Brian Greene's PBS NOVA Elegant Universe

Never has so much tax money been spent on a physics theory (M -Theory in 
"Elegant Universe" on NOVA), aside from "hot fusion", with so little 
contact with experimental fact. Nevertheless, M Theory may be on the 
right track to my program of "Making Star Trek" real. Note how Brian 
Greene talks to ET on the telephone like in 1953 in my book "Destiny 
Matrix" (2002) and how the idea of time travel to parallel brane worlds 
is taken seriously - as the UFO facts suggest it should be. Brian has 
made my ideas on the potential consequences of the New Physics much more 
mainstream.

On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 07:25 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

JS: Locally gauge the globally flat Poincare group to get the curved
spacetime

guv(curved) - nuv(global flat) = huv(curved)

as the compensating field.

PZ: [I suppose your "nuv(global flat)" is my "nuv(flat level)" -- the 
Minkowski metric?]

JS: Yes, obviously. There is, like God, only one globally flat 
metricthough it is unstable. Beware False Metrics!

PZ: Yes, indeed. Let us not worship idols. :-)

At the same time, one man's god is another's idol.

I have that on the authority of no less than Gen. Boykin.

JS: Whose Bodkin?
...

PZ: In order to understand the full Freud-Yilmaz decomposition at a 
fundamental level, I am arguing that there is no need to split the 
metric g_uv itself -- only the gravitational and inertial contributions 
to the *gradients* of the metric g_uv, w that appear in the Christoffel 
symbols. The beauty of this is that it allows an interpretive "gestalt 
switch" without disturbing the mathematical elegance of the Einsteinian 
unified metric g_uv. It
leaves the unified metric intact, while it merely decomposes the  g_uv, 
w and thus the connection field.

JS: I do not see you doing anything other than the trivial and obvious 
entirely inside Einstein's paradigm

Connection g-force = Tensor + Non-Tensor

In an LIF Connection = 0

PZ: Of course I would prefer to spin this as "true and correct" and
"mathematically unassailable". :-)

JS: Physically accurate. Astronauts float.

PZ: I seem to recall that it has taken me a more than a year to get you 
to agree
even to this.

JS: False. I always knew that. It's one of Wheeler's key teachings. I 
did not realize
that was all you were talking about in your obscure use of ordinary 
language. Hadyou simply written the math as I did above I would have 
instantly understood what you were trying to say.  The fault Dear Brutus 
was in the lack of clarity of using too many English words with their 
seven types of ambiguities to cloud a very simple formal issueand 
informal or "physical" concept and you call that "compensation" fine. 
You do not need excess metaphysical baggage, which is what Hal clouds 
the issue with in his infamous heretical Tables I & II as if he were 
Moses - The Real Sarfatti. ;-)

PZ: In another context, you and your friends say that you have decomposed
the 2-particle wave function of orthodox QM into its real and imaginary 
components:

Psi(r,t) =  R(r,t) EXP [iS/hbar]

and then you define Q as

Q = (-hbar^2/2m) {(DEL_1^2 + DEL_2^2) R} /R

Fine, but so what?

I do not see that this is any more than a trivial mathematical 
rearrangement.
However, if you want to call the Q derived from real part of this 
decomposition a "quantum potential", go ahead. I doubt that this will 
shake the marble temple of Copenhagenism. So let's not take any of that 
too seriously. After all, who needs all this excess
metaphysical baggage? "Who ordered that?"

JS: A read of "The Undivided Universe" shows why that is not a valid 
comparison.

In no sense is huv small in this local gauging, which is not 
perturbative relative to flat background. Unfortunately the same 
notation is used in perturbation theory.

PZ: As far as I can see this has nothing to do with perturbation theory 
or linearized GR. The Freud decomposition is exact in a broad class of 
internally consistent geometrodynamic theories of which Einstein GR is 
supposed to be an example.

JS: Sure. I never implied otherwise.

PZ: OK, so this is now clear and agreed?

JS: Yes, but it is a peripheral issue.
A Poincare group local stress-energy density tensor for the first order
perturbative gravity where h'uv is small can be defined of course, so 
that may be
at least one of the pseudotensors in the Freud identity?

PZ: Again, the Freud theorem is exact and quite general, and so is the
underlying decomposition I am proposing.

JS: But it's trivial in the orthodox formalism.

PZ: Excellent.

Again trivially even in the full non-perturbative case

Tuv(Gravity) = (String Tension)Guv(Geometry)

and in the non-exotic vacuum where the Diff(4) divergence-free

Tuv(Source Mass-Energy) = 0

Tuv(Gravity) = 0

PZ: OK.

