Stardrive.org -- Article -- Topics in the New Physics

Advanced Intelligence Agency

United Earth Star Gate Expeditionary Contact Forces

End of Second Millennium Report

"The Colonel Corso Project"

Reverse Engineering Alien ET Flying Saucer Technology

by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.

Jan 2, 2000 Draft

Sarfatti Lecture 4 with Gennady Shipov, Gary Bekkum, Kevin Shambrook and Bill Page (also quotes from John Cramer).

Thanks Kevin for this important experimental information. Your results seem to contradict Vladimir Poponin's experimental test. Your results seem to support Eldon Byrd's explanation. Keep up the good work! :-)

We made a version of Shipov's "lurcher" - IPD -Inertial Propulsion Device. It is not identical - an electric motor replaces the wind-up, and a spring creates the variation in acceleration of the rotating masses. Occasionally it seemed to respond like Shipov's, when the wheels of the IPD were used, but mainly found any slope in the table (which was as level as possible).

I do not understand the above sentence. Do you mean any slope stopped the effect? I know it is not robust.

The IPD was then tested on a plate of glass, supported by ball bearings on another flat glass plate, to try to eliminate all sources of friction and sticktion. Under these conditions there was no net motion.

This means, on the face of it, that Shipov's machine is a dud that does not work. So we have to see why Shipov's machine appears to work on an air table and not in your experiment.

I believe the most likely device to create IP is based on gyroscopes - see E R Laithewaites writing and patent. I also believe that this may create a "displacement per cycle" or velocity, rather than an acceleration. We are not pursuing it further at this time.

Re: Kirilyuk's fractals - I think that it has to do with the post quantum dynamics that we "observe" only in our own mental environments.

It is the nature of our spiritual beings, and is hidden from the material world. So in that sense Kirilyuk also implies that there is a real physical (although he says material, but that may be an issue of semantics) guiding process that orchestrates the evolution of the universe.

What I find fascinating is the synchronicity of the discovery of "the others" :-)

I have e-mailed Kirilyuk and asked him specifically if his theory allows for a "backaction" between the soliton particle and the guiding medium. It will be interesting to see what he thinks of your idea.

Meanwhile Martin Rees's pop book "Six Numbers" has arrived, which again emphasizes the incredible fine tuning in the structure of the universe, as well as the real unknown mysteries of current cosmology.

Weird, I just bought it yesterday at Clean Well Lighted Place for Books at Opera Plaza. I had not intended to buy it, didn't even know it existed. Same place I got Bohm's & Hiley's "The Undivided Universe" when I got the "back-action idea" from their p. 30 in a flash. I knew Martin pretty well at Institute for Theoretical Astronomy at Cambridge on Madingley Road where I used to visit with astrophysicist James Edgar Felten in mid 60's to early 70's, went to Pubs with him and his group, Pakistani dinners etc. Hawking was still able to barely talk then.

Here is John Cramer's List of Unsolved Problems in Physics. It would be interesting to read your ideas on each of them:

Problem 1 - Vacuum Energy and Dark Matter in Cosmology.

This is where Shipov's plastic torsion in the mechanical explicate order for the Bohm point X(t), may play the leading role. Under conditions of absolute parallelism in A4, Shipov claims that the Einstein-Hilbert-Sakharov elastic curvature classical material action (from zero point EM fluctuations perhaps) proportional to 1/G emerges from the more fundamental plastic torsion field whose classical material action is proportional to G. This classical material action is the phase of the mental qubit pilot DeBroglie field path amplitudes of the Feynman formalismo.

GM^2 = hc

plot G against M^2, the mass of virtual exchange particle (off the mass shell) at scale L, in the first order Feynman diagram, where

L = h/Mc.

I only use the first order Feynman diagram from perturbation theory as a kind of metaphor since this theory is essentially non-perturbative because this invariant scale-independent fractal relation has the dimensionless universal quantum geometrodynamical coupling strength

GM^2/hc = 1

This simple hyperbola is the INVARIANT dilatation fractal relation of Sabbata & Sivaram linking all scales L (10^-33 cm to 10^28 cm) of resolution of coarse-graining of Wilson & Gell-Mann's "renormalization group." Note the superluminal branch where

G < 0 and M^2 < 0

G > 0 and M^2 > 0

In the past year astronomical observations of type Ia supernovas have led to the conclusion that the universe is not only expanding and will expand forever, but also that it is accelerating as it expands, with a long-range "antigravity" repulsive force driving its expansion. (See my column in the 5/99 Analog).

My intuitive guess, my conjecture, is that the superluminal branch of the plastic torsion field where

L = c/H = 10^28 cm

M = ihH/c^2 = i 10^-65 grams, i^2 = -1

i.e. tachyonic Vigier virtual photon rest mass will explain the observed data showing the acceleration of the universe.

The current explanation for this observation is that about 3/4 of the energy from the Big Bang is not in the form of matter but in the vacuum itself and that this vacuum energy is creating a negative pressure ...

G < 0, M^2 < 0.

that accelerates the expansion of the universe. So the book-keeping seems to be that about 70% of the energy in the universe is in the vacuum, about 5% is in the form of normal matter (protons, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.), and the remaining 25% is "dark matter", mysterious invisible particles that inhabit the halos of galaxies.

This new understanding raises far more questions then it answers. Why and how does the vacuum store energy? What is the dark matter?

Why is the energy from the Big Bang distributed in this particular way? Is the energy in the vacuum constant with time, or is it changing? Could the vacuum suddenly decide to dump its energy and restart the Big Bang? And so on. The universe is a stranger place than we had imagined.

Problem 2 - The Arbitrary Parameters of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The standard model of particle physics, which is called quantum chromodynamics or QCD, is in many ways an excellent theory. It is in good agreement with essentially all of the data collected by particle physics experiments during the past decades. Yet in another way, it is unsatisfactory. It fails to provide a deep understanding of the inner workings of the universe. Instead, it depends on about two dozen arbitrary parameters, for example the masses of quarks and leptons, the strengths of the fundamental forces, and the strengths of interconnections between particles. Some of these parameters are set to zero, while others have definite values that must be derived from measurements. We have no idea where these parameters come from or how they are related to each other. We are confident that there must be a better, more fundamental theory behind this façade. So far, however, we have been unable to make the Standard Model "break", to find places where its predictions conspicuously fail, to find a crack in the brick wall which might provide some inkling of what lies behind it. (See my column in the 11/97 Analog).

Yes, the standard model of cosmology and high energy physics is modern Ptolemaic epicyclic. It is much too adhoc. Too many arbitrary parameters. Its pragmatic success is Fool's Gold.

A new higher energy particle accelerator, the large hadronic collider or LHC, will begin operation at the CERN laboratory in Geneva around 2005. It is hoped that this machine will provide clues to the underpinnings of QCD. But there are no guarantees, and it is not clear when or how we will be able to go beyond the present impasse.

Shipov's idea at the Bohm point "X" in my post-quantum physical ontology unifying mind with matter is promising. We also have The Phipps Alternative, however, without the tensor method it is hard to compute anything. We need some intermediate ground using the tensor-spinor method in the light of Phipp's intuitive insights on the limitations of "tensor covariance" of the laws of nature.

Problem 3 - The Origin of Gamma Ray Bursts.

Gamma ray bursts were discovered 32 years ago by accident. In 1967 the United States entered a treaty that banned the testing of nuclear weapons in space. To verify that the terms of the treaty were being observed, in the late 1960s Los Alamos Laboratory and the Air Force launched the VELA series of surveillance satellites. The VELA satellites never detected a nuclear explosion, but from the time when the first VELA probe was activated bursts of gamma rays were detected every few days. The intelligence analysts were baffled and suspected satellite malfunctions or some form of deliberate jamming to hide real tests. Finally, when several satellites were in orbit simultaneously it became possible to triangulate on the radiation. It was discovered that the bursts came from outside the solar system. (See my column in the 10/95 Analog).

This is the area of expertise of my old Cornell crony, James Edgar Felten (Phil Morrison's student) who was also with me at UCSD in the 60's. These gamma ray bursts may be from Vigier's tight states from the extended non-point space structure of the electron. Vigier predicts sharp lines like at 33 kev in neutral hydrogen not quite gamma perhaps, but that may be the low end of a spectrum?

During the last decade space-based detectors, particularly the BATSE experiment on NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory satellite, have recorded and mapped over 2,200 gamma ray bursts (GRB). Since 1997 astronomers have been able, within about 1 day after the burst, to point their optical, X-ray, and radio instruments toward observed GRB positions and to observe the "afterglow" from the bursts. According to Doppler-shift measurements of spectral lines, the optical afterglow comes from dim galaxies 10 to 12 billion light years from Earth. At such distances, a non-beamed gamma ray burst would require an energy release at the source of about 1044 joules, roughly 47 times the energy you would get by converting the mass of the planet Jupiter completely into energy.

It remains a deep mystery what astrophysical catastrophe could have released so much energy, how the process takes place, and why so much of the energy ends up in the form of gamma rays.

Problem 4 - The Origin of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays

The most energetic particles ever observed come not from large particle accelerators but from the cosmos itself. These particles from space, usually protons, have energies up to 10,000,000 times higher than the most energetic protons we can produce with accelerators. The most energetic cosmic ray particle observed up to now, which was recorded at the Fly's Eye detector in Utah, had a measured energy of about 3 ´ 10^20 electron volts or 50 joules, roughly the kinetic energy of a baseball thrown at 60 mph.

The existence of such ultra-high energy (UHE) particles creates a problem. They should not be able to reach us. The universe is permeated with cosmic microwave background radiation, low energy photons released about 500,000 years after the Big Bang when the protons and electrons paired off and matter and light went their separate ways. Protons with energies above about 5 ´ 1018 electron volts, on colliding with these photons, should produce pi-mesons and should rapidly lose energy. This process, called the GZK cutoff, should result in a sharp drop in cosmic rays above 5 ´ 10^18 electron volts. (See my column in the 01/96 Analog).

aradoxically, instead of a cutoff, more cosmic rays are observed above this energy than extrapolation from lower energies would predict. The only plausible resolution of this paradox is the assumption that these UHE particles are being produced relatively close to the Earth, within about 160 million light years, which would place their source within the Local Group, i.e., in our galaxy or one of our near galactic neighbors. Yet there are no known objects in the Local Group that might produce such energetic particles.

It has been suggested that there are some very heavy particle-remnants left over from the Big Bang that are now decaying to produce the observed UHE cosmic rays. Clearly more detection data is needed, and experimental astrophysics groups, including my own at the University of Washington, are designing new distributed detectors to gain more information about this mysterious phenomenon.

Problem 5 - The Solar Neutrino Problem.

A growing body of evidence indicates that only about 1/3 of the electron neutrinos expected from the best models of the fusion reactions in our Sun actually reach the Earth to be detected. The first evidence of this began to emerge 30 years ago, when the detector in the Homestake gold mine went into operation. The neutrino deficiency was later confirmed by the Kamiokande II detector in Japan and by the SAGE experiment in Russia and the GALLEX experiment in the Mont Blanc Tunnel which connects France and Italy. (See my column in the 09/92 Analog).

The alternatives are that either the Sun is making less neutrinos than the best models predict (perhaps because the Sun has gone out inside and we haven't noticed yet!) or because some physical process is interfering with their detection. The neutrino oscillations recently detected between mu and tau neutrinos by the Super Kamiokande detector cannot explain this problem, which involves a deficit of electron neutrinos.

