 4 dimensional rigid
metric geometry

x'^u = Lv^ux^v + X^u

Where Lv^u is an antisymmetric Lorentz matrix generated by 6 "charges"
in a generalized sense (3 space-space rotations of "Magnetic" ("Vortex")
Rotational Momentum 12,13, 23 plus 3 space-time rotations or boosts 01,
02, 03 between 2 Global Inertial Frames (GIF) in uniform
non-accelerating motion where neither relative speed nor relative
direction changes.

We also have the 4 "affine" displacements X^u generated by 4 more
"charges", i.e., Energy and Linear Momentum.

Physical quantum BIT waves are UNITARY representations of this
space-time symmetry group.

Let psi(x^u) be part of such a wave group representation valued in the
complex numbers.

For example look only at the 0 "time coordinate"

psi(t) = e^iHt/hbar psi(0)

where H is the Hamiltonian generalization of the "Energy" at least for a
conservative system.

This is the rigid 10 parameter continuous Lie Group of Poincare.

There is the deeper 15 parameter Conformal Group. First we have the
global SCALE "dilations" D so that

x'^u = D(Lv^ux^v + X^u)

Then there are 4 more "special conformal translations" between timelike
observers and now its a sticky wicket because they correspond to
transformations from an instantaneous comoving LIF and a "constantly
accelerating" LNIF in the sense of Chapter 6 of MTW "hyperbolic motion"
where already a key error of physical interpretation that Hal Puthoff
and Michael Ibison make becomes apparent in this simplest toy model like
the "hydrogen atom" in atomic physics or the "quantum harmonic
oscillator" in 1 dimension in quantum field theory.

The 4 Special Conformal Translations seem to require NONLINEAR GROUP
REPRESENTATIONS and already display the nonlinearity of General
Relativity demanded by the Einstein Equivalence Principle that is
analogous to the non-Abelian Yang-Mills Local Gauge Symmetry Principle
of compensating gauge force fields that restore the broken rigid
symmetry with additional dynamical degrees of freedom introducing DIRECT
BACK-ACTION where there was none before.

For example, in Special Relativity, Matter-Energy gets its marching
orders from Geometry but NOT VICE VERSA i.e. ACTION WITHOUT REACTION!
Locally gauging the infinitesimal Pu Lie algebra generators of the
Hilbert space unitary representations of the raw spacetime global
displacements X^u in the Poincare group transformations

x'^u = Lv^ux^v + X^u

Gives exactly Einstein's gravity with the compensating gauge field as
du(x) whose strain tensor is

huv(Curved Space-Time) = (1/2)[du(x),v + dv(x),u]

Where Einstein's geometrodynamic field of 1915 is

guv(Curved Space-Time) = nuv(Flat Space-Time) + huv(Curved Space-Time)

I have gone even deeper showing that

du(x) = Lp^2(Goldstone Phase of MACRO-QUANTUM Vacuum Coherence Field),u

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

i.e. Gravity emerges out of a micro-quantum flat vacuum "BCS"
instability in the spin 1/2 spin 1 quantum fields along with the dark
energy/dark matter as randomly fluctuating residual micro-quantum zero
point fluctuating "normal fluid" "exotic vacuum: regions of space-time
that anti-gravitate and gravitate respectively on different scales and
with strengths that in the micro-scale are 10^40 G(Newton). This
instability gives inflationary cosmology in the large scale in the sense
of "physical wavelets."

Note as c - infinity h & G fixed there is no gravity. Similarly as h -
0 G and c fixed there is no gravity etc.
This in addition to G - 0 with h & g fixed.

Note also c^4/G = String Tension

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = hc(String Tension)^-1

and there is no gravity when Lp^2 - 0 for whatever reason!

One reason is infinite string tension with hc finite - no gravity since
space-time is too stiff to bend with mass-energy.

Clearly what I am doing here is very profound.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc

http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

Back to the Special Conformal "Relativistic Rocket" Translations and
Puthoff's PV error.

Look at 6.17 p. 173 in MTW where in the approximation that space-time
region scale L of the LIF obeys

L c^2/g ~ 10^18 cm at Earth's surface - no great restriction.

The instantly co-moving geodesic LIF observer's coordinate differentials
are dx^u where

ds^2 = nuv(FLAT)dx^udx^v

The LNIF coordinates of the constantly accelerating non-geodesic
hyperbolic observer are dx'^u where the same INVARIANT ds^2 is (6.18)

ds^2 ~ - (1 + (gx'^1/c^2))^2(dx'^0)^2 - (dx'^1)^2 - (dx'^2)^2 - (dx'^3)^2

gx'^1/c^2 1 is the approximation

x^0 = (c^2/g + x'^1)sinh(gx'^0/c^2)

x^1 = (c^2/g + x'^1)cos (gx'^0/c^2)

x^2 = x'^2

x^3 = x'^3

x^2 - (ct)^2 = c^4/g^2 "hyperbolic world line of the LNIF non-geodesic
observer who feels artificial gravity.

This coordinatization is such that for a Relativistic Rocket with constant g

Distance X rocket goes and time T measured by Earth telescope/radar is

X = (c^2/g)cosh[g(Ship Proper Time)/c]

cT = (c^2/g)sinh[g(Ship Proper Time)/c]

The NONLINEARITY of the 4 Special Conformal Translations is in the
hyperbolic cosh and sinh functions of the accelerated observer's proper
time of actual aging.

