|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
John A Wheeler coined "Mass without mass" "Charge without charge" "Spin without spin." "Law without law." in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below. World Hologram is "Space without space" (my term for the record) L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d) e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb S^a^b = w^a^bce^c R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b' The Ricci rotation coefficients (like Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetries) are local functions so that dw^a^bc =/= 0 - use product rule. We see that the spin 1 effective Yang-Mills potential does not have terms higher than quartic in the intrinsic spin 1 warp fields A^a. Therefore, the quantum field theory is renormalizable using the Veltman-t'Hooft analysis. See Sidney Coleman's Erice Lectures. The effective warp field potential in the Lagrangian density has the form *{C3/\A^a + C2/\A^a/\A^b + C1/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c + C0/\A^a/\A^b/\A^c/\A^d} Where Cp are p-forms from the Minkowski global tetrads I^a whose components I^au(x) are curvilinear functions encoding the inertial accelerations, Coriolis, centrifugal forces on local detectors in non-geodesic motion in the fully warped spacetime. These inertial forces are the g-forces that are locally equivalent to the Newtonian "gravity forces" on the centers of mass of extended test objects. Warp drive eliminates all non-tensor g-forces on the center of mass coordinates. Curvature and torsion forces on the relative coordinates of extended objects are still there because they are T4(x) GCT tensors. They must be kept small. The Ricci rotation coefficients w^abc(x) are also there in the Cp from the R^a^b term. There are also kinetic energy density terms from the d operator, i.e. gradient terms in A^a, I^a & w^abc(x). d(w^a^bce^c) = d(w^a^bc)e^c + w^a^bcde^c d(w^a^bc) = w^a^bc,udx^u T^a(P10) = D(P10)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(P10)/\e^c = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c because T^a(T4) = D(T4)e^a = de^a + w^abce^b(T4)/\e^c = 0 w^a^bc(P10) = w^a^bc(T4) + w^a^bc(SO(1,3) So we want to substitute T^a(P10) = w^abce^b(SO(1,3))/\e^c into *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d to see how the torsion field 2-form T^a(P10) couples to Einstein's curvature 2-form R^a^b(T4) R^a^b = Dw^a^bce^c = d(w^a^bce^c) + w^a^a'ce^a'/\w^c^bb'ce^b' = R^a^b(T4) + R^a^b(SO(1,3) + Curvature-Torsion Field Cross-Terms Note that torsion dislocation fields by themselves also induce curvature disclination fields, but NOT vice versa! This has caused confusion in the literature over the physical meaning of Utiyama's 1956 paper where he only locally gauges the Lorentz group and sticks in Einstein's GCTs by hand ad-hoc - corrected by Kibble in 1961. On Jul 28, 2007, at 7:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: The Grand Illusion, The New Paradigm Quantum Gravity for Dummies The basic classical field Lagrangian density template for all spin connections S^a^b corresponding to localized spacetime symmetry Lie group G(x) is L(Einstein-Hilbert) = *(R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d + Lambda e^a/\e^b/\e^c/\e^d) G(x) -- T4(x) is 1916 GR G(x) -- P10(x) is Einstein-Cartan extension of 1916 GR G(x) -- Conformal Group (15 parameters) Tony Smith's theory? G(x) -- GL(4,R) G(x) -- GL(4,C) Penrose Twistors? G(x) -- GL(4,Q) Supersymmetric Twistors? Q = quaternions My theory uses only P10(x) at the present time. The additional 6 parameters of P10(x) beyond the 4 of T4(x) form the extra space-dimensions for the torsion field (e.g. G. Shipov) out of which using Kaluza-Klein maybe we can get U(1) SU(2) SU(3) "internal symmetries" of EM, weak, strong? World Holography eq. e^a = I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a I^a = globally flat Minkowski S-T tetrad 1-form A^a = the real intrinsic warp SPIN 1 renormalizable (if quantized) Yang-Mills geometrodynamic field Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2 N = (Lp^2Lambda)^-1 = Bekenstein BIT number of a closed 2D surface surrounding N point geometrodynamic unit wrapping number monopoles at center of quantum gravity foam bubble N^1/6Lp across. Each quantum gravity foam bubble has "volume without volume" &V = N^1/2Lp^3, the total volume without volume V is N^3/2Lp^3 therefore exactly N close-packed quantum foam bubbles in the interior of a surrounding surface with N area quanta each Lp^2. Therefore, V/&V = N^3/2/N^1/2 = N QED. This is the 2D point defect (3 real vacuum ODLRO order parameters) analog of a 1D vortex line defect(2 real superfluid ground state order parameters). s^2 = nabx^ax^b = Integral{I^aIa} = global Minkowski space-time interval. Integrating dx^a in that case is holonomic, i.e. path-independent All closed geometrodynamic 1-forms are exact 1-forms in 1905 SR. ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea = I^aIa + (1/N)^1/3(I^aAa + A^aIa) + (1/N)^2/3A^aAa F^a = dA^a + w^abcA^b/\A^c DF^a = 0 Yang-Mills Faraday & no geometrodynamic "magnetic" monopole laws D*F^a = *J^a Yang-Mills Ampere & Gauss's laws D*J^a = 0 local conservation of warp current densities Lagrangian density ~ *(1/4)F^a/\*Fa Note the relation to the torsion field T^a is T^a = De^a = de^a + w^abce^b/\e^c = d(I^a + (1/N)^1/3A^a) + w^abc(I^b + (1/N)^1/3A^b/\(I^c + (1/N)^1/3A^c) Note that w^abc = w^abc(T4) + w^abc(SO(1,3) and T^a(T4) = de^a + w^abc(T4)e^b/\e^c = 0 i.e. 1916 GR R^a^b = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^cb S^a^b = w^a^bce^c to be continued On Jul 28, 2007, at 4:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: On Jul 28, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote: Hi, Jack! I think I see the story now... First:---------------------- I asked: 2. What would Hehl's kinds of alternative models imply for the possibility of something like warp drive in the SPIRIT of the Alcubierre solutions? (Not the same equations or solutions, but paying serious attention when they appear to allow FTL patterns as solutions.) You answered: Don't know. Neither do I. So far as either of us knows, no one has done the mathematical work needed to know whether something like warp drive (Alburierre-type solutions but more implementable) would be possible, in alternatives to GR. Let me qualify that. I was only referring to Hehl. It's clear to me that you need the torsion field to mutate Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda into a locally variable quintessent field Lambda(x) that you then need to modulate with electromagnetic fields in order to get a practical low-energy zero-g force "geodesic" warp drive. P10 here is localized Poincare group In Einstein's curvature-only 1916 approximation Guv^;v = 0 Bianchi identities i.e. R^a^b(T4) = D(T4)S^a^b(T4) = curvature 2-form D(T4)R^a^b = 0 implies Lambda^,v = 0 i.e. uniform constant But in Einstein-Cartan theory R^a^b(P10) = D(P10)S^a^b(P10) D(P10)R^a^b(P10) = 0 D(P10) = D(T4) + D(SO(1,3) S(P10)^a^b = S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b R^a^b(P10) = d(S(T4)^a^b + S(SO(1,3)^a^b) + (S(T4)^ac + S(SO(1,3)^ac)/\(S(T4)^c^b + S(SO(1,3)^c^b) So we now have all these extra terms! D(T4)R^a^b =/= 0 with torsion, hence Lambda^,v need no longer vanish. Second ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The existence of something like dark matter is the one data point you cite telling us that SOMETHING is going on, beyond the usual standard model plus GR combination. But what in particular? With one data point, and hundreds of possible things to play with, we don't yet have empirical evidence. First of all it's dark matter and dark energy. We have many data points. I don't understand what you are even saying here? "One data point"? "hundreds of possible things"? I don't think so. Thus in addition to not knowing what a PARTICULAR Hehl-like model implies for warp drive, we do not know which alternative model we should believe anyway -- except if one makes a choice based on some kind of religious or estehetic conviction, which sounds to me like picking a "system" at Las Vegas. You lost me completely. I am talking precise equations and also many precise observations. Third --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is warp drive possible at all? In the absence of clear empirical or mathematical evidence (except for the GR case, where there exist the Alcubierre solutions)... we certainly do not KNOW, one way or another. First of all there are many good data points in the UFO evidence. That's the whole point here. The Pope's Men also refused to look through Galileo's telescope. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater then as King Lear says "From nothing comes nothing." (my paraphrase from memory) You cite UFO sightings as evidence it must be possible. You might be amused by a link a friend pointed me to yesterday (by accident!!): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...cetyp e=HWCIT Is that the "rebuttal" by that Christian Evangelist? URL too long to work. HOWEVER -- uncertainty cuts two ways. If we do not KNOW whether warp drive is possible, Wrong. Fact is we observe such craft. Look at Paul Hill's book for example. Talk to Bruce Maccabee. and we DO know something highly unknown is out there (the role of your "dark matter" stuff)... You must distinguish "dark matter" from "dark energy". it is rational to try to find out, by filling in those gaps in empirical data and in mathematical knowledge, rather than flipping dice and guessing, or wasting time trying to be Holy Inquisition or Defenders of old things that do not address the real issues here. Vague, of course. We all like Apple Pie and Ice cream. The real situation is not as hopeless as you paint it. I thank you very much for pointing me towards Hehl, who does seem to be one of the very few people out there actually living the full scientific method in fundamental physics. S. Weinberg wrote a strange letter in Physics Today mentioning Hehl. If there were more such people, perhaps humans really would have some chance of making progress, and surviving in the long term. However, I worry here. Chimpanzee society once made progress long ago, and then reached the limits of the technology and understanding that such creatures were capable; have humans now reached that point as well, in their understanding of basic physics and in the technologies which that would otherwise make possible? For example -- is the full-up mathematics of operator fields simply so difficult that humans do not learn it until an age when they are less flexible, and prone to becoming overwhelmed or ossified by it, to the extend that they understand it at all? On the bright side, the adult Sophists of Greece seemed equally befuddled by easier things, so perhaps there is hope for progress; yet it is hard to see, in concrete terms. Eric Davis would disagree with the above. What do you mean? He would claim he has a viable theory of how the universe works (though he may be humble enough to say it comes from other people), Such as? AND a way to show how to design a warp drive based on definite predictions of that theory. But I do not feel convinced as yet that the connections he proposes would really work. What connections? References? At best, it would require new mathematical work to properly evaluate. I don't think so. Best of luck to us all, Paul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