Physicists hope that the new heavy-water-filled SNO neutrino detector, which will go into operation deep in a mine in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, should provide new insights into this long-standing problem.

Problem 6 - The Origin of Matter/Antimatter Asymmetry in the Universe.

It is now clear from astrophysical evidence that the universe is dominated by matter, even in very distant regions. There are far more electrons than positrons and far more protons than antiprotons in our universe. There is no hint of antimatter stars or galaxies.

From the viewpoint of particle physics, this is a problem because at the particle level energetic processes normally produce matter particles and antimatter particles (e.g., electrons and positrons) together, so that the balance between matter and antimatter is preserved. The only known exception to this is the so called "CP Violation" that has only been observed in the decay of K0 mesons (the matter-antimatter combination of a strange and a down quark). This decay exhibits a matter antimatter asymmetry. (See my column in the 09/88 Analog). However, this process could not have caused the universe's proton excess because the K0 has only about the mass of a proton. Therefore, the matter/antimatter asymmetry remains a major unsolved problem of particle astrophysics.

However, new clues to the puzzle may be coming. The Department of Energy is constructing a new kind of accelerator, a "B Factory" at the SLAC Laboratory in Palo Alto, California. The Bo mesons it will produce, matter-antimatter combinations of a bottom and a down quark, are expected to exhibit CP violations similar to those of the Ko mesons and to provide new insights into Nature's preference for matter over antimatter.

Problem 7 - The Origin of the Arrow of Time.

In the everyday world it's clear that the past and the future are not the same. We remember the past but not the future. We can send radio signals to the future (e.g., to a distant star) but not to the past. Isolated systems have lower disorder in the past and become more disordered in the future. The universe was smaller and hotter in the past but will be larger and cooler in the future. The Ko meson has decay probabilities that are larger for the normal decay process than for the equivalent time-reversed process. These different manifestations of an asymmetry in time are called, respectively, the subjective arrow of time, the electromagnetic arrow of time, the thermodynamic arrow of time, the cosmological arrow of time, and the CP-violation arrow of time.

These time arrows are all related to one of the most fundamental and mysterious laws of physics is the principle of causality, the rule that a cause must always precede all of its effects in any reference frame. No violation of causality has ever been observed, but it is not clear where causality comes from or how it is imposed on the universe.

Cramer ignores all sorts of evidence that consciousness violates causality and requires post-quantum signal-nonlocality.

This fundamental question can be approached by asking how the different time arrows are related and which arrows cause the others. It is generally accepted that the CP-violation arrow is probably primary, in the sense that if it did not exist the universe would be time-symmetric and contain equal quantities of matter and antimatter. The CP arrow probably leads to the cosmological arrow, making possible the Big Bang and its aftermath.

Beyond this point, there is no consensus. One view is that the cosmological arrow causes the thermodynamic arrow, which in turn causes the electromagnetic and subjective arrows. The other viewpoint, which I have advocated in several papers, is that the cosmological arrow causes the electromagnetic arrow, which causes the thermodynamic arrow, which in turn causes the subjective arrow. The issue is not resolved, and there are few experiments that can shed light on the dilemma. We simply do not understand the origin of causality and the arrows of time that underlie our thinking and existence.

Agreed. However, post-quantum signal-nonlocality is necessary, though not sufficient, to understand the arrow of time.

"But the real glory of science is that we can find a way of thinking such that the law is evident. ... For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." Feynman "I want to know God's thoughts ... the rest are details." Einstein http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/

I am not sure if Shipov sent a copy of this same message to some of you. If so, I am sorry that I am duplicating it in your email in-basket. If you would rather I not forward messages such as these to you, please let me know.

No I did not get this thanks. Gennady please copy your responses to Creon, Vladimir and me. Thanks.

The English is a little "rusty" but I think you will find it easy to understand. I haven't changed anything except for some minor reformatting.

The message doesn't have much new content, but I think it serves to emphasize what Shipov currently sees as new and important in his approach. See also his views on "two kinds of torsion" Cartan vs. Ricci torsion near the end of the message.

[Gennady Shipov from Moscow, edited by Jack Sarfatti New Years Eve, 1999 in San Francisco's Bohemian North Beach, The Home of Beat Poetry and Physics.]

The frontier territory of modern physics is the theory of elementary particles. But for describing elementary particles, such as the proton, it is necessary to unify all the interactions known in physics.

The proton participates in gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions. It consists of three quarks. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account quark interaction.

Scientists try to solve this problem in an inductive way (from individual experiment to the general theory), which was introduced into physics by Newton.

As explained by Einstein, the inductive method of construction of a complete physical theory is not usually effective. Therefore he offered a deductive way of construction of a theory (from a general physical principle to individual experiment), which gave brilliant results in the creation of the theory of the gravitational field.

The analysis of physical interactions shows us, that only gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions are described by fundamental potentials (potentials of Newton and Coulomb), which one can derive from the field equations on the assumption of a point source. As a matter of fact, the interactions, namely nuclear, weak and quark are presently phenomenological (or descriptive) and, generally speaking, do not have a fundamental theoretical formulation.

Many physicists would disagree with Shipov here on the grounds that the principle of minimal coupling (AKA local phase or gauge invariance) with different internal symmetry groups (Yang-Mills) is fundamental. Indeed, Kibble showed GR is a local "gauge" version of the translation group T4. Shipov simply adds O(3,1) to this. On the other hand, in the Bohm ontology you need actual material source particles and material force fields as "Bohm points" X(t) in higher dimensional configuration space in addition to qubit De Broglie pilot fields for these Bohm points. So, Shipov's classical theory is describing the geometrodynamics of these Bohm point fragments that get nonlocally entangled making configuration space the actual arena for physical phenomena at the nonsentient quantum and the sentient post-quantum levels of physical reality.

"Fundamentality" of the theory of elementary particles, means the fundamentality of particles, but not the way of their description. The phenomenological theories represent only a first step in understanding Nature. Einstein, for example, never engaged in the theory of nuclear forces. He considered phenomenological theories not substantial from the point of view of a fundamental approach.

Joining the fundamental theories of gravitation and electromagnetism with phenomenological theories of strong, weak and quark interactions is senseless. At least, from the theory, which unify all interactions in a fundamental way. It is necessary to require, that from its equations, follow (as a result of its solution) a superpotential including all constants of interaction. Despite huge material and intellectual expenditures, directed to the creation of the theory of elementary particles, successes in this area of physics have been modest.

What is an output? On the basis of the deductive approach, Einstein offers to us to unify the equations of gravitation with the equations of electromagnetic field. For this purpose, in his opinion, it is necessary to make two steps on the way to the creation of the unified field theory :

1) geometrization of the equation of electromagnetism and, thus, to extend the principle of general relativity to electromagnetic phenomena;

2) geometrization of the energy momentum tensor of matter, which is formed from quantum fields, i.e. to extend the principle of general relativity to quantum theory.

When I do that in infinite dimensional configuration space for entangled systems I get nonequilibrium sentient post-quantum theory with signal-nonlocality not equilibrium nonsentient quantum theory with signal-locality. There are two fundamental time scales at each coarse-grained scale L of the fundamental space-time lattice discretum starting at the Planck scale of 10^-33 cm for the 3D space geometry that David Deutsch calls the "snapshot" in his "multiverse". Deutsch's "snapshot" is the "Bohm point" of ontological quantum gravity.

t(C) is the time scale for spontaneously sentient self-organization of the quibit DeBroglie pilot field with its Bohm point in " the two-way relationship" (Bohm and Hiley) of Newton's action and reaction.

That is, the action of the implicate pilot field Psi on the explicate Bohm point X, and the compensating reaction (AKA "backaction") of X on Psi.

t(D) is the shortest time scale of decoherence disrupting the nonlocal connections destroying the entanglements.

t(C) > t(D)

t(C) < t(D)

with a fractal scale dependence on L, AKA torsion field flux dislocation density translational deficit.

It is clear, that geometrization of the equations of electrodynamics should result in basic changes. Is it necessary to change the equations of modern quantum electrodynamics - Dirac-Maxwell electrodynamics?

The majority of theorists think that the equations should not be changed. The basic argument which is put forward by the majority, is, that quantum electrodynamics describes the observable phenomena very precisely (in seventh mark after comma).

Even better to the 11th decimal place I recall e.g. Feynman's little pop book on QED.

On the other hand, the founder of quantum electrodynamics P. Dirac disagrees with the majority of the theorists, considering, that a problem of divergences in quantum electrodynamics requires basic changes in its equations. The basic equations of quantum electrodynamics are incorrect, declares P.Dirac, it is necessary to change them fundamentally, so that they did not contain divergences at all.

Einstein's theory of gravitation is not deprived of deficits. Its founder remarked, that in it the singularity produced by point unstructured particle still remains. Attempts of A. Einstein to generalize the own theory of gravitation which were undertaken in hope to find the equations, describing a particle as nonlinear field's spatially extended object. Einstein assumed, that the geometrization of the energy - momentum tensor in the RHS of his equations would permit us to detect a unified field of unknown structure.

My theory of the physical vacuum gives answers to all of these requirements put forward by Einstein for the unified field theory. Namely, it:

3) describes elementary particles as a field solitons that are spatially extended objects;

4) allows a "superpotential" as a result of the solution of the new physical equations - -the equations of physical vacuum, including five basic constants of interaction;

F. Frenet introduced the concept of torsion for the first time in science. He studied the geometrical properties of any curve in three-dimensional Euclidean space. Consider any curve as a physical trajectory.The remarkable fact follows, from the equations of Frenet, that in Nature there are two kinds of interactions:

Till now physics (obvious image) was engaged in study of powerful interactions. Torsional interactions are created by torsion fields. There are two kinds of torsion:

Cartan's torsion, which depends only on four translational coordinates, and Ricci torsion, which depends on BOTH four translational and six rotational coordinates. The rotation of real physical objects is described by the Ricci torsion not the Cartan torsion.

Shipov uses "powerful" for the elastic curvature action. I would rather use "weak" since it appears to be the plastic torsion action that grows more powerful as the energy scale decreases and as the lattice deficit scale L increases out even to the cosmological c/H scale of 10^28 cm to, perhaps, make the universe accelerate?

All theoretical consequences of my theory of the physical vacuum, and also the experiments and technologies are connected with the Ricci torsion, which is a part of the connection of absolute parallelism geometry. The mathematical foundation of the theory of vacuum is based on this geometry. Itis represented as a fiber bundle, in which four translational coordinates x _ 0, x _ 1, x _ 2, x _ 3 form a base, and six independent components of nonholonomic tetrad e ^ a _ j form a fiber.

How about "sub geometry" rather than "sub space"? Ask Gennady directly. I think the confusion with you and Page is that the 10 D is for the frame bundle with the 4D base space and a 6D frame space of the space-space and space-time "planes" or rotations that Kiehn wants to extend to a 16D Grassmann algebra or Tony to a Clifford Algebra. It's not a Kaluza-Klein metric space of 10D- that was part of the confusion.

I would like to object again to Jack's reference to "the confusion with you and Page". I do not know what Jack is referring to above. Jack and I have already thrashed out the (dead) issue of the "Kaluza-Klein" metric. We both agreed (I think) that it has nothing to do with Shipov and A4.

