Science > Physics > Hal Puthoff on Metric Engineering the Fabric of Space-Time
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2005 02:20:42 PM |
| Object: |
Hal Puthoff on Metric Engineering the Fabric of Space-Time |
Memorandum For The Record
re: http://stardrive.org
Subject: Feasibility of Practical Metric Engineering of Warp, Wormhole &
WMD (AKA W^3)
From: ALINTEL Dark Energy Propulsion Group of The Invisible College
(Black Operations)
On Feb 14, 2005, at 3:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Metric engineering is the artificial warping of the fabric of space-time
using SMALL amounts of electrical power on board the "flying saucers" -
as small as a single AAA battery perhaps? ;-)
http://www.streetpeddler.com/cgi-bin/street/dynam.html?prod_group=toys&category=over_10&type=Energetic%20Bunny
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/coffee.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/Saturn.html
The context here are Russian claims for torsion field-based advanced
weapons systems combined with a seeming glimmer of a confirmation from
an American physicist on a US Navy contract that subsequently went
"black" as well as http://americanantigravity.com/eric-davis.shtml for
the PV version of metric engineering.
When one reads Nick Cook's book "The Hunt For Zero Point" re:
Podkletnov, Ning Li and previous alleged Nazi experiments
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_26/ai_94044223
rotation of a macro-quantum object seems to be important. Now we have
"supersolids" as well as superconductors. Is the flying saucer shell a
high Tc nano-smart super solid? (e.g. my 1969 paper "Destruction of
superflow in unsaturated 4He films and the prediction of a new
crystalline phase of 4He with Bose-Einstein condensation." Physics
Letters, Vol 30A, no 5 3 November 1969 pp 300-1).
Exchange between Hal Puthoff & Jack Sarfatti
Jack: c' = c/K is not observable. That is an error in Hal's theory.
Hal Puthoff: "Wrong, not an error. In the PV approach, locally one
always measures c with distorted rods and clocks, true (see my Found.
Phys. paper); but globally one measures c' = c/K = c[1-2GM/rc^2], as in
the Shapiro Effect. So c' = c/K is globally observable."
Jack: It is clear that I meant "c' = c/K is not a LOCAL observable". I
keep emphasizing that GR is essentially a LOCAL theory. "Physics is
simple when it is local." (Wheeler). Hal is being very sloppy here. We
have seen from Z's quotes of Cliff Will how very complicated and
delicate the Shapiro time delay is. So how exactly does Hal propose to
"measure" a local value c' = c/K at a given r by a global Shapiro
technique? Note I say "measure" not "infer" by a calculation. Nowhere in
his PV papers does he explain this. He should explain it now if USG
Defense is to get seriously involved in attempting to use PV for
practical metric engineering. In fact I am in touch with USG physicists
at an important national laboratory with a very serious interest in
these matters to this is not mere idle armchair chatter of Zielinski's
"meta-theoretic" kind! :-) I am basically vetting Hal's
behind-the-scenes proposals to USG and, as one good turn deserves
another I collegially invite Hal to shoot my theory out of the sky the
same way I am doing to his theory -- Golden Rule and all that. :-)
The Shapiro effect is a complicated average over many "r", it is not a
local measurement of c/K(r) for a single r. Also the Red Shift, the
closest Hal does come to the issue in his papers is simply
dt(r) = dt(r')
dT(r)/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2 = dT(r')/(1 - 2GM/c^2r')^1/2
Frequency of real photon signal f(r) ~ 1/dT(r)
in SSS case.
I gave the general formula for the LOCAL physical speed of light =/=
local coordinate speed of light in any configuration of detectors as
c' = c[1 - gu>v(dx^u/cdT)(dx^v/cdT)]^1/2
"u>v" means summation convention over all off-diagonal metric components
u =/= v
None of Hal's PV models have these terms. When they are absent
c' = c as in the SSS case and there is never an actual local physical
measurement of
c' = c/K = c/g00
Obviously one can CALCULATE it from the direct LOCAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT.
Nowhere in Hal's PV does he conceive of LIF observers. This is another
reason why his PV theory was rejected by The Pundits of GR 17 who had
looked at it. (Baez, Will, Visser, Unruh & others) Hal has no
equivalent to the Kerr solution for a rotating source - another serious
defect in his program. Also, Hal & Eric have no practical way to change
K significantly. This is where the alleged Ivanov effect comes to the
fore. I also had a glimmer of a scheme using a dielectric resonance, or
maybe a BEC resonance in a high Tc nano-engineered super-solid for the
fuselage of the "flying saucer"?
On Feb 14, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
re: Destruction of superflow in unsaturated 4He films and the prediction
of a new crystalline phase of 4He with Bose-Einstein condensation.
Physics Letters, Vol 30A, no 5 3 November 1969 pp 300-1 by me.
