FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Writing physics for the public and other matters - paranormal
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Jack Sarfatti
science forum Guru

Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 487

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:29 pm    Post subject: Writing physics for the public and other matters - paranormal Reply with quote

SUNDAY INTERVIEW -- The Universe, As Seen From North Beach
With infectious enthusiasm for his subject, Jack Sarfatti explains how
physics has replaced philosophy as an over-arching discipline that spans
the once discontinuous worlds of science and the humanities.

re: Phil Coppins http://www.philipcoppens.com/starcon.pdf

The 2nd edition of Super Cosmos has more of this straight physics.
On Jul 15, 2006, at 8:54 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

I have all three of your books Jack but as you have said, they are more
bios than pop physics books. In order to really disperse understanding
of your physics broadly, I think what is needed is a primer, not a bio.
Of course, as you have said; you don't need to create understanding at
this level since you already have funding. I was just saying that I
enjoyed the little primer you had written.

"Gauge" is a technical term. Almost all of those first three paragraphs
had avoided all use of jargon. it is writing sans use of these very
highly information laden terms that makes the difference between writing
pop and specialized literature. Except for the use of "gauge" you were
writing at a pop level which is unusual for you--takes more work.

Actually I wrote in in a few minutes spontaneously in real time stream
of consciousness WYSIWYG. There is math symbols in it - but perhaps
symbol-oriented people can see the similarities of shape in the EM and
gravity models below? Math symbols properly ordered syntactically are
how theoretical physicists actually think most of the time - it's the
lingua-franca. Perhaps we should compare it to Chinese and Egyptian
hieroglyphics? Of course formalist quibblers in math departments will
want to add extraneous details that completely obfuscate with
inappropriate "rigor mortis" (Feynman's term). Roger Penrose, in his
books, strikes the proper balance in the creative tension between
rigorous math and heuristic intuitive "physical thinking" in pictures -
gedankenexperiments. The key formal idea below is that the space-time
"spin connection" W in Einstein's gravity plays the same role that the
"internal extra dimensional fiber" gauge connection A plays for
electromagnetic, weak beta radioactivity and strong subnuclear forces

F = dA in Maxwell's electromagnetism compared to R = DW in Einstein's

F = Electromagnetic Field 2-form compared to R = Curvature Field 2-form


D = d + W/\

e.g. "geons"

The same thing occurs in the weak and strong forces where

F'= D'A'

D' = d + A'/\

e.g. "glue-balls" in high energy hadron collisions

d^2 = 0

means integrability or "holonomy" i.e. path independence

e.g. take a function


d^2 = 0 there means

f,x,y = f,y,x

i.e. mixed second order partial derivatives equal each other - this
happens in thermodynamic reversible processes e.g. Cauchy heat engines
and in conservative force fields of Newtonian particle mechanics without
velocity-dependent potentials.

Look at Penrose "The Road to Reality" on Cauchy-Riemann "analyticity" in
"complex number magic".

d^2 = 0 generalizes that idea to spaces of any integer dimension as much
as it can be.

D^2 = 0 pushes that to path-dependent anholonomic situations and it
permits local conservation laws in warped spaces.

However, the energy problem in Einstein's gravity is that a local
gravity energy density for the vacuum does not exist even though a
locally conserved stress-energy density for not-gravity sources does exist.

Energy conservation is not fundamental. The expanding accelerating
universe does not conserve total energy. For example, in the first
approximation the dark energy density ~ /\ is constant. As the universe
expands the total dark energy density is increasing much more than the
other forms of energy are decreasing.


Conservation of "energy" is a much more limited concept having to do
with timelike Killing vector fields that are not present in all
solutions of Einstein's field equations.

Note that on the large cosmological scale that only total energy of COLD
"matter" w = 0 is conserved, but total energy of radiation is not
conserved. Radiation red shifts down to zero! Total dark vacuum energy
increases at rate a(t)^3. This is because the universe is not
time-translation invariant so that Noether's theorem does not apply.

D^2 = 0 outside of "topological defect" Goldstone phase singularities
when there is ODLRO spontaneous breakdown of some continuous symmetry in
the vacuum or ground state landscape.

"Vacuum" means no real particles on-mass-shell. "Ground state" means
stable real particles on-mass-shell as, e.g. in liquid helium or our own

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: RON STAHL <therofax@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Byron Weeks's claims are bogus
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:37:42 -0700

I have already written 3 of them. All of this is in Super Cosmos.
"Gauge" is the standard term. Have you seen Super Cosmos?

On Jul 15, 2006, at 6:34 AM, RON STAHL wrote:

Now see, you actually CAN explain physics in English when properly
motivated. Except for the use of the term "gauge" you did quite well
in the first three paragraphs.

You could write a pop physics book on this if you really wanted to.