OK we agree about that. I had thought you thought I thought Shipov's theory was a 10D Kaluza-Klein theory with a 9D space + 1D time signature. We both agree it isn't. Easy to get confused here.

Tony was simply expanding on *my* comment that Shipov's A4 is a sub-set of the full Clifford Algebra. Kiehn was just referring to the standard graded algebra used in the context of differential forms. This is also part of the Clifford algebra. These same ideas are also in J. Schouten's book "Tensor Analysis for Physicists", which is an important reference to Shipov's work, although the mathematical approach is quite different.

For the last several weeks, I have been carrying on a private email exchange with Ark concerning the interpretation of section 5.4 of Shipov's book. It was a long and useful exercise that involved several other formal aspects of Shipov's approach and a detailed review of the underlying differential geometry from both the convention "tensor" perspective and also using the differential forms approach (as exemplified by H. Flanders book : "Differential Forms with Applications to the Physical Sciences"). I think we have now reached agreement on one important issue: It seems that in eq. (5.64) and (5.65) Shipov used the symbol 'd' in a non- standard and confusing manner. It does *not* mean exterior derivative, rather, it represents an "arbitrary vector displacement" (in Flander's terms) or we can equivalently think of it as a kind of generalized covariant derivative (which connects with Jack's discussion below).

Thanks for the tip. I need to study this in detail off line next few days. I was also worrying about the use of "d" in eqs (5.64)-(5.65) p. 195 compared to its use in eqs (A)-(D) on p. 196. I need to rework all this formal stuff for myself in my own way - that will take time. There are two aspects to any theory "formal" and "informal". These are important formal issues I agree. I am more interested in the informal issues of the meaning of the theory. Of course, the formalism needs to be correct mathematically. Let me summarize where I stand of Shipov's version of torsion field theory.

2. I do not think that Ark's charge that Shipov's use of absolute parallelism in A4 means a trivial flat spacetime geometry with no new physics.

3. I am more interested RIGHT NOW in the informal intuitive ideas in Sabbata & Sivaram's "Spin and Torsion in Gravitation" why?

I. We have recent new evidence that the machine Shipov brought from Moscow really works. Dr. Vladimir Poponin (formerly at major Russian physics labs now part of our group) tested it on an airtable at a lab at Stanford University and the center of mass moves in a net direction with a jerk modulation from the varying angular speed of the rotors caused by an eccentric cam- spring coupling of the rotation to the translation. We have it on video. Poponin is planning more detailed tests using an electromagnetic method to vary the static friction of the wheels with the table. So Eldon Byrd's conjecture that the machine is friction-based seems to have been disproved. I use "seems". Until this actual test, I was very skeptical because of II below:

II. The big psychological barrier to all these claims of torsion fields in vacuum reaction propellantless propulsion for flying saucer reverse engineering simulations was that any attempt to "metric engineer" (Puthoff's term) the vacuum, even using Sakharov's connection of elasticity of space to zero point electromagnetic quantum fluctuations, seems doomed from the start because of the weakness of Newton's constant G. Even Modanese's attempt to add macroscopic quantum phase coherence to the elastic Einstein-Hilbert action of general relativity to get a small scale cosmlogical antigravity field under conditions of "metric instability" seems too small for this fundamental reason that G is too small. Sabatta and Sivaram have changed all that. Basically, the orthodox general relativity comes from the action principle using the Einstein-Hilbert action for the elasticity (curvature) of spacetime geometry which in the case of the physical vacuum is

Geometrodynamical Action = 1/G Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action

GM^2 = hc

Think of M intuitively as the characteristic effective mass of the exchange force from a single virtual force particle off the mass shell between two source particles in a simple first order perturbative Feynman diagram. In fact, the real theory is non-perturbative because

GM^2/hc = 1

Note that this hyperbola has two branches, the subluminal attractive branch where

G > 0 and M^2 > 0

G < 0 and M^2 < 0

That is, exchanging a virtual tachyon results in a repulsive antigravity force. Now these are my wild half-baked dangerous ideas in the spirit of collective brainstorming in cyberspace for all of us who wish to play The Glass Bead Game of Magister Ludi (Hermann Hesse). It's the only game in town worth playing of course. Let me say its the only meme game on the World Wide Web of the Collective Gaia De Broglie Post-Quantum Mind-Field piloting History in the 21st Century and Beyond worth playing. The stakes are high. The Cradle of Civilization is Rocking and Rolling on The WEB. The best scientific theory will win of course. Note that it is Einstein on the cover of TIME.

The key new idea from Sabatta and Sivaram is adding the new plastic torsion action i.e.

Geometrodynamical Action = 1/G Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action + G Plastic Torsion Action

Note that G is in the numerator of the plastic torsion action. This makes all the difference to the world if it turns out to be true. Right now we are brain storming. A word to all the intellectually constipated conservative Laputan Pundits who fear having fun playing publically in The Forum with important ideas - take a colonic.

GM^2/hc = 1

1/G =M^2/hc

G = hc/M^2

c = 1/sqrt[(electric vacuum response)(magnetic vacuum response)]

Hence c can, perhaps, be metrically engineered in small nano-cavities with nonradiating ELF near EM fields pumping the virtual electron-positron vacuum polarization plasma to make the "vacuum propeller" for flying saucers.

Geometrodynamical Action = (M^2/hc) Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action + (hc/M^2) Plastic Torsion Action

Note the projective duality between the elastic curvature action and the plastic torsion action like in superstring theory. Here, we want virtual tachyons with M^2 < 0.

I now invoke Wilson- Gell-Mann's "renormalization group" giving effective field actions at different scales of "coarse-graining" the fundamental spin network pre-spacetime lattice discretum at the Planck quantum gravity scale of 10^-33 cm.

Let the Wilson-Gell-Mann renormalization scale of the effective coarse-grained lattice for torsion translational dislocation deficits be L. That is L comes from a kind of torsion flux surface integral around a loop that fails to close when you parallel transport dx along &x, then &x along dx', then dx' along -&x', then &x' along -dx". This is why the center of mass in the Shipov machine moves in apparent violation of Newton's 3rd law of action-reaction. In fact, the dynamical plastic vacuum torsion is providing the reaction momentum, so that, over all, Newton's law of action-reaction is obeyed when you include ALL of the relevant dynamical degrees of freedom. The vacuum is not an absolute physical object, but is an active participant in the mechanics of the vacuum propeller.

h/Mc = L

(hc/M^2) = (L^2 c^3/h)

1/L = Mc/h

(M^2/hc) = (h/L^2c^3)

(Effective Geometrodynamical Action) = (h/L^2c^3) (Effective Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action) + (L^2 c^3/h) (Effective Plastic Torsion Action)

The dimensional (not dimensionless) ratio of relative importance of these two terms scales as:

(Plastic Torsion)/(Elastic Curvature) = (L^2 c^3/h) /(h/L^2c^3)

Note that G is normalized to the ultra weak Newton's constant at the Planck quantum gravity scale of

Lp = (hG/c^3)^1/2

Now Sabatta and Sivaram have a failure of nerve in their own idea here and adhoc cut off this fractal scale dependence in the (elastic curvature/plastic torsion) ratio at the Salam strong f-gravity scale of Mc^2 = 1Gev. I say this cutoff is wrong. It extends to cosmology to possibly explain the acceleration of the universe as well as biological torsion when Mc^2 = 1 ev and L is of order 1 micron or so. Also check the nanometer scale.

G = hc/M^2

L = h/cM

G(L) = L^2 c^3/h = L^2 2.7 10^58 [cm^3/sec^2 gm]

G(Planck scale) = 2.7x2.56 10^-66x 10^58[cm^3/sec^2 gm] = G(Newton)

That is, elastic curvature gravity is so weak microscopically because it is primarily made in the quantum gravity foam by the tiniest virtual blackholes of mass 10^-5 grams. So the elastic curvature effective action is strong at small scales because it scales as 1/L^2. In contrast, the plastic torsion effective action grows in relative strength at lower energies scaling as L^2. This may be why Shipov's machine worked on the air table at Stanford a short time ago. That is to repeat: L comes from a kind of torsion flux surface integral around a loop that fails to close when you parallel transport dx along &x, then &x along dx', then dx' along -&x', then &x' along -dx". This is why the center of mass in the Shipov machine moves in apparent violation of Newton's 3rd law of action-reaction. In fact, the dynamical plastic vacuum torsion is providing the reaction momentum, so that, over all, Newton's law of action-reaction is obeyed when you include ALL of the relevant dynamical degrees of freedom. The vacuum is not an absolute physical object but is an active participant in the mechanics of the vacuum propeller.

The confusion is not with me. The confusion is with Shipov and with you avoiding to address my objection.

All indices run from 0,1,2,3. The a,b indices are the tetrad labels in the tangent space of frames. The i,k indices are for the world tensors in the curved elastic and plastic base spacetime. dChi^b a is antisymmetric in a,b so it has SIX independent components. T^b ak is the torsion field. In traditional R4 Einstein geometry T^b ak = 0 hence R4 is a sub-geometry of A4 geometry. So I used "subspace" in sense of "subgeometry". Therefore, your remarks below are answered.

That does not explain his statement after 5.70. Curvature = 0 AND torsion = 0 == Minkowski

His total A4 curvature is zero i.e. absolute parallelism - but this gives, he says, new physics when we use the smaller translational metric of Einstein.

In my previous e-mail I quoted the littel lemma from Einstein's 1930 paper which shows that IF TORSION IS ZERO (which Shipov writes just after 5.70) AND IF CURVATURE IS ZERO (which Shipov alaso writes after 5,70) THEN VIERBEIN IS KRENECKER DELTA AND THUS WE HAVE MINKOWSKI SPACE.

Therefore,ACCORDING to Shipov's definition, which he writes explicitly after 5.70, and OWING to Einstein Lemma, ABSOLUTE PARALLISM GEOMETRY IS MINKOWSKI SPACE GEOMETRY.

Which is a nonsense. Can I be more clear? You do not see "Minkowski" after 5.70 because Shipov must have been unaware of existence of Einstein's little lemma when he wrote:

"By definition, a space has a geometry of absolute paralellism if the 2-form of Cartannian torsion S^a , and the 2-form of Riemann- Christoffel curvature S^b_a of this space vanish."

But we are aware, and we draw conclusions. And the conclusion is that, according to Shipov's definition, absolute parallelism implies Minkowski geometry.

I think Ark is wrong about this conclusion and also wrong about the application of Einstein's statement in his 1930 paper.

Good, so Bill Page and I agree on this point that Ark's objection is not correct here. Shipov is not that stupid to have made such an elementary obvious error.

In part 3 of that paper (in the English translation that I have), Einstein wrote:

"This law of parallel displacement [referring to A4] is (contrarily to Riemannian geometry) in general not symmetric. If it is, we have Euclidean geometry, ..."

Einstein is just emphasizing here that the space of absolute parallelism is *not* the same as Riemann geometry. Saying that "the 2-form of Cartanian torsion ... vanishes" is *not* the same thing as saying that the connection of A4 is symmetric.

I think you are confused in what connection is being used in what field. D (from the little connection) is the Einstein covariant derivative in R4, D* ( from the BIG connection) is the A4 covariant derivative in A4. You are not distinguishing the torsion and curvature 2-forms in the A4 geometry defined with D*, which do vanish, with the corresponding quantities defined with D, which do not vanish.

