Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / December 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Nonlocal curvature without curvature in Einstein's GR? C^3 -> W^3

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jack Sarfatti - 31 Dec 2004 02:39 GMT
First think of superfluid helium. The "circulation" vector field v is a
"connection" like the EM vector potential A. The vorticity curl v is
like magnetic field curlA. Curlv is zero outside of the vortex core in
the irrotational superflow. The quantized circulation vortices are
multiply connected, i.e. winding numbers or Betti numbers for 1-forms &
2-forms. They are multiply connected because they have "micro-quantum
normal fluid cores" where the macro-quantum coherence drops if not to
zero to a much smaller value to make a Josephson weak link of sorts. In
my macro-quantum theory of gravity for Super Cosmos the "normal fluid"
is the exotic vacuum dark energy of negative micro-quantum zero point
pressure or the dark matter of positive zero point pressure.
Therefore, we have a Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality in superfluid helium but
we do not think it is amazing because we can picture a local circulation
vector field of the fluid flow.

Now we have an isomorphism with elasticity theory as shown by Hagen
Kleinert. We have a kind of tetrad world crystal elastic distortion
field that is essentially related to the non-tensor Levi-Civita
connection field (LC), which is like A in EM and like v in superfluid
helium. We can, therefore, have non-vanishing "circulation" integrals
(line integrals of local g-force) even though there is no interior
(covariant) curl of (LC) because the unstable dark energy thin wall is
an exotic vacuum "normal fluid" core. In terms of crystal distortion
theory, there is a smooth distortion (LC) field outside the source
region of a thin unstable dark energy slab inside of which there is
Ricci tensor which is a bunch of disclination topological defects that
influence at a distance the local (LC) field of vanishing curl.

Now in EM, we say vector potential is not a local observable because it
is a inhomogeneous non-tensor under the U(1) local gauge
transformations. In GR these are the GCT transition functions between
overlapping local coordinate charts in the atlas covering the manifold
like analytical continuation of complex functions of complex variable
bypassing branch points. (A power series circle of convergence stops at
a branch point but you can finagle around the obstruction with a
different circle.) Note in my theory the (LC) connection comes from the
4^3 3rd order partial derivatives of the more is different emergent
macro-quantum world hologram Goldstone rigid phase of the
post-inflationary vacuum coherence field that is the fabric of smooth
OLDLRO curved spacetime. So there is no reason at all to say that the
(LC) connection is not a local observable even though it is not a GCT
tensor.

It's nice, and of course necessary, that the metric as second order
partial derivatives of the Goldstone phase and the connection as third
order partial derivatives and curvature as 4th order partial derivatives
have exactly the correct number of GCT tensor indices required by
Einstein's GR!
Nick - 31 Dec 2004 03:20 GMT
If gravity is everywhere then its considered that there's even
curvature inside the earth, contractile curvature. And it
is equal throughout - even the center since it is based only
on mass density at any location.

Mitch Raemsch
Art Deco - 31 Dec 2004 03:38 GMT
> First think of superfluid helium. The "circulation" vector field v is a
> "connection" like the EM vector potential A. The vorticity curl v is
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> have exactly the correct number of GCT tensor indices required by
> Einstein's GR!

Just one more day before the polls open, Jack.  Keep going!

Signature

"I;m psychic, dumb a.s."
"Do back to Neanderthal man fer you!"
"Learn some science if you really want to know."
 ...Alexa Cameron demonstrates her 200+ alien-implanted IQ

Ken S. Tucker - 31 Dec 2004 21:38 GMT
[...]
> It's nice, and of course necessary, that the metric as second order
> partial derivatives of the Goldstone phase and the connection as third
> order partial derivatives and curvature as 4th order partial derivatives
> have exactly the correct number of GCT tensor indices required by
> Einstein's GR!

There's interesting stuff.
Denote the Reimann Christoffel Curvature Tensor R_abcd.
When the g_uv (metric) are constant, R_abcd=0, and that
defines a Euclidian manifold, by convention.

In a force field, we should expect the manifold to be
non-Euclidian, so that,

R_abcd =/= 0  .

For argument sake, suppose I set the simplest force field
to be,

R_abcd = K

where "K" is a constant, and the manifold is non-Euclidian.

Jack *seems* to allude to something like the following,

R_abcd = J,a,b,c,d = J ,

where the "J" in Jack's term's (I presume) is the Goldstone
phase, and the "," are partials. In that case "J" can't be
constant. It has a solution like &^4(sin J) = sin J, which
looks elegant, but not necessarily correct, it has a require-
ment of a non-constant invariant, which needs some sort of
physicality, that I cannot suggest.

My approach is a bit more sophisicated, but simpler from
the standpoint of physics. Let K = A*B where A and B are
invariant electrical potentials.

Consider Coulomb's Law, written three different ways...

F = a*E(b) = b*E(a) = A*B

where "a" and "b" are charges, A = a/r, and B=b/r are
invariant potentials and E(b) is the Electric field of
charge "b" i.e. E(b) = b/r^2.

Please note, there is no "gauge" transformation that can
eliminate "F".

Consider in the scenario "Energy Density" and consider
which terms are relevant,

ED = E(a)^2 and/or E(b)^2 and/or E(a)*E(b)  .

The first two require an *absolute* existance to a
quantum charge, and renders painful problems, the last
is relative.

Remarkably, we are still in accord with GR,

G_uv = T_uv becomes,

G_00 = E(a)*E(b) == Nabla(A_0)*Nabla(B_0)

with g_00 == A_0*B_0

by assuming the relativity of charge.

((please note, I didn't include constant's and (-)'s
the're superflous unless a technical analysis ensues.))

I maintain, a single charge has no absolute existance,
it is as relative as velocity.

That's a bit hard to grasp. But recall the speed of light
is measured to be the same *relative* to all FoR's, as
*charge* is relative to all relating test charges. Those
test charges being the FoR for measuring charge, as a
FoR is for measuring "c".

I would like to add, this post is consistent with my
previous post to Jack, (Happy Jack I hope), where I
define the metric like g_00 as a relative relation between
two *distguishable* geodesics.
In this post, in order to promote the unification of EM
and GR, I set a charge "a" and a charge "b" to be on separate
geodesics, (in accord with the ISU, where a definite finite
length is required to define a time period), as described
by the g_00 above, in accord with Einstein's Law.

Regards
Happpy 05
Ken S. Tucker
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.