OK I will be studying this. You need a laptop.
My current understanding is that it is the Ricci torsion that you and
Akimov are making experimental claims about including relatively strong
propagating torsion waves that have real technological application.
Will you be at Dublin GR 17?

As I understand the distinction at the moment, the Ricci torsion fields
come from locally gauging the 10 parameter Poincare group. Cartan
torsion comes from only locally gauging the 4-parameter translation
group. For example, the torsion field I get in my model is only the
Cartan torsion since I only locally gauge the translation group as a
first model in my equation for the Bohm IT from BIT elastic crystal
distortion guidance constraint by the macro-quantum vacuum coherence
local field.

du(x,s) = Lp*(s)^2arg<0|e+e-|0>,u

Lp*(s) = Lp^2/3s^1/3

at scale s

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

If this idea is correct, there should still be more dynamical fields
from locally gauging the 4 special conformal transformations to
hyperbolic motion in sense of special relativity and the dilatation.
Now in standard model we get spin 1 electro-weak-strong from locally
gauging internal U(1)SU(2)SU(3) so the issue arises if this is somehow
redundant? You know like Wheeler-Feynman saying EM field redundant, all
we need is PV e+e- field (seemingly excluding HRP EM ZPF origin of
inertia and gravity). Similarly, if we locally gauge 16 parameter
GL(4,R) and maybe Kaluza-Klein the 12 parameters making them periodic
do we get standard model since U(1)SU(2)SU(3) has exactly 12
parameters?

On Jun 2, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Gennady I Shipov wrote:

> Hi, Jack!
>
> In 10 days I shall leave Moscow and I will not have access to a
> computer.
>
> Therefore I would like to pay your attention once again to the fine
> table in R.Hammond's article (see the attachment). I think, that it
> can be improved, if to distinguish  Ricci and Cartan torsion in it
> (see the attachment).
>
> In section " Pre-torsion era " I would note an abstract F. Frenet "
> Sur les coarbes a double courbure " appearad in Jounal de Mathem., 17,
> 1852, pp.437-447. in which for the first time in a science there is a
> term "torsion". Further article Gregorio Ricci " Dei sistemi di
> congruenze ortogonali in una varieta qualunque " in " Atti della
> R.Accademia dei lincei, Memorie ". Vol 2, serie 5, 1895, pp. 276-322.
> It is very important work.
>
> In it Ricci rotation coefficients (the formula (4) on page 291) and
> object of noncholonomity (the first formula on page 312) for the first
> time are entered. Unfortunately Cartan, Shouten, Weizenbock and
> Einstein in the works have not named object of noncholonomity as Ricci
> torsion. I think, that it is necessary for making, as Cartan torsion
> has been entered in a science only in 1926 when Картан has introduced 
> the equations of structure for geometry of the common type. Connection
> of such geometry includes both torsion Ricci, and Cartan torsion. If
> to put Cartan torsion equal to zero, that we shall receive the
> structural equations of geometry of absolute parallelism which contain
> only Ricci torsion.
>
> In basic work Kibble  does not distinguish torsion Cartan and Ricci.
> And as a result in well-known Newman-Penrose work  1962 authors do not
> notice , that they use Cartan structural equations  of geometry of
> absolute parallelism, where they use  Ricci torsion  for calculations.
> If in the NP-formalis to put Ricci torsion  equal to zero , we receive
> trivial flat space.
>
> Using the NP-formalism, Carmeli (1972) builds gauge model of 
> gravitational field (it is unique correct from my point of view)
> within the framework of local spinor  Poincare's groups. Without Ricci
> torsion  this work is inconceivable.
>
> At last Shipov in the book " A Theory of Physical Vacuum " (1993,1998)
> has suggested to consider Cartan structural equations of geometry of
> absolute parallelism as the equations of Physical Vacuum, which
> generalaized Einstein's  vacuum equations R_jk=0. In this work torsion
> Ricci fields  play a role of a field of a matter (quantum fields).
> Also allow to solve a problem of unification of the theory of a
> relativity and the quantum theory.
>
> But the most important - Ricci torsion fields  prove experimentally, 
> against  Cartan fields.
>
> Shipov   Gennady.
>
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Jack Sarfatti
>
> To: David Gladstone
>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:41 PM
>
> Subject: Re: The Visitors: Something wicked this way comes?