On Jul 29, 6:55 pm, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
John A Wheeler coined "Mass without mass" "Charge without charge" "Spin without spin." "Law without law." in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below. would be nice if you gave a description before you use symbols i cant understand a **** of what you say |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
I recall here those old H-M's drawings and my old
writings about them: Unfortunately I don't understand much your tensor equations, but what I understand by "dark matter" is for example "right neutrinos" and "right small neutrinos" and what I understand by "dark energy" is that it's origin is for example interactions between "right neutrinos". The problem how to get this new type of energy in use is how pierce through the "mirror structure" and also how to protect "wire" made of ordinary matter. I have understood that it is difficult due this new type of energy is available in a way "different point in time" (this is in principle forbidden for us). When "wrong neutrinos" (these are in our familiar part of the Universe) reacts with "right neutrinos" it is some kind of "short circuit" reaction where two types of photons (our familiar photon (visible) and "H-M's photons" of "contracting part of the Universe" (invisible in principle)) originates. Hannu |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
Dear deejey:
"deejey" wrote in message ups.com... On Jul 29, 6:55 pm, Jack Sarfatti wrote: John A Wheeler coined "Mass without mass" "Charge without charge" "Spin without spin." "Law without law." in his mid-1950's classical geometrodynamics where he also introduced "quantum foam" elucidated below. would be nice if you gave a description before you use symbols i cant understand a **** of what you say What he says is hologram. It is meaningless unless you stand in his shoes, and he does not deign to either learn physics, or learn how to communicate same. David A. Smith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
You regularly think in terms of FTL which indicates to me that neither you
nor the vast majority of your fellows know that history, any past, is visible somewhere in light-time. It is that light-time history that the traveler travels faster than, not the speed of light. The traveler embarks for a star ten light years away. To begin with, that star doesn't exist anymore in that location and state observed. It's ten year old information. Ten years worth of history have passed for that star and all of it is light time in between the traveler ten light years away and that star that is his destination. If it takes the traveler ten days by his ship board clock, and by his appearance of age in the mirror, for his transit, what he observes is a voyage minus ten years to zero plus ten days to his destination. A voyage crossing ten light years of distance done in an [observed] time of ten years and ten days, squeezed into ten days per the traveler's ship board clock. The star is in fact ten years in the future of the star the traveler observes at his departure. It is not the star that he observes upon departure that he will physically travel to, but the star ten years and ten days in the future of it. The traveler has to observably account for that ten years and ten days difference in time all during his crossing of ten light years. He has to observe the star to accelerate up in time from the past into its own future forward of him as the display of his progress in crossing and closing up with it. At the same time, upon his arrival at his destination, the star he departed from has to be observed to be ten light years away from him, effectively having accelerated up in time from the future into its own past rearward of him as the display of his progress in opening up a chasm of light time distance between himself and it. In other words, upon a traveler's arrival anywhere at any time that traveler has to observe exactly the same relative universe a permanent inhabitant of that system would observe all the time. But it would be approximately ten years after the traveler arrived in that system before the star he departed from would be observed in the state it was in upon the traveler's departure from it, so by proxy the traveler would be observed by the observers in that system to arrive there approximately ten years before he departed his starting point. The same view the traveler acquired over ten days in his rearview mirror. But it's not at all the viewpoint of the observer left at the departure point, the star system the traveler departed from. To him the traveler took all of ten years and ten days to make his voyage, because he doesn't observe the star in the state the traveler observes it upon arrival until ten years after the traveler's arrival at it. No one anywhere at any time is going to observe the futuristic [as is now] universe at any distance from them -- directly, that is. Indirectly they may observe it as a chaotic "dark" universe of "dark" matter and energy. The sole exception to the rule should be the constant Foundation levels picture farthest in distance from them. The constant [progression in building from the Foundation] horizons farthest in distance from them. But in between the local and the far reaches, effectively but never observably, infinity will