Message from Cahill that Relativity is wrong
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 02/10/05
- Next message: matt271829-news_at_yahoo.co.uk: "Re: Intersection of bike spokes"
- Previous message: David W. Cantrell: "Re: Symbolic calculations on the web"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:59:33 GMT
bcc
On Jul 6, 2005, at 4:39 AM, Reg Cahill wrote:
Hi Jack,
What a story! It seems to me that you are approaching the issues from
the wrong direction and whence the incredibly complicated path.
Seems pretty simple to me. Local gauge invariance and spontaneous broken
vacuum symmetry are two very well battle-tested ideas in physics today. :-)
The first issue is to get clear picture of what has emerged. The
interferometer experiments have shown that (i) absolute motion is
detectable, and (ii) that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Yes, I understand that. I have not understood all the technical details
of the experiments in your paper(s) nor those of Consoli. The two of you
seem to differ in some important details although generally you are
reporting the same kind of qualitative effect. You get different
absolute speeds in different directions I think? But neither are zero
and that's the point. By "Newtonian physics" I assume you mean
specifically "Galilean relativity" as distinct from Lorentz-Einsteinian
relativity, i.e.
x -> x' = x - vt
t -> t' = t
is wrong (e.g. Ch 15, Panofsky & Phillips)
x -> x' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(x - vt)
t -> t' = [1 - (v/c)^2]^-1/2(t - vx/c^2)
is correct even when there is a preferred global inertial frame that we
call "absolute rest". Also for now we try to neglect general relativity,
although that may not be possible in the end for these measurements.
This followed after the discovery that a theory for the interferometer
must take account of relativistic effects and the effect of the
refractive index of the gas present (Cahill and Kitto 2002). The results
were confirmed by two coaxial cable experiments, which being 1st order
in v/c don't need relativistic effect corrections. Then it follows that
we have relativistic effects as well as absolute motion. This fits
neatly in with the original 19th century Lorentz interpretation, namely
that absolute motion is the cause of relativistic effects.
Can you elaborate on that? Exactly how is it the "cause"?
It also means that the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of these same
effects is wrong..there is no spacetime.
Can you elaborate on that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
explanation. :-) My position, as you may have gathered is that there is
no major change of interpretation needed assuming your experiments and
Consoli's similar ones, stand the test of scrutiny. Renouncing the
battle-tested special relativity i.e.
Require dynamical actions to be Lorentz-invariant with Lorentz-covariant
Euler-Lagrange equations, with standard modifications of general
relativity, is not at all affected, with all its consequences for the
computation of scattering cross sections, atomic & nuclear spectra etc.
We do not have put in O(3) violating terms in the action for the
Heisenberg ferromagnet with the Coulomb exchange interaction in order to
explain the O(3) violation in the ferromagnetic ground state. In exactly
the same way, we do not need to put O(1,3) violating terms in the
actions of the fundamental quantum fields of physics (lepto-quark
fermions and gauge force bosons) to explain your reports of O(1,3)
violation in the vacuum.
Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state of a
given model of quantum dynamics is the very definition of what a
"preferred frame of reference" means for all groups and all actions.
This is an explanation "for all seasons" as it were. :-)
So the speed of light is c only relative to this space, and not
relative to all non-accelerating observers.
That's so in a more general sense for all instances of spontaneous
symmetry breakdown leaving the kinematics and the dynamics intact. Every
symmetry group G defines its own class of "frames of reference" i.e.
base states for a given representation of G. In the case of O(1,3) in
real space-time we have the class of global inertial frames. The only
significantdifference between Einstein's interpretation of O(1,3) and
Lorentz's is that Einstein says that the space of frames is affine, and
Lorentz says that it's a vector space with an "origin" = "preferred
frame" = a chosen "rapidity" in the space-time vacuum just like the
chosen "space orientation" in the ferromagnetic ground state. Occam's
Razor is with me here. More with less.
So Einstein's main postulate is disproved by experiment.
I do not think you have proved that. Indeed, I think I just proved the
very opposite! :-)
Nevertheless one can use a mathematical spacetime, because the spacetime
encodes absolute motion effects, albeit in a manner that is well hidden.
