Subject: Re: Gravity Control
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:59:27 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Martin Tajmar <martin.tajmar@arcs.ac.at>
CC: orfeu@cosmos.ist.utl.pt, clovis.de.matos@esa.int,
     Jean-Christophe.Grenouilleau@esa.int, Olivier.Minster@esa.int,
     Sergio.Volonte@esa.int, rayc@aiaa.org, cortd@aiaa.org,
     elainec@aiaa.org, johnm@aiaa.org, bills@aiaa.org,
     shirleyj@aiaa.org, kiefer@thp.uni-koeln.de

Dear Martin,

May I briefly comment on your recent physics/0412176 v1 [Ref. 7].

In my email from Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:32:30 +0300,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Tajmar.html

I suggested to keep our mind open to all possibilities. I believe it is
quite plausible that the technological spin-offs of quantum gravity
[Ref. 8] may change dramatically our current understanding of the nature of 'inertial mass' and may expose the confinement mechanism of the so-called negative mass.

Perhaps you have noticed that our thoughts don't obey Newtonian
mechanics. We accelerate and stop them instantly, and change their
flight direction like an UFO,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Mexico_UFO.html

All this pertains to the physics of the brain,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Azbel.html#self

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Beauregard.html#note

Please note that I'm available,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Kiefer.html#GR

Wishing you and your colleagues all the best for 2005,

Dimi
--
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net

Download the whole web site, 4.5MB, from
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/PHI_info.zip
 

References
 

[Ref. 7] M. Tajmar, O. Bertolami, Hypothecial Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion, physics/0412176 v1. To appear in AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.

p. 10: "We conclude that a modification on the inertial mass is of *no* interest for propulsion."

pp. 14-15: "A gravitational dipole would be self-accelerating [21], however, it was been clearly shown that negative masses are forbidden in gravitational physics and that a propulsion system based on such a concept does not make sense [7]. The impossibility of negative mass in our universe has been shown by the positive energy theorem [22,23], which is known to apply to all known matter in both normal and extreme cosmological situations. Violations of the energy conditions are possible in quantum theories, but the effects are fleeting and require exotic equations of state [24-26]."
 

[Ref. 8] Orfeu Bertolami, Clovis Jacinto de Matos, Jean Christophe Grenouilleau, Olivier Minster, Sergio Volonte, Perspectives in Fundamental Physics in Space, gr-qc/0405042 v1

"It is not inconceivable that the crisis of contemporary physics may be partly responsible for this state of affairs since our pictures of the world on very large and on very small scales do not quite fit together. (...) In turn, unification and a synthesis of QM and GR may lead to technological breakthroughs that will further push the boundaries of current space systems.

"It is often said that quantum gravity is the most challenging synthesis to be achieved in XXIst century physics. Even though, the technological spin-offs of that theory are not clearly visible yet, it may most probably change our society as former scientific revolutions did in the past. Securing the steps to ensure such a paradigm shift, culturally and technologically, is in our view, an inescapable issue."
 
 
 

Note: Let me stress that, according to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, our current understanding of the nature of gravity is derived from four per cent of the stuff in the universe, such as intergalactic gas (3.6%) and stars (0.4%), like you and the rest of the readers of these lines. What we don't know and cannot understand is called dark matter (23%) and dark energy (73%).

Now, some people don't like the notion of 'dark energy' because it's being inferred from observations, and also because it's been introduced relatively recently. Perhaps it takes a lot of time to digest the possibility that the so-called dark energy should be 'outside' spacetime, so let's focus on the so-called dark matter.

The first mention of the dark matter was by Franz Zwicky in 1933; see a concise report on the modern dark matter paradigm (now 30 years old) in the introductory section of Jacob Bekenstein's astro-ph/0412652 v1. Obviously, we cannot address the task of quantum gravity from 4 per cent of the stuff in the universe. It doesn't make sense to talk about the space drive either [Ref. 9].

But how is all this related to the physics of the human brain? It's the old story about the Holon. Think of it as a song played with two very different instruments. In the case of the living matter and particularly the human brain, the Holon will produce many "dark" effects, and will be totally confined -- hence directly unobservable -- in the potential future of the universal time arrow. In the case of galaxies, it will alter the dynamics of the visible matter, thus making us (well, some of us) to believe that there is some "dark matter" that obeys the laws of Einstein's GR, but is terribly "dark".

Well, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not necessarily a duck, wise men say.
 

