Re: What happened to Jack Sarfatti?

From a recent discussion in Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars Yahoo Groups
reproduced with permission - open domain.

PS Here's a piece of beef- using minimal coupling in QED & QCD gives
the correct high energy scattering cross-sections!

On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:03 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote to Z:

Z: This is what I mean by a "mathematical truism". Yes sure you can
"locally gauge" the T4 translation group to recover general
covariance,
for *purely mathematical reasons*. But where is the physics? Where's
the beef?

J: The question here, is what is your question?

PPS note the "current red shifts" z = 0, 1, 3, 10, 1000 on the dotted
vertical matter world lines on Tamara's conformal diagram
http://qedcorp.com/APS/DavisFig1_1conformal.jpg
from
http://www.dark-cosmology.dk/~tamarad/index.html

"Current" means intersection of the given dotted vertical world line
with our current (present) past solid red light cone diagonal.

z = infinity crossing the past green dashed particle horizon diagonal
line just like a black hole horizon. The scale is exponentially
nonlinearly compressed.

On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

J: Paul, you do not seem to properly understand the physical meaning
of the local gauge principle.

Z: I referring specifically to the local gauge principle appled to
*external* symmetries.

J: Yes, I know. Strangely you seem to miss my point. Applying the same
organizing principle to seemingly disparate phenomena, in this case
gravity and electro-weak-strong forces is a thing all theoretical
physicists with any imagination and vision strive for! Rigor
Morticians excepted of course. It's your position that is ad-hoc and
unparsimonious. Your position is

"Thou shalt not apply the local gauge principle to space-time
symmetries."

Why not?

Z: I'm not the only person who has questions about this extension of
the local gauge principle.

J: Who?

It is one of the key organizing ideas of modern physics.

In the Standard Model, applied to internal symmetries.

Z: This all started with Weyl and his local gauging of the phase of
the electronic psi function as the basis for
a electron-photon unified field.

J: Off top of my head from memory not even checking the Wickedpedia
Files with GOOGLE:

You got your history wrong! That's not what Weyl first did! I think it
was Fritz London who did that knowing about Weyl. Weyl actually was
using the "external" dilation geometrodynamical subgroup of the
Penrose twistor conformal group of possible space-time symmetries.
Weyl was not thinking of the internal U1 group at all! Indeed, there
was no electronic psi function in 1918 around the time Weyl did it.

Z: What exactly is the physical basis for locally gauging the phase of
the electronic psi function? What is the theoretical justification?
Or is it simply that if you do it, it seems to work?

J: You do not deeply understand the local gauging in principle if you
ask this question.

Given a second-quantized field psi that is supposed to represent the
electron.

For formal simplicity & brevity , only do NR limit with Galilean
relativity v/c << 1 neglecting spin 1/2 i.e. a spin 0 electrically
charged field.

Noether's theorem applied to the globally rigid U1 internal group with
Lie algebra Q acting on the electron field gives conservation of total
charge Q of the electron field on a 3D constant time hypersurface.

i.e. e^iQphi psi e^-iQphi = e^iphipsi

Where phi is at constant phase shift over the entire history.

The dynamical action functional S(psi) (a 4D integral over all space
and all time of the Lagrangian density) is invariant under this global
U1 action.

This is obviously physically repugnant given our ideas of locality.

If we require that the phase phi is an arbitrary function of space and
time x, then in order to keep the dynamical action invariant under
this large U1(x) we need to include the induced compensating
electromagnetic vector potential Cartan 1-form A(x) that is formally a
connection in the internal U1(x) fiber space. A is not a tensor under
U1(x) "gauge transformations" but is like the Christoffel connection
in 1915 GR under GCTs (AKA local T4(x) transformations).

(Q/c)A(x) ---> (Q/c)A(x) - ihphi,x

note that (Q/c)A has dimensions of momentum h/L in "cgs" units

You can think of psi as the position of the hand of a broken clock at
each place and time where the electron field is.

http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/one-handed-clock.jpg

This is an internal frame of reference. The local gauge principle here
is an expression of locality that each tiny observer has the freedom
of will to calibrate his charge meter locally anyway he likes without
affecting the objective state of nature.

The internal space equivalence principle analog is simply minimal
coupling of "parallel transport in the fiber space," i.e. use the
connection A in the covariant derivative

d ---> D = d + (Q/ihc)A

In general for any internal "Yang-Mills group" including SU2 weak and
SU3 strong in addition to U1 weak see Rovelli's 2.28

http://qedcorp.com/APS/RovelliDu.jpg

It is battle-tested and it works.