Jack is absolutely right about this. Shipov describes this quite well in section 5.2 of his book. It is necessary to note carefully when Shipov uses nabla (covariant derivative, Jack uses D) with and without a *. When nabla is written with the * (Shipov writes the * above the symbol for covariant derivative) Shipov means "the covariant derivative with respect to the [full] connection of the geometry of absolute parallelism" which he defines in eq. (5.21). If nabla is written without the *, then it "stands for a covariant derivative with respect to the Christoffel symbols", i.e. only part of the connection, as Shipov indicates in his proposition 5.3.

If we consider "arbitrary vector displacements" using nabla* then torsion and curvature are indeed zero. The discussion in Shipov's section 5.4 of Cartan's structural equations and the concept of displacement used there presumes this definition of covariant derivative.

But notice that in propostion 5.8, in the equation following eq. (5.84) on page 196, Shipov uses the covariant derivative with respect to the Christoffel symbols only when writing out the exterior derivative! Although I see nothing wrong with this, I think it is potentially very confusing and these derivations should be explained in much more detail. I hope Jack will find the time to do this.

Yes, Bill Page and I agree on this point that Ark is wrong in this particular objection against Shipov's theory. Shipov's presentation is not elegant and it is easy to get confused. I will try to slim it down to the formal essentials with the most economical conceptual paths - this will take a few months.

This classical equation is in the explicate order. If you use the Penrose-Newman symbols you get to the implicate qubit spinor order. Note, not all qubits are spinors under rotations in space, but all 2-spinors are qubits. The Penrose-Newman formalism spans the material world tensor order with the mental qubit spinor order.

This is formally analogous to the interaction energy of a magnetic moment in a magnetic field. The geometrodynamical torsion field is like a magnetic field.

If the material spins are also magnetic, we see how the geometrodynamical alignment of the spins by the torsion field may explain the empirical Blackett relation on the magnetism from rotating astronomical bodies investigated by Saul-Paul Sirag.

Let G' be the torsion coupling constant analogous to Newton's constant G. G' will be variable not constant. For elementary particles

is Sabbata's and Sivaram's (S&S) version of Saul-Paul Sirag's relation. Note the extra factor of the fine structure constant that Saul-Paul does not have. These authors predict a torsion induced primordial cosmic magnetic field of order 10-6 Gauss in equipartition with the cosmic black body radiation a bit less than 3 deg Kelvin.

Laplacian of the Newtonian potential = 4piG(density - G' spin density^2) (2.33) p. 34

Given N aligned spins s per unit volume, the spatial part of the torsion per unit unit volume is proportional to G'sN.

Assuming no resonances of course. The virtual electron-positron pairs form a neutral plasma in the physical vacuum. A resonance there has interesting metric engineering consequences. Exactly how to make such a resonance in a real machine is of course the trick of the alleged ETs for the vacuum propeller used as the engine in their alleged mechanical flying saucers. S&S introduce a propagating torsion plasma (not simply contact torsion) frequency

This reduces to the non-resonant form when f^2(torsion) = 0 so that k = 0 also because of the Kramers-Kronig causal dispersion relations that I will assume for now.

Therefore, we see the possibility of using torsion fields to manipulate the vacuum speed of light as in Hal Puthoff's "metric engineering" program based upon Sakharov's "elasticity" interpretation of the curvature from zero point EM transverse far field radiative fluctuations without the near fields. The torsion resonance corrections correspond to a new "plasticity" vacuum-reaction displacement of centers of mass added to Sakharov's picture. This is the connection of metric engineering to propellantless propulsion via the torsion fields that Shipov has been proposing. Puthoff's idea without torsion is incomplete.

S&S predict torsion-induced plasma resonances at 10^-4 Hz in ordinary matter, and 10^4 Hz in high density neutron stars. p. 38

They predict a gravimagnetic dipolar propagating torsion field from aligned spins. p. 39

The gravity action then consists of the "elastic" (curvature) "electric" part i.e. usual Einstein-Hilbert action (assumed by Modanese) with metric engineering "dielectric" response proportional to 1/G, PLUS the "plastic" (torsion) "magnetic" part with a "permeability" proportional to G'. This torsion plastic contribution will be much bigger than the orthodox curvature elastic contribution. Therefore, Modanese's model on how quantum phase coherence affects the spacetime geometry needs to be extended to the plastic torsion contribution. So we now see how to escape the objection that the direct elastic bending of flat spacetime into curved spacetime is way too weak for practical metric engineering of traversable wormhole stargates and warp drives. That is true, but it completely neglects the much stronger torsion plasticity of the physical vacuum. We are interested in manipulating spacetime geometry with strong plastic torsion fields. The elastic curvature fields do not play a strong role in the UFO phenomenon IMHO at this moment in history.

Well the following is taken from Linda Moulton Howe's book Glimpses of Other Realities. Volume 2, High Strangeness. (1998 Paper Chase Press.) p. 9.

'The Colonel agreed the government had extraterrestrial artefacts from more than one spacecraft. He said that during the Norton AFB testing it was discovered that "the entire vehicle functioned just like a giant capacitor . . . the craft itself stored the energy necessary to propagate the magnetic wave that elevated it . . . as if gravity was being folded around the outside of the wave that enveloped the craft . . . Somehow the pilots became part of the electrical circuitry of the vehicle, vectoring it in a way similar to the way you order a voluntary muscle to move." The Colonel told me how amazed military and science investigators were about the spacecraft functioning as an extension of the beings' neurological systems, including their molecularly aligned and strengthened flight suits and hand imprinted control panels.'

Well we see that what we have is not really a "magnetic wave", but a torsion field that can be mistaken for a magnetic field but which is, in principle much stronger.

Jack, thanks for your interesting discussions about the book "Spin and Torsion in Gravitation" by Venzo de Sabatta & C Sivaram, World Scientific 1994. I have ordered the book from amazon.com, but it may be a few weeks before it comes, so in the meantime here are some naive questions:

"... the torsion coupling gets stronger as the energy scale (in sense of renormalization group) gets lower. ...

"... Let G' be the torsion coupling constant analogous to Newton's constant G. G' will be variable not constant. ...".

Is G', the torsion coupling constant, effectively a free parameter in the S&S theory ?

Yes, will do ASAP. It's very important. Bio-torsion on the scale of a micron seems very plausible. The plastic torsion field is a dislocation density in a space-time discretum. L increases in a renomalization group coarse-graining with it seems significant biological effects on micron scale according to Shipov and Poponin. The universal electric charge e is related to the dislocation i.e. the plasticity - failure of parallelogram of parallel transport to close on itself. The effective torsion lattice size (Star Gate opening size) is

At E = 1 Gev G' is Salam's strong f-meson gravity coupling with hadron Regge trajectories as spinning charged black holes going back to my 1973 paper in Collective Phenomena up to Sidharth today. The torsion field stabilizes the little black holes - no more singularity.

Torsion fields give a fundamental length. Spacetime as an elastic and plastic aether of virtual particles in the mutable dynamic physical vacuum. Spacetime discretum is a kind of crystal lattice with the torsion field as a "defect density in the limit of dislocations having a continuous distribution" p. 103 The length scale first rank tensor is

Ansatz: Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization of spacetime discretum in integer multiples of sliding torsion field "Planck" length (hG'/c^3)^1/2 where

This gives large traversable wormhole stargates, L as size of star gate mouth, stabilized by torsion fields for advanced ETs to travel to and fro in time as well as space. :-)

So now we can look back at stories of "The Philadelphia Experiment" by US Navy in 1943 for example. Robert Dickson Crane said in 1980 or so that his intelligence sources said that something weird really did happen.

"we can find wormhole solutions with a size corresponding to" L(E) "so that the energy dependent torsion coupling gives an energy dependent defect length" L(E) p. 103 S&S.

However, we have an invariant hyperbola here - as I speculated about a year ago if you recall - it's on the Q-Mind Archive

at all scales! This explains Saul-Paul's studies of Blackett's rule. Planck's quantum of action (of mind on matter in my PQM - but let that pass for now) "has to do with the intrinsic defect built into the torsion structure of spacetime" p. 104

p. 117 the contact torsion coupling G' is like the Fermi weak force coupling i.e. G has dimension of mass to a negative power (2) since action is dimensionless, spinor qubits have dimension (mass)^3/2, so the 4-qubit quantum computing spinor gate of both contact torsion and Fermi weak interaction (prior to W propagating bosons -> propagating torsion) has dimension (mass)^6. d^4x has dimension (mass)^-4, hence the contact torsion coupling G' has dimension (mass)^-2.

This is for the "plastic" addition to the "elastic" (curvature) Einstein-Hilbert-Sakharov gravity action in which the coupling

Note Modanese's theory only used this elastic piece of the total action of geometrodynamics. All of his conclusions need to be reevaluated! It's a whole new ball game on how high temperature rotating superconducting resonating inductance-capacitor systems will modify the torsion plasticity of the physical vacuum for metric engineering the vacuum propeller!

Therefore, the dominant contribution to the elastic curvature coupling strength of Einstein's original 1915 theory of general relativity are from virtual particles of high mass. That is the quantum black holes of mass 10^-5 gram in the quantum foam dominate the elastic curvature dynamics of the mutable active physical vacuum of geometrodynamics. In contrast, the dominant contribution to the plastic (nonholonomic) vacuum propeller action addition to Einstein's 1915-18 version, comes from LOWER MASS virtual particles including the finite rest mass of the photon in the superconducting phases of both matter and vacuum. That is, the vacuum can go superconducting in its virtual electron-positron plasma pumped by external nonradiating longitudinal-scalar polarized near fields not transverse polarized far fields. This is what we have been looking for to explain Colonel Phillip J Corso's fragmentary nonscientific reports of flying saucer propulsion.

... a scale-dependent torsion force coupling that gets larger as the scale gets larger at smaller energies.... ... the generation of plastic torsion ... actually gets stronger as we go from the tiny Planck scale to longer scales - at least up to a point. ..." ?

"... predict torsion-induced plasma resonances at 10^-4 Hz in ordinary matter, and 10^4 Hz in high density neutron stars. ..." ?

Note that a free parameter torsion coupling constant was described by Ivanenko and Saradanashvily,in Physics Reports 94 (1983) 1-45,

"... the gravitation Lg [and] the torsion Ls ... components of a total Lagrangian may be chosen independently of each other, e.g. Lg is the Hilbert-Einstein Lagrangian of [General Relativity, but] ... Ls ...[could be a] Lagrangian of the Yang-Mills type. ... nothing requires that coupling constants of the torsion ... coincide with the gravitation constant ... In particular, torsion ... coupling constants may be chosen much stronger than the gravitational one, which opens the door to the hypothesis about the possibility of strong torsion ... whose effect would be comparable with weak or strong interaction effects.

