Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
digest 2003-11-19 #001.txt
litsci-l-digest Wednesday, November 19 2003 Volume 01 : Number
048
In this issue:
Faustus in Wittenburg
REMINDER: call for papers Women and Health, June 2004, Portland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:10:04 -0800
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Faustus in Wittenburg
A Performance in Cyber Space
Faustus in his Study at Witten-burg.
Music from Gounod's Faust
http://www.classicalarchives.com/m/023/act_1_du.mid
Play the above in background as you read like the piano in a silent
movie
at the Nickelodeon 100 + years ago on the New York City Bowery.
Z as Mephistopheles
Me as Dr. Faustus
Paul, all my books are packed ready to move so I cannot get the precise
formula
I remember. Basically though you can split the torsion-free Levi-Civita
connection for parallel transport of tensors (Lie dragging along vector
fields) along world lines in curved base spacetime of the tangent bundle
in terms of a bona-fide 3rd rank Diff(4) group tensor + the
inhomogeneous
non-tensor part that causes all the trouble in the gravity vacuum issue
of
a local stress-energy density tensor.
All the above is from the local gauging of the energy-momentum Pu
generators of the 4-parameter translation sub-group of the 15-parameter
Conformal Group.
Locally gauge the 6-parameter O(1,3) subgroup of the Conformal Group
in the tangent space to get the torsion fields which appear as a new
Diff(4) 3rd rank tensor addition to the connection that is
anti-symmetric in two of the indices.
According to Tony Smith, Segal locally gauged the remaining 5 parameter
sub-group and I think that should be unified exotic vacuum dark
energy/matter. That is only a wild guess at this stage. I have not
worked that out yet.
On Tuesday, November 11, 2003, at 05:45 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
"Fast Forward M-theory may be the final proof of the bankruptcy and
heuristic
exhaustion of the formal-empirical methods of modern physics. On the
other hand, under the right
interpretation, it might open up new vistas. We'll see."
No argument from me on that one! What a double standard eh? -- about
hype in science I mean. People are always telling me to connect my
theories with experiments and observations. Well
that's what I have done more so that anything on NOVA's "Elegant
Universe" although I do connect my math with their "stringy" alpha' and
indeed I think what I
have done in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf is good for Witten & Co I
have connected their vaporware more closely to observations of
important stuff like the cosmological constant.
Z: "Well, of course there has to be an empirical bottom line -- "cash
value".
Let me suggest that the biggest payoff -- and the best potential sales
point for your program -- would be the prediction of *novel phenomena*,
which only a new
fundamental theory of gravitation of the kind you are offering is
likely to be capable of."
"Dark Energy/Matter" IS that! It's as novel as they come. Mike Turner
and Ed Witten
admit readily in print they really have no clue at all! They are honest
men. Until
shown otherwise I think I have the correct explanation. Also UFOs are
novel
phenomena, but try getting that into Nature! :-)
Don't forget Regge trajectories, stability of electron (evaded by
string theorists)
and point structure of lepto-quarks in deep inelastic scattering. I got
plenty of
phenomena.
Of course it is the string tension that stabilizes the self-electric
charge
but what is the origin of that tension? It is "dark matter" /\zpf < 0
exotic vacuum
negative zero point energy density with positive pressure that does
the trick providing the mechanism for the "string tension" or
"micro-geon"
quasi Kerr Newman black hole where the extra space-dimensions provide
the strong and electro-weak charges. The micro-black holes have hair
in hyperspace.
Also the open end strings can connect different branes not just the
same brane.
That explains the particle-antiparticle broken symmetry on our brane.
I think the branes come from O(N) symmetries of the MACRO-QUANTUM
order parameter beyond my approximate O(2) model that makes quantized
string topological defects in 3D space from imposing single-valuedness
on the local vacuum coherence field PSI.
Giant Star Gates stabilized by exotic vacuum dark energy /\zpf > 0
also connect different brane parallel worlds floating in hyperspace.
This is the UFO phenomenon.