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
>
> Saul-Paul
>
> Don't forget Akimov's allegations from Moscow about non-EM torsion
> waves in that regard. I am re-examining all that in the light of
> recent papers by Hammond and Shipov. It's not so simple as you know.
> Gennady's latest paper is good. Together with Hammond's - get a better
> picture of what may be possible in terms of military application of
> torsion fields to C^3.
>

On Jun 1, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

> Dear Gennady
>
> The more I read your latest paper, the more I like it. You are
> definitely making a strong case not to dismiss Akimov's claims
> prematurely. This is, of course, consistent with what Richard Hammond
> said off the record at ISSO Torsion Workshop 2000 that you attended at
> Henry Dakin's about US Navy's reaction to his positive experimental
> results on propagating torsion if I remember correctly? The debunking
> of Akimov's and your work is itself suspicious. I don't care what
> Lifschitz may have written. He is very old and may not be the man he
> was. I will certainly be studying what you have to say in your latest
> paper - best yet! :-)
>
> I will post your paper along with Hammond's paper online with
> highlights and my annotations. Please send me a copy with the figures
> showing.
>
> On Jun 1, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
>> bcc
>>
>> Gennady
>> Your new paper Kruch1.pdf looks very good. I just did a first quick
>> look and will study it. None of the figures show up and I have the
>> latest Acrobat software. Do the figures show up in your .pdf copy?
>> Please send it again, but check that you can see the figures.
>>
>>
>> On May 31, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>>
>>> Berkant send to Greenglow, thanks.
>>>
>>> Professor Kleinert is also a leading expert on general relativity
>>> and torsion fields at the Free University in Berlin. He worked with
>>> Feynman at Cal Tech,
>>> On May 31, 2004, at 3:43 AM, Hagen Kleinert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your mail Jack!
>>>> Have a look also at
>>>>
>>>> H. Kleinert and J. Zaanen
>>>>
>>>> World Nematic Crystal Model of Gravity
>>>> Explaining the Absence of Torsion
>>>> http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/346
>>>> FU-Berlin preprint 2003
>>>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0307033
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2004, at 3:38 AM, Alexander Konkretny wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess what Gennady is saying is that Hammond does not make a
>>>> distinction between the Cartan torsion and "the Ricci torsion".
>>>> Funny, but of all theoreticians I know only Gennady Shipov
>>>> makes such a distinction. I wonder if Gennady could name just one
>>>> theoretician who would know what the hell is "the Ricci torsion"
>>>> he is talking about.
>>>
>>> I am making an annotated pdf version of Hammond's review paper and
>>> will put it on line with key parts highlighted in yellow and pop-up
>>> annotations, so everyone can see for themselves. Hammond has a nice
>>> concise description of the essence of Gennady's particular version
>>> of torsion fields in Section 4 "Teleparallelism" eqs. 185-190.
>>>
>>> "Teleparallelism" is a kind of absolute holonomy or integrability,
>>> i.e. path independence in parallel transport between two events
>>> (state functions - reversible process of constant entropy in the
>>> Catheodory (spelling?) formal thermodynamics analogy, e.g. R.
>>> Kiehn). This is like elementary Euclidean geometry. Of course the
>>> connection field is more than the symmetric Levi-Civita one from
>>> 1916 GR. The generalized curvature is zero, but this curvature is
>>> the Einstein curvature + torsion field contribution.
>>>
>>> My theory of exotic vacuum from zero point energy has an equation
>>>
>>> Guv(Einstein) + /\zpfguv(Einstein) = 0
>>>
>>> which is a special case of Hammond's eq. 186. My quantum correction
>>> term /\zpfguv(Einstein) is independent of Hammond's (Shipov's?)
>>> classical torsion term tuv(torsion) spelled out in eq. (187).
>>> Therefore, in my theory with torsion, the exotic vacuum equation is
>>>
>>> Guv(Einstein) + /\zpfguv(Einstein) + tuv(torsion) = 0
>>>
>>> Let h = c = G = 1 for now for simplicity.
>>>
>>> The vacuum propeller equation is simply the Einstein covariant
>>> divergence of this exotic vacuum local field equation. Metric
>>> engineering simply means shaping Guv(Einstein) on the world line of
>>> the Unconventional Flying Object (as defined by Paul Hill) from
>>> INSIDE the spacecraft using small amounts of power.
>>>
>>> Hal Puthoff has never given a clear definition of what precisely he
>>> means by "metric engineering."