... In recent years torsion has attracted great attention ... The reason that torsion comes to the front lies in the fact that at present we only know two observable space-time characteristics of particles, namely, mass (energy-momentum) and spin. And just energy-momentum and spin of matter turn out to be the sources of metric gravity and torsion, respectively. But because we do not observe any object possessing macrovalues of spin polarization, torsion theory as yet cannot rival with Einstein's theory. ... Let us consider a system of Dirac massless fermions ... in the Einstein-Cartan space ... one finds ... the familiar Einstein gravitation equation, but with the modified right hand side corresponding to the energy-momentum tensor of nonlinear fermions ... representing the non-linear generalization of the Dirac equation ... due to torsion

... Non-linearities due to torsion arise in other fields of non-vanishing spin, e.g. in electromagnetic ... fields ... At the same time, the question of torsion interaction with gauge fields is not quite yet clear as yet because such an interaction breaks the corresponding gauge invariance. ... Another interesting phenomenon ... is that vacuum polarization due to quantized spinor matter induces quadratic terms in the Lagrangian of the Einstein-Cartan field quite like the well-known case of the Einstein gravity field (in the last case such terms can lead to non-singular de-Sitter type inflationary cosmology. The calculation of the one-loop corrections leads to the appearance of counterterms in the Lagrangian, which have the form of the quadratic torsion Lagrangian ... Such phenomena attract attention as a possible mechanism of the origin of induced gravitation and other gauge fields by interactions of matter fields. ...".

To answer Tony Smith's question, S&S p. 37 give the torsion field analog of the electromagnetic plasma frequency gap in eq. 2.38 on p. 37

S&S do not have the idea of vacuum resonances of the virtual electron-positron plasma in the physical vacuum when pumped with nonradiating near EM fields in small cavities. That is my original new idea that I add to theirs. The torsion fields should contribute to these resonances for rotating machinery as studied by Gabriel Kron at GE during WWII possibly in connection with the US Navy "Philadelphia Experiment"?

There will also be a torsion field "Faraday rotation". The em gyrofrequency is eB/m the torsion analog is S.Q/h. p. 39 eq 2.41 has a dipolar torsion field with 3D pseudovector field

i.e. a gravitation magnetic dipole field of Blackett's empirical observations on rotating astrophysical objects - see Saul-Paul's Nature paper.

The plastic torsion "magnetic" addition to the usual Einstein-Hilbert-Sakharov elastic curvature "electric" gravitational field dynamical action is proportional to G'/c^2 (a V-A) Dirac spinor coupling like in the Fermi contact model prior to the weak gauge W bosons. Something similar will happen for the torsion field to make it a propagating field of large strength for us to utilize in a practical way. Since the torsion field gets stronger the longer the scale (smaller energy), the cosmological torsion field should explain the anomalous acceleration of the universe and also, obviously, the missing mass. If this turns out to be true in the end, it will be evidence for Colonel Corso's belief that the advanced ET's are doing a subtle technology transfer to us through us. I am skeptical myself that this is really happening were it not for 1951 and 1953. In any case it is a good sci-fi story if nothing else.

It is obvious from S&S that since standard cosmology only has elastic curvature gravity action without the plastic torsion addition to that action, that the standard model is incomplete and no wonder it does not fit the new facts.

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I am NOT convinced that the Sabatta book is a good book on torsion field theory. I find mistakes (perhaps typos)

Yes, there are typos - neither of them are native English speakers. It is a good book because it has a lot of interesting speculative ideas. It's good for physicists. I agree it is weak on the formal details. Perhaps you can comment on some of those? I do not mean to imply that everything in the book is 100% correct.

and many conjectures presented as "well known facts". There are many semi - interesting and many (IMO) outrageous possibilities presented by the author, but each (phenomenological) suggestion appears to me to be an Ansatz of some sort that does not have intrinsic formulation.

For example, the author takes the fundamental physical position that affine torsion is generated by particle spin. I cannot swallow his statement, for I believe that affine torsion can exist without spin.

(IMO) - SPIN and TORSION are separate ideas that may be related by constitutive constraints in certain special cases.

Good point. Will this relate to your form duality like Sommerfeld's distinction between E and D for example?

* It seems to me that the Sabatta argument is based upon circular reasoning, where a certain Lagrange density (1.3) is subsumed and then variational techniques are used to produce equations that are then interpreted in some fashion. The technique is perfectly reasonable, but the outcome is not compelling in the sense that the choice of a Lagrangian is a form of constraint. For example the author states on page 290 that there are more than 150 terms that could be used in a "suitable" gravitational Lagrangian with Torsion. I look for some intrinsic meaning which appears to be missing.

Another recurrent theme is that a charge distribution interacting with a background torsion field can produce a static magnetic field. However to achieve the result, first the torsion field is subsumed and then Maxwell's equations are modified (4.2) to produce the stated effect. This method of generation of such an effect does not meet with my approval.

*** On page 94, there are some problems in definitions and notations (5.7 and 5.8 are not compatible). For a Frame matrix, T^alpha_a the "Sabatta spin coefficients" are the right Cartan connection components, but this is not the same as the Sabatta Gamma coefficients" given in (5.8) -- these are the left Cartan matrix components. However the Affine torsion is not due to the Sabatta Gammas but is formed from the right Cartan matrix, not the left. This becomes confusing when one tries to decipher (6.19) - which appears to be reasonable.

On page 146 and elsewhere Sabatta asserts that Q (the torsion?) is the integrand of a 2 dimensional integral and compares torsion to vorticity. I believe that it is possible to show that torsion can exist without vorticity.

Moreover, if a space is mapped to two variables (surface coordinates) then there exist integrating factors such that the Affine connection is symmetric. Torsion is a 3 dimensional "thing", not a 2 dimensional thing. *** Elastic deformation can occur with curvature or torsion. example: A long flat ribbon (of steel) can suffer torsion twists under the application of a couple at both ends. The ribbon untwists elastically if the couple is removed. (Torsion without plasticity) Similarly, the ribbon bends with application of forces, and returns (elastically) to its original state when the forces are removed. Curvature without plasticity. Plastic deformation can happen with curvature or with torsion. Consider a long thin ribbon of lead. Torsion twist is induced by a couple, but when the couple is removed the ribbon does not return to its initial state. Similarly for the bending load. I do NOT endorse the idea of relating AffineTorsion to Plasticity. There is a possible connection between plasticity and the non-zero divergence of Topological Torsion, (a fourth order "thing") which would require irreversibility.

** Note that an infinitesimal plastic deformation implies that the line element between a pair of points is not an evolutionary invariant. ( The Cosserat brothers developed an interesting theory of director fields in real materials that can be put into correspondence with non-unitary transformations and deformations.)

Of course, realize that when you admit deformations (plastic or elastic) the concept of the covariant derivative ( which preserves the line element ) fails. That is why I use the Lie derivative on forms as the evolutionary operator, for it can handle plastic deformations, while the covariant derivative cannot. **** The idea that torsion is more fundamental than charge is NOT appealing to me. To me, the Gauss law indicates that charge is a 2-dimensional "thing". Torsion and Spin are 3 dimensional "things".

*** [Sarfatti wrote] (re Sabatta book) Lecture 1 I will try to use plain language here as much as possible to give an inkling as to the nature of torsion fields in physics. ** Spin generates torsion as mass-stress energy generates curvature. ***

This conjecture is not a universal statement and should not be made without specific reference to the constraints that imply it be true. Why ? Because it is possible to have torsion with zero spin. However the so called "physical statement" sets the stage for most of the highly speculative (IMO) features of the Sabatta book. *** As a physical example, a thick walled tube of rubber has no torsion and no curvature, but when bent onto a circle and joined at the ends it has curvature and stress energy, but no torsion. If the two ends are twisted by pi before being bent into a torus and joined together, then the resultant has stress energy, torsion and curvature. This has nothing to do with intrinsic spin. *** IMO the statement that spin is the source of torsion is an imposition of constraints on the theory of affine torsion that is not warranted, and is not justified in general. The statement arises from a specific choice for a Lagrangian in a field theory. That assumption is that there exists a term of the form S^ijk Kijk in the Lagrangian. The K term is the contorsion tensor which is metric dependent, where the S term is called the canonical spin but is never explicitly and independently defined. It must be realized the AFFINE TORSION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON METRIC. Affine Torsion does not require such Lagrangian constraints. Other choices of Lagrangians lead to different statements. To associate the concept of torsion to "intrinsic quantum spins" is an Ansatz, an ansatz that may have some utility in certain applications, but IMO it is a "physical conjecture" that presumes way too much. By the way, the concept of affine torsion preceded the concept of intrinsic spin. **

Let A4 be the curved spacetime with both curvature and torsion and R4 be the spacetime with only curvature and zero torsion.

Come on Jack. Assuming that A4 stands for a space of absolute parallelism in Shipov's notation, then both the Cartan Curvature 2-forms and the Cartan torsion 2-forms are ZERO in A4.

Yes, I meant in the physical R4 Riemann subspace of A4 where weallegedly live and see the torsion fields.

A4 is NOT a space with curvature and torsion, but it is not trivially Euclidean for there can be subspaces with both curvature and torsion. Just as all n manifolds can be embedded in Euclidean spaces of dimension 2n+1 or less (Whitney theorem), IMO, the A4 space is a projective immersion of a special type.

...Since we are making only infinitesimal displacements we can think of everything happening in the flat Lorentzian tangent space to the curved spacetime. Consider the parallel transport of B^u around such an infinitesimal parallelogram. That is move B^u say from x to x' along dx^1, then to x" from x' along dx^2, then from x" to x"' back along -dx^1, then from x"' to x"" along -dx^2. What happens? If there is curvature and zero torsion, x"" = x and the parallel displaced vector (B^u) points in a different direction than when it started. ...

x"" is not the same as x on a space with curvature There will be a defect of closure on a curved space. However the curvature defect of closure resides in the plane of dx^1 and dx^2. If there is torsion, there is also a defect of closure. However the torsion defect of closure has a component NOT in the plane of dx^1 and dx^2.

Thanks for the clarification. Is the "torsion defect of closure has a component NOT in the plane of dx^1 and dx^2" the "object of nonholonomicity"?

....so that we are led to a lattice discrete spacetime in which spin and charge are dislocations.

For example, the fluid flow across a wing produces a dislocation at the trailing edge. (Where is the lattice?). Can there be torsion without Spin? Can there be torsion without free Charge? According to closed form solutions to Maxwell field equations posted on my web site, the answer is YES. Hence the conjectures above are not universally applicable. I can appreciate the grasp for ideas that may support "vacuum propellors", but I am not sure that we understand enough about "torsion" -- yet.

I am sure you are right. My purpose in these informal "Lectures" is precisely to elicit this kind of error-correcting feedback.

One is that constructed from (antisymmetric combinations of) covariant components of tensor fields,

Primacy of fermions obeying Pauli exclusion principle? This suggests Feynman-Wheeler "Every thing is source particles" where the force fields (bosons) have no independent dynamical degrees of freedom.

No concept of particles has been introduced, but the idea of anti-symmetry as the fundamental idea is valid.

But what does it mean? There is no concept of "particles" or "classical field configurations" i.e. no material "Bohm points" moving on mental qubit landscapes in configuration space in the Bohr->vonNeuman->Heisenberg->Wigner->Wheeler-Penrose "collapse" informal models or in the Everett->Gell-Mann-Hartle->Hawking->Deutsch "many worlds" or "parallel universes" informal models preferred by quantum cosmologists and quantum computerists like Chas. Bennett or in the Feynman path model. Only the DeBroglie->Bohm->Vigier ontological informal model or interpretion of the formal quantum equations has this feature.

and the other is constructed from the contravariant tensor densities. The first are objects of intensity, and the second are objects of quantity. (Sommerfeld's influence)

I agree with you that this is a crucial physical distinction that apparently Jackson's UCB course is sloppy about. My question to you is can your formal methods give us any useful physical information about the constituitive relations for particular physical systems? Any universal constraints or invariants?