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
CC: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com"
Subject: Byron Weeks's claims are bogus
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:09:16 -0700

Hello Phillip

<< starcon.pdf >>

I just noticed this section about Byron Weeks. Weeks is an MD and his
claims that you accurately describe are bogus. I don't have time right
now to explain why. However, Roger Penrose's book "The Road to
Reality" explains why - it is not a fast read of course. The Week's
claims may be deliberate disinformation for debunking PW or Psy Ops
purposes. That's a guess.

Basically Maxwell's field theory is the most elementary local gauge
theory, the more complex ones include the weak and strong forces among
the elementary spin 1/2 quarks and lepton fermion spinor sources.
These forces are virtual spin 1 zero point boson vector exchange
particles between the spinor sources. In addition the weak and strong
bosons self-interact. Gravity can also be understood this way in terms
of tensor spin 2 bosons - though the problem is more complicated, i.e.
"unrenormalizable" in the naive approach to "quantum gravity."

The electromagnetic, weak and strong forces come from locally gauging
internal symmetry groups of frame transformations in extra dimensions
of hyperspace - roughly speaking. Gravity comes from locally gauging
the space-time symmetry group of special relativity morphing it into
general relativity. You also need a macro-quantum "vacuum ODLRO"
cohering or ordering of the random zero point false vacuum
fluctuations to do the latter and indeed this is, in a nutshell, the
inflation field whose incoherent remnant we see as the anti-gravity
repulsive dark energy at large- scales causing our universe's expansion
to speed up rather than slow down. That's what my book Super Cosmos is
about and it is roughly consistent with Lenny Susskind's Cosmic
Landscape. Note qualification "roughly".

The basic free gauge field equations are affine having to do with
parallel transport of basic field structures called "connection
fields" A that are "Cartan 1-forms".

In the case of Maxwell's EM field the field tensor is

F = dA

d = Cartan's exterior derivative

d^2 = 0

dF = 0 are the first half of Maxwell's field equations

i.e. Faraday's law of induction and the absence of magnetic monopoles.

The second half Ampere's law and Gauss's law come from using a * operator

d*F = *J

*J is the source electric charge-current density

d*J = 0

is local conservation of charge current density

One then uses a gauge-covariant derivative D = d + eA on electron
quantum waves to get a consistent renormalizable quantum electrodynamics.

Nothing that Weeks says has any real meaning in physics today.

One can generalize the above model to the weak and strong forces and
even to gravity, though the latter is more indirect as it uses a
symmetric tensor metric field and the "A" connection field here is at
the "subspace" Cartan tetrad level out of which the metric connection
of Levi-Civita in Einstein's 1915 theory can be derived.

The Cartan tetrads have the 1-forms

e = 1 + B


dB ~ (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Theta)/\(dPhi)

d^2B = 0 is equation of World Hologram, i.e. THE MATRIX

i.e. "anyonic" surface degrees of freedom of the fabric of space- time
are fundamental, the boson volume degrees of freedom are holographic

Theta & Phi are Goldstone phases of the coherent zero point vacuum
inflation field.

Zero torsion is the vanishing 2-form

De = 0

D = d + W/\

W is a "spin connection" "/\" is exterior multiplication

De = dB + W/\B = 0

in this special case only B determines W.

If we have torsion, i.e. De =/= 0 then the dark energy /\ field can be
controlled for the metric engineering of warp drive and wormhole - is
my "conjecture".

The Einstein-gravity curvature field 2-form is then

R = DW


DR = 0

G = D*W = *J

is Einstein's source field equation

D*J = 0

is local covariant conservation of matter stress-energy density currents.

The equivalence principle is the local space-time invariant

ds^2 = (1 + B)(Minkowski)(1 + B) = guvdx^udx^v

where guv is a symmetric tensor


guv(x) = eu^a(x)nabev^b(x)

On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK on further closer reading (after my original scan of entire
document) I begin to see what you mean re: Courtney's first book.

On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hello Phillip

I just got a book from Courtney Brown that is positive about Remote
Viewing yet your article seems to say that Courtney debunked Remote

Also I think Jessica Utts gave a talk at recent AAAS USD positive
about psi phenomena as a real statistical effect yet you also seem to
think she is a debunker? I can't find Utt's name in Abstracts
Programme so perhaps I am misremembering where I recently heard her
speak on this? James Spottiswoode was also there but is not in the
official book, so perhaps she was added to the programme at the last

On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

It's curious that http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra
was ~ 1953 when Andrija was getting started with Army and mentioned
"twenty years" in the future when I met Andrija and The Usual
Suspects. It's curious I may have met Colonel Corso before 1953 and
then was in Eugene McDermott's group - part of the Arthur Young Cabal
1954 - 56 and then met Arthur himself in ~ 1974. Very curious.
Details in my book "Destiny Matrix".
Back to top

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [1 Post] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:42 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Compare and contrast physics and chemistry parent Chem 0 Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:26 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts How the public could understand dark energy? gb6724 New Theories 10 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:55 pm
No new posts This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 235) John Baez Research 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:32 pm
No new posts (OT) Moderator Vacancy Announcement: sci.physics.plasma Martin X. Moleski, SJ Relativity 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 2:05 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0163s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0027s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]