On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 12:08 PM, S-P & M-M Sirag wrote: "Jack, I also watched the NOVA program on string theory last night. The answer to Steven Weinberg's question about the cosmological constant (as the energy of empty space) may have been implicit in a key point the program.

Weinberg says: "If you try to calculate the energy in empty space, taking into account only fluctuations in fields of wavelengths where we understand the physics, you get an incredibly large energy, much too large to possibly fit what we know about the expansion of the universe."

For me the most telling moment in Brian Greene's discussion of string theory was when he illustrated the quieting down of the fluctuations of space caused by the fluctuations of the strings."

Yes, I noticed that. That is what I also get with my much simpler model

Cosmological Constant = (Planck Area)^-1[1 - (Planck Volume)(Vacuum Coherence)^2]

Also Einstein's c-number emergent MACRO-QUANTUM coherent Andrei Sakharov "metric elasticity" tensor:

guv = Minkowski tensor + (Planck Area)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)

( ) is symmetrizer of partial derivatives ,u & ,v

Basic torsion field is

Suv = Planck Area)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]

[ ] is anti-symmetrizer (same notation as Penrose & Rindler)

What is the math idea of what Brian was alluding to? Oh you mean finite length of string?

But that is still too big a number when

Cosmological Constant ~ 1/(String Length)^2

"The idea that the zero-point energy of spacetime (based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) becomes enormous enough to break spacetime into a quantum foam is based on a quantum field theory view of the fundamental particles as point particles (i.e, zero-dimensional entities)."

Yes, but with my Vacuum Coherence Field = 0 implicitly assumed.

"[Here's a question for the pessimistic Sheldon Glashow: "If it takes an accelerator the size of the Milky Way galaxy to see something as small as a Planck scale (10^-33 cm) string, how big an accelerator do we need to see a point particle electron (as is assumed in quantum field theory)? After all a point is infinitely smaller than 10^-33 cm. We don't see electrons (or any other point particle) in accelerators; we see their effects at a scale of around 10^-18 cm -- much larger than the point-like scale which is infinitesimal.]"

Not really a fair question.

The idea is that the electron is a "micro-geon" (e.g. Ya Burinski).

Imagine a ring singularity at radius

e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi

perhaps with thickness 1 Newtonian Planck area.

Actually the core of this ring is exotic vacuum "dark matter" with positive pressure holding the charge and compensating the rotations. The plasma cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs and virtual photons extends out to h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm. This is the low energy picture. Hit the electron with huge momentum transfers p and I think the enormous space-warp at the micro-scale will make the electron appear more and more like a point particle ~ 10^-17 cm or so with attainable momentum transfers in high-energy scattering. Similarly for quarks inside the hadrons. Basically the "radius" stays at e^2/mc^ and the "circumference" of the ring shrinks relative to fixed radius. For simplest toy Schwartzschild

effective size of electron (neglecting charge and spin just show the idea) = (e^2/2pimc^2)(1 - 2G*mp/hc^2)^1/2

where G* ~ 10^40G(Newton)

Then use blackhole-string duality to get to your string picture?

"The basic idea of string theory is that the point particles are an approximation to the tiny (10^-33 cm sized) strings. This entails the further idea that when one looks at regions of space approaching 10^-33 cm (the Planck length), rather than space fluctuating so violently that it breaks up in a quantum foam, the fluctuations are tame --in fact harmonic-- and the harmonics correspond to the various particle types (including some new particle types whose discovery would confirm the theory--contra to Sheldon Glashow very negative comments concerning the verifiability of string theory)."

I need to see how the math of that actually works. I have some string theory books like Polchinski. Is it in there?

"Moreover--and this is a very big idea--when one looks at regions of space approaching the Planck scale, the spacetime goes hyperdimensional. So it is in effect the tiny unseen dimensions that tame quantum foam (as calculated in quantum field theory)."

What is the actual string theory formula for Einstein's cosmological constant? I have one above in my simple picture which also explains both dark energy and dark matter as w = -1 exotic vacuum phases on the large scale.

"This is actually "ancient history" in string theory, so ancient that it is usually forgotten (if ever noticed). Thirty years ago Lars Brink and H.B. Nielsen did a zero-point energy calculation on the strings (both the bosonic 26 dimensional variety and the 10 dimensional superstring variety). These dimensions were already known by 1973, but by way of very abstract calculations. Brink and Nielsen wanted a more physically intuitive picture of the hidden dimensions. They assumed only that the zero-point energy fluctuations would be absorbed by the harmonic fluctuations of the strings."

Sounds like the "harmonics" play a role similar to my MACRO-QUANTUM Vacuum Coherence Field.

Remember however that I derive Einstein's classical GR equations from modulating the Goldstone Phase of the "More is different" Vacuum Coherence Field which is a giant vacuum local wave not tiny little harmonics.

I also derive dark energy and dark matter from modulating the Higgs amplitude part of the Vacuum Coherence Field.

In polar representation

Vacuum Coherence Field = (Higgs Amplitude Field)e^i(Goldstone Phase Field)

The topological defects, i.e. Goldstone phase singularities, are well known to be 1D strings in this case of O(2) internal symmetry in 3D space/

Einstein's guv is from local gauge invariance compensating fields on the 4-parameter translation subgroup of the 15 parameter Conformal Group.

