As you say their theory is adhoc without rhyme nor reason. My theory
here is quite solid by comparison based on the deep insights of
Einstein, Cartan, Wigner, t'Hooft et-al. It's basic quantum theory from
the spin 1 A^a "Yang-Mills" Minkowski vector field of 1-forms. That is,
A^a transforms under the 6-parameter Lorentz group SO(1,3) as a first
rank tensor (4-vector) and you use constant Minkowski metric to raise
and lower indices. Curved spacetime guv is implicate (in Bohm's sense) i.e.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea

e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a

I^a = Minkowski global tetrad of rigid T4

A^a = locally curved-torsioned tetrad of local P10 (Poincare group)

ds^2 = I^aIa + N^-1/3(I^aAa + A^a^aIa) + N^-2/3A^aAa

I forgot the factors on N^-1/3 when I wrote this last time. Also I
corrected another "lattice separation" error at 10^-13 cm below.

I^aIa is 1905 globally rigid special relativity without gravity or torsion.

N^-1/3(I^aAa + A^a^aIa) is linear 1916 GR whose quantum corrections will
be spin 1 not spin 2. This does not change the classical theory of
course. Kerr-Newman vacuum solutions are same - only when you try to do
quantum gravity do you see this - and so far no experiments there have
been done.

Nonlinear self-interacting gravity is N^-2/3A^aAa with spin 0, spin 1
and spin 2 entangled A^a pairs in the quantum corrections.

On Jul 14, 2007, at 11:39 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,

Then your graviphotons are a totally different beast than the de
Matos-Beck graviphotons. As I read their Paper, the de Matos-Beck
variety are EM photons that in some cases have somehow obtained the
ability to also interact gravitationally.

Yes, Richard Becker was the author of the famous EM treatise. If my
addled memory serves correctly, he was also an ardent Nazi (and so were
Stark and some others) g.

Take care,

Robert

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jul 14, 2007, at 7:43 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,

Version 13 of your Paper was the last version that contained the
References to my work. That was the last major version of your
Paper prior to the long break in time before you rewrote the Paper in
June 2007.

I lost all the originals in the laptop crash. I may have some of them
on on Mac dot storage. In any case they are up on the archive - good so
historians can see the dynamical evolution of the ideas in the digital
age.

Sounds like your "graviphotons" may be the same animal as theirs.
Theirs are not mathematically motivated in this Paper (though they do
reference other theoretical work by Beck where the idea originated; I
have not seen this work). Their graviphotons are just qualitatively
defined to be photons that can gravitationally interact (gravitionally
active photons) as opposed to those photons that can not
(gravitationally "inactive").

Well my graviphotons have nothing to do with electromagnetic photons,
though they will couple together of course in the gauge covariant
derivatives.

Spin 1 EM photons A^a come from locally gauging the U(1) compact
internal symmetry group.

My spin 1 graviphotons are from locally gauging the non-compact
spacetime T4 symmetry group. They couple to Minkowski spacetime with
scale-dependence 1/N^1/3

N ~ (Surrounding Area of Volume-without-volume World Hologram)/Lp^2

This is the real quantum geometrodynamics. Loop QMG and string theory
are useless, though some of their leitmotifs are recognizable in my
theory.

Spin 2 tensor gravitons are entangled triplet pairs of A^a tetrad T4
quanta.

Spin 0 scalar gravitons are entangled singlet pairs of A^a tetrad T4
quanta.


They do attribute the massive gravitons to a Higgs mechanism, and
symmetry breaking does play an important role in their considerations.
There is a very brief discussion at the end of the Paper on dynamical
symmetries and their breaking. They note the analogy of EM gauge
invariance breaking to gravitational local general covariance
breaking.