Z: "But the extravagant resort to these multi-dimensional hyperspaces
looks very suspicious to me -- regardless of how neatly the Standard
Model fits into the formalism.
Pythagorism run amuck?
In any case, Puthoff is not claiming that his PV theory is any kind of
fundamental theory of gravitation -- just a highly computable working
model that
might be at least pragmatically justified by some future deeper theory."
Not so, I think he claims he has a viable alternative to Einstein.
Z: "I never read that from him. He issued repeated disclaimers that PV
was not at
the present stage of the game to be regarded as anything more than an
"engineering model"."
We must have read different things. Puthoff, for example, claims there
are no black holes, no event horizons.
Z: "Although he did say that *if* the Yilmaz theory or some other field
theory that recovers his exponential metric expansion is eventually
vindicated, then that *could* provide a deeper justification for his
model.
But even then PV would not reach down as far as quantum gravity,
obviously.
That is unless an empirically validated Yilmaz-type field can be and is
successfully quantized."
I think Hal's approach violates Einstein's Rule: "Make physics as
simple as possible, but not simpler than is possible." Ditto for Evan
Harris Walker's.
Z: "Your original strategy, as I understand it, was to piggyback your
BEC model
by way of correspondence ("emergence") on canonical GR as expounded in
MTW,
and on the authority of their big black "bible"."
NO! My approach comes from the following sources:
1. Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity"
2. P. W. Anderson's "More is different"
3. Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" 4D elastic-plastic
formulation of Einstein's gravity allowing torsion in addition to
curvature.
4. Bohm's pilot-wave/hidden variable interpretation.
5. Wheeler's "IT FROM BIT" and his early "Geometrodynamics" of
"Mass without mass", "Charge without charge", "Spin without spin"
which failed for elementary particles in the 1950's.
Wheeler's idea here came from "Einstein's Vision"
6. Feynman's inability to solve electron self-energy/self-charge problem
apart from the "shell game" (his term) of renormalization.
7. Unrenormalizability of Einstein's classical gravity made into a local
quantum field theory by standard methods.
8. Regge data in hadrons.
9. Point structure of lepto-quarks in deep inelastic scattering.
10. Dark energy/matter as 95% of the Universe.
Z: "If I am right and MTW are the Enron of gravitational physics, then
I would say
this is a serious mistake."
You are not right.
Z: "If I am right, then your best strategy would be to consistently and
explicitly break with the naive Einstein interpretation of the EEP and
look for a radically different correspondence model vis a vis a
consistently re-interpreted GR."
I have already done it. Do you not understand what I am saying?
Z: As I see it, that would entail a meta-theoretic mapping of your
Goldstone phase to a separate physical metric that represents the
phenomenological g-field.
I do not understand what your words mean? I have the equations written
down in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Do you have different equations to replace them?
Without math I simply do not understand what you are saying here. What
difference does it make?
As far as I am concerned the local classical vacuum stress-energy
density Diff(4) tensor is simply
tuv(vac) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
Einstein's local field equation in non-exotic vacuum is then
tuv(classical vac) + Tuv(matter-radiation) = 0
Adding exotic vacuum dark energy/matter is
tuv(classical vac) + tuv(quantum zero point) + Tuv(matter-radiation) = 0
tuv(quantum zero point)
= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
/\zpf = (alpha')^-1[(alpha')^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
alpha' = Witten's string parameter
D^uDu(Vacuum Coherence) + dU(Vacuum Coherence)/d(Vacuum Coherence*) = 0
is Landau-Ginzburg eq. BIT FROM IT
du(x) = alpha'(Goldstone phase of Vacuum Coherence),u is IT FROM BIT
guv(x) = Minkowski + du,v(x) + dv,u(x)
BIT is Vacuum Coherence = "The Word"
guv and /\zpf are IT = "The Flesh"
if you want to decode "The Cipher of Genesis" or "The Da Vinci Code" -
the real one not the fake one. ;-)
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov
(typo corrected yesterday on "dark matter" slide)
Z: "You would then of course also have to recover the inertial metric,
but you would
fuse this with the gravitational metric at the correspondence level,
and not on the
most fundamental theoretic level."