You need to explain that in a lot more detail. :-)
So we have a 3-space and separately a time phenomenon. The 3-space is in
relative motion, that is, different regions of it have relative motion,
as well that motion is time-dependent.
I am not sure what you mean. Let's think of a ferromagnet. Is it like
the buckling of tectonic plates? The different ferromagnetic domains are
pressing against each other? This is no problem in vacuum because the
vacuum has a local macro-quantum order parameter, e.g. Frank Wilczek's
"multi-layered, multi-colored" cosmic superconducting field. (Nature Jan
20, 2005 "In Search of Symmetry Lost").
Presumably this space has some substratum structure, and that structure
has relative motion. These two effects cause gravity.
How? Now I have shown exactly how. No if's and's and but's - but the
actual equations.
An interferometer or coaxial cable device can detect motion relative to
that space.
Yeah, no problemo, once one has the idea of spontaneous broken symmetry
with the vacuum condensate as the "aether" or substratum. Frank Wilczek
explains this pretty well in Jan 20, 2005 Nature. I suggest you look at
it. :-)
That by itself does'nt imply some preferred direction intrinsic to the
space..rather it simply means that the device is moving through that space.
You do not get my point. The ferromagnet is only an analogy. I never
said that your data show a preferred direction in space. What I said was
that your data, and Consoli's, if true show a preferred direction in
space-time i.e. rapidity i.e. absolute velocity. So the preferred
direction in space is a Red Herring. :-)
The intrinsic local direction in space is determined by the direction
of the convective acceleration (=the spatial inhomogeneity direction)
and the time-dependence of the velocity field.
I don't understand this. I assume this is your "flow" theory that I have
not read in detail. It is not needed. It is too ad-hoc, too Rube
Goldberg and we already have exactly what we need in the two
battle-tested ideas of modern theoretical physics
1. Local gauge symmetry inducing compensating connection fields.
2. Spontaneous breaking of the meta-stable state of lowest energy for
the covariant dynamics relative to the above local gauge symmetry.
It works in the heavens of the internal dimensions (electro-weak/strong)
as well as on the ground of being (space-time with gravity and maybe
torsion and other fields).
We now know all this because (i) the Miller data is so extensive that
one can extract from it the flow past the earth towards the sun (some 42
km/s), as well as galactic flow and turbulence (novel non-Einsteinain
gravity waves) in that flow, (ii) both Newtonian gravity and GR (in
those cases where it has been successfully tested) can be written in
the form of a flow theory. Most importantly these flow formalisms can be
generalised, and the new dynamical effects turn out to be the so-called
`dark matter' effect.
I have a complete explanation of both gravitating "dark matter" and
anti-gravitating "dark energy" in terms of Einstein's
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
and spontaneous breakdown of U(1)em vacuum symmetry. Done elsewhere.
This non-relativistic gravity effect is not in either NG or GR, so
even NG is serioulsy wrong. That new effect has been tested against
various experiments and observations as well. We are developing
experiments at Flinders university to measure the flow component into
the earth (the inhomogeneity of that flow is the cause of the earth's
gravity, speed at surface is 11km/s). Because this is small compared to
the galactic flow (some 400km/s) the earth in-flow is not easy to measure.
Well we will not settle this now. My position is that everything you
see, if corroborated, can be explained simply and directly with only two
battle-tested mainstream ideas
1. local gauge symmetry
2. spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry i.e. P.W. Anderson's
emergent "More is different".
The Great Temple of Theoretical Physics Today rests firmly on the above
two pillars and you are not Samson! :-)
Penrose, Hawking, Rees et-al can sleep in comfort tonite that you will
not pull their covers off in the middle of a cold winter's night. :-)
Now what does that all give us? Take the simplest case first.
(Classical) Maxwell's equations have a well known spacetime/covariant
form. In that form the speed of light in vacuum is always c. But what
does that really mean? How does one measure that? Well one can simply
use a rod and clock, and sure enough one will find that the speed of
light, no matter which observer does the measurment, and even for
different observers in relative motion, all will find the speed to be
c=300,000km/s. Howver we now know that an observer can measure the
velocity of his rods and clocks through space. That motion will have
changed their length/ticking rate. Then each observer must correct the
data from his experiment..after all his rods/clocks are being affected
by their motion. He will then find that the corrected speed is now only
c relative to a particular frame, namely relative to a real 3-space.
