Science > Physics > The theories of Yilmaz, Puthoff & Haisch on Gravity and Zero PointEnergy
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 12:54:46 AM |
| Object: |
The theories of Yilmaz, Puthoff & Haisch on Gravity and Zero PointEnergy |
Go to p. 465 (20.19)
"For coordinate changes in the distant, asymptotically flat regions,
LINEARIZED theory guarantees that under [global] Lorentz transformations
the integrals" for total linear and angular momentum "will transform as
special relativistic tensors, and that under INFINITESIMAL coordinate
transformations (gauge changes) they will be INVARIANT. Because
tuv(Matter-Gravity) ARE NOT TENSOR COMPONENTS, THEY CAN VANISH AT A
POINT IN ONE COORDINATE SYSTEM BUT NOT IN ANOTHER."
Then go to 20.4 for the clincher refutation of Yilmaz! Trying to do what
Yilmaz proposes and what Puthoff and Davis promote, Wheeler, Thorne &
Misner write:
"Right? No, the question is wrong. The motivation is wrong. The result
is wrong. The idea is wrong. ... At issue is not the existence of
gravity energy, but the LOCALIZABILITY of gravitational energy. It is
not localizable. The equivalence principle forbids."
You cannot be much clearer than that. Wheeler, Thorne and Misner have
many peer reviewed in US Journals Captain Collins! Hawking, Penrose,
Rees, Rindler, Visser, Unruh all agree. In fact you will find no top
physicist in that field who thinks Yilmaz's theory is any good at at
all. Anyone who attempts to localize the gravity energy will be simply
ignored by the physicists who really count in the field - and BTW who
control ALL OF THE USG RESEARCH FUNDS in the field and rightly so.
The zero point energy and gravity theories proposed by Puthoff, Davis,
Haisch et-al have no chance of ever working and to apply them to the
problem of metric engineering of warp and wormhole is like applying
Lysenkoism to stem cell research and bio-technology, or applying
philogiston theory to chemical synthesis. One might as well dance like a
Shaman and rattle voodoo sticks.
Indeed, the natural physical reason that the gravity-matter coupling
energy-momentum pseudo-tensor is coordinate-dependent is because the
frame-dependent contribution is from the external non-gravity work done
to keep the detector from moving freely, weightlessly along a timelike
geodesic. This pseudo-tensor "inhomogeneous" part is
tuv(Matter-Gravity). It is not for the gravity field alone. That tensor
is simply
tuv(Gravity's Virtual Dark Energy/Matter) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
guv(Gravity) = nuv(No Gravity) + 1u^InIJBv^J + Bu^InIJ1v^J + Bu^InIJBv^J
B = Budx^u = Bu^Idx^u&I = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argphi)
d = Cartan exterior derivative of the 0-form argphi
= Goldstone phase of the World Hologram.
Where the coherent vacuum condensate phi potential V(phi) is pictured in
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_27_jpg.htm
B is a 1-form. Its Hodge dual *B is a 3-form.
In 1915 GR, B fully determines the SPIN-CONNECTION needed to do Dirac's
quantum equation on curved space-time.
John Archibald Wheeler wrote:
17.2 p. 407 Gravitation with Thorne & Misner
"there exists no tensor with components constructable from the ten
metric coefficients and their forty first derivatives - except the
metric tensor and products of it with itself"
Use the equivalence principle to prove this.
17.4 Uniqueness of Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv
20.1 p. 460 on the "nonlocalizability of the energy of the gravitational
field".
"a stress-energy pseudotensor for the gravitational field, which is a
tool in constructing volume integrals" for the the total 4-momentum and
total angular momentum ONLY in asymptotically flat space-times!
The local integrands in the global flux integrals are not Diff(4) gauge
invariant. p.463 Only the total integrals are. This is one mathematical
way to define the nonlocality of the gravity vacuum energy! Remember
local gauging of T4 is Diff(4).
BTW Wheeler solves Kretschmann's problem by adding "simplicity" of the
geometrodynamic tensor equations to their Diff(4) covariance (invariance
of form). "One must apply the flux integrals (20.9) only in
asymptotically Minkowskian coordinates." Total mass-energy is a limited
concept. On the flux integrals (20.9) p. 462 you can easily produce
nonsense if you use curvilinear coordinates naively.
On Aug 21, 2005, at 5:16 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The only time one measures a g-force is when the detector is not on a
timelike geodesic in the curved space-time. This is impossible without a
non-gravity force acting to push the detector off a weightless geodesic.
Therefore, any "gravity energy" measure on the non-geodesic is really
non-gravity energy from the work done by the non-gravity force. This
follows from the equivalence principle that the "gravity force" is
locally equivalent to an "inertial force". This is physical meaning of
the pseudo-tensor in
Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + (Levi-Civita)Tuv(Matter) terms = 0
,v is the ordinary partial derivative
The (Levi-Civita) factor is only NON-ZERO where there is a NON-GRAVITY
FORCE acting on the detector!