Ditto. I do not understand what you mean.
Z: "Your theory could then provide a physical basis -- based on your
virtual BEC coherence -- for the *limited* physical analogy between
gravitational and inertial fields."
Not "could" but "does"
Z: While you seem to be on the right track with your "emergence"
thesis, I don't think you are as yet entirely consistent in your
approach, for the fundamental reasons I have stated.
"I do not understand your "reasons" and I never will as long as you
rely totally on
vague ambiguous ordinary language without mathematics and/or precise
operational gedankenexperiments like in the Einstein-Bohr Dialogues."
Z: "As for elegance -- as Boltzmann once said, when in the process of
looking
for deeper models of physical reality, "elegance is for tailors"."
"I honestly don't understand why you think you are in direct
competition with Hal."
Because he got all the money people in the fringe BPP people to think
he is on the right path - not that there is a lot of money there. But
because of his
past top security clearances he has influence and access inside USG
Black Ops and in fact there is a factional fight inside USG right now
about all this - more than that I cannot say. So the
issue is one of whistle blowing on wasting tax payer money on things
that have no chance of working whilst ignoring things that do.
Z: OK -- now that makes sense. :-)
"I'm not sure we're on the same page here. But I *am* talking about
spinning test particles in gravitational fields as a potential
refutation of
Einstein equivalence -- within the framework of canonical GR."
Wheeler works out spinning test particles in torsion-free curved
space-time. It's complicated but standard in MTW et-al.
Z: "And does he mention any empirically testable scale-independent
multipole
effects?
If so I'll have a look at that."
Don't know off hand.
If ALSO there is TORSION then additional coupling of spinning test
particles to the torsion fields.
Z: "OK, but that's another ball game.
Is there any convincing empirical evidence for non-vanishing torsion?"
Good question. Akimov in Moscow says so. Looking at Kleinert it would
be strange if it were not there. How big ? is the issue. Akimov in
Moscow says that is a big effect with weapons applications.
One guy here who came to ISSO 2000 also said that and he was working on
a Navy contract, which allegedly went black after he wrote that in his
report. Most researchers pooh pooh that. I do not know first-hand.
Z: "I said "convincing". ;-)"
Apply same standard to Brian Greene's "Elegant Universe."
String theory is like 2D field theory because the string sweeps out a
world sheet in ordinary space-time rather than the 1D world line. This
is a great thing because it essentially does away with the infinities
of point particle renormalization although it does not explain the
Cosmological Constant problem, which worries Witten and rightly so.
Z: "As one would expect, since there are no "point particles" to cause
such
problems."
NO! String theory give bad prediction
/\zpg = 10^66 cm^-2 when
experiment says /\zpf = 10^-56 cm^-2 because Witten's strings are only
10^-33 cm as Brian Greene repeats many times in the NOVA vaporware.
String theory is no better than local field theory on this issue! Well
only a little better, but still 122 Powers of Ten off-target! Witten
understands that!
They lack my giant vacuum coherent field!
Z: "No? So I am wrong to think that string theory avoids all the
renormalization
headaches of QFT at least partly because it posits extended entities as
models
for the so-called "elementary" particles?"
You have garbled "renormalization" with the "cosmological constant".
String theory does avoid the infinite renormalization constants of
point particle quantum field theory. It replaces them with large but
finite numbers. The string theory prediction for the Einstein
cosmological constant is
/\ ~ 1/Lp^2 ~ alpha'^-1 = 10^66 cm^-2
In contrast observation is
/\ ~ (Ho/c)^2 = 10^-56 cm^-2
That's why Ed Witten "the smartest man in physics today" according to
Brian Greene on NOVA "Elegant Universe" so so worried about it!