I would need to see the detailed math for that. When I do the math I
always get c as a the fixed point even when there is a preferred frame.
Maybe I am doing something wrong? We shall see. However, Hal Puthoff
will LOVE your theory here since it sounds very much like his PV theory
in his Tables I & II! On the other hand, I bet you are wrong. I could be
wrong of course and you could be right - we shall see. :-)
I will come back to this in the coming days.
So Maxwell's equations actually encode real physical effects of absolute
motion upon the rods and clocks which are used to `define' the length
and time scales. So these equations have BOTH absolute motion effects
and the dynamics of the E and B fields. Then one can write Maxwell's
equations in a form that explicitly reveals the preferred frame, and so
separates these two effects.
Have you done that? Where?
This involves a non-linear change of variables. It leads to PDEs in
which the partial time derivative is replaced by the Euler total
derivative (which involves the velocity of the observer, and so the rods
and clocks, relative to the 3-space). The covariant equations have
Lorentz symmetry (of course). The new Maxwell equations have Galilean
symmetry. Both symmetries are exact. They are being applied to
different forms of the data. In the case of Lorentz symmetry the
dynamical effects of absolute motion and the E-B field dynamics are not
separated. In the Galilean form the absolute motion effects upon the
rods and clocks are separated from the E-B dynamics, and we are left
with a clean description of the E-B dynamics.
This sounds terribly complicated and I can assure you you have a steep
Cliff to climb that will require a lot of Will. I do not think this
story of yours will go over very well with the Top Guns of GR 17 for
example. I'm sure you know that? :-) In any case where is this done in
detail. I am sure Zielinski will read it for example. Also others. I am
sure you will be proved wrong in the end of course. We need a Bookie. :-)
So the whole issue of covariance in physics has been incredibly misleading.
Have you read Tom Phipps "Heretical Vereties"? Some of your stuff about
the convective derivative sounds like his?
It was simply gross confusion. Whence it is very misleading to try to
understand the new physics by beginning with a covariant language, and
then attempting to come up with some symmetry breaking that results in a
preferred frame. This one sentence is the main point of this response
to your suggestion, Jack.
Well fancy this, me defending the mainstream establishment against The
Barbarian at The Gate from Down Under! :-) Time for a beer Mate? In any
case you need to explain this in great detail - presumably you have
already done so. However, as I say, no one will believe you. Also I
think my explanation is better and simpler, but I am biased. :-)
I should add that a great deal of the new physics has been worked out
already, particularly re: gravity.
One major discovery has been that the new theory of gravity involves the
fine structure constant (that wasn't a prediction..but it emerged from
the data). Some 25 paper re all this are available at the Mountanman
graphics URL below. Much more in preparation. There is a revolution in
progress.
Your enthusiasm is touching. :-)
PS By sending this reply e-mail to you Jack I'm not sure if others in
the group also receive it?
Never fear, they will. They will. We have both drawn our lines in the
sand.:-)
best wishes,
Reg Cahill
Look at the well known U(1) case for EM.
Start with a free electron wave psi. Require that its phase be arbitrary
at each point. In order to keep the action of the electron invariant
under the internal group U(1) we need to introduce a compensating field
Au in which the electron momentum operator ih,u is replaced by the gauge
covariant partial derivative operator ih,u - (e/c)Au on psi. Au is a
connection field in the internal fiber for path-dependent parallel
transport of geometric objects in the fiber bundle. The Maxwell EM field
is the U(1) covariant "curl" of Au i.e. "curvature" in the fiber space.
General relativity can be done the same way by locally gauging the
translations T4 instead of internal U(1).
