| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2006 09:07:54 PM |
| Object: |
Debate on Emergent Gravity 4 |
"It is true that your suggestion for the introducing the tetrad fields
is based on physical ideas and they are intuitively correct, but this
does not means that you have a correct theory.
Best regards,"
Waldyr
Above statement by Waldyr is a major change and his abstract in the
archive should reflect it.
This "Hilbert action" issue is a bogus Red Herring Paul.
No one ever "derives" an action in physics.
One writes actions and sees if they work.
It's purely empirical based on intuition and physical sense.
My "derivation" of GR means I show how the 4 tetrad 1-forms
and the 6 spin connection 1-forms from Kibble's 1961 local
gauging of the Poincare group, for all non-gravity source actions, are
ALSO emergent from
8 independent Goldstone phases of a vacuum ODLRO Higgs field exactly like
v = (h/m)dTheta
in superfluid helium.
This is very interesting.
Not only that, but it seamlessly locks in with
1. Bekenstein's 1 BIT per Quantum of Area
2. Susskind's "world hologram" where
&L = Lp^2/3L^1/3
3. Predicts a Kleinert "world lattice" with spacing 1 fermi using actual
dark energy data
from precision cosmology.
Now is it a "correct theory"? Meaning what? Not only the anti-string
theory books of Smolin and Woit, but even the
pro-string theory book of M. Kaku (his advanced text) admit that string
theory is not mathematically sound as yet,
lacks an organizing idea and does not even have a canonical set of
equations - yet most theoretical physicists today
are "string theorists" - also see Roger Penrose on this topic in "The
Road to Reality."
Compared to string theory my theory is in good shape. The point is that
Waldyr was certainly using a double standard. I never claim a FINAL
"correct theory" here only that I am on to an interesting approach that
actually correlates data and makes predictions testable in principle
like the 1 fermi coherence length for the world SUPERSOLID vacuum ODLRO
field out of which curved spacetime with torsion (i.e. tetrads and spin
connections) emerge with a renormalizable quantum gravity very likely
because of t'Hooft's general results on spin 1 Yang-Mills theories of
internal groups that also apply to Kibble 1961.
I have TWO ORGANIZING IDEAS - string theory has NONE.
My two organizing ideas are:
Locally gauge ALL dynamical rigid continuous symmetries of the action.
Spontaneously break symmetry to get a "classical world" without
Schrodinger Cats.
Note Wheeler Superspace is a mistake if I am correct!
Therefore Paul what you write below is completely irrelevant missing my
point
i.e. emergence of the Kibble 1961 tetrads & spin connections of local
Poincare group
FROM a Higgs vacuum ODLRO INFLATION FIELD with 8 Goldstone phases.
Like "Who ordered that?" I. Rabi
PS. R. Kiehn's macro-spinor for a non-equilibrium inflation-based
cosmology may play a role.
PPS Paul - also you err below "O(1,3) is 6-parameter not enough. Utiyama
did that and did not get the tetrads that
he had to put in by hand. Only when you locally gauge the 10-parameter
Poincare group T4xO(1,3) do you get
4 tetrad 1-forms with GCTs + 6 spin-connection 1-forms that together
allow you to make
1. An Einstein metric field
2. A connection field for Riemannian geometry parallel transport
3. A geodesic deviation curvature
4. A torsion field coupled to spinning matter beyond Einstein 1915
Note you can do most of the above from locally gauging T4 alone!
You still get "redundant" spin connections reminiscent of the "dummy" EM
vector potential
in Wheeler-Feynman advanced-retarded action at a distance along light cone
theory & J. Cramer's transaction QM. See Hoyle & Narlikar.
Jack Sarfatti
jacksarfatti@sbcglobal.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
- Albert Einstein
On Nov 21, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Paul Greenberg wrote:
Please change to:
"It seems to me that ideally you would be able to get the Hilbert
action directly from your emergent fields. Then once you have that,
locally gauging O(1,3) and then requiring invariance of the action
gives you Kibble's version of GR. But then once you have the
Lagrangian, a more traditional variational approach would also give
you GR."
--- In Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Greenberg"
<xerberos@...> wrote:
It seems to me that ideally you would be able to get the Hilbert
action directly from your emergent fields. Then once you have that,
locally gauging O(1,3) and then requiring invariance of the action
gives you Kibble. But then so would a more traditional variational
approach.
..
__,_._,___
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