In fact, there is no such thing as a "gravity force". Every time one
measures a "g-force", i.e. "weight" you are really measuring a
NON-GRAVITY force. This is why any attempt, like Yilmaz's, to construct
a NON-VANISHING local gravity stress-energy tensor is wrong from the
git-go, i.e. in violation of the equivalence principle. Anyone who
advocates it does not really understand the key physical idea of
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Couple this with the fact that
Yilmaz has never been able to propose a crucial test of his
not-even-wrong theory and that Einstein's theory has passed numerous
tests with flying colors and we come to the obvious conclusion that
every top physicist in the field has!
On Aug 20, 2005, at 10:50 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Example from Cosmology
In the large-scale, start with post-inflation metric field
ds^2 = - dt^2 + a^2(t)[dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2]
pressure p = w(energy density) is the equation of state
w = 0 for ordinary matter
w = + 1/3 for radiation like the CMB
w = - 1 for zero point energy
(energy density) ~ a(t)^-3(1+w)
The zero point energy density in this limit is constant. It does not
redshift as the universe expands.
"This example brings to life the differences between flat and curved
spacetimes. For example, consider what we might be tempted to call the
'energy,' the integral over space of the energy density
<GREnergy1.gif>
where the boundaries are at fixed comoving coordinates, so the region
expands along with the universe, and the factor of a(t)^3 comes from the
square root of the determinant of the spatial metric. THIS NUMBER IS
CLEARLY NOT CONSERVED IN GENERAL. For dust (w = 0), since the energy
density ~ a(t)^-3, total energy E remains constant as the universe
expands; but for radiation it decreases and for [zero point] vacuum
energy it increases. This is upsetting, since conservation of energy is
one of the more cherished principles of physics. What has happened? ...
Noether's theorem, which states that every symmetry implies a conserved
quantity. Energy is the conserved quantity that derives under invariance
under time translations. Clearly in an expanding universe, the
energy-momentum tensor is defined on a background that is changing in
time; therefore, there is no reason to believe that energy should be
conserved. There is no timelike Killing vector ... The transition from
flat to curved space-time introduces the additional Christoffel-symbol
terms... these terms ... allow a transfer of energy between the matter
fields and the gravitational field ... IT TURNS OUT TO BE DIFFICULT TO
ASSOCIATE A LOCAL ENERGY DENSITY TO THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, ALTHOUGH IT
IS POSSIBLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES." p. 120 Sean Carroll's new
textbook "Spacetime and Geometry" Addison-Wesley (2004)
The nonlocality of the gravity energy is from the equivalence principle.
We can locally eliminate g-force by transforming to locally inertial
geodesic coordinates. In electromagnetism the energy density is
proportional to the square of the electromagnetic field. If we think of
the g-force as the "gravity field" then its energy density should be
proportional to its square. OK, but then the energy-density cannot be
part of a local tensor field because if a tensor is zero in one local
frame it is zero in all local frames at the SAME EVENT. Or,
alternatively, if you want the gravity energy to be a local tensor,
then, in this classical case it must be rigged to be identically zero!
Therefore, any naive analogy with electromagnetism in flat spacetime
without gravity will not give a satisfactory answer.
"The Equivalence Principle implies that gravity is universal, which
implies in turn that gravitational fields become impossible to measure
in small regions of spacetime." p. 178
There is actually a very simple proof that the stress-energy tensor of
the pure gravity field must be ZERO. This follows from the ACTION PRINCIPLE.
PROOF
Given an ACTION DENSITY L, the stress energy tensor for that action
density L is the functional derivative of L relative to the metric
tensor guv.
The action density of Einstein's 1915 GR is simply the Ricci scalar R.
In classical vacuum i.e. no dark zero point energy R = 0. Therefore the
functional derivative is 0 identically also.
QED
On Aug 20, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Aug 20, 2005, at 8:43 PM, fidelio wrote:
I don't agree with that. I think the gravitational field does
have a real energy density........Rmc
You are way out of your depth on this. Your opinion on this carries no
weight at all with anyone important in the field.
John A. Wheeler, Kip Thorne, Charles Misner, Roger Penrose, Sean Carroll
.... EVERYONE WHO IS ANYONE in this field of spacetime physics ALL AGREE
that the gravity energy is nonlocal.
There is a local gravity tensor stress-energy density and it is ZERO (in
ordinary vacuum where /\zpf = 0). But even then you can have gravity
waves propagate energy and momentum out to infinity BECAUSE the TOTAL
GRAVITY ENERGY-MOMENTUM at asymptotic flat infinity is not a simple
integral of a local tensor stress-energy density. See Roger Penrose's
"The Road to Reality" on this issue in a semi-popular presentation.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