D. Chakalov
January 3, 2004
 

[Ref. 9] M. Millis, The Challenge to Create the Space Drive, Journal of Propulsion and Power (AIAA), Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 577-682, (Sept.-Oct. 1997); last update: May 13, 2004.

"It is also possible to consider the very structure of spacetime itself as a candidate for propulsive interactions. If it were possible, for example, to create asymmetries in the very properties of spacetime which give rise to inertial frames, it may be possible to create net inertial forces."
 
 
 
 

=====
Subject: Gravity Control
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:32:30 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at>
To: Tajmar Martin <martin.tajmar@arcs.ac.at>
CC: Orfeu Bertolami <orfeu@cosmos.ist.utl.pt>,
     Clovis Jacinto de Matos <Clovis.de.Matos@estec.esa.nl>,
     Christophe Carreau <Christophe.Carreau@esa.int>,
     investors@baesystems.com, r.tucker@lancaster.ac.uk,
     john.allen@eng.ox.ac.uk, david.defelice@grc.nasa.gov,
     Jean.M.Schuerger@grc.nasa.gov
BCC: [snip]
 

Dear Dr. Tajmar,

Thank you very much for your ESA report "Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion: A Scientific Study" [Ref. 1], which I received today. I think you and Dr. Bertolami have done an outstanding job. Congratulations!

May I offer some brief (and perhaps biased, I'm afraid) remarks. It seems to me that you are quite optimistic about the standard model,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/LHC.html

as you explained in Sec. String/M-Theory (p. 35) and on p. 52 [Ref. 1, Part I]. Perhaps you may wish to see P. Woit's physics/0102051,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Gerardus.html#Woit

As to the puzzle of vacuum energy

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

and energy (non)conservation in GR, see two down-to-earth papers by P.J.E. Peebles and B. Ratra, astro-ph/0207347 [Ref. 2] and by C. Barcelo and M. Visser, gr-qc/0205066,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Wald.html#3

Also, I hope you would agree that there are far too many catastrophic events permitted in GR (e.g., [Ref. 3]), which have never happened, just like the ultraviolet catastrophe (M. Planck).

We obviously need a complete theory of quantum gravity, and I believe the tasks and pitfalls have been clearly identified by Chris Isham ten years ago [Ref. 4] and recently in his quant-ph/0206090,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Butterfield.html#1

Let's keep our mind open to all possibilities. Perhaps the spacetime is not static [Ref. 5], contrary to what has been advocated in Bob Geroch's book "General Relativity from A to B",

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Anandan.html#NB

The phenomenon of transience (the alleged progress of the "Now", [Ref. 5]) is not present in our Weltbild,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Jaroszkiewicz.html#3

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Anandan.html#6

The nature of so-called non-locality is far from clear [Ref. 6], especially in living matter,

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Granik.html

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Page.html

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/dimi.html#summary

http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Milburn.html#technologies

I believe the future of gravity control [Ref. 1] is open up to 'the unknown unknown'. Had we been able to normalize our potential states in the future, we would have lived in an utterly boring world, correct?:-)

Thank you, once more, for your beautiful paper. I wish you and your ESA colleagues best of luck.

Kind regards,

Dimiter G. Chakalov
--
http://members.aon.at/chakalov
mirror at
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/chakalov
 

References

[Ref. 1] Orfeu Bertolami and Martin Tajmar, Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion: A Scientific Study, ESA Report, Parts I and II, April 2002.

"Control of gravity would bring a somewhat modest gain in terms of launching of spacecraft and no breakthrough for propulsion. (...) Control of gravity remains still at the realm of science fiction."
 

[Ref. 2] P.J.E. Peebles, Bharat Ratra. The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0207347

"As one sees by working the integral in Eq. (26), here everyone can have seen everyone else in the past. The details need not concern us; (...).
...

Footnote 19: "Eq. (37), which usually figures in discussions of the vacuum energy puzzle, gives a helpful indication of the situation: the zero-point energy of each mode is real and the sum is large. The physics is seriously incomplete, however. The elimination of spatial momenta with magnitudes  k > kc only makes sense if there is a preferred reference frame in which  kc  is defined. That is implicitly taken to be the rest frame for the large-scale distribution of matter and radiation. It seems strange to think the microphysics cares about large-scale structure, but maybe it happens in a sea of interacting fields. (...) That is, in this prescription the vacuum zero point energy acts like a homogeneous sea of radiation. This defines a preferred frame of motion, where the stress-energy tensor is diagonal, which is not unexpected because we need a preferred frame to define  kc . It is unacceptable as a model for the properties of dark energy, of course. (...) If we also want to satisfy local energy conservation we must take the pressure to be [...]. This does not contradict the derivation of  p  in the first prescription, because the second situation cannot be described by an action: the pressure must be stipulated, not derived. What is worse, the known fields at laboratory momenta certainly do not allow this stipulation; they are well described by analogs of the action in the first prescription. This quite unsatisfactory situation illustrates how far we are from a theory of the vacuum energy."
 