"pullback" is purely formal. Any direct physical meaning to it as well? How exactly do "retrodiction" locked in time (base space) and "pullback" (a fiber bundle concept) relate to each other?

The pullback presumes a continuous differentiable map exists between the variable of the initial and final state.

Why differentiable? We know that quantum paths are fractal i.e. not differentiable? Indeed, we might even question "continuous" on physical grounds. So we need a more general kind of "pull back".

The map may not have an inverse nor an infinitesimal inverse (Jacobian inverse need not exist). If the map described an elastic process then the Jacobian inverse would exist, but large scale deformations could be "plastic".

Local elasticity with global plasticity? So Einstein's general relativity without torsion has this feature? What would some physical examples be? Is there some kind of critical catastrophe going from the local elastic regime to the global plastic regime -- like the buckling of a beam under stress in mechanical engineering or the start of an avalanche in a sand pile? Some topological rupture or phase transition? Ripping open a torsion field supported Star Gate perhaps? Putting a flying saucer into warp drive as another example? :-)

Given the map (an evolutionary) process, then functional knowledge of two types of fields on the final state have functionally well defined fields on the initial state. The two types are differential forms such as the 2-form F (E and B) and the differential form densities, like the charge -current density 4 vector, are the two types of tensor fields that are functionally well defined from data on the final state.

I am confused. If there is no inverse how can you deterministically go back from a final state to the initial state?

Of course this is related to the arrow of time and irreversibility. Recall that pasting is a continuous process where cutting is not. Both methods of topological change will produce irreversibility. I do not know how to handle the discontinuous processes, but the use if differential forms and the Lie derivative enables some understanding of continuous processes that under go topological change and irreversibility ( or in your new buzzwords - plastic evolution.)

in a functional sense by the transpose of the "basis frame matrix" (or Jacobian). The other is retrodictively well defined by the adjoint (matrix of cofactors transposed) of the Frame matrix. (It is not clear to me that Shipov recognizes these differences).

What is the physical significance of this formal distinction? We need a tighter connection between formal statements of a purely mathematical nature and informal physical statements connected with operational procedures for experimental physicists.

covariant intensities are E & B fields, 4-vector potentials, flux quanta (h/e), Topological Torsion, forces that are associated with Work, Heat, Pressure, Temperature.

Contravariant tensor densities are like charge quanta, spin quanta, Lagrangian densities, Volume, Entropy, Charge Current density 4 vector.

One is that constructed from (antisymmetric combinations of) covariant components of tensor fields, and the other is constructed from the contravariant tensor densities. The first are objects of intensity, and the second are objects of quantity. (Sommerfeld's influence) ... covariant intensities are E & B fields, 4-vector potentials, flux quanta (h/e), Topological Torsion, forces ... Contravariant tensor densities are like charge quanta, spin quanta, Lagrangian densities, Volume, Entropy, Charge Current density 4 vector .... contravariant are like particles, covariants are like waves.

Yes - thanks. So there is a close connection of this formal difference of upper and lower tensor indices for example, and the quantum wave-particle duality? Charge Current density 4 vector...Lagrangian densities as "waves" - do you mean total charge and total action respectively?

Hence the Spaces of absolute parallelism (which require a Frame inverse) are more restrictive.

A4 Vacuums have local Frame reversibility. They can be continuous (integrable in the forward direction but not the reverse) or they can be integrable and continuous in both directions. The first case may or may not be irreversible. The latter case is reversible. Physically this can be interpreted as small deformations are elastic but large deformations can be plastic. (The Free energy must have terms cubic or higher)

That is why I have tried to find out if Shipov restricts his A4 space to be integrable or not. If it is not integrable, then topological torsion is present. Topological Torsion (not Affine torsion) is necessary but not sufficient for continuous irreversibility.

Consider a 4x4 matrix. the matrix is representative of affine transformations if the entries on the bottom row are 0,0,0,1. In other words, 4 out of 16 functions (parameters) have been fixed. Products of such matrices form the Affine group. the bottom row remains 0,0,0,1

For a projective connection the 4x4 matrix has 15 free parameters. A typical constraint would be that the determinant <>0. Such is the case for an A4 space. It includes affine spaces and affine torsion, but it also includes a larger class.

Can you illustrate all the Klein Erlanger program with this 4x4 matrix example? ie. topology -> projective->affine-> metric -> conformal?

The fact that such restricted domains can support non-Riemannian substructures (spaces with torsion) is IMO the importance of Shipov's message.

Yes, this is what I meant in my "curvature + torsion" or "elastic + plastic" remark about A4, I should have said "subspace of A4".

Subject to certain additional constraints, there exists a sometimes useful (Poincare) duality between p and N-p forms that compose a Grassmann variety.

Is this the same as Sommerfeld's "The first are objects of intensity, and the second are objects of quantity."

"covariant components of tensor fields, and the other is constructed from the contravariant tensor densities. The first are objects of intensity, and the second are objects of quantity"

Is the Poincare duality p -><- N-p the same as Sommerfeld's "objects of intensity, and .... objects of quantity" also the same as covariant waves and contravariant particles? What are the significant misalignments of these different dualities? Sort of like different base states for polarization - linear, circular, elliptical i.e. points on the Stokes sphere? Is there a kind of generalized conceptual Stokes sphere of category theory of the Qabalistic "Glass Bead Game" of Hermann Hesse's occult Platonism in which the various points are:

"material explicate Bohm Point" -> <- "mental implicate qubit complexity landscape of strange fractal attractors in the de Broglie pilot field" (Sarfatti)

Now of course there are important differences. E and D are both material explicate fields for example.

The possible relationships between p forms and N-p form densities contains a lot of physics called constitutive relations.

Well this is the "equation of state" of the medium including the physical vacuum as both elastic (curvature) and plastic (torsion) , the latter implying a net displacement of center of mass in seeming violation of Newton's 3rd law in the elastic geometry without the plastic torsion modes taken into account. How can these formal considerations give us that kind of specific physical information?

First I disagree that elastic is curvature and plastic is torsion. Both curvature and affine torsion can be elastic or plastic. There is another mode of deformation that includes expansion with rotation, that induces a second kind of torsion. See my notes on defects.

OK we need to be really clear and precise about this. What is the URL on the "defects"?

The search for an equation of "state" is most likely given by the characteristic polynomial of the zero set of the Frame matrix. (the compliment of the A4 vacuum.)

This means there exists a cubic polynomial for which the trace is the mean curvature, the trace of the adjoint is the sectional Gauss curvature, and these functions are all similarity invariants. The cubic format leads to a universal representation similar to that of a Van der Waals gas, with a critical point and phase transitions. (See my article on The Ubiquitous Van der Waals gas. This of course is the intrinsic representation for low order catastrophe theory.

Is this only for 2D surfaces? So when you generalize to higher dimensions you run into the Galois-solvability -> Godel incompleteness -> Church-Turing halting - noncomputability (Penrose) barrier. Is noncomputabilty beyond Galois solvability like your topological torsion? What is the catastrophe theoretic version of this like in Saul-Paul's adaptation of V I Arnold's singularity theory?

"Physically this can be interpreted as small deformations are elastic but large deformations can be plastic. (The Free energy must have terms cubic or higher) That is why I have tried to find out if Shipov restricts his A4 space to be integrable or not. If it is not integrable, then topological torsion is present. Topological Torsion (not Affine torsion) is necessary but not sufficient for continuous irreversibility."

So, is does the transition from integrable to nonintegrable generating topological torsion require crossing the Galois solvability barrier into true but undecidable statements above the complexity threshold between the quintic and the quartic secular polynomial whose eigen roots are what? That is, something universal and fundamental in going from 4x4 matrices to 5x5 matrices and computing their eigenvalues and eigenvectors.

This is an important observation. It suggests that Shipov's A4 geometry is physically incomplete, a sub-geometry of 10 dimensions (not metric) rather than 16? That is, Grassmann algebra?

I favor the Grassmann algebra for it is the basis of differential forms -- But I am prejudiced.

Page simply says 6 more from the planes of 4D spacetime. Why did Einstein miss that? The physical answer, perhaps, is that Einstein thought of test particles as point particles rather than extended ones?

IMO opinion there are two reasons for the oversight. The first has to do with the obsession for single parameter groups (that is - a kinematic foundation for the evolution of point particles) The second has to do with the obsession for uniqueness--that a physical theory is meaningful if and only if given initial data a unique prediction is possible. One thing that string theories have done is to focus attention on "more than 1 parameter groups of evolution". Another big deal about differential forms is that they demonstrate that retrodiction is deterministic ( and prediction is not) relative to non - invertible infinitesimal maps, and that non-uniqueness is important to the advancement of science.

Yes, we can remember better than we can premember - except for Merlin and remote viewers perhaps. So your math here is that of time's arrow. Memory is deterministic retrodiction. You formal distinction applies to our stream of conscious moments that I say have a duration of

This gets us to catastrophe theory and the "monster group" I suspect. So nonuniqueness, the signature of quantum phenomena, is the breakdown of classical determinism. This is more than classical chaos because of the superposition principle.

What is remarkable is the continuous retrodiction is deterministic, while prediction is not. (The logical arrow of time)

Locally the Darboux theorem says that every 1-form has a representation in terms of at least n functions where n < N +1, with N the dimension of the independent variables. The number n is the "Pfaff dimension" of the 1 form.

Does this relate to time-dependent constraints in classical mechanics that do work? That is, N+1 - n = number of constraints?

What's the physics of the odd dimensional subspaces? How does this relate to observable Bohm-Aharonov quantum phase shifts?

flux quanta, topological torsion quanta, Spin quanta are Odd dimensional. Vorticity, Poincare invariants are even dimensional. Bohm Aharonov effects are generated by the closed line integral of a non exact but closed component of a 1-form of Action. The closed line integral of A is evaluted on a non-shrinkable closed path in the compliment to the domain of support to dA. (This idea was used by Post to deduce the fractional Hall effect 2 years before the experiments. Nobody even references his work for it does not use Copenhagen technology). The BA effect is the flux quantum (see my old article on "Periods on manifolds....

An example of a harmonic addition, to give global content to the differential form, is

Note that if two holes in a hypersurface exist in plus or minus closed line integral about the two holes will give a net zero value.

Particles and antiparticles? Torsion as defect density in the spacetime quantum elastic-plastic discretum gives "particles" with quantized spin and universal electric charge. What is physical meaning of the "hypersurface"? I am trying to pin you down to specific physical interpretations of the formal structures. As a physicist I see in your writing a pretty formal structure with only fragmentary elusive physical meanings.

I do not see how torsion as a defect density yields particles with quantized spin and universal electric charge. THAT is a conjecture of Sabatta. I can give a reason for the quantization of charge , spin and torsion on topological grounds, but I see Sabatta's claims as merely ad hoc statements. A hypersurface is an N-1 dimensional variety in an N space. A global orientable hypersurface is given by the zero set of a single function on the space. A non-orientable surface CANNOT be formulated by the zero set of a single function.

