Monday, June 30, 2003

On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 01:53 PM, Eric Davis wrote:


Your comment below is inaccurate and misleading, and especially misleads those not in the know or who are otherwise not savvy enough to know better. I'm not sure who told you about the MITRE conference, but I was there as well in an official capacity. Hal's MITRE conference paper had nothing to do with the NASA BPP nor UFOs. His paper explored the generation and detection of gravitational radiation within the PV methodology. It discussed HFGWs, wave polarization modes, etc. His PV methodology was taken seriously for the conference because the mission of the conference was to embrace all physics approaches for generating, detecting and applying HFGWs. This included alternative physics approaches.

(HFGWs = High Frequency Gravity Waves)



Reply to Eric Davis

It doesn't matter much since all of his papers on PV are pretty much the same fundamentally wrong paper re-Haisched. :-) Also we all know the semi-black hidden agenda of the MITRE meeting since many of the same UFO & NASA BPP people were there. It was simply a cosmetic change for the uninitiated. Let's not get blogged down in superficial distinctions. We all know what is happening here. Hal uses "metric engineering" in his title. In case you forgot its real meaning you can refresh your memory by watching me lecture on it in Star Trek IV DVD.
Disc one contains the film and commentary, but on Disc 2 you will find a number of extras…
The “Time Travel: The Art of the Possible” featurette was very interesting, as three major scientists wrestle with the question of whether time travel could really happen.

James Woodward did raise an interesting issue. Hal has a kind of vacuum term in his eq. (3). How come you guys never try to use it?

Even apart from the fact that Hal does not understand the difference between the Schwarzschild radial coordinate and the isotropic radial coordinate and that his "Tables I and II" in earlier papers are in Pauli's words "not even wrong" based upon a confused measurement ontology IMHO, but taking what Hal writes on face value his Eq (5) will never get you any where of practical interest.

i.e. K^1/2 = e^GM/c^2r

Because G/c^4 = 10^-33 cm/per 10^19 Gev

So no way Jose on any practical large scale metric engineering application even if PV ala Hal were right, which it is not.

Playing Hal's game for the nonce

GM is replaced by ~ G(rho)R^3 and G(rho) by the exotic zero point vacuum equivalent c^2/\zpf

We then have, for a toy model of a uniform sphere region of exotic vacuum of radius R

K^1/2 = e^/\zpfR^3/r

This is a whole new ball game!

Looking at my paper

soon to be published in Progress in Quantum Physics Research

/\zpf is controlled electromagnetically via a weak Josephson link to a real superconductor not unlike Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" but in the near EM field not the far field.

From: Jack Sarfatti
To: Puthoff

Subject: Refuting Haisch & Puthoff's Physics Blog
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:51:57 -0700

<< RefutingPuthoffBlog.pdf >>

It's amazing that Mitre takes Hal's PV stuff seriously for UFO BPP. Is everyone in UFO black ops really stupid or just pretending? ;-)

On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 02:06 AM, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:53:06 -0700 Jack Sarfatti
writes: James go to

Ibison discusses tension between local ZPF and nonlocal Machian
POV's e.g. M.Ibison, "A ZPF-mediated cosmological originof electron
inertia, in "Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the PlanckScale,
Eds. R. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos and J.-P. Vigier (Kluwer Academic
Press, Dordrecht,the Netherlands, in press, 2001).

"Interesting (though Michael Ibison's more recent paper suggests serious
problems with the HRP scheme). Actually, from my point of view at any
rate, if you take Mach's principle at all seriously (and I do), then it
is clear that local inertial properties and behavior must be a
consequence of the gravitational action of distant matter on local stuff."

Wheeler already discusses that rather completely classically in e.g. "Gravitation and Inertia" with Ciufolini.

In my theory LOCAL guv(x) is from locally differentiating (twice) the Goldstone phase field argPSI(x) of the PV coherence complex number LOCAL PSI(x) giant vacuum wave. However, PSI(x) obeys the local nonlinear Diff(4) covariant Landau-Ginzburg equation, which in Bohmian hydrodynamic form has a NONLOCAL MACRO-QUANTUM potential something like

Q(x) ~ |PSI(x)|^-1Diff(4) Covariant Wave Operator[|PSI(x)|] + Nonlinear corrections

I have yet to work that out in detail. The first gradient^2- wave dependent term is non-mechanical intensity-independent context-dependent "organic" as usual. But it seems obvious that the GLOBAL Machian influence is in the NONLOCALITY of Q(x)?

"The universality of that interaction (that arises from an interesting
invariance property of the gravitational interaction) combined with the
fluctuation-dissipation theorem (a la Wheeler and Feynman, Hoyle and
Narlikar, Milonni, and others) makes it tempting to try to reinterpret
all of this as a local ZPF phenomenon. But the ZPF in question in this
case must be the "gravinertial" ZPF, whatever that may be, dominated by
"dark energy", and so on. . . . I know you have your candidate (and HRP
have theirs) and, no doubt, there likely will be others as time goes by."