My solution to that problem is simply
/\ = alpha'[alpha'^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Where alpha' is Witten's favorite thing (string tension)^-1 = c^4/G*
What none of the Pundits have from Witten to Puthoff (that's many
powers of ten in mathematical depth ;-)) is VACUUM COHERENCE!
IMHO.
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Z: "OK, I'll read it."
"After all - you get an infinite mass density and infinite electrical
forces inside point particles even in classical physics. Also, the
Newtonian
gravitational force is infinite at zero separation of two mass points.
The classical electron was a hopeless conundrum even in Lorentz's
theory."
THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
Z: "I know you are talking about exploding perturbation expansions, mass
renormalization, that kind of thing. If these go away under a string
model,
I imagine the extended nature of the model might be relevant to the
problem.
But then, what do I know?"
On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 02:46 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack wrote: Ordinary words not good enough here. They are too
imprecise and ambiguous - good
for poetry not for physics.
Z:"Your simple dichotomy between "ordinary words" and "math" is a false
one IMO. There is "ordinary language", there is *technical* and
*scientific*
language, and there is the highly refined and abstract language of
natural
philosophy.
Then there is mathematics.
If the formal mathematics is to have a well-defined physical meaning
-- a physical interpretation -- then it must be arrived at and
expressed in
extra-mathematical technical
and philosophical language.
Even Einstein had an equivalence principle -- expressed in what you
call "ordinary language" -- before he had the Einstein-Hilbert field
equations and
before he even had a metric tensor representation of the g-field.
Yet we still don't know what these field equations mean exactly, except
in purely
formal-empirical terms, since Einstein's equivalence principle is
problematic."
I do not mean that ordinary language is not useful or important. I
meant that it is not enough.
Z: "And of course in that case I completely agree with you."
Einstein had math to back up his essential points in ordinary language.
Z: "Of course. But the math is for the most part standard and almost
completely worked out. We have the canonical theory, with the "EEP",
and a raft of bi-metric theories. The problem on this level, as I see
it, is for the most part finding the correct physical
interpretation of the math that is already available.
Which, incidentally, and perhaps ironically, is precisely how Einstein
arrived at special relativity. After Lorentz and Poincare, he took the
last *interpretive* steps.
After all, they are called the *Lorentz* transformations -- and not the
"Einstein
transformations".
What I have to do is show that when you back out the non-tensor
inertial contribution to the vacuum gravitational stress-energy
density, you get something that transforms locally like a world-tensor
(under Diff(4)) ."
My solution is simply
tuv(classical geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
Z: "That could begin to make sense of the theory of gravitational
waves, which is currently a puzzle within a puzzle. Anyone who claims
to understand it obviously doesn't.
I have to start with the standard weak-field (linearized) model and go
from there.
When I have finally done this I'll write it up and then you can read
all about it.
I am not going to write anything until I have the math completely
worked out."
I think Kip Thorne correctly worked all that out in the LIGO/LISA
project.
Do not reinvent the wheel. I doubt you can do it better than Kip Thorne
& Co.
So far, I am not aware of even ONE math formula to back up any of your
key points that you have expressed so far only in ordinary informal
language.
Am I mistaken here? Please correct me if I missed something. We have
been going back and forth on this for almost 2 years now without any
relevant math from your corner.
Z: "Actually, the basic mathematical approach is easy. You just locally
separate the inertial
and gravitational contributions to the metric gradients:
g_uv, w = g_uv, w |G + g_uv, w |I, for all u, v, and w.
(Here G = "Gravitational", I = "Inertial")
Then the gammas automatically decompose in an analogous manner."
I do not see what those terms are.
I think you are wrong here.
guv is a tensor.
The place to start is the connection like I did above.
Apart from my formula
guv = Minkowski + World Crystal Strain Tensor
there is nothing new here.
Z: "I am looking for a theorem in differential geometry that locally
splits the deformational and transformational contributions of the
metric gradients on an abstract curved 4-dim Riemannian manifold."
That's eqs (1.5) & (II.2) & (II.3) in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Z: "I've just been busy with other things, but I'll get down to it
eventually. It would be different if I were getting money to do it."