I do not like to make fanciful claims about physics from mathematical formulas unless I see an intrinsic quality in the formulation. Theories with 15 free parameters leave me cold. However, Maxwell equations have an intrinsic formulation in terms of differential forms, where the fundamental equations have the same form in all frames of reference, and in all dimensions. To me such a concept is remarkable and therefor constructions based on this universality are "intrinsic" and important to me. The statements of Maxwell theory in this language do not require metric or connections. Imposition of metric or connections is just so much extra baggage. However, the intrinsic method does focus on concepts of topological torsion and topological spin which are again free from metric or connection constraints.

Einstein's classical general relativity gives the physical vacuum as an elastic continuum. Curvature, causing gravity, comes from the elasticity traced, perhaps, to virtual quantum particles. In addition, we have plasticity from torsion. Changing the classical continuum to a quantum discretum gives us torsion-induced quantized spin and electric and magnetic charges of the source particles forming the little Bohm points x in the ontological interpretation of the quantum.

I think my examples above demonstrate that some care must be taken before plasticity is associated with torsion and torsion is associated with plasticity. I would agree that the even form dA^dA which is the exterior derivative of the Topological Torsion A^F is nonzero for a plastic (continuous irreversible) deformation.

The closed line integral about each hole will be plus or minus some value. Suppose the holes are globally separated by light years. Then the detection of one hole immediately gives (from the knowledge that they are paired) the knowledge of the value for the other hole. Is this an indication of non-locality? Is this an indication of "entanglement"? These are points to ponder.

Entanglement means that simple 4D spacetime geometry must give way to configuration space as the true dynamical arena. This is 3N + 1 dimensional for N point source particles that are mutually entangled if we can use Galilean relativity, or a global cosmic time with local 3-Geometry neighborhoods in general relativity. This is the problem. For classical fields, each point of the continuum, or each unit cell of the spin-network discreet, is a dimension of the configuration space for the motion of the material Ohm point X(T) piloted by the mental quit field psi.

The notion that the existence of a 3N+1 space implies entangled states is not what I extract from my reading of the literature.

No, you got it the wrong way. Any NONMECHANICAL N particle entangled state is a function on 3N configuration space in Galilean relativity. You also have non-entangled states that you can picture classically MECHANICALLY as N particles separated from each other in ordinary space if you like. But as soon as quantum effects come you can no longer do that.

It appears that superposition (an additive part of a vector space algebra), does not always permit factorization. I somehow get the impression from that which I have read that the entangled state is superposed state that cannot be factored, In a sense an entangled state is like a prime number.

Yes, but the domain of these entangled states for N point particles is 3N configuration space for Galilean relativity. Let N = 2 point particles. Any Galilean 2-particle wave function is

psi(x,y,z,x',y',z',t)' = f(x,y,z,t) g(x',y',z',t) + f'(x,y,z,t) g'(x',y',z',t) + ...

However, for this to be objective you must show that there is no basis transformation that will make psi(x,y,z,x',y',z',t)' look like psi(x,y,z,x',y',z',t).

For example with polarization states of a real transverse radiation photon, the normalized

Is really entangled. Why? I suppose that any quantum state that violates Bell's locality inequality counts as really entangled. That is obviously at least a sufficient condition. Each photon does not have its own state when the pair is really entangled - this must be true in any frame of reference if quantum nonlocality is objective in the sense of Einstein.

Most physicists and mathematicians have no clear ideas on the mind-matter problem. The problem is, what is there known in theoretical physics that has the properties of a mental field? I have found that implicit inside the Bohm ontological interpretation of the meaning of quantum theory - only in that ontology is the solution of the "hard problem" for the generation of our consciousness possible in a quantitative testable way e.g.

The classical fields are given by world tensors written in terms of the tetrads (moving frames). Using the Penrose-Newman bridges between the material tensors and the spinor mental (by definition) qubits we find that each material tetrad component is itself an EPR pair of mental qubits in which the Bell basis, used in quantum teleportation, plays a key role.

"... the dominant contribution to the elastic curvature coupling ... ... are from virtual ... quantum black holes of mass 10^-5 gram ... .. In contrast, the dominant contribution to the plastic (nonholonomic) [torsion coupling] ... comes from LOWER MASS virtual ... electron-positron ...".

I agree, and that is consistent with my conformal graviphoton model, so the models seem to be physically somewhat similar.

You are saying they have different dimensions. I am saying they have the same dimensions. I mean S&S are saying the latter. The importance of the S&S idea, better than yours I suspect, is that the torsion field becomes very strong macroscopically so that we can in General Mac Arthur's 1962 words "harness the cosmic energy". Now I do not know if S&S are correct here in this intuitive speculation. I hope so. We shall see.

so that my conformal graviphoton G' is strong (about 137 times as strong as electromagnetism) at all energy levels, (although I have not calculated renormalization group effects), while your S&S G' varies as 1 / E^2, and so is strong only at low energies.

Yes, but it is strong enough to explain weak force, strong force et-al in a unified way. S&S say that the torsion field unifies ALL the fundamental forces in this sliding scale dependence. I think it may also explain the cosmological acceleration of the universe that S&S did not know about when they wrote the book.

As and when I do renormalization group calculations for the conformal graviphoton model, I will let you know, but my present guess (and it is only a guess) is that since graviphotons look somewhat like U(1) photons, and since the renormalization group curve for U(1) photons is pretty flat (see any particle physics text that discusses GUT - one example is figures 7.1 and 7.2 on pages 178 and 179 of The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene (W. W. Norton & Company, 1999)) it seems likely to me that even with renormalization my G' will stay pretty strong, and that it will NOT vary as 1 / E^2.

I am interested in seeing details of how S&S calculate the energy dependence of their torsion coupling.

I think they simply posit it intuitively. How could anyone calculate something like that? Renormalization group for effective field actions at different coarse-grained levels - but there are a lot of assumptions.

In my conformal graviphoton model, you would get larger stargates by using more electrons/positrons, as my torsion force is roughly proportional to the number of spinor carriers of torsion.

In my conformal graviphoton model, you would make a stargate by using electron/positron currents flowing around a torus with the stargate the hole in the torus, and the natural frequency of the circulating electron/positrons would be inversely proportional to the length of the current circuit, which is roughly the stargate circumference, so the lower the frequency the larger the stargate, but you would need to use larger currents of electrons/positrons to make larger stargates.

I agree that the larger the star gate the lower the frequency for sure. But in S&S lower the frequency means a larger G' so you can do it with smaller currents. This is a big practical advantage over your model. Remember "The Philadelphia Experiment" of 1943. Robert Dickson Crane a former respected CIA analyst, buddy of Marvin Minsky and Herman Kahn, said (1980 or so) he heard from people in "The Company" that it was real.

Einstein "Unified field theory based on Riemannian Metrics and distant parallelism" shows an easy lemma: if torsion is zero then "we have euclidean geometry" - thus the theory is trivial, that is there exists a coordinate system in which the vierbein is a Kronecker delta.

Yes, Kiehn made that point also. I meant in the physical subspace where we live. We do not live in A4 we live in a subspace of A4 in which we see both elastic curvature and plastic torsion. When you go to the bigger A4 space all is flat, no curvature no torsion. That's what "absolute parallelism" means - like Euclid in the larger space. It's the projection into the smaller space that gives us the measurable force fields.

I am really trying to understand Larry's argument. Here are some LC quotes from previous mail:

Bohm's theory simply decomposes the Schrodinger equation into a real and imaginary part. The real part is a Hamilton-Jacobi equation, or constraint, modified by a quantum potential. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation is common to classical mechanics. So there is nothing wrong with this, per se. However, if one performs a unitary transform on the wave function used in this derivation one arrives at a different Hamilton-Jacobi equation. This describes another particle trajectory. So if one considers all possible transformations of the wave function one has an ensemble of trajectories. This is where Jack, and I think most "Bohmists" fall flat. They perform the straight forward derivation and jump to the conclusion that they have a physical description of a particle that is somehow ontologically real beyond the wave function. This is essentially why Bohm's theory, as it currently stands, fails to satisfy most physicists.

However, if one performs a unitary transform on the wave function used in this derivation one arrives at a different Hamilton-Jacobi equation. This describes another particle trajectory. So if one considers all possible transformations of the wave function one has an ensemble of trajectories. Well if Bohm theory does not more fundamentally involve ensembles,

Bohm theory does not fundamentally involve ensembles. Under the special conditions of "subquantum heat death" (Valentini) or "equilibrium" (Bohm and Hiley) corresponding to the Born formula that entails signal-locality AKA "passion at a distance" (Shimony), it will describe the usual ensemble statistics for simple quantum systems. The statistical interpretation of under-parametrized quantum theory is strictly a low-complexity limit of its post-quantum covering theory.

this would mean that there is a preferred choice in the unitary rotation for the theory. This is utterly unacceptable.

Larry is full of beans. He misunderstands the physics of symmetry and invariance. First take classical special relativity and Maxwell's classical equations of the electromagnetic field with sources. Now the equations are Lorentz invariant, and one can use any of a set of global inertial frames moving uniformly relative to each other. The directly measurable local field tensor Fuv is not frame invariant. Its components will look different in different frames. There are, in addition, frame invariants like F^u^vFuv.

Now let's go to quantum mechanics and unitary transformations. Classical transformations in geometrodynamics will induce unitary transformations in the Hilbert space of quantum wave functions. For example, free particles of given spin are irreducible unitary representations of the flat space-time Poincare group. This classification breaks down in the curved elastic spacetime of general relativity because the translation subgroup of the Poincare group is no longer a good symmetry group. Indeed one gets the diffeomorphic group by locally gauging the translation subgroup in analogy to Yang-Mills for internal gauge symmetries. This was first done by Kibble at Imperial College in mid-60's. I was there at the time coming down from UKAERE at Harwell to hang about Imperial a few times where I caught wind of this and the new Goldstone theorem for spontaneous broken symmetries. I was one of the first to apply the latter to solid state physics (Jahn-Teller Effect) with A.M. Stoneham published in a good journal at that time (Proc Phys Soc of London, 1967).

In any case, suppose we are given an arbitrary algebra of Hermitian observables, A, B ... that form a Lie Algebra. They are the infinitesimal generators of some unitary group U. Next suppose that A and B are incompatible. That is they obey a Heisenberg uncertainty principle because their commutator

[A,B] = AB - BA =/= 0

We can define an A-quantum frame of reference in the Hilbert space as the complete orthonormal set of eigenfunctions |a>

A|a> = a|a>

B|b> = b|b>

There will be a unitary transformation U connecting these two quantum frames of reference.

|a> = Sum over b |b>

Uba =

U* = U^-1

Sigma(x) = A

Sigma(y) = B

They do not commute.

The unitary operator U that makes the frame transformation from the A-frame to the B-frame in the single qubit information space for quantum computers is

U = e^i Sigma(z)(pi/2)

The Hilbert space of the single spin 1/2 "electron" is a single "qubit" of quantum computing theory. That is, a finite 2D Hilbert space. In my post-QM these are all "mental states"! They are not "sentient" mental states of course until there is "back-action" with the complete breakdown of "ensembles" and the "signal-locality" of the "subquantum heat death". That's another story, however. Right now I will stay with the "quantum story" not the "post-quantum story".