Gravity local general covariance is simply localizing rigid T4 and yes
we could hide that symmetry with a vacuum condensate - that seems an OK
idea. But in my theory that will give massive scalars, massive vectors,
and massive tensors. Now if that coupling scales holographically as
1/N^1/3 then those quantum effects get stronger as the scaling
parameter N decreases down to 1 at the Planck scale. This is good.

The references to R. Becker in this Paper are again not to me , but
to Richard Becker I believe, to whom they anachronistically attribute
a model of a relatively delayed Cooper Pair current to explain the
London Moment. (Richard Becker could not have known about Cooper Pairs
in the early 30s).

Is that Becker who wrote an EM text book?

As I said, it is a well intended Paper, that does seek to explain the
two different Tajmar "anomalies" and the Tate anomaly in SC. And
within an order of magnitude, it does do this quantitatively. But
it has numerous ad hoc assumptions and shortcuts that I think severely
fray its reasonableness - unless the experimental results stand up to
scrutiny and there are no alternative explanations.

Take care,

Robert

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, I did not mean it was a bad paper and at least they are being
motivated by experiments and observations and are not dazzled by pure
math - Circe for theorists.
On Jul 14, 2007, at 3:53 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,

I tend to agree with your conclusion. I read the referenced Paper
and
the two experimental Papers it references. On the positive side, the
math appears to be correct, and they do get quantitative results in
rough agreement with the experimental Papers. And, though I am not
an
experimentalist, I can not find anything obviously wrong with their
experiment procedures either, though the results are not in precise
agreement with their theory. The convergence of
their theoretical results to a standard vacuum result as temperature
rises into the High-Tc SC regime is also intriguing, though it
contradicts any possible Podkletnov Effect observation (if that is
at
all valid). But there appears to be some problems here.

...

On the reference issue. I completely rewrote the paper and left out
all
discussion of nonlocally correlated zero point energy - partly for
length reasons and mostly because I lost the original word documents
for that archive paper in a hard drive crash. However, all that stuff
is in my book Super Cosmos with reference to your work on that and it
is in the earlier versions on the archive. Actually I don't recall
mentioning that in the archive paper at all. What version?

The theoretical model de Matos and Beck use appears to be highly ad
hoc.

Yes, I did not read the paper carefully, but I got that impression
from
an admittedly superficial scan as my attention is focused on my own
new
to me (at least) insights that I will put into my archive paper
gr-qc/0602022 i.e. from Jack Ng

&l ~ (Lp^2l)^1/3 Wigner

l ~ N^1/2(Surrounding area A of interior "volume without volume")

N = # Bekenstein BITs of surrounding area A ~ geometric area/Lp^2

Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

This is general not only for event horizons of black holes and dark
energy de Sitter horizons

This is the t'Hooft "world hologram" idea also advocated by Lenny
Susskind.

Therefore, &l ~ N^1/6Lp

Therefore l/&l ~ N^1/3

Therefore, volume without volume V ~ l^3 ~ N&l^3

i.e. N area BITs on surrounding surface each of Lp^2 (forget factors
of
4) enclose N quantum gravity cells of volume &l^3 ~ N^1/2Lp^3 = Lp^2l.

The center of each such quantum gravity cell of Hagen Kleinert's
"world
lattice", itself a hologram, is a hedgehog geometrodynamic field
monopole point node of the Higgs-Goldstone vacuum order parameter.
This
is a core of pre-inflation false vacuum analogous to vortex cores in
superfluids, but for second homotopy group not first i.e. wrapping
area
integers not winding loop integers. That is for vortices we have
quantized de Rham period integrals of closed non-exact LINE 1-forms,
but here we have quantized period integrals of closed non-exact AREA
2-forms - this is the meaning of the Bekenstein BIT that he stumbled
into sleep walking with Wheeler in the 1960s.

The amazing thing is that the size of the monopole cores of false
vacuum are resolution-dependent getting larger with scale increasing
to
a fermi at the Hubble scale of 10^28 cm.