exist. In space a travel should be able to turn upon a dime, in place, and give nine cents change. That's inertialessness. Under power (thus under acceleration) he couldn't do it. But whenever he shuts down his drive he instantly should be able to turn in place without going to pieces, or, without slamming himself into any walls, in his original direction of motion. Resuming drive power he should instantly be off and accelerating in a new direction of motion with no residual motion left existing whatsoever in his original direction of motion. All powered travel in space will be acceleration. Powered, there will be no such as cruising velocity, only a cruising acceleration through space measured by the number of the [relative] gravity being sustained. We measure a light second to be 300,000 kilometers of space per each second (rounded off). The interstellar and intergalactic traveler will measure rate of travel by the number of light time seconds or hours, or days and so on observed passing, to one second passing aboard ship. A ratio of one light second plus, to one second. Two light seconds plus, to one second. One light hour plus, to one second. One light day plus, to one second, progressing up the scale of light time to time. The traveler will deal in speeding up from some past time to the present, via future, forward of him. Light time distances convert to distances in the past history of places in the universe. Past history that will be annihilated by the traveler at a rate of one light second plus, to one light minute plus, to one light hour plus, to one light day plus.... per second of the traveler. Past history is immaterial universe so I'm talking immaterial seconds, minutes, hours, days and so on being annihilated by the material interstellar or intergalactic traveler never once exceeding, or even approaching, the speed of light. Nothing outruns light that is already there before it (anywhere and everywhere it goes). The Universe will always be previous to the traveler, cheating and winning the game of getting to the finish line by default. So the traveler will only travel an awesomely varied sea of distant histories (-), via the only highway there is, the future (+), always in the direction of the present (0). And to get [plus] at all, the traveler has to get one light second [plus], two light seconds [plus], and so on [plus], to one second. Not space per time ratio differentiation, but light time per time ratio differentiation. Neither space nor time -- in general -- is fixed absolute. They divide into varying spaces and times (such as interplanetary space, interstellar space, intergalactic space... up to inter-universe space -- up / out, and down / in, scale levels of space). You don't accelerate or decelerate horizontally in level regarding space, you accelerate or decelerate vertically between levels, from level to level (space to space), regarding space. The horizontal, or flat, look -- seemingly within level -- is ratio differentiation in light time to time. Regarding the former (the vertical view), the traveler spatially inflates or deflates, or rather the universe around him will shrink down of his acceleration up or expand up of his deceleration down. Regarding the latter (the horizontal view), the traveler merely time travels. Then there is the vertical and horizontal, space and time, coordinated view.... GLB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
[snip] I'll see your "space without space" and raise you "373 lines without content." Jacko, nothing you post is empirically founded. Repeated loud wet farts are not indistinguishable from Mozart doing Queen of the Night. If you are the self-proclaimed High Lord of Spatio-Temporal Gobbledygook, why doesn't your car get better gas mileage? There is no lack of gas - and that *is* empirically founded. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
"Jack Sarfatti" wrote in message t... John A Wheeler coined "Mass without mass" "Charge without charge" "Spin without spin." "Law without law." [Sarfatti] World Hologram is "Space without space" (my term for the record) [hanson] ahahahahahahaha... "Sarfatti without Sarfatti" (my term for the record) That's coined 'cuz you are "in & out" most of the "Time without Time" and even more so "Time after Time" ..... Thanks for the laughs, Jack! ahahaha.... ahahahanson |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Space without space: World Hologram & Warp Drive
Dear David A. Smith,
On Jul 29, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" wrote: What he says is hologram. It is meaningless unless you stand in his shoes, and he does not deign to either learn physics, or learn how to communicate same. David A. Smith After all multicellular life on earth has extinguished, the aliens will arrive... and discover the last, the only, remnant of civilization: a CD containing the collected memos of Jack Sarfatti. I would give anything to see the look on their faces... -- Rich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rotating Superconductor Warp Drive? | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 15th 07 03:23 AM |
Flying Saucer Warp Drive | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | September 4th 05 10:44 PM |
Sarfatti Lectures in Warp Drive Physics 1 | Autymn D. C. | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 27th 05 09:52 AM |
We have the basic elements for a "warp drive" | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 18 | June 25th 04 07:50 PM |
UFO Warp Drive (corrections) | Chillyvek | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 24th 03 08:34 PM |