JS: because the local Einstein field equation in that case is

Tuv(Gravity) + Tuv(Source Mass-Energy) = 0

Note that the supreme objective of our guerrilla mission on this 
primitive planet is "metric engineering" which the ordinary Bianchi 
identities strictly forbid. It's like orthodox QM strictly forbids 
signal nonlocality. All the really juicy stuff is "forbidden fruit." 
Theoretical physics has been taken over by Vegans on Macrobiotics! ;-)

I mean when Bianchi identities hold

Tuv(Gravity)^;v = 0

and that stops us dead in the water for metric engineering star gates 
and weightless warp drives.

You need to intermingle the "underground stream" of the Vacuum Einstein 
Current with the Matter Einstein Current.  You do not want

Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

all by itself.  The vacuum propeller demands only that the SUM VANISHES 
not the individual terms in

Tuv(Marble)^;v + Tuv(Wood)^;v = 0

"Marble" = "Geometry"

"Wood" = "Matter" in general sense.

Again note

Tuv(Geometry) = (String Tension)Guv(Einstein)

I am not aware that Hal Puthoff or anyone else has made this point 
before as essential to the metric engineering tricks of Once and Future 
Men Like Gods? Perhaps there is something to Picknett's and Prince's 
"The Star Gate Conspiracy" after all?
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/stargate.htm
http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/item300/item359.html

Caveat: It has wacko pseudo-archaeology of course.

PZ: But then you have to argue that the vacuum stress-energy is non-local,
as Einstein did. Which makes it very difficult to make sense out of 
gravitational waves -- among many other things.

JS: NO! NO! NO! You have garbled two different problems.
Tuv(Gravity) here is LOCAL.

PZ: I was assuming that by "Tuv(Gravity)" you were referring to a vacuum
stress-energy.

If not, then what exactly is "Tuv(Gravity)"?

JS:

Tuv(Gravity) = (String Tension)Guv(Einstein)

"Gravity" = "Geometry" = "Non-Exotic Vacuum" = "Marble"

Guv(Einstein) = Ruv(Ricci) - (1/2)R(Ricci)guv


Tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (String Tension)/\zpfguv

Total LOCAL Diff(4)stress-energy density tensor equation is balancing 
the Scales of Cosmic Justice

Tuv(Exotic + Non-Exotic "Marble") + Tuv("Wood") = 0

where, in general the separate terms on LHS DO NOT HAVE VANISHING DIVERGENCE
only their sum's divergence vanishes.

This is Action-Reaction "compensation" in your favorite sense for the 
Marble-Wood Einstein stress-energy current densities.

These are all bona-fide local Diff(4) tensors. No Freud identity needed. 
No computation of global "far field gravity wave"  Pu and Muv in 
asymptotic flat geometries needed for the strictly "near field" metric 
engineering application to "Make Star Trek" with Q real. Note LIGO not 
seeing gravity waves.  Gravity waves no good for metric engineering they 
are like a leaky toilet. You want to trap energy not let it fade away to 
distant places and times and even other brane worlds perhaps.


PZ: The Einstein pseudotensor u_uv was originally supposed by Einstein 
to be a
stress-energy density that would account for the energy-momentum stored in
the gravitational field, in order to specify the total energy-momentum of a
closed system of gravitating masses.

The real LOCAL tensor here is simply

Tuv(Gravity) = (String Tension)Guv

which is zero in the non-exotic vacuum limit.

In general exotic vacuum

Tuv(Gravity) + (String Tension)/\zpfguv = 0

The zero point energy density for any observer with 4 velocity V^u is

(String Tension)/\zpfguvV^uV^v

where, for h = c = 1

/\zpf = (String Tension)[(String Tension)^-3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1)

Non-Exotic Vacuum is when /\zpf = 0.

Vacuum Coherence obeys Diff(4) covariant LOCAL nonlinear Landau-Ginzburg 
type equation.


PZ: It was Schrodinger, and then Bauer, that showed (in 1918) that this 
quantity was
locally frame-dependent, since it could be made to locally vanish or 
appear at will
by a suitable choice of coordinates.

JS: They may be asking the wrong question?

"The Question is: What is "The Question"?"  (Wheeler)

PZ: Einstein in the same year showed how one could integrate the u4 part 
of this vacuum
density over a large volume of space in order to obtain an *approximately*
invariant measure of the energy-momentum in a spatial region, even while 
the local
field energy density u_uv itself was entirely frame-dependent:

J_u = INT[T_uv(matter) + u_u4(field)] dx_1 dx_2 dx_3

JS: Yes, the key word is missing it is "global". And "invariant" means a 
sloppy kind of quasi-Poincare invariance
only in the asymptotically flat regions. It's a clumsy idea to begin 
which showing that MACRO-QUANTUM EMERGENT
relativity physics is only simple when its local.