I have already done it.
Z: "The physical stress energy (of the "permanent" field) can then be
constructed out of gammas from which the g_uv, w |I have been removed."
No, because the gammas are zero in the LIF.
Z: "The only thing that makes the vacuum stress-energy a pseudo-tensor,
as far as
I can see, is the inertial contribution to the gammas."
You mean the non-tensor term in the gamma. They mix with the tensor
term when you make a quadratic form in the the gammas. I fail to see
how that gets one anywhere.
tuv(geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
solves the problem trivially because it is a trivial problem IMHO.
"The Question is: What is the The Question?"
Z: "At this point the math is pretty straightforward. What is important
is what it *means* in the context of GR."
Then write it down.
Z: "What it *means* is that without Einstein equivalence there is no
such thing as general relativity. It's a mirage. That also raises
serious questions about *special relativity*. And I am NOT a crank...."
Uh Oh! Einstein's equivalence principle is classical and the boundary
of its
domain of validity is fuzzy and problematical, which is part of its
greatness like great Art and Poetry.
Z: "Yes, and of course I agree. I'm not in the business of trashing
dear old Albert
for the sake of it."
Like some we know.
Z: "But I suspect you are here talking about the "EEP". I say Einstein
equivalence is in fact invalid *everywhere*. But if you are only
talking about "EEP", then I agree. In any case, as to Einstein
equivalence, that is what I mean when I use the term "heuristic". This
is of course all very important in the "context of discovery", even if
it does eventually turn out to be a red herring.
But I am working in the "context of evaluation""
For example the classical Einstein equivalence principle and the
quantum Heisenberg uncertainty principle work hand in hand to produce
the random micro-quantum
Diff(4) covariant additional term
/\zpf(x)guv(x) in Einstein's local
field equation. See John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics" pp 25-6 for
that derivation.
Z: "My guess is that this is a formalistic grafting of some of QM
(which no one
understands) onto GR (which almost no one understands)."
It leads to the very nice eq. (III.1) in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Einstein's equivalence principle has a nice mathematical expression in
the tetrad
transformation
FLAT SPACE-TIME = TETRAD (CURVED SPACE-TIME)
and inversely
e.g.
nab = ea^u(P)eb^v(P)guv(P)
Z: "As an expression of the bare "EEP", yes.
Yes yes yes.
Will you take "yes" for an answer? :-)"
That's all I ever need and use.
Z: "But this is still no more than a mathematical re-packaging of the
"EEP". It adds no new physical content."
It sure does and it's all in
http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
plain as day.
Z: "And it still does not in and of itself fully capture the content of
Einstein equivalence, which reaches much deeper than the
formal-empirical level of the "EEP"."
As far as I can see the math of the point you are making is that
TORSION-FREE CONNECTION = HOMOGENEOUS 3rd RANK TENSOR + INHOMOGENEOUS
PIECE
So your "inertial field" is the second piece on RHS.
Z: "Yes, exactly. If you interpret this "inhomogeneous piece" as a
kinematical field."
Fine.
Z: "The idea is that if you pull this out of the connection field, what
you have left is much more like a classical field, although it is
represented by tensor quantities and integrates "rubber rod and clock"
metric effects with "forcelike" dynamical effects.
That* is what a deeper theory should recover based squarely on a
physical model."
I do that in http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Z: "And it will, if I am right, also have a fully localizable vacuum
stress-energy which transforms much more like the EM stress-energy
under Diff(4) in both weak- and strong-field domains."
Again that's simply in the Wittenesque symbology of the real Da Vinci
Code ;-)
What is the "alpha" in Egyptian hieroglyphs and Babylonian cuniform?
Is alpha the Aleph? No it's clearly the "Bayt" (bait)]
tuv(vac) = (c^4/G*)[Guv(classical Einstein) + /\zpfguv]
= (alpha')^-1 [Guv(classical Einstein) +
/\zpfguv] = (String Tension)xCurvature(MACRO-QUANTUM + Micro-Quantum
Zero Point)
What more is there to be said here? It's in the standard Einstein
theory.
