Yes, we must proceed carefully. I need a few days or weeks perhaps to think. I think this is a major paradigm change in foundations of theoretical physics. Lenny Susskind and others have built their entire legacy on the mistaken belief in unitarity that violates post-quantum locally-retrocausal TSV action-reaction gravity field theory if I prove correct. Note, that for the sake of argument in the science-faction sense, of an imagined alternate time line parallel universe next door. Conjecture: UAP evidence as factual smoking gun for G* >> G SO(2,4) + U1xSU2xSU3 Higgs EPR signaling = ER Star Gate Portal Time Machines. jacksarfatti.academia.edu On Sep 20, 2026, at 10:31 AM, Todd Desiato wrote: Jack, Before we build the proposed paper around an extension of ER = EPR, I need to state clearly where Operational Quantum Gravity agrees with the restricted holographic result and where it rejects the broader premise. There is a legitimate but narrow correspondence in holographic theories. A specially structured thermofield-double state involving two copies of a holographic quantum system can possess a two-sided AdS black-hole geometry as its bulk dual. In that restricted setting, the geometry encodes particular correlations in the boundary state. That does not establish a universal identity between quantum entanglement and Einstein–Rosen bridges. The original Maldacena–Susskind proposal did not prove that every entangled state possesses a wormhole. Subsequent results demonstrate that entanglement alone is insufficient. Classical holographic geometries obey the monogamy condition [Jack wrote: Violated in non-Hermitian action-reaction post-quantum field theory. All of the quantum calculations below are only in the limit of Valentini’s “equilibrium Born probability rule” for zero effective direct back-reaction of classical field “beables” (J.S. Bell) on their TSV quantum pilot destiny/history waves. Yakir Aharonov’s post-pre selected “weak values” are the fundamental “roots of reality.” It’s new wine in new skins.”] I₃(A:B:C) ≤ 0, where I₃ is the tripartite information. Now consider the four-qubit GHZ state: |GHZ₄⟩ = (|0000⟩ + |1111⟩)/√2. This state is genuinely entangled, but it has I₃(A:B:C) = ln(2) > 0. It therefore cannot be represented by a classical Einstein–Rosen bridge. Even arbitrarily large collections of GHZ-entangled degrees of freedom retain this obstruction. More generally, states having the same amount of entanglement as the thermofield-double state need not possess a semiclassical wormhole dual. The detailed correlation structure, Hamiltonian, boundary conditions, large-N limit, and holographic dictionary all matter. Thus, the defensible restricted statement is: Certain specially structured entangled states in theories already possessing a holographic gravitational dual may admit an effective wormhole representation. That is very different from saying: Entanglement is a wormhole. OQG supplies a still stronger first-principles objection. In OQG, quantum matter is fundamental. Spacetime geometry is not a microscopic substance. It is the reconstructed, long-wavelength bookkeeping description of causal relations among matter, obtained only after calculating the retarded response of the complete matter stress. The causal order is: matter state → retarded stress response → constitutive geometry. Geometry does not exist independently and then act back upon matter as a separate physical medium. Every admissible geometrical representation must possess a causal matter preimage. Consider two localized systems, A and B, possessing degenerate internal states labeled 0 and 1. Compare the entangled state ρE = |Φ⁺⟩⟨Φ⁺|, where |Φ⁺⟩ = (|0A0B⟩ + |1A1B⟩)/√2, with the separable state ρS = ½|0A0B⟩⟨0A0B| + ½|1A1B⟩⟨1A1B|. The first state is entangled; the second is not. Nevertheless, their local reduced density matrices are identical. If the internal labels are degenerate and stress-blind, the two states have the same local stress, energy, momentum, and relevant stress-response functions. OQG must therefore assign them the same gravitational response: ΠᴿE = ΠᴿS implies hTTE = hTTS. Entanglement can change while the physical source of gravity remains unchanged. Consequently, EPR does not imply ER. This becomes even sharper for a non-unitary extension. A local dephasing channel can transform ρE into ρS, destroying the bipartite entanglement while leaving the bodies’ stress, energy, momentum, and spatial configuration unchanged. If a physical bridge is claimed to disappear during that operation, the