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:46 PM, G ... C... wrote:
Jack,
For the record I strongly encourage you to send a letter to Physics
Today pointing out the contributions of yourself and Chester prior to
Leggett.
So the Chester paper is not well-known? Is Leggett's paper considered
the beginning of the history of super solids? As I recall David Bergmann
from Israel helped me on that paper and I spoke with Rudnick & Goodstein
then as well on visits to Feynman. Looks like super solids is getting
important now. I will have to catch up. There is a session on them at
APS March 2005 in LA.
Proof of
c' = c[1 - gu>v(dx^u/cdT)(dx^v/cdT)]^1/2
Start with SSS. Make any tensor transformation. I gave you the effective
procedure on how to calculate any shift in c for any case.
0 = guvdx^udx^v
dT = (-goo)^1/2dx^0
dL = [(g11)(dx^1)^2 + (g22)(dx^2)^2 + (g33)(dx^3)^2]^1/2
The total vacuum speed of light in this metric representation is BY
DEFINITION (it has correct limiting properties)
c' = dL/dT
Where
0 = -c^2dT^2 + dL^2 + gu>vdx^udx^v
The 3rd term on RHS is ALL the OFF-DIAGONAL TERMS
c^2 = (dL/dT)^2 + gu>v(dx^u/dT)(dx^v/dT)
c^2 = c'^2 + gu>v(dx^u/dT)(dx^v/dT)
c' = c[1 - gu>v(dx^u/cdT)(dx^v/cdT)]^1/2
Is the general formula.
Example: Sagnac Effect
Let's look at rotating frames in Einstein's theory. Start with a
non-rotating inertial frame K in Einstein's 1905 special relativity.
Direct warping of spacetime by real matter or by the virtual matter of
dark energy and dark matter will be neglected. Think of a Merry Go Round!
The space-time geometry in the global inertial frame K has the metric form
ds^2 - c^2dT^2 - dX^2 - dY^2 - dZ^2
Since kids are playing on the Merry Go Round we take it real slow and
gentle with a Galilean transformation to the rotating non-inertial frame
K about z axis at w RPM.
T = t i.e. ABSOLUTE COORDINATE TIME in this slow rotation limiting case.
X = xcoswt - ysinwt
Y = xsinwt + ycoswt
Z = z
Therefore, from Newton's calculus, the first-order differentials are
dX = dxcoswt - xwdtsinwt - dysinwt - ywdtcoswt
dY = dxsinwt + xwdtcoswt + dycoswt - ywctsinwt
Substitute dX & dY into INVARIANT ds^2 to get
ds^2 = [c^2 - w^2(x^2 + y^2)]dt^2 + 2wydxdt - 2wxdydt - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2
There is no real event horizon here like in a black hole because the
Galilean approximation here is
(w/c)^2(x^2 + y^2) << 1
The dimensionless gravimagnetic field is
Bi = goi
Bx = 2wy/c, By = 2wx/c, Bz = 0
What is the speed of light measured by an non-inertial observer fixed in
the rotating frame?
ds = 0 for a ray of light.
Therefore
0 = [1 - (wr/c)^2](cdt)^2 - dL^2 - (Bxdx + Bydy)(cdt)
r^2 = x^2 + y^2 = distance from axis of rotation in cylindrical coordinates
dL^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
The physical time measured by a clock fixed to the rotating frame at r
will be, according to Einstein's SR time dilation and the GR principle
of equivalence
dT = [1 - (wr/c)^2]^1/2dt
The metric equation for the ray of light is then
0 = (cdT)^2 - dL^2 - (B.dr)(cdt) = (cdT)^2 - dL^2 - (B.dr)(cdT)(1 -
(wr/c)^2)^-1/2
Divide by dT^2
c^2 - (dL/dT)^2 - B.(dr/dT)c(1 - (wr/c)^2)^-1/2
dL/dT = c[1 - (B/c).(dr/dT)(1 - (wr/c)^2)^-1/2]^1/2
Obviously dL/dt = c is the speed of light in vacuum for the non-rotating
inertial frame. The rotation has changed the physical speed of light.
Note however that the speed of light does not change in a the vacuum
surrounding a nonrotating spherically symmetric mass.
Note that dr/dT = wr[1 - (wr/c)^2]^1/2
therefore, the vacuum speed of light in the rotating non-inertial frame is
dL/dT = c[1 - (B/c).(dr/dT)(1 - (wr/c)^2)^-1/2]^1/2
dL/dt = c[1 - Bwr/c]^1/2
where Bwr/c << 1
dL/dt ~ c(1 +- B|w|r/2c)
Note that when we change the sense of rotation w -> -w, the shift in the
speed of light reverses as well analogous to a pseudo-scalar violating
parity in the weak force of beta decay radioactivity.