PZ: What is really strange about this from my and others' POV is that 
these "non-local"
integrals are never *really* frame-independent over finite volumes 
except in certain
artificial limiting conditions -- and  thus cannot generally provide any 
*objective*
measure of field energy-momentum -- even while the covariant metric 
field g_uv and its
derivatives are perfectly definite *at every point in spacetime*.

JS:, OK but that's from asking the wrong kinds of questions.  MTW like 
to generalize the Stoke's/Gauss flux integral theorems to the 
pre-metrical "boundary of a boundary is zero", but obviously curvature 
collides with topology and one cannot think in terms of topology alone.

PZ; Considering that in Einstein's theory g_uv is supposed to *define 
the entire
physical reality* of the g-field, I and others can only suspect that 
this points to a
fundamental conceptual problem in the Einsteinian model.

The question is: What is it?

JS: It is ZERO in non-exotic vacuum.

PZ: How do you define this quantity "Tuv(Gravity)"?  With respect to 
which theory?
*What* is zero?

JS: In orthodox GR

Ruv = 0

is the non-exotic local vacuum field equation.

R = 0

Therefore Guv = 0

Therefore

Tuv(Gravity) = (String Tension)Guv = 0

only in non-exotic vacuum.

Metric engineering is its pure form is from

Tuv(Gravity) + (String Tension)/\zpfguv = 0

with

/\zpf^,v =/= 0.

This is a violation of Bianchi identities like "presponse" signal 
nonlocality is a violation of micro-quantum reality!
God is subtle, but not malicious.
God would never settle for a "boring universe" without star gate time 
travel and weightless warp drive IMHO. ;-)


Computing the nonlocal flux integrals for Pu and Muv in an asymptotic
space-time is a horse of a different color.

PZ: This has nothing specifically to do with asymptotically flat 
spacetime, so is it
really me who is confused here? Of course the situation is *similar* in some
respects when we want to compute these approximately invariant integrals in
the approximately "flat" spacetime region far from any source -- but the 
question
of non-locality of u_uv and the *approximate* invariance of *any* such 
integrals
formed from it over finite spatial volumes is quite general in scope.

JS: Oh no? What about Ch 20 of MTW?  My understanding of your 
"invariance" is that it is a kind of asymptotic Poincare
group not a local Diff(4) group.

The reason for the need for these pseudo-tensors is, I suspect, the 
collision between metric and topology. They are not independent although 
I suppose local metric geometry is the slave of global topology.


JS: : You have confounded apples with oranges

PZ: : I have? Are you sure?

JS: Pretty much. We are talking about different problems. I am not 
interested right now in gravity waves which is what all your stuff is 
really about. The Pu and Muv Fourier transforms are the power spectra of 
the gravity waves from the source geometry.  It's all "far field" 
radiation in the asymptotically flat regions. I mean that's what those 
Flux Integrals are all about. The "Flux" is gravity waves through the 
bounding surfaces.

PZ: Strictly speaking, there are no proper analogs in Einstein GR to the 
energy and
momentum integrals of Newtonian theory. There is no question about this.

JS: Fine, but that is not my problem. My problem is LOCAL metric 
engineering where leakage into gravity waves and EM waves is an 
annoyance especially for stealth "cloaking" of spacecraft.

PZ: Obviously Einstein thought that this was important in 1918, since he 
struggled to
find such analogs. Schrodinger also regarded the issue as fundamentally 
significant
for Newtonian correspondence.

JS: I am not denying the importance of the problem for foundational 
studies. I am only trying to distinguish that your problem is not the 
one that interests me, which is metric engineering.

PZ: If one can find a simple way to fix this problem in a manner that is 
fully consistent
with the fundamental theorems of geometrodynamics, that makes intuitive
physical sense, and that is consistent with all available empirical 
data, then I would
have thought that such an opportunity would be welcomed with open arms.

Apparently not.

JS: When I have time I will go back to MTW Ch 20 and try to say what 
they are doing in simple terms.

like when you
thought that string theory's removal of UV renormalization infinity
explained the
smallness of the cosmological constant. Witten is very clear that is
not the case.

PZ: Well, you may have a point there -- but that's another kettle of fish.

JS: Right it is the Moby Dick of Physics Today. You are fishing for 
minnows with this problem.
In any case you would need to come up with something amazing and precise 
that explained some
mysterious data of profound importance.

Pu is not a simple flux integral of Tuv(Geometry)= 0 since Pu(Geometry)
=/ = 0 in general.

PZ: Did I say any of this was simple in standard GR? I thought I was 
saying that it is
surprisingly complicated.

I am still not clear as to what exactly your Tuv(Geometry) is.

JS: By now I hope you are. It is exceedingly straight forward.

Tuv(Gravity) = (String Tension)Guv(Einstein)