model must identify: the physical field that changes; the source current producing the change; the causal propagation law; the associated change in field energy; and the destination of the bridge’s energy and momentum. If the proposed bridge has no observable curvature, field strength, torsion, holonomy, stress, energy, or momentum, then it cannot accelerate a proof mass, steer a vehicle, or balance a momentum ledger. It is an interpretation rather than a physical mechanism. If the SO(2,4) connection is supposed to respond directly to entanglement or coherence, that response must appear explicitly in the action. We would need a derived source current, J = δSmatter/δA, together with a demonstration that this current distinguishes the entangled and dephased states. Calling the effect non-unitary does not supply that current or excuse conservation. The drive, environment, measurement apparatus, or proposed postquantum sector must enter the dynamics and the energy–momentum balance explicitly. OQG’s final position is therefore stronger than the observation that generic entanglement fails to produce a classical wormhole. In OQG, there is no independently physical spacetime fabric whose topology can be folded, joined, tunneled through, or used to return to an earlier time. Geometry is bookkeeping. It records causal matter-to-matter relations; it does not constitute an additional physical object through which matter can take a shortcut. A formal metric containing a wormhole or closed timelike curve has no physical standing unless it is the image of a realizable, retarded matter history. Because the microscopic OQG response is retarded, later matter response follows earlier matter history. No physical OQG degree of freedom corresponds to a clock entering its own earlier physical state. Accordingly, literal wormholes and backward time travel are excluded from the physical OQG state space. An effective shortcut, if matter response could produce one, would still have to be an actual causal matter-to-matter process. It could not be a tunnel through fundamental spacetime because OQG contains no such fundamental structure. I am willing to examine the local SO(2,4) connection theory on its own mathematical terms. But the joint paper cannot take ER = EPR, wormholes, or non-unitary spacetime topology as established premises. If the model predicts an observable connection-mediated effect, we must derive it from the action, identify its matter source, solve its boundary-value problem, and close its energy–momentum ledger. From the OQG side, ER = EPR is not a permissible first-principles premise. It imports an independently physical spacetime ontology that OQG specifically removes. Matter does the physics. Geometry records the result. Best, Todd On Sep 20, 2026, at 12:57 PM, JACK SARFATTI <[email protected]> wrote: x.com/i/grok/share/d… Yes, OK just waking up in San Francisco. Will focus on this next few days. I need the feedback from some of the above - may add co-authors. This is a major development in fundamental theoretical physics even beyond the UAP technology issue. Note the non-unitary extension of Lenny Susskind’s hologram ER = EPR, AdS/CFT that I think is wrong, i.e. incomplete.I knew the exterior calculus formalism was not sufficient when I was formulating the key intuitive picture of the different roles of near and far A-connection fields in the UAP “self-steering” warp drive problem for SO(2,4) “auto-parallel” (generalized SO(1,3) zero G-force “timelike geodesic”). jacksarfatti.academia.edu On Sep 20, 2026, at 6:59 AM, Todd Desiato wrote:Jack, Thank you for crediting me with the six-dimensional tractor correction and circulating it to your colleagues. I have now read the complete Grok discussion carefully. I think there is potentially a serious joint paper here, but the present transcript is a research outline rather than a completed model. The six-dimensional representation is the correct place to begin, but we still must supply the dynamics, massive-particle kinematics, material coupling, boundary-value solution, and global momentum accounting before making any propulsion claim. I suggest the provisional title: “Tractor Kinematics, Massive Matter, and Momentum Closure in Local SO(2,4) Gauge Gravity” The paper’s central question would be: Can a finite pumped shell create a locally autoparallel cabin or measurable acceleration-compensation effect while satisfying action-derived field equations, junction conditions, and total momentum conservation? If so, where is the