Z: Whatever that actually means. Yes of course you can do it, and it
works mathematically, and the resulting formal structure can
be brought into precise agreement with empirical observations. But is
it really physically predictive?

J: Obviously it is. What's your alternative? You got a better way?
Burden of proof is on you. You have a strange idea of how theoretical
physics should be.

It is also beautiful. It includes the tensor covariance principle of
general relativity as a special case.

Z: This is what I mean by a "mathematical truism". Yes sure you can
"locally gauge" the T4 translation group to recover general
covariance,
for *purely mathematical reasons*. But where is the physics? Where's
the beef?

J: The question here, is what is your question?

Z: What does it really mean, physically, to "locally gauge" a group of
coordinate transformations? Isn't this simply an alternative
method for constructing GCTs?

J: Your sentence is meaningless.

When you locally gauge global T4 you get the 1915 GR group of local
coordinate transformations e.g. Rovelli's (iii) below.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Rovelligroups.jpg

There is a creative tension between classical locality and quantum
entanglement of course.

Z: That's another can of worms.

J: The induced gauge force fields emerge from the principle of
classical locality that the basic laws of physics should not depend on
the local frames of reference defined by actual localized physical
detectors making real measurements.

Z: Here's that weasel word "locality" again.

OK, at least you are citing a physical principle here. This is a
*physical* argument which goes beyond the math.

Weyl argued that according to the principles of Einsteinian physics
changes in the phase of the electron wave function should not
propagate instantaneously through space. Hence "local gauging" of the
electron phase.

J: Again you garble this. Weyl wrote this later ~ 1929 after I think
it was Fritz London who made that leap once Schrodinger did wave
mechanics which did not exist when Weyl first did what he did around
1918 - 21 as I recall.

Z: But if the electron phase it is a true "gauge", meaning that it is
simply a chunk of surplus mathematical structure in the theory, why
should this
physical principle apply? When a "gauge" not a "gauge"? Weyl's answer
would appear to be: when it is a *local* gauge.

Now of course I accept as a matter of fact that this allowed Weyl and
others to formulate a UFT integrating EM theory with the theory of
electrons.

But how does this "locality" principle apply to spacetime coordinate
transformations?

J: Simple, global T4 means same displacement over all history
everywhere! That is "unphysical" i.e. we want locality here.

Think of an ideal crystal. Global T4 moves the entire crystal rigidly.

Local T4 introduces local distortions making the crystal inhomogeneous
(needs applied stress-strain) causing it to crack with disclination
(AKA curvature) and dislocation (torsion) topological defects!

Now think of a 4D world crystal lattice - with holographic spacing

&L = [(Planck Area)(Future de Sitter horizon dark energy area)^1/2]
^1/3 ~ 1 fermi

and quantized time &L/c at cosmological level

The future 2D horizon is pixelated because it surrounds N ~ 10^124
geometrodynamic field point monopole defects in the 3 real Higgs
scalar fields from vacuum ODLRO at the moment of inflation at t = 0
(below). Look at Tamara Davis's actual numerical simulations for our
actual observable causal universe (on large RW scale):

http://qedcorp.com/APS/DavisFig1_1conformal.jpg

The spacelike comoving distance to our future hologram NOW is less
than 20 billion light years. The advanced light ray distance is less
than 10 billion light years at about 55 billion light years from the
Big Bang inflation in conformal time compared to our present ~ 46
billion light years (= 13.7 billion light years of proper metric
cosmic RW time). Either way we estimate N(t) will not make much
practical difference looking at figure below. Each point on the event
horizon is a S2 sphere surrounding our here-now. N(t) is a lot smaller
in the early universe however! The evolution of N(t) is here

http://qedcorp.com/APS/DavisFig5entropy.gif middle curve from Tamara
Davis's 2003 PhD dissertation University of South Wales

This, for the first time in the history of physics, correctly explains
the irreversible Second Law of Thermodynamics Arrow of Time why the
cosmological arrow is parallel to the thermodynamic arrow. You need
both retrocausality (Wheeler-Feynman) and holography (L. Susskind & YJ
Ng) to properly understand why the early universe is well-ordered (low
entropy).

Z: I say that in and of itself, our ability to recover the group Diff
(R^4) of GCTs on a 4D Riemannian manifold by "locally gauging" a
translation group T4 is simply a mathematical truism. Again, does this
group T4 act on spacetime points themselves, or on the coordinates of
spacetime points? Are these active, or passive,
diffeomorphisms?

