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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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