Sarfatti vs Puthoff on Asvanced Space Weapons Physics
Jack Sarfatti
Headline: Jack Sarfatti: American military is pursuing new types of
exotic weapons.
On May 13, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:
Hi Guys --
I'm no physicist, but one of the things that I have been wondering about
is this:
Could the Quantum Foam in PV include the previously unseen-forces and/or
particles said to reside within the Planck radius in string theory?
Your question is meaningless - not well posed. There is no quantum
theory in PV. There is no Planck quantum h in any equation of his PV
model Hence no quantum foam. PV as published now is strictly a classical
phenomenological model. It lacks GCT local symmetry as agreed by Mike
Ibison who works with Hal in Austin and who agrees that PV is not as
good as Einstein's GR in terms of agreement with observed facts like the
pulsar data.
Hal appears to have no understanding of group theory of symmetries in
theoretical physics. He never seems to have heard of the Klein Erlangen
Program of 1872 that the group of reference frame transformations
determines geometry!
http://www.math.mcgill.ca/~malkoun/Erlangen_Program/Erlangen_Program.html
http://www.fact-index.com/e/er/erlangen_program.html
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erlangen%20program
Hal's PV dynamical action is that of global special relativity of 1905
with the adhoc insertion of a locally variable speed of light in the
gamma factors. This itself is at best a very crude approximation, very
dubious.
The space-time continuous symmetry of global special relativity is the
10 parameter Poincare group if you include rest mass m as an adoc
parameter. If you set m = 0 you get the larger 15 parameter conformal
group keeping the causal light cone invariant.
Look at the 6 parameter subgroup of the Poincare group, the Lorentz
group. Look at the 3-parameter set of boosts. They connect GIFs to each
other. GIF = Global Inertial Frame, i.e. a special class of "inertial
observers" moving in globally flat 4D space-time along straight lines in
sense of Euclid's 3D geometry at constant speed with zero acceleration!
Therefore, this symmetry group cannot answer the question of how to
transform the theory between two observers in arbitrary accelerated
motion, i.e. in non-inertial frames of reference, who are comparing
their measurements on the same phenomena. That is what the new GCT
(General Coordinate Transformations) local symmetry group is all about!
In addition there is the equivalence principle that an observer at rest
in an accelerating (non-inertial frame) feels an "inertial force" that
cannot be locally distinguished from a "gravity force" or "g-force."
Note that this "g-force" has nothing to do with tidal curvature which is
detected by a different operational procedure entirely. You can have two
neighboring weightless geodesic observers who detect a local curvature
field. The curvature tensor measurement is operationally distinct from
g-force measurements!
When I ask Hal what is the full symmetry group of his PV theory of
gravity? He is mute. Hal cannot say because he seems not to understand
what I am asking him. He falls back on the lame excuse that I am stupid
and simply do not understand his theory and that every one else who has
written to him privately understands it. Of course, Hal never produces
one example of these alleged private notes. He can do it removing the ID
so that we can all see what the idea is. Of course, I may be in error,
but Hal does not obey the standard rules of engagement in my peer review
of his theory. At this point Hal should list all my actual statements
that he thinks is in error and misrepresent his theory, and give
explanations that we all can look at. If indeed, he makes a good
argument and is correct I would say so. He has never done that not even
once to my satisfaction at least. Nor have any of the people he alludes
to who are obviously following the debate offered a critical defense of
his theories. This is a strange silence indeed.
Special Relativity 1905 works only with GIFs in globally flat 4D
space-time with the Poincare group. You need the additional local GCT
group to describe the relationships of the measurement data on the same
objective events between momentarily approximately coincident
non-inertial LNIF observers. This is true even if the space-time region
is flat with a zero tensor curvature field! GCT can be used, indeed
must be used, even in a 4D globally flat spacetime in order to be able
to answer a whole class of physical questions. This is an example of
Godel's incompleteness theorem in physics! Questions that have no answer
in Special Relativity have an answer even in globally flat spacetime
when you add the GCT group! This is why any physical theory of spacetime
must include GCT whether or not there is curvature. Hal and Mike do not
understand this deep physical idea and it is no wonder that ALL
alternative theories of "gravity", like Hal's version of PV, that do not
have GCT + local equivalence principle fail experimentally.
Define "metric." My understanding of "metric theory" was simply
ds^2 = guv(x)dx^udx^v (eq. I)
where guv(x) is a GCT tensor.
What is your more general formal definition that allows a distinction?
Be precise and detailed so I can see what you mean.
On May 13, 2004, at 4:49 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Your definition of 'metric theory' disagrees with that in MTW and in the
book by Will.
No it does not.