OK, so this is the simple formalism in a nutshell for the simplest interesting physical situation I can think of at the moment. This is the sort of thing Larry Crowell should be doing - this is the right level to try to explain and understand these important ideas for the current business revolution in information technology and telecommunications.

What about the physics? You imagine a Stern-Gerlach apparatus with electron beams. That is an electron beam passes through a a very real inhomogeneous static magnetic near field composed entirely from virtual photons with only scalar and longitudinal polarizations in a coherent Glauber quantum state. The coupling of these virtual scalar-longitudinal photons to the circulating torsion field-stabilized electrical currents of the spatially extended electron, a tiny magnetized gyroscope, causes there Bohm point paths X(t) to split into two different diverging classes of trajectories that are clearly seen directly in real experiments.

So first orient the big magnet so that the direction of the magnetic field is along the x-axis. This selects out the A-quantum frame! Next do a different experiment, rotate the big magnet along the the z-axis, this actual rotation is represented by the above unitary operator

U = e^i Sigma(z)(pi/2)

You can use either frame. So this is, in actual practical operational experimental quantum computer hardware engineering terms what all the fancy formalism really means! It's time to demystify all the Laputan obscurities. "Skim milk masquerades as cream." It's time to drive the mathematicians in physicist's clothing out of the Temple of Theoretical Physics. It's time to start thinking physically again in terms of gedankenexperiments like Einstein and Bohr did do.

Now does this kind of unitarity refute Bohm's ontology like Larry Crowell says it does? NO!

How would Bohm describe the above? The "total experimental arrangement" (Bohr) determines the shape of the quantum potential Q that one can picture as a "landscape" in the configuration space of the Bohm point. For our single qubit electron, the landscape has two basins of attraction, one for spin "up" along a given space direction corresponding to the actual orientation of the big magnet and the other for spin "down". Depending on X(0) the actual path X(t) of the center of mass of each individual extended electron is completely determined, just like in classical physics, in this one-way (non-sentient) "causal theory" approximation with ZERO BACKACTION and SIGNAL-LOCALITY.

When you make the unitary rotation with U you simply change the shape of the landscape you shift the portrait. That is, as Bohr said, the "total experimental arrangement" selects out the "preferred frame" in Hilbert space appropriate to the canonical Von Neumann type of "strong measurements" we are considering.

Now there are different types of quantum measurements than this, such as "weak measurements", nondemolition backaction (different meaning) evading measurements in quadrutures, "protected measurements" of the individual wave function (Aharonov) that must all be discussed operationally with gedankenexperiments, on a case by case basis.

The post-quantum story replaces this classical determinism of the paths, albeit subject to nonlocal influences, with spontaneously-sentient self-organizing self-referential self determination (naturally intelligent adaptive free will) in which the mental pilot field and its material configuration co-evolve in a two-way post-Bohmian dialogue of action with reaction between the implicate and the explicate order of the low energy approximation to the Platonic Demi-Urge, or primal pre-geometry, or Dirac "substratum" or whatever you want to call it - "The Mind of God"?

Back to Larry Crowell's fundamental misunderstandings. I am sure he is not the only guilty Pundit here. :-)

The problem is that the ontological viewpoint is a "preferred unitary angle or frame." Physics involves invariant principles, and the ontological viewpoint is not invariant under unitary transformations.

Wrong, the Bohm ontology obeys the freedom to use different frames of reference that connect to each other by formal unitary transformations implemented by actual motions of real experimental equipment in which the "total experimental arrangement" is transformed.

Note that one must distinguish a relative unitary transformation within the experiment from a global one of the entire experiment! For example, let there be a polarized source of electrons emitted along the z-axis in spin eigenstates +1 along x with detector magnet along x. Now rotate both source and detector pi/2 radians about the z axis to the y direction. There will be no change in the detector statistics. One will see only the +1 channel click. This is global rotational symmetry. In contrast, keep the source fixed but rotate the magnet only as above. Now the statistics will change and both +1 and -1 channel will click at equal rates.

psi = Ae^i(k.r - wt)

Perform a unitary transformation on this momentum eigenfunction corresponding to a 90-degree rotation in physical space around a transverse axis.

In the Bohmian interpretation, would we not *expect* a "different Hamilton-Jacobi equation" and a "different particle trajectory" to result from such a transformation? Why would a Bohmian be surprised by that?

The classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a single mass point governs the propagation of constant S surfaces in configuration space, in this case physical space, with the motion of the represented mass point normal to the propagating surfaces. Thus we would certainly expect a transverse rotation in physical space to generate a new H-J equation for this classical system.

The WKB decomposition of the Schrodinger equation / wave function yields an analog of the classical H-J equation in the limit h->0. Transformations of the wave function (e.g., rotations) should as a matter of course transform this H-J correspondence analog, just as they would in the purely classical case.

As I understand it, what Bohm did was to write a quantum H-J equation in which all the quantum effects are compartmentalized in the quantum potential Q. The physical effects of this Q on the hypothesized particle trajectories then become the focus of interpretive efforts.

Why would Q not also be transformed in the same manner? Why would that be a problem?

It appears to me that these unitary transformational properties do not conflict in any way with Bohm's "ontology".

Or is Larry referring specifically to unitary operators associated with canonical or contact transformations?

If so, then my counterexample about being able to swap the p's and q's by a canonical transformation would apply: just because such a transformation preserves the form of the dynamical law (fundamentally Hamilton's principle) does not in any way imply that there is no physical distinction between momentum and position. This is a clear example where we have formal symmetry with underlying physical dyssymmetry.

Of course, the same operation can be viewed as an actual physical transformation or as a change of coordinates. Is it this ambiguity which is causing the problem?

If Q(t) and Q(0) are not simultaneously diagonalizable (noncommuting) then your decomposition of their product into eigenvalues is false.

Larry, that is utter superfically conceived glib formal hogwash. It is pure "rigor-mortis" in Feynmans's sense. It is more blind formalizing away of important physical ideas. In general, for a single individual quantum system (psi, X) where "psi" is the pilot "wave" and "X" is the "beable" Bohm point. I can take any two observable linear Hermitian operators that act only on psi at two different times 0 and t. That is, A(0) and B(t). Between postulated measurements at 0 and t, I can write:

B(t) = e^-itime-ordered integral H(t)dt B(0) e^+itime-ordered integral H(t)dt

B(t) = U^-1(t) B(0) U(t)

U is a unitary operator valid only between the two nonunitary Von Neumann impulsive measurements.

[A(0),B(0)] = A(0)B(0) - B(0)A(0) =/= 0

In this case A(0) and B(0) as matrices are not simultaneously diagonalizable. They do not share common eigenfunctions. Their respective eigenfunctions form bases i.e. quantum frames of reference rotated from each other in the Hilbert space.

Now we introduce statistical ensembles in the Bohm ontology in the limit of the "causal theory" approximation with deterministic particle trajectories X(t) for a given psi(x,0) and a given H(t). Let Xi be the ith individual in the ensemble of n members all having exactly the same initial psi(x,0) and the same H(t). They do not, however, start off with the same initial positions Xi(0)! Also, there are no nonlocal connections, no entanglements between them! For simplicity, assume "subquantum heat death" initially. That is we now make the new statistical mechanical postulate that the classical probability density distribution to find a given individual i whose Bohm point is Xi(0) at initial position x at time t = 0 is

dP(x,0)/dV = |psi(x,0)|^2 |x = Xi(0)

Bohm's basic theorem is then, that if the action-reaction principle between pilot information wave psi and its Bohm point X is violated i.e. one-way action of psi on X, but no direction reaction (back-action) of X on psi, then and only then,

dP(x,t)/dV = |psi(x,t)|^2 |x = Xi(t)

Corollary: under these special conditions there is signal-locality, i.e. no nonlocal communication faster than light, slower than light, forward or backward in time AKA "passion at a distance" (Shimony) You can encode a quantum message locally at a transmitter and store it nonlocally beyond space-time in a cipher spanning the transmitter and receiver arbitrarily far apart, but you need a classical key locked into space-time to decode it at the receiver. That is, when you effectively suppress or violate the spirit of Newton's third law extended by Einstein to the principle of "no absolute physical objects", you PREVENT controlled spooky telepathic paranormal voodoo remote-viewing psychokinesis - all the good stuff including the rational understanding of ordinary consciousness as a natural physical process. No wonder the Power Elite of respectable physicists are so afraid of opening this Pandora's Box! :-) They h

Advanced Intelligence Agency

United Earth Star Gate Expeditionary Contact Forces

End of Second Millennium Report

"The Colonel Corso Project"

Reverse Engineering Alien ET Flying Saucer Technology

by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.

Problem 1 - Vacuum Energy and Dark Matter in Cosmology.

GM^2 = hc

L = h/Mc.

GM^2/hc = 1

G < 0 and M^2 < 0

G > 0 and M^2 > 0

L = c/H = 10^28 cm

M = ihH/c^2 = i 10^-65 grams, i^2 = -1

G < 0, M^2 < 0.

Problem 2 - The Arbitrary Parameters of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

Problem 3 - The Origin of Gamma Ray Bursts.

Problem 4 - The Origin of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays

Problem 5 - The Solar Neutrino Problem.

Problem 6 - The Origin of Matter/Antimatter Asymmetry in the Universe.

Problem 7 - The Origin of the Arrow of Time.

Albert Einstein -- the man of century

t(C) > t(D)

t(C) < t(D)

Geometrodynamical Action = 1/G Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action

GM^2 = hc

GM^2/hc = 1

G > 0 and M^2 > 0

G < 0 and M^2 < 0

Geometrodynamical Action = 1/G Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action + G Plastic Torsion Action

GM^2/hc = 1

1/G =M^2/hc

G = hc/M^2

c = 1/sqrt[(electric vacuum response)(magnetic vacuum response)]

Geometrodynamical Action = (M^2/hc) Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action + (hc/M^2) Plastic Torsion Action

h/Mc = L

(hc/M^2) = (L^2 c^3/h)

1/L = Mc/h

(M^2/hc) = (h/L^2c^3)

(Effective Geometrodynamical Action) = (h/L^2c^3) (Effective Einstein-Hilbert Elastic Curvature Action) + (L^2 c^3/h) (Effective Plastic Torsion Action)

(Plastic Torsion)/(Elastic Curvature) = (L^2 c^3/h) /(h/L^2c^3)

Lp = (hG/c^3)^1/2

G = hc/M^2

L = h/cM

G(L) = L^2 c^3/h = L^2 2.7 10^58 [cm^3/sec^2 gm]

G(Planck scale) = 2.7x2.56 10^-66x 10^58[cm^3/sec^2 gm] = G(Newton)

[A,B] = AB - BA =/= 0

A|a> = a|a>

B|b> = b|b>

|a> = Sum over b |b>

Uba =

U* = U^-1

Sigma(x) = A

Sigma(y) = B

They do not commute.

U = e^i Sigma(z)(pi/2)

U = e^i Sigma(z)(pi/2)

psi = Ae^i(k.r - wt)

B(t) = e^-itime-ordered integral H(t)dt B(0) e^+itime-ordered integral H(t)dt

B(t) = U^-1(t) B(0) U(t)

[A(0),B(0)] = A(0)B(0) - B(0)A(0) =/= 0

dP(x,0)/dV = |psi(x,0)|^2 |x = Xi(0)

dP(x,t)/dV = |psi(x,t)|^2 |x = Xi(t)