quantum computing - color forth

>> > On Nov 10, 2005, at 7:03 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:>>
> > Jack,>> > >>>
> > To address some of your points:>> > >>>
> > Vargas and colleagues are not interested in nor use string theory>>
> > (or flying saucers). So, the calculation is probably inapplicable>>
> > to the EIG. How the EIG works in principle in an engineering>>
> > application is explained in some detail in the patent.>> >>>
> >>>
> > No engineering model of the EIG has been developed yet as far >> as I>>
> > know. Before one does that, one first tries to detect the>>
> > underlying effect - the EIG. Vargas is not motivated engineering>>
> > applications unlike you (and PST). There are limited (due to>>
> > funding) experimental searches underway to detect the EIG. One>>
> > earlier, what I might call, more casual, one, by Datta et al.,>>
> > purportedly sees indications of the effect, but that is hardly >> the>>
> > final word.>
> >>> > Is there a clear discussion of the EIG apart from patents, which >> are>> > hard to read?>> > >>>
> > Vargas does not obtain a coupled Torsion-Curvature interaction >> term>>
> > as you do. You both start from very different premises. >> Rather, the>>
> > curvature ends up becoming a function of the torsion.>> >>
> > Well, if>> >>
> > R' = D'W = (d + W/\ + S/\)W = R + S/\W>> >>
> > and if TP means>> >>> > R' = 0>> >>
> > Then the GR curvature 2-form R = - S/\W = - exterior product of the>
> > torsion 1-form S with the spin-connection 1-form W.>
> > Is that what Vargas and Shipov mean by "TP". Unless I see the exact>
> > algebra I do not understand the words.>> > >>>
> > As I've been trying to tell you now for multiple letters, Vargas>>
> > uses Cartan notation!! In fact, he might be considered a >> master of>>
> > it since he has generalized it and developed new mathematics (not>>
> > just new physics) with it. To get the EIG you only need TP and>>
> > Finsler Geometry. But to go further into an actual geometrical>>
> > unification theory that also embraces quantum mechanics (without>>
> > assuming it), he uses more math, such as Clifford Algebras and>>
> > especially, the Kaehler Calculus. When you put all that math into>>
> > the mix (without making the kinds of assumptions you make in your>>
> > theory) you get complicated math even though the notation is>>
> > relatively streamlined because he uses the Cartan (and>>
> > generalizations thereof) for his notation.>> >>
> > Why do all that? Math for math's sake? My "Cornell" approach is to>
> > use the simplest math possible to get the most contact with>
> > observation. Also I don't much care about formal math rigor. Others>
> > can do that later. Most of theoretical physics today would not be>
> > acceptable to pure mathematicians.>> > >>>
> > You passed along another e-mail from someone else urging you >> to do>>
> > a "drive the stake in the heart" on that patent.>> >>>
> > I am glad you forbeared. This certainly is not mainstream, string>>
> > theory physics. However, there are some two dozen or more Papers>>
> > spanning 20 years published in peer reviewed journals such as J.>>
> > Math. Phys., GRG, FoP, etc. on this Vargas Theory. This is not >> some>>
> > nutcase, though like any other theoretical proposal it needs >> to be>> > > borne out.>> >>> > I know Vargas is not a nut. I met him. However, like 90% of>
> > theoretical physicists today I think he may have fallen for the >> Siren>
> > of Mathematical Beauty and gone off on paths far from experiment ->
> > math for math's sake. This probably includes most of string and >> loop>
> > theory. The more I read Witten for example, the less impressed I am>
> > with the contact with observation. Most of the papers on the >> archive>
> > are unreadable to my mind. After one reads them one wonders - what>
> > was the point?>> > >>> > > On the other e-mail pointing out another "anti-gravity" type>>
> > patent, I can shed some light on that as well. I do not know >> of the>>
> > author of that patent or his work at all. However, he does>>
> > reference the work of Ning Li and others (such as Podkletnov). >> The>>
> > theory he describes in his patent is in part, based on Li-Torr>> >
> Theory. Ning Li was another colleague who worked with Doug >> Torr on>> > > theory in the late 80s and early 90s (along with Vargas and >> myself)>> > >>>
> > Li-Torr theory posited greatly enhanced gravitomagnetic effects>>
> > emanating from what she proposed as quantized coherent orbital>>