>>>
>>> This is only possible if effective G, i.e. G* >> Newton's G on the
>>> scale of the propulsion device. Alleged observations by military
>>> intelligence sources of several nations of actual craft suggest this
>>> is true.
>>>
>>> The Einstein covariant 4 divergences of the second and third terms
>>> in the exotic vacuum field equation are the zero point energy and
>>> the torsion field vacuum propeller terms respectively.
>>>
>>> The /\zpfguv term includes both dark energy and dark matter as w =
>>> -1 exotic vacuum phases of negative and positive quantum pressure
>>> respectively which can, it appears, be controlled locally by a
>>> generalized Josephson effect (essence of Schauberger-Podkletnov-Ning
>>> Li effect)
>>>
>>> /\zpf(induced) =
>>> (volume of circulating supercurrent in a loop)^1/3(density of paired
>>> real electrons)^1/2(density of paired virtual electron-positron
>>> pairs)^1/2cos2pi[(magnetic flux trapped inside sc loop)/(magnetic
>>> flux quantum) - (mechanical circulation (vorticity) of single
>>> electron pair)/(vorticity quantum)]
>>>
>>> This requires very delicate precise phase stability in the rotating
>>> superconductors almost impossible to achieve in the big rotating
>>> disks of Podkletnov and Ning Li which is why their effects are weak
>>> and hard to reproduce. They have the wrong idea in their heads.
>>> Modanese only had a small piece of the right idea. You have to go
>>> nano-tech! This is why the flying saucers are empty inside (Col.
>>> Phil Corso) it's all inside the thin strong smart nano-engineered
>>> skin of the alleged captured alien ET saucers that I am reverse
>>> engineering in the sense of Einstein's gedankenexperiment
>>> meditiation-visualization technique. In a sense I am remote-viewing
>>> them like any good psychic detective! :-) That is "detective" not
>>> "defective." :-)
>>>
>>> See Berkant's latest on possible nano-tech mesh architectures for
>>> the smart skin of the zero point energy powered space-craft with
>>> zero g-force "G-Engine" (1956 George Trimble in Nick Cook's "The
>>> Hunt for Zero Point")
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2004, at 1:00 AM, Gennady I Shipov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Jack!
>>>>
>>>> I have closely studied R.Nammonda's work.
>>>> I think it is necessary to begin discussion on torsion with
>>>> participation of Hammond. Once again I want to pay your attention
>>>> to distinction between Cartan and Ricci torsions. Similar, that
>>>> R.Hammond of this distinction does not make (see the formula (190)
>>>> his article).
>>>
>>> On May 31, 2004, at 8:11 AM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@...> schrieb:
>>>>> Note one minor typo correction below. I would like to see entire
>>>>> paper
>>>>> with math and pictures. You have a lot of ideas. :-)
>>>>> Make sure you cite latest papers also the one with Ken Shoulders on
>>>>> EVOs.
>>>>
>>>> As usual in my papers.. I will quote the source and all relevant as
>>>> much as possible.
>>>>
>>>> This paper is for the...
>>>
>>>> It is not for ... dealing with warp drives. I think even your 1999
>>>> Heaviside force ideas are superior to what we have seen up-to-date
>>>> from other sources which are quoted in the attached AIAA paper by
>>>> Tony Robertson from 2001. Topic is "Exploration of anomalous
>>>> gravity effects by magnetized high-Tx superconducting oxides.
>>>
>>> You need to talk to James Woodward and Hal Puthoff BEFORE you give
>>> your paper. Even though Woodward and Puthoff disagree with each
>>> other on many things, they agree that Corum's Heaviside idea will
>>> not work. I am not sure if any of that will work. Ask Woodward, he
>>> may have something which might work? In any case, you should make
>>> the distinction that any kind of Heaviside force propulsion is NOT a
>>> warp drive. The problem is that the two guys running this part of
>>> STAIF i.e. Tony Robertson and Paul Murad simply do not understand
>>> what the problem is. They are not asking the right questions and
>>> have entirely confused not even wrong pictures in their minds. So
>>> does Marc Millis of NASA BPP, so does the entire Greenglow group.
>>> All these people are in the Dark Ages of blood letting and exorcism
>>> - it's all Cargo Cult Physics.