Z: "But again, that is *not* Einstein's theory."
Let's not quibble. None of this would be in discussion if Einstein
never existed.
Z: "With all due respect Jack, you do not seem to know what Einstein's
theory actually was! What *you* mean by "general relativity" is not
what *Einstein* meant by "general relativity". With different
punctuation, what *you* mean by "general relativity" (at least on
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays) is *not general relativity*. I have
already given you fully adequate documentation on this / Power-down
reset? :-)
But in any case, I actually agree with *your* current definition, since
Einstein's "general relativity" doesn't exist.
As long as you adhere to it consistently."
You are splitting very fine hairs here. No mainstream physicist doing
perfectly good work in "precision cosmology" would understand you here
or even care to. One can quibble about the informal language attached
to this formula,
but I think it is a quibble.
Z: "You are saying that refutation of Einstein's fundamental argument
for the general relativity of all motion -- which he himself protested
was the very cornerstone of his theory of gravitation
-- is a "quibble"? Jack, pull the other one."
No, I did not say that. You did.
The main content of Einstein's theory, the key algorithm, is
Guv = alpha'Tuv
what he may or may not have said in heuristic informal language at some
early point in the emergence of the theory is not that important.
EEP here also means that locally at event P one can find timelike
geodesic frames in which the
TORSION-FREE CONNECTION = 0 at P but not in neighborhood of P when
tensor curvature =/= 0 at P.
This is for spinless test particles.
Z: "OK."
What gyroscopes do if there is a torsion field was not considered in
Einstein's original theory.
Z: "He ruled out any empirically measurable effects that would locally
distinguish gravitational and inertial fields. In this sense, he did
consider them as belonging to a class of possible effects that were
prohibited by his equivalence principle, which was supposed to hold --
and indeed
had to hold -- universally and without restriction."
No he did not later on in his "unified field theory" later period.
No principle in physics holds universally without restriction. What
Einstein said in 1915 pre 1925 on this should not be taken literally.
See Bohm on this BTW.
But that is a straight forward extension.
Einstein's theory guv(P) is from locally gauging the LINEAR
TRANSLATIONS in
CONFORMAL = DILATION x NONLINEAR SPECIAL TRANSLATIONS x LINEAR
TRANSLATIONS x SPACE-TIME ROTATIONS
TORSION is local compensating gauge field from SPACE-TIME ROTATIONS.
We should LOCALLY GAUGE EVERYTHING! Why stop at a subgroup?
Z: "More Pythagorean groupology!"
It works.
Z: "Where's the beef? :-)"
Yum, yum. Niman not Wendy's.
The torsion-free connection can probably be split into the homogeneous
tensor part + the inhomogeneous part.
Indeed I remember that and can quickly look it up. So if that is all
you mean, then that is standard Einstein. What then is the point here?
Z: "{That's not it. The decomposition I am talking about is
"orthogonal" to this."
"I have no idea of what you mean here if you cannot produce a math
formula to give the informal sentence meaning.
Z: "See above. I have explained the point many times. We are separating
the inertial and gravitational
contributions to the connection field."
You have explained nothing to my mind unless there is math to give the
words meaning and/or a precise operational "gedankenexperiment" in
sense of the Bohr-Einstein debates.
Z: "See above."
Also, showing how your new insight predicts some new physics and/or
explains an important mystery in the old physics is also desired.
Z: "It's not new, and it's not mine.
Eddington explicitly wrote in 1922:
(1) The equivalence principle is a mere conjecture that is not to be
taken too seriously;
(2) The GR inertial field is associated with a stress-energy density
that is a non-tensor.
That was *1922*.
Einstein had a slugfest with von Laue in the early 20s on this, in
which von Laue argued for the purely heuristic character of Einstein's
"principle".
Tolman in the 30s, and later Bergmann in the 40s, wrote of the metric
gradients g_uv, w as "metric potentials of the [permanent]
gravitational field".