The effective gravity here does not decay to zero at infinity like a
real gravity field from a compact source. See Landau & Lifshitz
"Classical Theory of Fields" Ch 10.
Hal Puthoff "Einstein himself discussed this and wrote down the equation
for the slowing of the speed of light in 'The Meaning of Relativity'
(5th Edition) Princeton University Press, p. 93, Eq. (107). I quote:
"The velocity of light L is therefore expressed in our coordinates by
sqrt[dx_1)^2 ...]/dl = 1-(K/4 pi)*integral(sigma dV_o/r). With c=1, K =
G in his notation, this means c' = c[1-2GM/rc^2] (which in PV notation
is c' = c/K)."
Jack: Where does Einstein say that this coordinate value is directly
measurable? That is the issue.
Note on p. 91 eq. (106) Einstein has for the SSS case, there in
isotropic coordinates, but in the weak field approximation GM/c^2r << 1
both my
dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2
dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
dR^2 = dX^2 + dY^2 + dZ^2
(not same as Schwarzschild radial coordinate)
dT = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2dt
Followed by "The unit measuring rod has therefore the coordinate length
1 - GM/c^2r
in respect to the system of coordinates we have selected."
This is why
dR = dr/(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^1/2 > dr
i.e. the ruler shrinks in the gravity field of curved space so that the
actual measured lengths are larger compared to flat Euclidean space.
The above cited discussion by Einstein is prefaced by "we have the
possibility of getting the relation between naturally measured lengths
and times, on the one hand, and the corresponding differences of
coordinates, on the other hand" Obviously, Hal
dR & dT = "naturally measured lengths and times" in the REST LNIF, i.e.
in the chosen "system of coordinates"
dr & dt = "corresponding differences of coordinates"
It must be the REST LNIF because there are NO DISTORTIONS of rods and
clocks in the COINCIDENT LIFS where Einstein writes (p. 90) defining the
LIFs ABSENT in Puthoff's PV theory: "According to the principle of
equivalence, the metrical relations of the Euclidean geometry are valid
relatively to a Cartesian system of reference of infinitely small
dimensions, and in a suitable state of motion (freely falling and
without rotation)"
From the stormy negative energy Dirac Sea to the pacific dark energy
Higgs Ocean:
Lorentz tried to make a substratum dynamical "aether" theory for this,
in the case of SR length contraction, as far back as 1895. That is OK
since GR geometrodynamics is MOOT on how Nature does it. It only demands
that whatever the substratum dynamics is that it be UNIVERSAL obeying
the the LOCAL EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE OF GRAVITY AND INERTIA. Now I have
in fact accomplished what Lorentz started in 1895 using the modern idea
of PW Anderson's "More is different" AKA ODLRO, "spontaneous breakdown
of group G symmetry in the lowest energy state of the dynamical system
in which the Action is invariant under G. The substratum i.e. the
Lorentzian "aether" as it were, out of which Einstein's gravity and the
dark energy emerge together, is called the "Higgs Ocean" by Brian
Greene, the "Multi-Layered Multi-Colored Cosmic Superconducting Field"
by Frank Wilczek and the "Vacuum Coherence" by me. Now you can choose
between Hal Puthoff's drab torn full of large holes "PV without PV" or
my Jacob's Coat of Many Colors with with to part the Red Sea, i.e. Star
Gates to the Universes Next Door,! :-)
Einstein continued: "however we may choose a system of coordinates, the
laws of configuration of rigid rods do not agree with those of Euclidean
geometry". In contrast, they do agree in the LIF that is the LOCAL
equivalence principle noticeably missing in Hal Puthoff's PV - another
reason why The Pundits of GR 17, where Hawking made his last dramatic
announcement in Dublin in July 2005 that I attended, reject Hal's
theory. Indeed, Hal's co-worker Mike Ibison at IAS Austin confirmed in
writing that PV is not compatible with GCT (general coordinate
transformations). GCT and EEP (LOCAL equivalence of gravity and inertia
are tightly connected in Einstein's theory like "Love and Marriage").
Therefore, Hal cannot even claim that his PV agrees with GR not even in
the weak field limit! Hal's PV is like The Crawling Hand in The Munsters
http://mst3k.booyaka.com/references_guide/106.html - a small fragment of
the whole.
Hal: "What is it we say? Wake up and smell the coffee?"
Jack: Actually I first wrote it with Bob Toben and Fred Alan Wolf in
1974 while writing the New Age meta-theoretic cartoon book "Space-Time
and Beyond" (Dutton 1975) copied in books like Itzak Bentov's "Stalking
The Wild Pendulum". Details are in my autobiography "Destiny Matrix" on
http://amazon.com. Imitation is a form of flattery. Thanks Hal. :-)
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