[Ref. 3] Matt Visser. The quantum physics of chronology protection.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0204022
 

[Ref. 4] Chris J. Isham. Canonical Quantum Gravity and the Problem of Time. Lectures presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute "Recent Problems in Mathematical Physics", Salamanca, June 15-27, 1992. Imperial/TP/91-92/25, 3 October 1992.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9210011

"Yang-Mills transformations occur at a fixed spacetime point whereas the diffeomorphism group moves points around. Invariance under such an active group of transformations robs the individual points in  M  of  any fundamental ontological significance. (...) In the present context, the natural objects that are manifestly Diff(M)-invariant are spacetime integrals like, for example,  [XXX]

"Thus 'observables' of this type are intrinsically non-local.

"These implications of Diff(M)-invariance pose no real difficulty in the classical theory since once the field equations have been solved the Lorentzian metric on  M  can be used to give meaning to concepts like 'causality' and 'spacelike separated', even if these notions are not invariant under the action of Diff(M). However, the situation in the quantum theory is very different. For example, whether or not a hypersurface is spacelike depends on the spacetime metric  g . But in any quantum theory of gravity there will presumably be some sense in which  g  is subject to quantum fluctuations. Thus causal relationships, and in particular the notion of 'spacelike', appear to depend on the quantum state. Does this mean that 'time' also is state dependent?"
 
 

[Ref. 5] Avshalom C. Elitzur, Shahar Dolev. Is There More to T?
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0207029
 
 

[Ref. 6] Manfred Requardt. The Translocal Depth-Structure of Space-Time, Connes' "Points, Speaking to Each Other", and the (Complex) Structure of Quantum Theory.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0205168

"6.2 A Continuum Model of Points Speaking to Each Other

"We hence conclude that these sort of spaces, which, presumably, are of relevance in quantum space-time physics, support (roughly spoken) two modes of interactions and/or information exchange among their constituents. A *local* one, obeying the "Nahwirkungsprinzip" (no action at a distance), propagating from points to their *infinitesimal neighbors* and so on, and, on the other hand, a *translocal* almost quasi-instantaneous interaction with arbitrarily distant regions of the manifold  M .
...

"7.3 Consequences for the Quantum Mechanical Measurement Process

"On the other hand, if, in addition to the ordinary local and causal propagation from lump to lump and taking place with a finite velocity, we have a further, more subliminal translocal information transport through the web of weak bonds or, in more popular terms, through hyperspace, the almost instantaneous destruction of a real and existing excitation pattern of the vacuum becomes possible. The details of these processes need of course a subtle analysis."
 

====

Subject: Re: Netiquette
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 17:44:45 +0300
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
To: Orfeu Bertolami <orfeu@cosmos.ist.utl.pt>
CC: martin.tajmar@arcs.ac.at, clovis.de.matos@esa.int,
     Jean-Christophe.Grenouilleau@esa.int, Olivier.Minster@esa.int,
     Sergio.Volonte@esa.int, timothy.lawrence@usafa.af.mil,
     r.tucker@lancaster.ac.uk

P.S. Three years ago, you and Martin wrote: "Our study reveals, however, that the vast majority of the ideas being pursued lack a serious scientific background and contradict well-established experimental facts in gravitational physics, condensed matter and quantum field theory."

[Orfeu Bertolami and Martin Tajmar, Gravity Control and Possible
Influence on Space Propulsion: A Scientific Study, ESA CR April 2002, Ch. 8.1.5, Internet Communities, p. 80.]

I wonder if you wish to say something on my web site. Please click on the links from my email below, and compare my efforts to those by NASA BPP,

http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Tajmar.html#9

Best - Dimi
--
There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.
Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics (1923)
 

On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:11:12 +0300, Dimi Chakalov wrote:
>
> Dear Orfeu,
>
> I'm happy to hear from you. I hope to demonstrate a "mini-warp
> drive" on July 12th in Bern,

>
> http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Mallios.html#note
>
> Are you or some of your colleagues going to EPS13 in Bern? It
> will be great to chat. My current efforts are at

>
> http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Rosinger.html#dark
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dimi