>>>
>>> "The Question is: What is the Question?" John A. Wheeler
>>>
>>> The STAIF split into FO5 and FO7 is confused. If Tony Robertson is
>>> interested in Podkletnov/Ning Li Modanese/Schauberger type physics
>>> that is WARP DRIVE, i.e. metric engineering Guv(Einstein) to make an
>>> Alcubierre type self-controlled timelike geodesic with the smart
>>> skin.
>>> What Tony Robertson tried to duplicate would be a warp drive not a
>>> Heaviside force effect if he succeeded. He did not succeed and
>>> cannot succeed because you cannot do it with large rotating
>>> superconducting disks- there is too much phase noise that washes out
>>> the all important cosine control term in /\zpf(induced)! Any
>>> attempt to explain Podkletnov/Ning Li as an electromagnetic stress
>>> propulsion Heaviside force is completely confused! That's the point
>>> here. Of course, there is little hope that Robertson and Murad will
>>> understand what I am saying to you here. The STAIF 2005 meeting is
>>> essentially a waste of time and money for whoever is paying for it.
>>> It's the blind leading the blind in my opinion. They are not even
>>> close to understanding the real problem.
>>> Yes, we played with Heaviside force at ISSO 1999-2000 and wasted one
>>> million dollars on a SARA contract because of Jim Corum's prestige
>>> and because we did not understand the nature of the problem. I was
>>> as much in the dark then as Jim Corum, Hal Puthoff, Bernie Haisch,
>>> Paul Murad, Tony Robertson, Marc Millis, Modanese, et-al still are
>>> today because they have closed their minds to what I have been
>>> saying since 2002. Dark energy was not understood in 1999-2000, I
>>> did not connect the dots between the dark energy of precision
>>> cosmology
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418
>>> and the Bondi-Hill-Trimble acceleration field G-Engine (negative
>>> zero point quantum vacuum pressure) for UFOs until 2002!
>>>
>>> *I would not spend any money on Heaviside force propulsion. It is
>>> the wrong way to go. Even if it worked it is too energy inefficient
>>> as a matter of principle.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You know that my vacuum propeller equation is from modified Bianchi
>>>>> zero point energy identities in exotic vacuum
>>>>>
>>>>> Guv;^v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> This is for zero torsion fields and zero non-metricity fields that
>>>>> would add still more "propulsion" terms as shown by Richard
>>>>> Hammond in
>>>>> "Torsion Gravity" Vol 65 Rep. Prog. Phys. (2002).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the /\zpf,^v that does the vacuum propeller trick even without
>>>>> torsion fields. Remember how I relate all that to the gravimagnetic
>>>>> field
>>>>>
>>>>> 3D Divergence of Gravimagnetic Field = Alcubierre's "Tr(K)" ~ /\zpf
>>>>>
>>>>> This needs G* >>> Newton's G at the nanometer scale
>>>>>
>>>>> where
>>>>>
>>>>> /\zpf(induced) ~ Lp*^-2 ~ (volume of vacuum- superconductor Weak
>>>>> Link)^1/3(density of superconductor electron pairs)^1/2(density of
>>>>> virtual electron-positron bound state pairs)^1/2cos2pi[(magnetic
>>>>> flux
>>>>> through sc loop node of mesh)/(quantum of magnetic flux) -
>>>>> (mechanical
>>>>> vorticity flux)/(quantum of vorticity)]
>>>>>
>>>>> Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
>>>>>
>>>>> See my very recent papers at http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
>>>>> Be sure to cite that directory and also
>>>>> http://qedcorp.com/APS/
>>>>> for details.
>>>>
>>>> Okay. I will quote relevant papers. But please note this time we
>>>> are talking about Heaviside forces. So your old ISSO papers are
>>>> most relevant. But the outlook chapters could talk about the next
>>>> steps towards zero-g drives.
>>>
>>> It's like you are giving a paper on horse-driven carriages as the
>>> future of transportation when there is a Toyota Prius parked
>>> outside.
>>> The organization of STAIF 2005 split into FO5 and FO7 is totally
>>> confused conceptually if they are linking Podkletnov/Ning Li with
>>> Heaviside force propulsion.