Note for nuclear physics, Area ~ 10^-26 cm N(nuclear) ~ 10^-26 10^66 ~
10^40
&l(nuclear) ~ 10^40/6 Lp ~ 10^7Lp ~ 10^-26 cm on a scale of 10^-13 cm
... - but this all changes as we change scale like
a
"wavelet transform" of emergent orders within orders like the
artichoke
and the onion. This is an amazingly new quantum geometrodynamics. Loop
quantum gravity is worthless. It has no results like what I am talking
about. String theory not much better.

Plus the dark energy density (hc/Lp^2)/\zpf = (hc/Lp^2)(1/(surrounding
area) = (1/N)hc/Lp^4

what could be sweeter than that result? It's universal for all quantum
matter fields from the equivalence principle!

I got the whole thing. The whole shmear. It's simple. Any kid can grok
it. No need for fancy math.

They propose two different types of photons, or more precisely, two
regimes for photons, one "gravitationally active" graviphotons and
one
"inactive" sector (photons, presumably).

I don't understand that at all.

This seems remarkably ad hoc.

Indeed.

As discussed below, photons gaining mass in the SC state may be a
correct interpretation, but a transition into a graviphoton state
caused by the SC state seems again highly ad hoc.

Again I don't understand their meaning there. I did not think enough
about it as yet.

You yourself have several times pointed out that the Meissner Effect
can be attributed to acquisition of an effective mass of a photon in
the SC state.

Yes, that's well known. It's simply the U(1) Higgs mechanism. (P.W.
Anderson)

That is fairly well established, though I prefer to attribute the
London Moment to a quantization effect. They extend the idea to a
massive graviton in the SC state, which is reasonable.

Yeah, that may be OK - it's plausible - like Abdus Salam's f-gravity.

Remember in my theory

e^a = I^a(zero gravity) + (1/N)^1/3A^a(gravity)

e^a = Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form

A^a is the spin 1 "Yang-Mills" field from localizing T4 translations

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea


But they also seem to claim credit for results obtained previously
by
others (including me), for instance, a GM term in the canonical
momentum for the SC. Another is the gravitational condensate itself
as
related to dark energy, which at least qualitatively, you and I had
earlier proposed (and we go unreferenced).

They initially keep the EM and GM Einstein-Maxwell-Proca Equations
decoupled, and then only couple them through the assumption of an
ill-defined graviphoton-Cooper Pair coupling.

10-4

Just because the graviphotons are suposedly coupled to the coherent
Cooper Pairs I do not believe necessitates that the graviphotons
must
themselves be a condensate as they appear to claim. Furthermore, I
believe the Li-Torr treatment which fully couples the EM and GM
effects of the Cooper Pairs themselves is more complete and likely
more correct and less ad hoc.

I actually never read their papers as yet.

The only role of the Cooper Pairs appears to be the
graviphoton-Cooper
Pair binding until they show up again in the so-called gravitational
canonical momentum.

Here is how I get "graviphotons".

A^a above is spin 1 Yang-Mills "renormalizable" (t'Hooft)

ds^2 = I^aI^a + N^-1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + N^-2/3A^aAa

I^aAa + A^aIa is pure spin 1 graviphoton

A^aAa is spin 0, spin 1 and spin 2 (ordinary graviton)

i.e. in QM

1 + 1 = 0, 1, 2

i.e. the matrix irreps

3x3 = 1x1 + 3x3 +5x5

But this seems highly artificial. There should be one canonical
momentum for the whole combined EM and GM system, not arbitrary
demarcations thereof. This leads to strange looking terms in which
the
graviphoton effective mass couples to the GM potential, while the
dark
energy condensate (which seemingly originates with the graviphotons)
is the only contribution to the mechanical term in the canonical
momentum.

My vacuum ODLRO condensate has the M-Matrix

A^a = M^a^a = spin 1 Yang-Mills gravity tetrad field 1-form from local
gauging of rigid T4

S^a^b = - S^b^a = M^[a,b] = torsion field spin-connection 1-form from
local gauging rigid SO(1,3).

