Open System for Geniuses - by Chronostalker

Jack Sarfatti starts his blog of February 19, 2005 :

All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic “force-without-force”) fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical action.

So first we are supposed to have a dynamical action. What is a dynamical action? How to distinguish action which is dynamical from one which is not? What is the arena where this action takes place? Why one arena rather than other? What is the pre-structure needed in order to be able to talk about global symmetry? Perhaps we will be told later on? Let’s see:

The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by the compensating gauge field.

Why is symmetry broken? Who and why breaks it? Anyway, we can forget it. Probably we will never be told. So let’s start from "compenstaing gauge field". That is the original term used by Utiyama and then Yang and Mills (perhaps also Kibble) for "principal connection in a principal bundle". To have a connection we need a base space. What would it be for Jack and why? And we need a group, probably a finite-parameter Lie (Lie is name of a mathematician Sophus Lie) group. Who will give Jack a Lie group and why one rather than another one? We need also some kind of a dynamics - usually given by some kind of an action principle. But to have an action principle that is not just a topological invariant (and thus gives no real dynamics) - we need some a priori geometrical structure. Where is it coming from?

Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry intact.

SBS here stands for Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking. This is a very funny term. Whenever a physicist tells you that something is spontaneous - that means he really want to say: I have no idea what and why and how this happens. Years ago a very popular term was spontaneous compactification - which was allowing physicists to discuss curled extra dimensions when they were not able to explain why some dimensions curl and some not, and how wlong it takes for a dimension to curl? So, if I would ask Jack: how long it takes for a symmetry to break? - he would give me a strange look and asked to have a glass of wine with him after his talk. So we see that we can have a preferred frame. Hmm….. I was discussing the trickyness of this subject in previous blog, when starting the discussion of Connes and Rowelli paper on time. Probably what Jack means is that he has some field equations and a preferred frame arises from a particular solution or class of solutions of field equations? But not - we have "lowest energy state" here. Lowest energy state of what? And how is energy defined when we do not yet know what is time? And what kind of a state? Did he already quantized his theory? How? It gest stranger and stranger…

Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan “tetrad”/”Ricci rotation coefficients” extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium.

Curvature of what? Once you have a gauge field, you have its curvature - for sure. But you do not have any torsion. The concept of a "torsion" requires a soldering form. But where it comes from? Jack is not telling us. Should I tell him?

In 1916 GR the Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields, but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 into Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in Shipov’s theory.

Now we have Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc. I’ve never seen them defined. Using terms that are not defined is atypical trick. Shipov used it with great success. Whatever you write using such terms - no one will be ever able to criticise you for being wrong! So our Ricci rotation coefficients - which we are not told what they are - are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads. OK, I know what are anholonomic tetrads - probably Jack means a soldering form, which he, for one reason or another, assumes to be non-degenerate? Where are his tetrads comind from? And why tetrads rather than funfbeins? And what does "dynamically determined" mean? And now we are locally gauging T4 into Diff(4). Allright Jack probably would like to speak about the Poincare group (including translations) as a "gauge group". But wait, no, he wants to have Diff as the gauge group. But what is the principal bundle for Diff to act on? We are not told.

There is a curious cross-play in that the disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear even in torsion-free 1916 GR.

Now we have another animal that is coming to the zoo by a back door: disclination-curvature strings. Would it be nice to define them? It would make life so much simpler in our already uptight world.

The curious cross-play is that the curvature disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging of the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J = L + S (space-space rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in instantaneously uniform relative motion.

This is a looooong sentence. It reminds me some sentences produced by a random Markov algorithm that you can find on the blog by Robert Helling:

sigmamodel has no chiral ring write down to symmetric massless states with matter and consistency of the effects of mtheory in the help of motion of those of supersymmetric type ii orbifolds including the newly formed in kkltlike vacua we investigate the transition in the acceleration we consider the presence of a tensionful codimensionone brane is finite k coincident branes wrapping cycles on the usual finetuning between the black supertubes of the edges evolve through the presence of gravitation together with a mass with qdeformed harmonic oscillator with scalar field coupled to end of spinorbit interactions for communication here

Now there comes another long sentence:

The curious cross-play is this dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The lack of preferred space-time frames with “absolute velocity”, as in the usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost sector of O(1,3).

We have "dual switching", which sounds like another Markov term, then we have T4 (I understand it is the translation group of a flat 4-dimensional affine space? Then it becomes Diff(4) - probably the idea being that generators of diffeomorphisms are vector fields rather vectors - but everybody knows it, then why to use strange terms. Then we have another Markov term "boost sector of O(1,3)", and also we have our old friend, but this time not spontaneously broken vacuum symmetry. Enough for now. Let’s take a break ….

All this being said - I do like Jack. In fact I adore him. He makes our lifes more interesting. The point is that he should not be put into the same category as “professional theoretical physicists” - that is those who have “real jobs”, who have to take care of “getting grants” and “being promoted”. Jack is more like Igor and Grichka Bogdanovs - he is using an “impressionistic style” - as Daniel Sternheimer described it. Of course the case of Jack is somewhat different - jack has a different set of friends and enemies than Igor and Grichka. So John Baez will not dare to attack Jack - though having some Sokal-kind of fun would also be justified in this case. Yet there are hidden links that leave Jack outside of the range of attackers who spare no time and energy trying to destroy Bogdanov’s brothers.
In fact the problem is not with Igor and Grichka, and it is not with Jack. The problem is with narrow views of the so called “scientists community”, with politics, with jealousy. And it is much easier to destroy than to create. It is not my intention to destroy Jack by my critical comments. My aim is to help him. Jack posts his vague (yet more and more sharp with each year) for a public scrutiny. He heared a metallic voice long ago - and there is something inside that tells him that a ceratin bell is ringing. Except that he doesn’t know which church it is in. Neither do I… Curiosity and a continuous search for knowledge. Correcting our course again and again. And not being afraid of laugh and criticism from others - that is the only way towards the Truth.
quantum physics and politics