compensating momentum? Before proceeding, we must resolve an immediate mathematical problem in the present formulation. The discussion simultaneously assumes: X² = X · X = 0 pᴵ = M DₛXᴵ Dₛpᴵ = 0 Here, Xᴵ is the null position tractor, pᴵ is the proposed tractor momentum, M is the mass, and Dₛ denotes covariant differentiation along the worldline. Because an SO(2,4) connection preserves the tractor metric, the first two equations imply: X · p = (M/2) Dₛ(X · X) = 0 Differentiating this orthogonality condition along the worldline gives: 0 = Dₛ(X · p) = (p · p)/M + X · Dₛp If we now impose the proposed autoparallel condition, Dₛp = 0, then the preceding equation requires: p · p = 0 That is compatible with a null trajectory. It is not compatible with a massive timelike proof mass, for which the mass-shell condition is: p · p = −M²c² The sign may reverse under the opposite metric convention, but the essential fact is unchanged: the momentum norm is nonzero for a massive body. We must therefore choose among three possibilities: 1. Use the standard tractor description of conformal curves, involving the canonical lift and a parallel tractor subbundle. 2. Describe the physical timelike momentum as a spacetime tangent vector transported by a clearly defined affine connection. 3. Introduce an independent dynamical tractor momentum, with its mass-shell and orthogonality constraints derived from a worldline action, rather than defining it as M DₛX. Once this is resolved, I propose the following work program. 1. Freeze the theoretical framework We must distinguish the standard normal tractor connection, which is determined by a conformal structure, from an independent dynamical SO(2,4) Cartan connection. We should define, once and consistently: - the position tractor; - the scale or infinity tractor; - the soldering form; - the connection components; - curvature and torsion; - the relevant representations; - and all transformation laws. The electroweak connection should remain separate unless an explicit mixed representation and invariant interaction are supplied. 2. Write one complete action The action must contain: - the SO(2,4) connection and its kinetic terms; - the symmetry-breaking or condensate field; - the mass matrix identifying which connection modes become massive; - the pumped-medium and hull degrees of freedom; - the matter coupling determining what an ordinary accelerometer or proof mass experiences; - and all necessary boundary terms. The source current must be obtained by varying the matter action with respect to the connection: J = δSₘₐₜₜₑᵣ / δA It should not be introduced phenomenologically after the field equation has already been selected. If the pumped film is treated as non-Hermitian, its drive and environment must either be included explicitly or represented by a controlled open-system formalism. Effective gain or loss cannot serve as an unaccounted energy or momentum reservoir. 3. Use a controlled truncation A complete nonlinear solution involving all fifteen generators is too broad for a first paper. We should derive one massive axial-torsion, dilation, or special-conformal mode as a consistent truncation of the complete action. If the selected mode reduces to a Proca equation of the general form field operator acting on A + mass term = coupling × source current, then we must derive—not assume—the dimensions and normalization of: - the field A; - its mass μ; - the source current J; - and the effective coupling g* or G*. We should not insert G*/G = 10⁴⁰ unless that ratio follows from measured data or a completely normalized microscopic model. [Jack wrote: It is a prediction testable in measured data - the entire UAP explanatory scheme fails without it.] 4. Derive massive-body motion from the action We need a worldline or extended-matter action and must vary it to obtain the equation of motion. This calculation must determine: - whether ordinary unpolarized matter couples to the new field; - whether the hull, cabin, and proof mass couple identically; - what an onboard accelerometer measures; - what an external observer measures; - and whether the proposed effect is genuine center-of-mass acceleration, altered inertial loading, or merely a coordinate or gauge description. A constant connection potential is not sufficient by itself. We must identify the gauge-invariant curvature, torsion, holonomy, or field gradient that produces the observable effect. 