Enter the "preferred frame" of spontaneous symmetry breaking. In the
case of U(1) there is a local MACRO-QUANTUM order parameter PSI for the
lowest energy state whose local phase is no longer arbitrary, but is
"phase-locked" over a large space-time domain into a long-range
coherence. This is also called "generalized phase rigidity". This frozen
macro-pattern of phase coherence selects out a preferred global frame in
the internal U(1) phase space. The quantum of the Au field acquires a
rest mass (super conducting Meissner effect) from the massless Goldstone
mode of small vibrations of the phase of PSI that has an effective
nonlinear "Mexican Hat" potential in its nonlinear-nonunitary-local
Landau-Ginzburg equation of motion that replaces the
linear-unitary-nonlocal Schrodinger-Dirac equation of micro-quantum
theory. This is the simplest case of the Higgs mechanism for the origin
of inertia. The Haisch-Puthoff ZPF friction is only a small perturbation
on that.
Unlike micro-quantum waves that are projective rays subject to the Born
probability alogorithm, PSI is not a projective ray, it does not
collapse easily, i.e. it is not "fragile" and it is immune from the
slings and arrows of Zurek's environmental decoherence (a desirable
property for a conscious mind field piloting the living brain).
OK, now turn to the alleged Cahill/Consoli claims (though they differ
from each other in important details of magnitude and direction of the
Earth's absolute velocity) of physically significant shifting of fringes
and beat frequencies upon 90 degree rotations of Michelson-Morley
inteferometers and pairs of He-Ne lasers respectively.
Think of the ferromagnet. Its pseudo-vector order parameter is a
preferred frame of spatial orientation in a finite space domain of its
ground state. This is a spontaneous (not a dynamical) breakdown of O(3)
symmetry analogous to the above U(1) breakdown.
The space orientation when multiplied by i (i^2 = -1) becomes a the
space-time orientation, or "rapidity" of the boost part of the Lorentz
group O(1,3) where sin(orientation in space) -> sinh(rapidity)
Rapidity = orientation in space-time i.e. velocity.
Spontaneous breakdown of O(1,3) in the vacuum therefore selects out a
preferred rapidity, i.e. a preferred velocity "zero", just like the
ferromagnet selects out a preferred direction in space that we call the
"origin" in the abstract space of relevant frames of reference.
In general, spontaneous breakdown of a symmetry group in the lowest
energy state (metastable local minima on a landscape) of the dynamics
whose action is invariant under the group, means that the hitherto
affine space of reference frames morphs to a vector space of frames with
an "origin" i.e. the preferred frame.
OK, if this in happening in the physical vacuum in which Earth moves
then we need a vacuum order parameter, but we also need a compensating
gauge connection field like Au photon in the case of U(1), or like the
weak force bosons in the case of SU(2), or like the strong force gluons
in the case of SU(3). Well the vacuum order parameter is Frank Wilczek's
"multi-layered multi-colored" field of cosmic superconductivity where my
PSI to derive Einstein's gravity is in a particular large-scale "layer".
The "colors" metaphorically mean the Lie algebra. The "layers" refer to
a set of Lie groups that are the dynamical symmetries of the actions of
effective field theories in the context of renormalization group flows
to fixed points with emergent Lie group symmetries (e.g. Volovik's book
"The Universe in a Helium Droplet").
If we have a gauge field like Au, it must be Gennady Shipov's torsion
field Tu, where
Tu = eu^aAa^b^cSab
eu^a is the locally-gauged T4 tetrad that gives Einstein's 1916 GR
{Sab} is the Lie algebra of O(1,3)
Aa^b^c are the Ricci rotation coefficients that are globally constant in
1916 GR, but become independent variable dynamical fields, in addition
to eu^a when O(1,3) is locally gauged.
Therefore, it may be that the Cahill/Consoli allegations, if
corroborated, are evidence for a cosmic torsion field in which Earth is
moving?
-- A/Prof. Reginald T.Cahill (Phone: (+618) or (08) 8201 2417 Physicist & School Deputy Head (MobPhone: (+61) or (0) 41 882 5 882 School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences (Fax: (+618) or (08) 8201 2905 Faculty of Science and Engineering (email: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au Flinders University, GPO Box 2100 Adelaide 5001 Australia http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/ http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
- Next message: matt271829-news_at_yahoo.co.uk: "Re: Intersection of bike spokes"
- Previous message: David W. Cantrell: "Re: Symbolic calculations on the web"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