>>>
>>> On my 1999-2000 Heaviside force confusions listen to
>>>
>>> http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/frank/sounds/doodoo.wav
>>>
>>> Been there, done that. Heaviside force is a false lead, wrong turn
>>> in the road, barking up the wrong tree, shining strong light in the
>>> wrong part of the dark Cave, touching the wrong part of the
>>> Elephant. As a Sufi you know what I mean, eh? ;-)
>>>
>>> The Heaviside force is not a true vacuum propeller at all because
>>> the crew will feel g-forces! The crew is in a LNIF. Any vacuum
>>> propeller worthy of the name must keep the crew in a LIF at all
>>> times!
>>>
>>> This is an important distinction.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> This paper will also discuss the practical feasibility of a
>>>>>> Heaviside lifting vacuum propeller reaction force using state-of-
>>>>>> the-art nano-circuit design based on coaxial nanotube capacitors
>>>>>> wound into a torus loop with a toriodal solenoid made of
>>>>>> superconducting carbon nanotube quantum wires able to carry
>>>>>> supercurrents (Josephson currents).
>>>>>
>>>>> I need to see a detailed picture of what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> I confused here. It is real supercurrents as you already described.
>>>
>>> Yes, there are real supercurrents in the little loops. The coherent
>>> phase of those real supercurrents must STABLY beat against the
>>> coherent phase of the virtual electron-positron vacuum currents,
>>> but there is no actual tunnelling current in this case. The real
>>> electron pairs of charge 2e do not transform into virtual
>>> electron-positron pairs of charge zero and vice versa! There is no
>>> physical quantum jumping between the superconductor nodal loop and
>>> the vacuum it occupies. Nevertheless their macro-quantum coherent
>>> phases can interfere with each other because they are collective
>>> emergent processes that do not remember their micro-dynamic origin
>>> but acquire a life of their own so to speak. P.W. Anderson talks
>>> about this as "generalized phase rigidity" in his "More is
>>> different" series of papers "A Career in Theoretical Physics" (World
>>> Scientific)
>>>
>>> The fact that real electron pairs quantum jump across thin barriers
>>> in Josephson's junction is not essential to the more general effect
>>> of the beating of macro-coherent phases, which in that particular
>>> case is concommitant with actual quantum jumping of real pairs of
>>> charge 2e.
>>>>
>>>>>> The wires are wrapped around the
>>>>>> capacitor whereby each end of the solenoid is connected to a
>>>>>> different plate of the coaxial carbon nano-tube metal-insulator-
>>>>>> semiconductor capacitor. It is envisioned that this set up can
>>>>>> give
>>>>>> a rectified Heaviside force that gets larger as the LC circuit is
>>>>>> scaled down to nanometer size. Millions of such vacuum propeller
>>>>>> nano-modules could form an ultra-strong 3D-matrix smart skin
>>>>>> carbon
>>>>>> nanotube composite material for use on transatmospheric flight
>>>>>> vehicles of future generations.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean "transatmospheric"? You mean "space"?
>>>>
>>>> Transatmospheric is a term often used by aerospace engineers
>>>> working on hypersonic applications. you enter space and re-enter
>>>> atmosphere again.
>>>
>>> Sort of like popping into and out of the vacuum in virtual processes.
>>>>
>>>>>> Multi-wall carbon nanotubes consist of multiple shells, where the
>>>>>> tube is arranged in a coaxial fashion. Tubes with different atomic
>>>>>> and electronic structures can be fused together to create intra-
>>>>>> molecular metal-metal, metal-semiconductor, or semiconductor-
>>>>>> semiconductor junctions that are only a few atoms in cross section
>>>>>> and based entirely on carbon. Single-wall carbon nanotubes are
>>>>>> discussed for use as molecular superconducting quantum wires to
>>>>>> carry high supercurrents (Josephson currents).
>>>>
>>>> Same mistake here. Of course, real currents.
>>>>
>>>> Please note that we do not need any metals. You can mimic
>>>> metal-like properties using carbon nanotubes. so the entire matrix
>>>> could be made of carbon only.. this is what I understand.
>>>
>>> Fine. I never said anything about that.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> the question is how can we form the matrix??
>>>>
>>>>>> In 1998, Bezryadin described an electrostatic self-assembly
>>>>>> technique which is used to arrange conducting nanoparticles into
>>>>>> long continous chains. The process takes place between a pair of
>>>>>> voltage biased micro-electrodes, immersed in a dielectric
>>>>>> (electrorheological) liquid with suspended graphitized carbon
>>>>>> nanoparticles.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a good approach.. yesterday I got it mind to use
>>>> electrostatic (sound) waves to be used in the dielectric liquid
>>>> with the suspended graphitized carbon nanoparticles..