> > motion (rotation) of superconductor lattice ions (not the Cooper>> > > Pairs). That was quite contr0versial and has never received broad>> > > acceptance, though she still holds to variations of that original>>
> > concept. She worked closely with NASA to investigate the >> Podkletnov>> > > effect. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Li-Torr Effect>>
> > has never had a confirmed detection, even in the Podkletnov >> context.>> >>
> > What do you mean "posited"? How exactly? Why would the >> gravimagnetism>> > be "enhanced"? What was her physical motivation?>> > >>>
> > For my thesis, I wanted to see if I could find an analogous>>
> > mechanism in HeII superfluids, where there are no background>>
> > lattice ions as there are in a SC. I could not find an obvious>>
> > analog in HeII and later concluded that the idea even in SC was>>
> > probably not well founded. But along the way, that search led >> me to>> > > dream up the possibility that perhaps HeII ZPM might be coherent>>
> > and provide such a background analog to SC Li-Torr Theory. >> That in>>
> > turn led to Biswas-Shenoy and the rest of the story I >> mentioned in>> > > prior letters.>> >>> > Oh so the coherent ZPM was your idea. OK I will cite you on that.>
> > It's really a good idea I can completely understand intuitively.>
> > Often it is said that in both the superfluid and the superconductor>
> > that the actual condensate density at T = 0K is only a few >> percent of>> > the total density, yet the phenomenological superfluid density is>
> > 100% the total density. This always puzzled me and I never saw a >> good>> > explanation. Your idea explains it nicely. The condensate is both>> > locally non-random and nonlocally non-random. The coherent ZPM is>> > locally random but nonlocally non-random, i.e. EPR phase locked >> i.e.>> > long range coherent. In the gravity context, the coherent ZPM is >> dark>> > energy if the pressure is negative and is dark matter if the >> pressure>> > is positive. The Goldstone phase of the ODLRO vacuum condensate is>
> > the 0-form s(P) where P is a "local coincidence" in Einstein's >> sense>> > as defined by Rovelli in his book in connection with the "Einstein>
> > hole problem" of 1917.>> >>> > ds(P) is the local invariant space-time interval. I know Waldyr >> does>> > not like this, but I will do it anyway with the caveat that it >> is not>> > "mathematically rigorous" but it is a fruitful heuristic. "d" is >> the>> > Cartan exterior derivative.>> >>> > ds(P) = 1 + B(P)>> >>> > B(P) is the 1-form potential from locally gauging T4>> >>> > The Hodge dual *ds(P) would like to be an exact 3-form, but can't>
> > because of point defects in the coherent vacuum manifold G/H ~ S2>> > required by the Higgs mechanism of the standard model.>
> >>
> > That is, *ds(P) = 'd'F where F is a new 2-form that when integrated>> > around an S2 in 3D space that surrounds the point defect where the>> > Higgs amplitude vanishes and the Goldstone phase s(P) is SINGULAR>> > (undefined) is quantized!>> >>> > It's quantized because the second homotopy group is Z the >> integer set>> > of "wrapping numbers" around the S2 degenerate vacuum manifold.>> >>> > I have just essentially DERIVED the Bekenstein quantization of >> areas.>> > Also from Gauss's theorem we have the hologram principle that the>> > information content of a volume is located entirely on its >> boundary!>> > Only surface degrees of freedom are fundamental.>> >>> > That is, the space integral of the 3-form *ds(P) = quantized >> integral>
> > of the GEOMETRODYNAMIC FLUX 2-FORM F over the surrounding surface.>
> > Note that the surrounding surface 2-cycle is not a boundary if it>> > surrounds the point singularity.>> >>> > Indeed ds = LINE OPERATOR 1-form ~ tetrad>> >>
> > *ds = VOLUME OPERATOR 3-form>> >>> > *ds = 'd'F>> >>> > F = Area Operator 2-form>> >>> > in sense of LOOP GRAVITY.>> >>> > The non-trivial second homotopy group of G/H = S2 is what enforces>> > area quantization>> >>> > S/k = A/Lp^2>> >>> > I don't know how to derive the "4".>> >>> > kT = hc/rc = hc/GM/c^2= hc^3/GM = (h/Lp)^2(1/M)>> >>
> > I get G/H ~ S2 from standard model i.e. origin of inertia of >> leptons>
> > and quarks is also the origin of gravity!>> >>> > One point defect in universe is enough to make the world hologram>
> > when we take the area at infinity surrounding the whole universe ->
> > more precisely one must use the Penrose diagram method like in the>> > discussions of ADS.>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>