On Emergent Curved Space-Time

typo I meant "isometry" not "isotropy" fixed below.

Also my theory explains

1. Why macroscopic physics is local even though microphysics is nonlocal.

I explain the classical limit properly. Penrose points out that the
orthodox explanation of that is a boondoggle.

Classical physics is local only because the ODLRO vacuum order parameter
inflation field is local!

2. Why the early universe has low entropy - i.e. signal nonlocality
retro-causality as in Garrett Moddell's talk at AAAS USD i.e. Second Law
of Thermodynamics Arrow of Time problem solved.


On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I think Waldyr's position is that there is something wrong with GR
itself from a physical standpoint. I think his main point is that for
purely mathematical reasons GR doesn't generally admit true energy
conservation principles, either in correspondence with Newtonian theory
or otherwise.


Perhaps, but it has no bearing on my paper.

Jack, your model recovers GR -- with /\, of course.

Yes, it explains WHY GR works and is consistent with all observations.
It unifies the emergence of gravity with inflation in a bootstrap. The
coherent phase modulation of the inflation field forms curved space-time.


He points out that in order to write an energy conservation law for the
Einstein field there must exist a timelike hypersurface-orthogonal
Killing field, which is only true in certain special cases, such as the
SSS spacetimes.


Well known in every text book.

The conclusion is that total energy and local energy density is not
fundamental. What is fundamental is the tetrad field.

What textbook says that this limits the validity of GR as a theory of
gravitation?

None. That's not what I said. I said the proper conclusion is that the
Newtonian idea of local energy density is not fundamental. Wheeler says
that. From Nother's theorem we know that energy conservation comes from
time translation invariance violated in the expanding universe! The
universe is obviously not time translation invariant on the large scale!
The timelike Killing vector field isometry of some solutions to
Einstein's field equation, not all solutions, is closest we can come to
the Newtonian notion of energy conservation for the vacuum itself. When
we write

Tuv^;v = 0

That does not include gravity. It only includes the local non-gravity
sources of gravity.

The actual vacuum equation is

Guv + /\guv = 0

where

(c^4/8piG)/\guv = LOCAL RICCI Dark VACUUM Energy Stress-Energy Density
Tensor (ZERO ENTROPY)

What is NONLOCAL here is the WEYL CONFORMAL CURVATURE "VACUUM ENERGY"
and only that has ENTROPY according to Roger Penrose.

Note in standard black hole theory /\ = 0.

Also note /\ is uniform and constant in standard 1915 theory. You need
torsion fields, at the very least, to make /\ a local field for
weightless zero-g warp drive and star gate time travel metric engineering.

Locally gauge 4-parameter translation group to get 1915 GR with
curvature only i.e. spin connection is redundant.

Locally gauge 10-parameter Poincare group to get curvature + torsion
with independent spin connection.

Note that even in the exotic dark energy vacuum

CONFORMAL =/= 0

When

EINSTEIN + /\METRIC = 0

when /\(Dark energy) = 0

then

EINSTEIN - RICCI - 0

See Roger Penrose's 3 books for details.

i.e., Emperor, Shadows & On The Road.

But I shouldn't speak for Waldyr on this. He should speak for himself.


I think he is arguing that this means that the geometric model of GR
should not be taken too seriously in terms of *physics* -- although of
course he will insist on full rigor with respect to the *math* regardless.


I doubt he means that.

I seem to recall that he wrote something to that effect a while back.

Maybe Waldyr should speak for himself here.

I don't know what he means. Can you follow his 21 pages?

Not easily.

Z.



My Ansatz is basically empirical. It's not a "theorem". It's a
conjecture. It had implications for "quantum gravity". My theory is
emergent bottom-up not top-down as in conventional quantization of
gravity that fails!


But I understand that Waldyr doesn't believe in Einstein's geometrical
model as a direct description of physical space and time to begin with.


Not relevant to the several new physics ideas I give in the paper that
are relevant to enigmatic observations. In any case I would be
surprised if that's what he means.

Of course he also has purely technical issues with your paper that have
nothing to do with physics.

They are minor points about notations. He goes into irrelevant details
fighting other battles irrelevant to my paper.

I'm talking about his general motivation.


John Baez can't even derive GR with spin foams - so what good is it?


It makes great applied math to be published in journals on applied
math, AKA contemporary
spacetime physics. Who cares about "physical reality"? What the hell is
that, anyway?


Actually that's Niels Bohr's fault.

Do you think maybe Bohr should have stuck to soccer? :-)

Bohr should have stuck to psychology.

Z.


Z.


Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:


Still, I think you do have a good point that you are not the only
theorist that Waldyr has
accused of writing "mathematical nonsense".




He admits I think to "twenty". What this means is that Waldyr is
applying an inappropriate standard and missing The Forest for The
Trees. Also he pounced on an early hastily assembled rough draft and
never once really addresses the physical ideas that ARE my paper.



On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

So, Jack, you do know what I'm talking about when I call Penrose and
Hawking
"mathematicians", with styles of reasoning, criteria of relevance,
and standards of
rigor that are rather different from those of a true physicist such
as, for example,
Richard Feynman.




Yes, I understand the general rule. I think you misapply it in the
case of Penrose and Hawking. They are mathematicians who are ABLE to
think like physicists! They are able to do BOTH modes.



Well, what about this idea that a collapsed gravitational mass results
in a curvature singularity
at a point that is removed from physical spacetime, on the grounds
that it is not technically part
of a "manifold"?

I would suggest that this is not the thinking of a physicist. Also
that on hearing this someone like
Feynman would have a fit.

Z.