Bergmann also referred to a pure inertial stress-energy.
Feynman more or less trashed Einstein equivalence in the 60s."
Precise quotes please.
Z "In the 90s Weinberg announced in his "Gravitation and Cosmology"
that he is
a "heretic"."
Ditto.
Z: "I am just trying to push this skeptical argument to its logical
conclusions."
I gather "deformational" means Ruvwl curvature tensor =/= 0 at P ?
Z: "It means the contribution to the connection field (i.e. metric
gradients) that results from the deformation of the spacetime manifold,
where Ruvwl =/= 0."
"Transformational" is when Ruvwl = 0?
Z: "It's what you have left when you set Ruvwl = 0. It is obviously
still
present even when Ruvwl =/= 0 in almost all frames."
Fine.
Z: "OK."
I think that is what I said above. It's already there in Einstein's
original theory. Nothing new here IMHO.
Z: "Of course this is not new. It is the (logical) conclusions that I
am drawing from it that are new.
Yet I wonder: Why does Weinberg feel compelled to call himself a
"heretic" when he is writing about this in the mid-1990s? If it's all
so standard and obvious?
?"
Feynman and Weinberg quotes would help here.
Z: "This is really a matter of pure differential geometry, since it
holds
generally in the abstract, without any specific reference to spacetime
manifolds."
I do not understand what you mean by "inertial compensation" above.
Z: "Just think of how inertial and electrical forces interact and how
this is described mathematically in *standard GR*. The EM field is not
geometrodynamic, while the pure inertial field (no gravitational
sources) is."
EM field is geometrodynamical in Kaluza-Klein with one extra space
dimension.
Z: "That's not *standard GR*, Jack"
Right, but it is mainstream in 2003.
Z: "Are you telling me that Kaluza-Klein is now canonical? Or are you
talking about superstring theory?"
Yes, in sense there is well-defined math meaning to their concepts,
which is lacking in most of your thesis here unless I have missed
something specific?
Z: "The math is for the most part completely standard. It is the
interpretive conclusions that are new."
I think the "fictitious" or "inertial" g-force i.e. the metric
torsion-free connection for parallel transport in the original
1915 theory is LOCALLY equivalent to a
"gravity force".
Z: "Einstein's principle was that a uniform gravitational field is
*fundamentally
indistinguishable* from an inertial field. That is all in the
historical record."
Depends what one means by "fundamentally".
Z: "It is quite clear what Einstein meant. He was quite forthcoming on
this. I think it's important to recognize that this is the cornerstone
of
Einstein's concept of general relativity. The meaning of Einstein's
principle is
quite unambiguous when placed in context."
Fine, but nothing wrong with what Einstein said above except that
physically we never have a global uniform gravity field.
Z: "There is nothing wrong with it except that it is almost certainly
false as a matter of empirical fact."
Yes,
Z: "Stop right there!
"Yes".
So you actually agree with me."
Einstein was playing with a useful idealization, theorists do that all
the time. It led to the correct conception. It's like the "principle of
virtual work".
Remember without electromagnetism no light hence no gravity!
First:
"Let there be light"
Gravity came on the Second Day.
Decoding The Cipher of Genesis.
but one could imagine a universe like that in terms of the
parameters of the theory.
Z: "One could. I'm interested in this universe. Although I agree that
Einstein was at least consistent -- which I cannot say for MTW."
Einstein had to pretend that while Riemann curvature distinguishes
almost all "permanent" gravitational fields (Eddington, Tolman,
Bergmann) from all inertial fields, it has no direct physical meaning,
at least in the "immediate neighborhood"
of a spacetime point."
No, again I think you are mis-interpreting here.
If the local curvature is not zero it is not zero in any frame at P.
Z: "Yes..."
However, it's tidal effect at P is ignorable in a small enough
neighborhood of P
provided:
1. Not near a space-time singularity
2. Not inside the effective Planck area Lp*^2
Z: "Isn't that like arguing that since we cannot measure Gaussian
curvature at a
geometric point, the Earth is really flat there?"