J: This includes both internal symmetries (electromagnetic, weak,
strong) and spacetime symmetries (gravity in the the most general
sense curvature + torsion + possibly other geometrodynamic fields like
the dilaton from localizing the 15 parameter Penrose Twistor conformal
group.

Z: But that is precisely the extension of local gauging (to external
symmetries) that is in question here. I don't have any problem with
the math. I may have some questions, but no serious issues with the
math, as math.

J: Note that the dark energy de Sitter group includes the 10-parameter
Poincare group of Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity as the special
case /\ = 0 in Lenny Susskind's cosmic landscape of chaotic eternal
inflation.

Z: Of course. Trivially. That is, if /\ = 0, *and* there are no actual
gravitational sources. Then you have a globally flat Minkowski vacuum.

J: You are being sloppy. Even when /\ =/= 0 there are no actual
gravitational real sources in the perfect de Sitter case. There is
only the virtual zero point quantum fluctuation source the same
everywhere-when. That is not our actual universe however. Tamara Davis
computes our actual universe based on the current precision cosmology
data good to about 2%.

In summary the basic organizing ideas of modern physics are:

1. Local gauge principle (includes the general relativity equivalence
principle as a special case)

2. Hologram principle (Wheeler's IT FROM BIT)

3. Retrocausality principle (includes quantum entanglement, e.g. John
Cramer's "transactions"

4. "More is different" (PW Anderson) spontaneous broken ground state
symmetry principle of emergence of qualitatively new collective modes
in complex systems.

I suspect these four organizing principles can explain all the
fundamental phenomena known today.

Well, at least these look like *physical* principles.

Z.


On Jan 29, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jan 29, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

It seems to me that if Kibble-style "local gauging" of the Poincare
group is any more than a mathematical truism, this will have to be
established by detailed critical arguments of a physical nature.

J: Fiddlesticks, you obviously have not read Kibble's impeccably fully
detailed ground-breaking classic paper.

Z: Actually I have. I've also read several well informed critiques.

J: The derivation of the gravity field as the local gauge compensating
field of the universal spacetime symmetry invariance non-compact group
of all matter field dynamical global action functionals is as
physical, and beautiful, as is the corresponding argument for the non-
universal internal symmetry compact groups U1, SU2, SU3 of the
electromagnetic, weak & strong forces respectively.

Z: Well, maybe so, but I am saying that it takes more than a purely
formal-empirical argument to establish this.

The mere fact of an analogy with classic local gauging (starting with
EM theory) does not in itself estabish that this has inherent physical
signifcance.

Notice I am NOT saying that this actually IS merely a mathematical
truism.

Now agreed that if your condensate emergent gravity model really
works, and direct physical interpretation of local gauging of the
Poincare group is essential to the modol, then this would constitute a
legitimate basis for taking such local gauging seriously.

J: Einstein's equivalence principle is, in deepest form, the
universality of the minimal coupling of the spacetime symmetries to
the matter field action functionals.

Z: But even now "minimal coupling" is just a hypothesis, as Eddignton
commented in the early 1920s. We still have no idea what local
couplings may exist beteween as yet unknown fields and the Riemann
curvature field of 1916 GR.

J: Fiddlesticks. Pish tush! I got news for you Z. All of physics is
hypothetical. All of science is hypothetical. The criterion of
scientific truth is purely pragmatic. If a theory makes false
predictions the theory is discarded even if it is beautiful. However,
I know of no beautiful theory that has not worked. Of course beauty is
in the eye of the beholder like our cosmology based on observer-
dependent future cosmic hologram pixelated horizons emitting advanced
Hawking quasi-thermal radiation back from our infinite proper time
future. "Quasi" because w = -1 not w = +1/3 for it, because it's
simple vacuum ZPE seen from frames accelerating at c^2/\^1/2 ~ 1
nanometer/sec^2 relative to the /\ = 0 k = 0 RW metric background.

Z: However, agreed that Einstein equivalence implies minimal coupling.

J: This is beauty in physics (in Dirac's sense). This is elegance in
physics.

Z: "Elegance is for tailors." -- Ludwig Boltzmann I didn't say that
locally gauging the Poincare group isn't beautiful or elegant. In fact
I agree that it is -- formally. However, mathematical truisms are
often beautiful and elegant.

J: Mathematical truisms form the language of physics. So what?

Z: I don't think it's enough to rely on formal analogies with the
local gauging
of internal parameters of elementary particles as in the Standard
Model.

J: You are tone deaf to the music of the spheres.