HRP is dead for a variety of reasons.

1. Modanese shot it down as inconsistent with QED when Bernie Haisch brought him to CIPA for a short stay.

2. Hal's PV give the wrong prediction for high energy scattering off lepto-quarks if one tries to do a micro-geometrodynamics with it. Hal's PV has the lepto-quarks growing bigger in effective size rather than smaller as one probes deeper.

3. EM virtual ZPF plays a small role in determining rest mass m of lepto-quarks. The main effect is from the e+e- condensate as I show explicitly because it controls the residual micro-quantum total LOCAL ZPF /\(x) field via the Higgs amplitude |PSI(x)|.

4. I already have a formula for m in the toy model. Neglecting charge and spin for simplicity

|/\zpf|^-1/2 = h/mc

m = renormalized rest mass of lepto-quark

The rest mass comes, in this toy model, completely from the /\zpf < 0 exotic vacuum "dark matter core" of the zero point energy Wheeler micro "geon".

Where also

G*m/c^2 = h/mc


G*m^2/hc = 1

m = (h/c)/\zpf^1/2

Note m = 0 when the physical vacuum limited region (support of the spatially-extended Bohm particle hidden variable) is not exotic.

m^-2 = (c/h)^2/\zpf^-1

Note the non-perturbative "singular limit" of the effective zero point induced strong short range Sakahrov-Salam effective "dark matter" gravity coupling strength like in BCS theory's bottom -> up emergent order from spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry.

G* = hc/m^2 = hc(c/h)^2/\zpf^-1 --> infinity as /\zpf --> 0.

Note however G*(lepto-quarks) >> G(Newton).

The universal scale using Susskind's "world hologram" that is ALREADY Globally MACHIAN is

Lp*^2 = G*h/c^3 = Lp^4/3(c/Ho)^2/3

where Ho is the Hubble scale for our universe

c/Ho ~ 10^28 cm

Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2


Lp* ~ 1 fermi ~ 10^-13 cm

Therefore, the UNIVERSAL hadronic resonance "string theory" Regge trajectory slope is

G*/hc ~ (1Gev/c^2)^-1 = Alpha' of string theory where

J ~ Alpha'm^2

J = spin of the hadronic resonance on the plot J vs m^2

I first suggested this main idea in 1973 when Abdus Salam invited me to ICTP. I did the work first at SDSU. It was published in Herbert Frohlich's journal "Collective Phenomena". I did not know of dark energy and dark matter back then. No one did.

"But the important point here for rapid spacetime transport is not so much
what the particulars of the local ZPF may happen to be."

I have solved that. It's simply Kip Thorne's traversable wormholes and Alcubierre's free float warp drive metric engineered with the LOCAL /\zpf(x) field configurations of both signs positive (strong anti-gravity) and negative (strong gravity) as needed by the exotic vacuum local geometrodynamic field equation

Guv(x) + /\zpf(x)guv(x) ~ 0

+ the desired metric form in the usual standard mainstream way.

I see no deep problems of principle here. It's now an engineering problem to control /\zpf(x) via the Josephson "weak link" effect.

"Rather, it is that to do really exotic stuff, what must be found is a means to
"decouple" local stuff from the "gravinertial" action of distant matter
notwithstanding that that may be dominated by a local ZPF out there . . .
because that stuff out there, acting gravitationally here (via a WFHN
interaction), is the actual source of the local properties/behavior."

Jack earlier: You can download the pdf. There is also a recent paper on PV UFO
propulsion. What do you think?

"You mean the Brighton paper? I can't say that I think there's much
promise in Casimir type manipulations. The effects, even in extreme
cases, are far too small."

I meant the Mitre paper. But they keep re-Haisching the same paper. I suppose it's ecological. :-) Agreed. I have already essentially showed how to do it right in

Puthoff and all those ex-NASA BPP guys, like Al Holt, Franklin Meade, Mark Millis, Sturrock, Jacques Vallee et-al in the Laurance Rockefeller UFO study group have barking up the wrong tree beating a dead horse etc. They have not changed their tune in a decade. Same old. Same old. ;-)

"I must own that I find it curious that even in the most recent HFGW meeting paper that there is no real mention of the part of the "PV" approach that bears on transport schemes: namely the third term in Eq. 3 -- the supposed vacuum energy density term."

Hey I missed that! Let me take a look see. Oh yes, you are right! They throw the baby out with the bath water there. I don't think their formula for that term is correct however because the whole theory is ill posed to begin with. However they should at least play with that term! You make a very good point here. Thanks.