5. Solve one finite boundary-value problem We should choose one geometry—preferably a spherical shell for analytic control, followed by an axial shell if necessary—and calculate: - the correctly normalized retarded Green function; - the interior and exterior fields; - junction conditions derived from the action; - stored field energy and momentum; - exterior Yukawa decay; - and the field experienced by a finite Proca mass. The solution must include limiting cases, boundary checks, and complete dimensional verification. 6. Close the momentum ledger For a finite worldtube enclosing the hull, pump, power supply, and near field, we must derive the balance: change in matter momentum - change in stored field momentum - momentum crossing the worldtube boundary - momentum transferred to the environment = 0 In compact notation: ΔPₘₐₜₜₑᵣ + ΔP𝒻ᵢₑₗ𝒹 + boundary momentum flux + ΔPₑₙᵥᵢᵣₒₙₘₑₙₜ = 0 If a closed internal pump cycle returns the field to its initial state and the complete action remains translationally invariant, an isolated system should have zero residual center-of-energy impulse. If the destiny/history sector is proposed to evade that conclusion, it must appear in the action as an explicit current with a calculable four-momentum exchange. Naming that sector is not sufficient. Its contribution must appear in the conservation equation. We should agree in advance to publish the result whether the residual impulse is nonzero, externally balanced, or identically zero. 7. Produce one defensible quantitative prediction Every parameter must have defined units, normalization, and physical provenance. We should calculate: - field amplitude; - force or acceleration; - stored energy; - required pump power; - interaction range; - material stress; - and consistency with existing fifth-force, equivalence-principle, Lorentz-violation, and laboratory constraints. The present 10³-to-10⁵-g estimate should be withdrawn unless it survives this calculation. One measurement may be used to determine the coupling. A second independent configuration must then be predicted without refitting that coupling. 8. Define a discriminating experiment The experiment should measure separately: - external center-of-mass force or impulse; - internal proof-mass acceleration; - electromagnetic pickup; - thermal drift; - vibration and acoustic coupling; - and mechanical interaction with the bench, air, wiring, or power source. A two-accelerometer configuration may distinguish local acceleration compensation from actual propulsion, but the predicted differential signal and experimental noise floor must be calculated before construction. 9. Supply reproducibility and verification The paper should include: - symbolic consistency checks; - numerical source code; - unit tests; - benchmark inputs; - dimensional verification; - machine-readable results; - and a manuscript-to-code cross-reference. Every numerical claim must be reproducible from the stated action, source, boundary conditions, and parameters. 10. Write for conventional peer review The manuscript should use conventional technical terminology and omit UAP anecdotes, AI/Feynman dialogue, Angels/Demons/ghost rhetoric, and unsupported performance claims. Those do not establish the mathematics and would make peer review more difficult. OQG should remain separate unless a specific mathematical relationship is derived. This paper would evaluate the SO(2,4) conformal-gauge model on its own terms. For the division of work, I can take the lead on: - the consistency audit; - the massive-trajectory problem; - the finite-worldtube momentum ledger; - dimensional analysis; - numerical reproducibility; - and integration of the manuscript. I would need you to fix and defend the model’s physical commitments: - the exact connection action; - the symmetry-breaking field; - the source or selector functional; - the meaning and normalization of G*; - the ordinary-matter coupling; - and the proposed external or postquantum momentum channel. The first deliverable should be a short model specification containing only: 1. The complete action. 2. All field definitions and dimensions. 3. The symmetry-breaking pattern. 4. The source current. 5. The proof-mass coupling. 6. The claimed momentum-exchange channel. Once those are fixed, we can determine whether the result is a viable effect, an acceleration-compensation mechanism, or a no-go theorem. Any one of those could make an honest paper. What we cannot publish responsibly is a propulsion conclusion selected before performing the calculation. If you agree with this scope—and with publishing whichever result follows—then I am willing to proceed. Best, Todd