/\ de Sitter metric defines a hyperbolic conic section in 4D + 1 S-T
(e.g. Hawking & Ellis)

U1(em force), SU2(weak force) & SU3(strong force) correspond to S^1,
S^3 & S^8 unit spheres in 2D, 4D, 9D real Euclidean spaces
respectively.

Z: Who, me?

J: None of the top theoretical physicists today agree with your narrow
view. It is much more that a "formal analogy".

Z: Note that I didn't say it isn't. I'm just saying that if it is,
this has to be established by more than purely formal or empirical
arguments.
If your theory works, that would provide more cogent support for
taking local gauging of external symmetry groups "seriously"
as the basis for a deeper theory of gravitation. So I am not really
attacking your position here.

J: It is a profound physical organizing idea that is parsimonious
(More with less, Occam's razor) - the beauty in the pattern.

Z: Of course, I agree with all this. Also, there seems to be
tremendous faith in the predictive power of abstract geometric models
in gravitational theory.

J: Not faith. It works.

Z: Yet Feynman, for example, regarded the success even of Einstein's
1916 Riemannian model for gravitation as the result of a "mathematical
coincidence" (his exact words).

J: That was not Feynman's view! He was simply playing a game in those
Cal Tech Lectures on Gravitation. What successful theory in physics is
not based on "mathematical coincidence"? See Eugene Wigner on the
relation of mathematics to physical reality.

Z: I'll let Feynman speak for himself.

J: You did not read his intro carefully!

Z: Of course I did.

J: He took a position like some shyster defending an obviously guilty
fellow. Feynman, like all great minds, is oft mis-quoted.

Z: Feynman was a quantum field guy all the way Jack. As you well know,
for him, the deeper theory of gravity was going to be a perturbative
non-abelian QFT. In such a theoretical framework, the existence of an
abstract Riemannian model for Einstein's gravitational-inertial field
is
simply happenstance -- "mathematical coincidence". Riemannian
curvature simply manifests in an abstract geometric model certain
kinds
of non-abelian algebraic relationships between certain Lie group
generators. It has nothing to do with the actual existence of a 4-
dimensional
"spacetime" in some breathless Platonic realm.

J: A delicate distinction. Look at renormalization theory - what an
obscure mess. Certainly not pretty and by Waldyr Rodrigues's
impractical standards "mathematical nonsense". The Rigor Morticians
would stop all progress in theoretical physics. I will find the
relevant quote from Feynman later to justify what I wrote. He was
merely taking a pedagogical stance. I mean where he talks about ET
alien physics based only on QFT.

Z: Sure we can throw in torsion -- along with the kitchen sink.

J: No, you simply don't get it that curvature and torsion are on an
equal footing as compensating disclination and dislocation topological
defect fields from localizing the Poincare group of Einstein's 1905
special theory of relativity.

Z: That doesn't mean that we are actually predicting anything, unless
there are good arguments beyond mere formalism and the mere fact of
the mathematical existence of geometric models that the abstract
theories have actual predictive power. And by "predictive power" I am
not referring to our ability to tailor our theories in an *ad hoc*
manner the achieve agreement with (suitably filtered and massaged)
"empirical data".

J: Now, if the torsion field is really the Calabi-Yau space of string
theory, then we must be able to derive compact U1 SU2 SU3 from non-
compact SO1,3 using Hawking's "imaginary time" on the non-periodic
hyperbolic "rapidities" of the 3 space-time rotations to get compact
trigonometric periodicity, and we must also explain the loss of
universality.

Z: Sounds extravagant. What happened to "parsimony"?

J: You don't get it. I will try to make this clearer. It is
parsimonious because instead of needed both spacetime symmetries and
internal symmetries as separate ideas, we may be able to derive the
internal symmetries from the spacetime symmetries alone! However, this
is a conjecture. I have not proved it.

Z: However, if your model can explain the empirical success of the
string theoretic model, such as it is, based on a Calabi-Yau space,
then I think that would be great advantage.

J: What empirical success? There isn't any. Is there?
http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

I don't know if this is possible at the moment. The physical idea is
that the 6 extra space dimensions are simply the anholonomies of the
extended brane structure of the fundamental objects whose centers of
mass live in 4D spacetime.

Z: In which case there is no such thing as Calabi-Yau space except in
the mathematical abstract. That was Feynman's basic attitude in the
early 1960s to the curved 4D spacetime of 1916 GR. It reduces to a set
of algebraic relationships between physical field quantities that it
*so happens* can be modeled *mathematically* in terms of 4D locally
Lorentzian geometry. So I agree that the primary question here is
not, "Is there a torsion model that makes the feasibility of Shipov's
device plausible?", but rather:
"Does it actually work, empirically speaking?"