"This term actually falls out of the creation of the field equation from the
Lagrangian as a field (that is, LHS of the equation) term. Careful
definition of some parameters leads to the d'Alembertian of the square
root of K plus this term, which, of course isn't a classical wave
equation. But if you arbitrarily put this on the source side (RHS) of
the equation, then you're left with the d'Alembertian. Note that you can
only get away with this transfer to the RHS in a gravity theory, for in
any other long-range force theory, field and source quantities are
distinct and can't be shuffled around this way. As an added bonus you
get the source scaling trick (the mulipicative factor of c^4/8piG) when
you do this. None of this is discussed up front in the papers on the PV
approach; and none of them even hint at how the validity of this term may
be investigated, much less how it might be put to practical advantage . . .
.But perhaps in time all of this will get laid out. . . ."

Excellent, excellent, excellent remark! :-)

Here at least is how to connect what I am talking about with what they are doing. However, I bet what they are doing will not work in detail.

Sunday, June 29, 2003

Subject: "An amazing consistency": Metric Engineering Physics 101

Note to James Woodward re: creative conceptual tension between global nonlocal Machian POV vs apparently local ZPF POV, see my comments below on Giovanni Modanese's "Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory" which is a deeper more competent discussion of the "ZPF Inertia Lite" of Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda based on the rather eccentric "SED" ideas of Trevor Marshall who never accepted Bell's locality inequality. Note also a detailed quantitative refutation of the now falsified notion that "the big bang never happened" that Hal Fox, Editor of the eccentric New Age "Journal of New Energy" has been pushing lately on this cyberspace forum. This idea is now dead as a simple look at Fig 5 p. 58, in Saul Permutter's April 2003 Physics Today shows. The "No Big Bang" region in gray in upper left part of the plot is way outside the location of the data.

The Early History of Metric Engineering Physics

"An amazing consistency"

Saul Perlmutter’s “Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe” in Physics Today, April 2003, pp 53-60:

“We live in an unusual time, perhaps the first golden age of empirical cosmology. With advancing technology, we have begun to make philosophically significant measurements. These measurements have already brought surprises. Not only is the universe accelerating, but it apparently consists primarily of mysterious substances. We’ve already had to revise our simplest cosmological models. Dark energy has been added to the already perplexing question of dark matter. One is tempted to speculate that these ingredients are add-ons, like the Ptolemaic epicycles, to preserve an incomplete theory. With the next decade’s new experiments, exploiting not only distant supernovae, but also the cosmic microwave background, gravitational lensing of galaxies, and other cosmological observations, we have the prospect of taking the next step toward that ‘Aha’ moment when a new theory makes sense of the current puzzles.” [end of quote]

The distant Type Ia supernovae are “standard candles” for cosmological structure measurements in the paradigm of Einstein’s “battle tested” (Wheeler) geometrodynamic theory of gravity. Measurements by NASA space probes COBE and WMAP on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) remnant glow radiation from the initial Big Bang gives us increasingly precise data on the first ~ 380,000 years of our infant visible universe that increasingly shows itself as an inconceivable small piece literally of “measure zero” in the mathematical sense of a “multiverse” or “Super Cosmos” of parallel universes at several levels (e.g. Max Tegmark in May, 2003 Scientific American). We have come a long way from Earth as the Center of the Universe to a Super Cosmos that has no material geometrodynamical center.

A standard candle must have a known intrinsic brightness and must be found over a wide range of distances. Their light travels through a slowly expanding post-inflationary 3D space in which the separation between galaxies increases and the wavelength of the real “on mass shell’ transversely polarized photons stretches to create the cosmological redshift. Note that z ~ 0.1 corresponds to a distance ~ a billion (10^9) light years looking at a past event a billion years in the past of the detected signal. We cannot see space as it is “now” (along a spacelike slice of spacetime of constant CMB absolute temperature) using electromagnetic waves. We only “see” the past light cone of the detector assuming that there are no advanced electromagnetic waves from our future.