No, we can measure it at a coarse-grained point determined by band
width of the detectors.
Z: "So is that a "flat-earth" argument? :-)"
No.
Z: "Or pseudo-positivistic gobbledygook?"
No, that's physics not shmizziks.
Z: "The Planck area is another question -- although this has to be
considered
at some point I agree."
I have been doing that in http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.doc
Note Planck Area = Witten's alpha' (h = c = 1 convention) = 1/(String
Tension)
Infinite string tension is point particle physics and there is no
gravity because
spacetime is infinitely rigid but unstable.
End of story. It's an "approximate" statement or a "correspondence
principle".
Z: "Exactly. And that is *all* the so-called "EEP" is. But that is not
Einstein equivalence -- unless you add an additional laye
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Carol Colatrella"
Date: 11/19/2003 6:54AM
Subject: REMINDER: call for papers Medicine and Media, March 2004
CALL FOR PAPERS
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF BIOETHICS AND HUMANITIES
SPRING 2004 MEETING
TOPIC: ?¨Medicine and Media: The Delicate Balance?Æ
PLACE: University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
DATES: March 12 ?± 14
CO-CHAIRS: Therese Jones, PhD
Center for Medical Humanities and Ethics
University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio
(jonest2@uthscsa.edu)
Lester D. Friedman, PhD
Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program
Northwestern University
(l-friedman@northwestern.edu)
DESCRIPTION: The worlds of medicine and media exist in a unique
symbiosis.
The media not only cannibalize the medical world for their news stories
and
fictional plotlines, but health care institutions, medical researchers
and
academic physicians themselves manipulate the media, inviting the
spotlight
to shine on their successes and deflecting the glare away from the less
savory aspects of their work. The delicate balance between using the
media
as an outlet for legitimate stories and exploiting it for particular
agendas
raises a host of ethical issues. Dr Timothy Johnson, himself a medical
television journalist, articulates several such troubling problems: the
difficulties of identifying, processing and reporting legitimate medical
problems; the competitive pressures on medical establishments to gain
market
shares and increase funding for research; the spiraling
commercialization of
medical research by business interests; the organization of scientific
meetings as public relations events; the controversial role of medical
journals; and the differences between reporting general news and medical
news. To Johnson??s list, we would add the morality of cameras in the
hospital; the broadcasting of medical procedures; the distinction
between
informed consent for medical care and release forms for film and
television
appearances; the lack of adequate checks and balances on the internet;
the
coverage by news media; and the problems with how research is
disseminated.
This conference will interrogate and reflect upon the complex and
complicated relationship between the media and medical researchers,
practitioners, ethicists and educators. Whether we are using an episode
of
E.R. in our courses or answering questions about cloning for the local
television station, medical humanists and ethicists are constantly
engaged
in a dynamic process of affecting and being affected by the media, a
process
that demands and deserves critical analysis. We look forward to
proposals
addressing a range of relevant issues from a variety of disciplinary
perspectives. The conference will be co-sponsored by the Center for
Medical
Humanities and Ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center
San
Antonio, a culturally exciting and pleasantly warm city in mid-March.
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSALS: Mail or e-mail a 300 ?± 400 word abstract of
the
proposed paper, a short bibliography (10 item maximum) related to the
subject, and a brief biographical note which includes your phone number,
e-mail address and mailing address to Lester D. Friedman PhD, Medical
Ethics
& Humanities Program, Northwestern U, 750 Lake Shore Drive (ABA 627),
Chicago IL 60611 or l-friedman@northwestern.edu.
DEADLINE IS DECEMBER 31, 2003.
VISIT THE ASBH WEBSITE FOR FURTHER DETAILS
http://www.asbh.org/
_________________________________________________________________
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads,
videos,
and more here. http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx
-
+-+-+-+-+-+
Please see the following URL for the LITSCI-L archive, Web resource
links and unsubscribing info:
http://www.law.duke.edu/sls