M^a^b is a matrix of non-closed 1-forms from the Goldstone coherent
world hologram vacuum ODLRO condensate phase 0-forms Theta^a & Phi^b
whose closed non-exact 2-forms when projected from 9D+1 ST to 3D+1 ST
give the quantized Bekenstein BIT de Rham integrals for a non-trivial
second homotopy group of wrapping number integers that I call "N"
above.

M^a^b = (Theta)^a/\d(Phi)^b - d(Theta)^a/\(Phi)^b

dM^a^b = 2d(Theta)^a/\d(Phi)^b


It is hard to tell where the graviphotons and massive ordinary
photons
and other elements of the system are being conflated and being
distinguished.

Even though the numbers roughly work out, the assumption that an
undefined acceleration of the SC will break the graviphoton-Cooper
Pair binding also seems highly ad hoc. They see discontinuities in
the
experimental data in traversals of Tc, but this should be true in
any
reasonable model of a SC state. (My own GM Flux Quantization would
also show a similar discontinuity.)

The experiments appear to be very serious, and there is rough
quantitative agreement with this theory, which is intriguing, but...

Take care,

Robert

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

I do not see any coherent organizing idea in this paper. They seem
to
be grasping at straws and inventing a Rube Goldberg explanation.
However I did not spend a lot of time trying to understand what
they
are claiming since at the moment I think my explanation of the dark
energy problem is the correct one since it's simple, universal and
based on some deep insights of some very smart physicists like
Eugene
Wigner and Gerard t' Hooft. However, if the authors make a model
that
agree with experiment then I will look again later.

Some of what they say reminds me of Ray Chiao's "gravity radio"?

On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

By the numbers.

The strongest dimensionless self-gravity tetrad coupling is at
Planck scale where N = 1 and the universal zero point energy
density is +- hc/Lp^4 for bosons and fermions respectively in the
3D volumes without volumes. Anyons with fractional statistics on
the surrounding closed surfaces that are not boundaries of the
interior volumes without volumes.

electroweak unification scale is ~ 10^-16 cm

N(10^-16 cm) ~ 10^-32/10^-66 ~ 10^34 BITS

N^-1/3 ~ 10^-11

by the time we get to cosmology 10^28 cm N^-1/3 ~ 10^-41


On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hal won't like this one. He says dark energy density not
relevant
on small scales. At this point I think I have solved the dark
energy problem.

Because of IT FROM BIT world hologram it scales as 1/N - very
simple indeed.

N = number of Bekenstein BITs on any surrounding surface S of an
interior "volume without volume" V projected from S, which is
not
a boundary because it encloses exactly N point nodes of the
vacuum
ODLRO order parameter.

N ~ Area/Lp^2

length scale is (Area)^1/2

Quantum Gravity Fluctuation in (Area)^1/2 is
(Lp^2(Area)^1/2)^1/3
e.g. Jack Ng's papers.

(Area)^1/2/QGF = N^1/2/N^1/6 = N^1/3

ZPF energy density is (hc/Lp^2)(1/Area) = (1/N)hc/Lp^4

for enclosed "volume without volume" = holographic projection of
the surrounding surface

this is for all quantum matter fields (equivalence principle)

Self-coupling of tetrad field is 1/N^1/3

this part of gravity coupling increases in UV limit down to
Planck
scale.

N = 10^122 future de Sitter horizon

Everything seems to work perfectly! Very simple.

Wheeler said it would be simple. He was right.

Does anyone have a better idea? World Hologram makes definite
prediction here that any smart high school kid can understand.
Simply take t'Hooft's idea seriously. Why hasn't he noticed this
simple consequence of his idea?

On Jul 13, 2007, at 11:36 AM, art wagner wrote:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...707.1797v1.pdf


__________________________________________________ _______________