Dark energy/matter exotic vacuum field is from local gauge invariance compensating field on the 4-parameter mirror translation subgroup of the 15 parameter Conformal Group. (like Tony Smith's "conformal gravitons")

Shipov's torsion field is from local gauge invariance compensating field on 6 parameter Lorentz O(1,3) subgroup of the Conformal Group.

Also the dilation field from the 1 parameter sub-group of the conformal group hence R(t) = e^Ht in the inflation phase.

*Note according to Rindler and Penrose all sorts of stuff breaks down when torsion =/= 0

e.g. no longer d^2 = 0 for exterior differential Cartan forms.

No longer general Stoke's theorem

Integral over domain of d(form) = Integral over boundary of the form

breaks down as does

Boundary of a boundary vanishes for the topology of fields as Wheeler tells IT FROM BIT.

Note also that 4-World Vectors (first rank tensors of Conformal Group) are 2qubit strings of the Bell Basis of quantum cryptography. That's all in Penrose and Rindler though they did not mention "qubits" back in the 80's when the book was written - hence the IT FROM BIT as Penrose spinor (quBIT) substratum of IT space-time!

"What they left to be calculated from this premise was the dimensionality of spacetime in order to remain consistent with this premise. Lo and behold -- the 26-d bosonic dimensions and the 10-d superstring dimensions (which include fermions) drop out of their string zero-point energy calculation."

Is the idea that they impose a vanishing zero point energy density from all strings and from that constraint get the extra-dimensions of space?

The extra dimensions of space, if large, may amp up G(Newton) to G* by 40 powers of ten at the fermi scale in the 3 large ordinary dimensions?

"Ref: L. Brink and H.B. Nielsen, "A Simple Physical Interpretation of the Critical Dimension of Space-Time in Dual Models," *Physics Letters*, 45B:4, 332-336 (6 Aug 1973). This paper is also included as paper #9 in the anthology edited by John H. Schwarz, *Superstrings: the first 15 years of superstring theory* Vol. I (World Scientific, 1985).

BTW: There may in fact already be observational evidence for the string theory taming of the violent (quantum field theory) quantum foam. Of course, since the observations were made by astronomers (who probably don't study the fine points of string theory ;-), this evidence is not touted as relevant to string theory."

Again I need to see a string theory formula that does same thing as my formulas

Cosmological Constant = (Planck Area)^-1[1 - (Planck Volume)(Vacuum Coherence)^2]

Also Einstein's c-number emergent MACRO-QUANTUM coherent Sakharov "metric elasticity" tensor

guv = Minkowski tensor + (Planck Area)(Goldstone Phase)(,u,v)

( ) is symmetrizer of partial derivatives ,u & ,v

Basic torsion field is

Suv = Planck Area)(Goldstone Phase)[,u,v]

[ ] is anti-symmetrizer (same notation as Penrose & Rindler)

Ref. *Astronomy* September 2003, p. 30, "Time won't be quantized."

See also the URL: http://www.uah.edu/News/2003news/sharp image.html

"The title of this news item from the University of Alabama in Huntsville is ironically misleading. The title is "Does sharp image of distant galaxy shred the fabric of space and time?" Actually, Richard Lieu and Lloyd Hillman (at Huntsville) expected the Hubble telescope pictures of the Airy disks (or rings) generated by distant galaxies to show a quantization of time -- which idea is based on the shredding of spacetime at the Planck scale). The sharpness of the Airy disks was interpreted to mean that time is not quantized at the Planck scale.

This should count as indirect evidence for the string theory taming of the fluctuations of spacetime--via the hidden dimensions of string theory."

Or my formula, which is simpler.

"Thus this could be the first indirect evidence for the hidden dimensions.

The sharp airy disks from distant galaxies was also confirmed by the independent observations (of different galaxies) by Roberto Ragozzoni of the Max Planck Institute (also using the Hubble telescope). And this confirmation led to the short news item in the September issue of *Astronomy*.

I wrote a letter to *Astronomy* pointing out the Brink and Nielsen calculations mentioned above. I don't know if they will publish my letter. Anyway I sent you a copy of my email letter to *Astronomy* on August 11. And you sent it on to several other people -- so the idea is out there. Don't know if its significance understood.

Nuff said ;-)

Saul-Paul" ---------- From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@pacbell.net); Subject: Re: Nova's presentation of Brian Green's "The Elegant Universe;" Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2003, 7:58 AM

On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 06:56 AM, ... wrote:

Happened to catch part of this string theory show last night and I'm not sure that simplistic shows for laymen, like me, are that helpful if they don't go as far as the meaningful explanations that your web site presents. Anyway, all the big stars were on the show and I thought this quote from Steven Weinberg was interesting, from Nova's website, especially in light of your theory:

"NOVA: What do you see as string theory's greatest failure?

Weinberg: A disappointing aspect of string theory is that it has so far failed to shed any light at all on what is probably the biggest outstanding problem in the physics of what we can actually see in nature -- the failure to understand the energy of empty space, the so-called cosmological constant. If you try to calculate the energy in empty space, taking into account only fluctuations in fields of wavelengths where we understand the physics, you get an incredibly large energy, much too large to possibly fit what we know about the expansion of the universe. There must be some complicated cancellations that make the energy in empty space very small."

Yes, they do not have the idea of vacuum coherence damping down the random zero point fluctuations -- oil on the waters.

/zpf = Lp*^-2[1 - Lp*^3Higgs^2]

The nice thing about the additional hologram idea is that

Lp* = Lp^2/3(c/H)^1/3

gives Lp* ~ 1 Gev scale i.e. 10^-13 cm