>>>
>>> Fine - I am not thinking on that level as yet.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> the micro-electrodes could be used to generate electrostatic waves
>>>> which could sound shape the nanoparticles into any shape we want..
>>>> but I am not sure how this could work..
>>>>
>>>>>> To meet future environmental quality goals, the aeroengine company
>>>>>> Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) recently announced the technology
>>>>>> tasks for air transportation in 2012 and after. The major
>>>>>> technology
>>>>>> task for the time horizon after 2020 is the development of zero
>>>>>> emission propulsion systems: 1. Fuel cells driven conventional
>>>>>> mechanical propellers, 2. Fuel cells driven speculative electro-
>>>>>> magnetic vacuum propellers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably tiny imbedded nano-fuel cells that get recharged from
>>>>> /\zpf(induced).
>>>>
>>>> yes, maybe. please note that carbon nanotubes are currently also
>>>> discussed as hydrogen storage devices.. but I think you have
>>>> something else in mind.. is it possible to generate hydrogen out of
>>>> nothing?
>>>
>>> No I don't mean that. I mean negative matter propulsion is a source
>>> of energy. Look at my EVO paper with Ken Shoulders for some possibly
>>> real data! Ken used to work with Puthoff, but obviously thinks my
>>> theory is better than Hal's to deal with the actual experimental
>>> data!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The smart skin is also a computer at three levels.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Classical with signal locality
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Quantum with signal locality
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Post-Quantum with "Conscious AI" (term I coined) with "signal
>>>>> nonlocality"
>>>>
>>>> Woow.
>>>>
>>>>> So the smart skin is a Command Control Communication zero g-force
>>>>> warp
>>>>> drive "G-Engine" (George Trimble) with a controlled Paul Hill
>>>>> "acceleration field" using Hermann Bondi's "negative matter
>>>>> propulsion"
>>>>> with "negative matter" replaced by my original /\zpf field that
>>>>> depends
>>>>> on vacuum coherence. Be sure to quote me exactly as these are all
>>>>> original ideas of mine not found anywhere else. Also cite my book
>>>>> "Super Cosmos" and Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point."
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It is all your and Creon's idea and this will be mentioned.
>>>> See my paper on the smart skin.. it is nearly all a paper of
>>>> quotations.:-)
>>>> so it is nearly like a paper written in a popular scientific
>>>> journal.
>>>> but please do not ask me to quote book which I have not read so
>>>> far...
>>>
>>> Cite ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
>>> Podkletnov.pdf
>>>
>>> in http://qedcorp.com/destiny
>>>
>>> that you have read
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What's The Big Deal?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Origin of Arrow of Time simply explained below.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly in "The Hunt for Zero Point"
>>>>> mentions a torsion field as a possible explanation for the alleged
>>>>> Nazi
>>>>> "Time Machine" experiment of Victor Schauberger in the final days
>>>>> of
>>>>> WWII. This is of interest because Nick also says that Schauberger's
>>>>> work influenced Podkletnov's work that was apparently also tested
>>>>> by
>>>>> Tony Robertson of NASA/STAIF?
>>>>> http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Hammond has a nice historical discussion of torsion fields as a
>>>>> gauge
>>>>> force theory. The fact is that you get a theory of gravity as
>>>>> space-time curvature from matter stress-energy density currents (4
>>>>> translation parameters), and torsion from quantum spin and orbital
>>>>> rotational currents (3 space rotations + 3 Lorentz boosts or
>>>>> space-time
>>>>> rotations).