J: Gennady Shipov has detailed equations. Someone needs to find the
error in his argument.

Z: Based on which theory? His? Did Shipov adapt his theory to the
phenomenon once discovered, or did his theory point to the phenomenon,
heuristically?

J: I mean how he applies the equations to his particular device. Hal
Puthoff's refutation seems decisive. Hal I think replicated Gennady's
device - asymmetric friction seems to be the explanation. Of course,
if Gennady makes a flying model we will all gladly admit we are wrong.

Z: Sometimes scientists find what they hope and expect to find. What
are the chances that at least a large fraction of the black holes that
astronomers have convinced themselves that they have observed are not
actually black holes? What are the chances that "dark energy" and
"dark matter" are simply epsitemic epicycles attached *ad hoc* to a
theory of gravity whose domain of validity does not in fact extend to
intergalactic distances, as some have suggested?

J: Again you don't get what we are saying in this paper.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/paper25.pdf

Nothing is adhoc. Both dark energy and dark matter are simple
consequences of the Heisenberg uncertainty quantum principle, the
equivalence principle and the special relativity principle e.g. p. 26
John Pea***'s "Cosmological Physics" for the basic idea.

Z: Anyway, I think testing Shipov is a little like testing Uri Geller.
Not a simple matter. Anything else would be putting Descartes before
the horse, IMHO.


JACK SARFATTI wrote:
The oriented point corresponds to the local gauging of the 6-parameter
homogeneous Lorentz group. Einstein's 1915 GR is simply the local
gauging of the 4-parameter translation group + adhoc constraint of
zero torsion that gives the 6 spin connection 1-forms in terms of the
4 tetrad 1-forms and their gradients as given in Rovelli's eq. 2.89 in
"Quantum Gravity".


On Jan 29, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Puthoff@xxxxxxx <mailto:Puthoff@xxxxxxx>
wrote:

1. Doubtful
2. Momentum impulse analysis I've done on configuration doesn't
support it
3. Observed unidirectional motion on test bed consistent with "Dean
Machine" velocity-dependent, differential friction parameters
4. I'd be glad to be shown wrong in my conclusion to date by further
experimentation, given that solid experimental evidence always trumps
theory! Hal Puthoff
In a message dated 1/29/2009 10:31:17 A.M. Central Standard Time,
sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sarfatti@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:



J: Of course if Gennady can actually get his device to fly ...
Nothing succeeds like success.

On Jan 29, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Gennady Shipov in Moscow, Russia
wrote:

Hi Jack!

My experiments prove existence of other mechanics.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXOKT3_SPS0>See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXOKT3_SPS0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrJ79rZKTp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeWk5vIEIbo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2L4JgN_8go

Certainly, the device is simple , but the theory is not simple.

Our intuition is not ready to apprehend it.

In any case, we should change the classical mechanics on
more perfect. Such mechanics should be
geometrized even at small speeds of motion.

Otherwise we could not describe observable slow movement
and lag of UFO.



Shipov Gennady

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hi Gennady
What is hard to understand is why the huge effect you observe
in your
relatively simple mechanical device with ordinary materials
is not observed in other kinds of simple mechanical rotating
machinery?

On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Gennady Shipov wrote:


>
> Jack!
>
> It seems improbable, but it is proved with my experiments.
> Besides the Einstein's principle of equivalence (strong)
proves
> the local equivalence of a gravitational field and a field
of inertia.

True.

> There, where there are strong fields of inertia, there
machines
> break. Rotation of a gyroscope makes its steady due to a
curvature
> of its internal space at not relativistic speeds It is the
new point
> of view. Cartan approved, that the rotation of a matter
creates
> torsion of the space, and in geometry of absolute parallelism
> torsion is a source of curvature.

J: Yes, in general what you say here is correct in principle.
The issue is the numbers.

In Einstein's curvature field equation without the torsion
effect we have

(string tension)(Einstein curvature tensor) = (applied stress
energy current density tensor of matter fields)

The problem stopping low-power warp-wormhole metric engineering
is that normally (in dimensionless units)

(string tension) >> 1

See final equation (37?) in http://qedcorp.com/APS/paper25.pdf

We need a similar torsion field equation) e.g. eq 31 paper 25
(depends on the
field actions S) in

(coupling constant)(torsion field tensor) = (applied total
rotational source tensor of matter fields)

and the issue is then again the size of the coupling constant.
.

Quantcast