* OK Puthoff's basic interpretational error of PV is implicit in MTW's
remark about Fig 6.4 p. 173:

"At a certain distance from the accelerated world line, successive
spacelike hypersurfaces instead of advancing with increasing tau"
(Ship's Proper Time), WILL BEGIN RETROGRESSING (CAPS mine). At this
distance and at greater distances, the concept of 'coordinates relative
to the accelerated observer' become ambiguous and must be abandoned."

Basically we have exceeded the domain of validity of the "coordinate
patch" we started from because when that weird retrogression starts
gL/c^2 ~ 1.

The same essential thing happens in Puthoff's PV with K = e^2GM/c^2r.
There is a critical r* such that when r r* and r - 0 the SPACELIKE
surface area of concentric spheres INCREASES rather than decreases.
Indeed, Puthoff, I surmise, uses that argument to explain the scene in
Jacques Vallee's "Fastwalker" where the interior of the alien saucer is
much bigger in surface area than the outer skin area. Using Puthoff's
metric on the micro-geon scale gives entirely the wrong answer that the
electron should look bigger and bigger as the scattering momentum
transfer increases! This false conclusion is based on Hal's naive
"engineering approach" using common sense Euclidean Geometry which is
also the same basic error in Yilmaz's "bi-metric" notion that space-time
is really flat in 4D at all scales that Puthoff also agrees with.
Indeed the need to use an atlas of coordinate patches sewn together is a
triumph of Einstein's Equivalence Principle as a "classical
approximation" far from a curvature singularity and at a scale Lp^2 =
hG/c^3.

Jack



I read your article with great interest, but I must point out an important
fact to you that I think you overlooked. The local "space-time" paradigm of
Penrose has clearly illustrated the need for a "brane-string theory"
approach to resolve the small gc problem as posed by Hawkings and
Rosenblatt, which in essence is the argument needed for the BIT unitary
waves to converge in the Markov limit of small T3 under hyperinflationary
Guth solutions that do not exhibit "bending" near the singular solutions nor
those which give zero-field (or as I all them the "trivial "nth" solutions)
solutions outside the asymptotic range in which ANY operators of a SO(3)
type can produce spurious or multiple solutions on any non-singular
manifolds and at the same time claims to satisfy both the relativistic Dirac
equations in MV/PUV3 and also any Bianchi branch for the Lie group Poincare
representation of the attractors that govern the low order solutions to the
basic field equations.



This is obviously impossible.





Now, Bergann has constructed the PUV / MV diffeomorphisms that map these
singularities outside the Schwartzchild radius so that even infinitesimal
contractions could produce the singularities needed by the loc Diff(3)
tensors in a fixed inertial frame field limit, so that these two facts
combined give rise to the "Smale" limit for the diffeomorphic
transformations that essentially maps a "brane world" into the string world
in which the graviton exchange energy we need in this limit is simply the
Fermi resonance exchange energy if we take the kernel of the transformation
neeed to be that for the Pauli adjoint identity in a singular spinor field
of the type SU(3)xSO(2) (where also, we should point out, non-adjacency
prevents Dirac holes produced by the mutual graviton-boson parity rule from
nearest level occupancy), thus giving us that the equations for a Fermi sea
of strings that will produce such a dilation follow from the transformation
of the Fermi energy levels (in a matrix sense) to the continuum limit of the
Smale for the "brane equations".



The problem of course is that in the Fermi regime of non-local interactions
one finds :

G( c) = Pi * Exp(c (integral over space time(Goldstone(q)) dq)



It is well known that this regime gives rise to the paradoxical "diffusion
limit" of Kramers that taken semi-classical leads to a non-equilibrium Baym
collapse, but if viewed from a many worlds theory perspective we can get
another interpretation of the higher dimensional Klein-Kazlua equations
that form the tensor bundle solutions for the ergodic non-stationary
Einstein field equations, which involves the introduction of a higher
dimensional field theory off the local manifold as imposed by Baldwin and
moreover the convergence in the high field frequency of the so-called
impedance driven oscillations from brane contacts that produce these shock
wave oscillations.



Pauli noted that one solution to the non-stationary inertial frame solutions
to the left-Eddington solutions at zero field are simply:





X(t) = T Diag[Sinx(xt) / Div(x*t)] T*



And that the adjoint satisfies:



[X*(t)]^c * X(t) = 0



so the local manifold dilates near the zero point singularities.





Now as you probably noted by now this is an ENTIRELY NEW way of looking at
the Eddington-Penrose SVT equations. Witten has not acknowledged that
zero-field spinors do address the adjacency problem nor has he shown how the
gc limit value follows naturally from this interpretation. I want to point
out that the Lorentz matrix for the "charges" that Witten has previously
proposed do not give the result that branes can contact in manifolds that
satisfy PUV / MOT conitions. This fact alone must raise eyebrows among
committed fans of the GIF Feynman Kac propagators, since renormalization in
the sense of Kadanoff gives "brane" attractors of fractional dimensions that
exactly agree with the predictions of earlier string theorists. (BTW,
Mandelbrot renomalization gives the same result). This indicates that no
string theory in a brane embedded manifold will give solutions to the
Einstein stationary field equations without ergodic convergence.



Hopefully these observations will put some on the right track.



MB