>>>>> This excludes the 4 special conformal translations and the dilation
>>>>> that will give more "force" fields in addition to curvature and
>>>>> torsion. I use "force" loosely since the "geometrodynamic" view
>>>>> eliminates force. We can use either depending on what level we are
>>>>> talking. For example, the curvature field derives ultimately from
>>>>> the
>>>>> Kleinert elastic world crystal lattice distortion field that comes
>>>>> from
>>>>> the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) macro-quantum coherent
>>>>> hologram
>>>>> phase of the virtual electron-positron PV condensate. Einstein's
>>>>> metric
>>>>> field is the "spin 2" elastic strain tensor of the Kleinert spin 1
>>>>> compensating gauge force field from locally gauging the 4
>>>>> space-time
>>>>> translations infinitesimally generated by the total energy-momentum
>>>>> 4-vector Pu. The curvature field comes from 1-dim string
>>>>> topological
>>>>> defects in the spin 0 scalar PV condensate corresponding to
>>>>> disclination defects in the world crystal lattice spacing Lp* that
>>>>> is a
>>>>> scale-dependent variable. Although the electron is a 4-component
>>>>> Dirac
>>>>> spinor field, the PV condensate is a spin 0 scalar macro-quantum
>>>>> order
>>>>> parameter from a BCS pairing of two spinor fields. A spin 1 vector
>>>>> order parameter is also conceivable with new classes of topological
>>>>> defects. The additional torsion field corresponds to dislocation
>>>>> defects in the scalar order parameter. These defects are phase
>>>>> singular
>>>>> strings on which the order parameter vanishes like in the core of a
>>>>> vortex in a superfluid. Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for
>>>>> emergent smooth c-number ODLRO Einstein gravity corresponds to P.W.
>>>>> Anderson's "More is different" "generalized phase rigidity" (basis
>>>>> for
>>>>> "world hologram" of Lenny Susskind), and to inverse of Ed Witten's
>>>>> string tension alpha'^-1 and the "quantum of area" Lp*^2 of
>>>>> non-perturbative Loop Gravity.
>>>>>
>>>>> G*/c^4 ~ (G*h/c^3)(hc)^-1 = Lp*^2/hc = alpha'/hc = (String
>>>>> Tension)^-1
>>>>> = (Phase Rigidity)^-1 = (Metric Elasticity)
>>>>>
>>>>> The world hologram entropy of a 3D region of space with bounding
>>>>> area A
>>>>> is S/k ~ A/4Lp*^2 (k = Boltzmann's constant)
>>>>>
>>>>> For the expanding FRW universe with scale factor R(t) (in units of
>>>>> length)
>>>>>
>>>>> Lp* = Lp^2/3R(t)^1/3
>>>>>
>>>>> The thermodynamic entropy of the Universe is therefore,
>>>>>
>>>>> S(Universe)/k ~ R(t)^2 /4Lp^4/3R(t)^2/3 ~ R(t)^4/3
>>>>>
>>>>> This explains the Arrow of Time of the Second Law of
>>>>> Thermodynamics in
>>>>> terms of the spatial expansion of the Universe and it also
>>>>> explains why
>>>>> the entropy of the Universe is zero at the Big Bang because R(0) =
>>>>> 0.
>>>>> What's the Big Deal?
>>>>>
>>>>> The effects of the extra dimensions of hyperspace is to promote
>>>>> Newton's G from a constant to a renormalization group flow
>>>>> scale-dependent running coupling parameter G*(s) at scale s in the
>>>>> sense of the continuous wavelet transform generalization of
>>>>> Wigner's
>>>>> phase space density and Green's function propagators based on the
>>>>> rigid
>>>>> Fourier transform.
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 29, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A: No. So we eliminate that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Equation (28) p. 604 of Richard Hammond's "Torsion Gravity" Rep
>>>>>> Prog
>>>>>> Phys 65 (2002) is interesting. It is, for a metric theory with
>>>>>> zero
>>>>>> non-metricity tensor, but with torsion S
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R = Ro + 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where ; is covariant derivative with respect to only the 1916
>>>>>> symmetric Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor
>>>>>> fields in the curved-torsioned space-time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the ordinary non-gravitating vacuum Ro i.e. the zero torsion
>>>>>> Ricci
>>>>>> curvature scalar vanishes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That leaves for the exotic vacuum field equation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruv + 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u = 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only if
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u = /\zpfguv
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could we interpret the torsion field as a cosmological field. This
>>>>>> does not seem like a good idea. Since the torsion field comes from
>>>>>> locally gauging the Lorentz group, it is a classical field with no
>>>>>> necessary connection to zero point energy density.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Colleague:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Hagen Kleinert
>>>>
>>>> Professor of Physics
>>>>
>>>> Institute for Theoretical Physics
>>>> Arnimallee 14
>>>> D-14195 Berlin, Germany
>>>> email: kleinert@...
>>>> Tel.: 49/30/8385 3034 or 3337 (secretary)
>>>> Fax.: 49/30/8385 6851
>>>> --------------------------------------------*
>>>> Visit my homepage under this URL: |
>>>> http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/ |
>>>> --------------------------------------------*
>>>>
>>>
>>
>