The formal definition of a metric theory is probably given by Schiff and
by Dicke. Roughly, it is a theory in which some quantity guv(x) is
sandwiched in between all products of vectors and (other) tensors which
go in to making the scalar action. In such a theory, the effective line
element is then ds^2 = g_{uv}(x)dx^udx^v as you have given. For example,
if in a g-free theory the EM interaction (in the action) is A^u j_u,
then in a metric theory it must appear as A^u g_{uv} j^v
That does not contradict what I said.
Satisfaction of the above ('metric theory requirement') is necessary
but not sufficient for a theory to be GCTI. In the last email I sent a
list of metric theories that are not GCTI.
And all those theories are wrong experimentally!
BTW you left out my two other equations
gu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)guv(P) (eq. II)
i.e. the basic "GCT" equation.
+ the local equivalence principle expressed as
guv(P) = Xu^a(P)Xv^b(P)nab (eq. III)
where nab is the FLAT 4D Minkowski metric in the geodesic LIF at P
guv(P) is the CURVED 4D metric in the LNIF at P
I am not sure that your statement that g_{uv}(x) is a GCT tensor means
anything.
It means the two equations I just wrote. I do not see how any of this
fancy dancing helps Hal's case for PV? Do you?
A theory as a whole may be GCTI, but each tensor in in the theory guv,
Fuv, ... may be changed under a coordinate transformation, whether or
not the theory as a whole is GCTI.
Huh? In any case, what's your point? How does this help justify Hal's PV
as a viable contender for metric engineering?
You seemed to agree with me before that all theories without GCT as I
mean in context of the three above LOCAL equations I, II, III disagree
with experiment including Hal's PV. Hal's PV without GCT is physically
incomplete in a Godelian sense as I explained above.
In a message dated 5/13/04 6:32:39 PM, sarf...@pacbell.net writes:
Jack: If you were to list my errors of understanding of your PV and ZPE
theories I would publish them and subject them to honest open debate.
... Show us.
On May 13, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Put...@aol.com wrote:
OK, let's start with this. It's a global issue in your arguments:
In a message dated 5/13/04 6:19:08 PM, sarf...@pacbell.net writes:
JS: By "metric theory" I mean a theory with a "metric tensor" therefore
GCT is implied.
HP: Your definition is just incorrect. There is a standard definition
in GR theory, and what you say is not it. Yes, metric theory means a
metric tensor is involved, but it does not necessarily imply GCT.
JS: Define the math you mean for "GCT." When I say "GCT" I mean the
local equation II above. I mean this:
gu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)guv(P) (eq. II)
What do you mean? Show us with the math. Even if my definition were in
some way incorrect. How does that help your PV theory, which Ibison says
lacks GCT?
HP: For starters, in Clifford Will's article, Ch. 2, p. 48 of Hawking's
and Israels's book "General Relativity," Will discusses Rosen's
bimetric theory. It is a metric theory, it has a metric tensor, but it
also has a background metric and so does not satisfy GCT. So a metric
theory with a metric tensor does not automatically imply GCT; only in
special cases (e.g., Einsteinian GR is one) is that the case.
JS: So what's your point here? How does this help establish your PV as a
plausible model for metric engineering. Who says Rosen's bimetric theory
is any good? Does it explain the observations? Is it a hot topic in the
key physics journals on relativity? No. I gave you my meaning for GCT in
eq II,
HP: Ibison gave you all the references about this issue. Check them
out. I now see why you have had so much confusion over this issue, and
have said the (incorrect) things you have said in attempting to assess
much of my work.
JS: Your logic here is bogus. Show us explicitly how any of the
references you just gave above justifies your PV? Since I am sure that
every one is now confused let me ask:
Q1. Does your PV have GCT or not?
My understanding is that it does not.
Suppose your PV is a metric theory without GCT.
Q2. How does this help your argument?
Q3. What is the complete symmetry group of your PV theory?
Remember tensors are defined relative to a given symmetry group.
Q4. Remember, I say the physical meaning of GCT is that it shows us how
to compare local observations on the same events made by two coincident
observers looking at same events in their neighborhood of coincidence.
Do you agree with that or not?
Therefore, if you agree, that means PV is physically incomplete in the
operational sense of PW Bridgman.
Q5. Suppose for the sake of argument, I was wrong about metric theories
and GCT, how does that help your argument for PV?
Q6. Do you agree that a theory that makes wrong predictions should be
abandoned?
Q7. If yes on Q6, why do you still cling to PV that gives a wrong
prediction on the pulsar data as shown by Ibison?
Q8. How many fudge factors will you add before giving up?
BTW, now that I have coaxed you into a rational substantive discussion
with the PRAVDA articles, I will include this in Super Cosmos to give a
fair representation of your position on PV. :-)
However, even if I granted you this point. I do not see how it helps
your case? Please explain.