It was only in the early 1980’s that Type I supernovae missing hydrogen atom spectral lines had been discovered. The distinction between Ia and Ib is the presence or absence, respectively, of a silicon absorption line at 6150 Angstroms (10^-8 cm). Perlmutter, from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory where he leads the key experimental Supernova Cosmology Project (including the all-important upcoming SNAP NASA space probe) writes “an amazing consistency among the type Ia supernovae became evident. Their spectra matched feature-by-feature, as did their ‘light curves’ – the plots of waxing and waning brightness in the weeks following a supernova explosion.” The experimental breakthrough came at the beginning of 1998 (Fig 3 p. 56 plotting observed magnitude of Type Ia supernovae against redshift z) with an empirical best fit that shows all gravitating + antigravitating “stuff” to have the standard Einstein dimensionless cosmological measure Omega = ratio of density of "stuff"(both "real" on and "virtual" ZPF off-mass-shell) to critical density for a closed universe = 1+-0.02, which according to Einstein's gravity theory, implies a spatially flat universe on a scale > 10 megaparsecs. The exotic vacuum off-mass-shell repulsive anti-gravitating “dark energy” stuff contribution to the universe's total Omega is now precisely measured ~ 0.73+-0.04. The Type Ia measured numbers from 1998 are consistent with Michael Turner’s Op Ed “Reference Frame, Dark Energy: Just What Theorists Ordered” pp. 10-11 in the same issue. The final numbers in 2003 are somewhat different composed now from several very different independent experiments. One finds the universally repulsive exotic vacuum Omega(Lambda) plotted against the total attractive gravitating Omega(ordinary + dark matter) in Perlmutter’s “Fig. 5” on p. 58 where the data from three independent types of measurements nicely converge with an "amazing consistency" to Omega = 1 with Omega(ordinary + dark matter) ~ 0.27+-0.04. The three independent measurement techniques are NASA Space Probe WMAP, high redshift z Type 1a supernovae and galaxy cluster inventories. Soon there will be a fourth independent test i.e. NASA Space Probe SNAP. See also Bert Schwarzschild’s “Search and Discovery, WMAP Spacecraft Maps the Entire Cosmic Microwave Sky With Unprecedented Precision” on p. 24 of this same seminal issue of Physics Today where Bert writes:

“… most of the WMAP results confirm, with greater precision, the results of earlier CMB observations and, more important, the cosmological parameters deduced from a great range of quite different and independent large-scale observations: galaxy and supernovae redshift surveys … the Lyman- forest, primordial deuterium abundance, and gravitational lensing surveys. Combining all these cosmological measurements, the WMAP group finds that in units of the critical closure density, the cosmic mass density, and more than 80% of that is nonbaryonic dark matter whose identity is unknown. The flat cosmic geometry demanded by inflation is saved by a bigger and even more mysterious vacuum energy density.

Michael Turner's Op Ed on Dark Energy in April 2003 Physics Today

"It's not enough to be right in physics. One must be right for the right reasons." I think Max Tegmark wrote that?

Turner, Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of Chicago, writes:

"Dark energy is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in all of science. It is likely that a crazy new idea is needed to explain cosmic speedup and resolve the cosmological constant problem. (That does not mean that every crazy idea is a solution.) The payoff will be well worth the effort. We will gain new insights into the nature of matter, space and time and shed light on our cosmic destiny." [end of quote]

Alan Guth invented "inflation" in 1980. You need a scalar quantum field the "inflaton" on classical curved spacetime in the FRW metric assuming isotropy and homogeneity on large scale ~ 10^24 meters min. A small piece of the unstable vacuum is blown up to our early universe 13.7 billion years ago in an ultrashort fraction of a second as the inflaton decays. Any initial space curvature in 3D is flattened out. The initial zero point vacuum micro-quantum fluctuations of the decaying inflaton are stretched out to large scale to form the density perturbations from which ordinary matter as we know it forms. Real on mass shell matter forms from the decay energy of the inflaton forming the post-inflation vacuum bubble with perhaps an infinity of Level I parallel universes in Max Tegmark's sense in May 2003 Scientific American assuming simply connected not doughnut global topology. The COBE and newer WMAP NASA space probes measure these seeds amped up quantum zero point fluctuations in a snapshot taken when our universe is 380,000 years old from the Big Bang. We cannot see further into the early universe with microwaves. We can see closer to the Big Bang than 380,000 years with neutrinos and gravity waves if there are any of the latter. We should know soon with new space experiments LISA and LIGO coming on line if we do not have more Shuttle disasters. The key cosmological parameter in Einstein's theory is Omega Zero a dimensionless pure number equal to the coarse grained large scale average mean energy density of all "stuff" relative to a critical density given by Einstein's classical 1915 general theory of relativity. No one of any importance in physics today takes alternative gravity theories like the one Hal Puthoff has been playing with, for maybe 20 years now without compelling results, seriously. Only a few UFO Cargo Cult Kooks, some with US Military Intelligence backgrounds, take Hal's approach seriously. This is not to say BTW that UFOs are not real evidence for dark energy being used by an advanced civilization not from our planet and not from our time. The use of dark energy for space and time travel with warp drive and star gates will be called "metric engineering" a term invented apparently by Hal Puthoff. So not everything he did was in vain. :-)

Now to Turner's discussion of the theory. What he says on dark energy is essentially the same in its starting point that is as in my two books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" at and in of unfinished works in progress. The basic starting physics is in John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics" pp 25-26.

Energy density is the source of gravity in Newton's 17th century theory. Einstein's 20th century theory adds 3xpressure to this. The ratio of pressure to energy density is called w or "dubya". The "equation of state" of stuff relates pressure to energy density. For ordinary matter when v/c << 1 where v is average speed of an atom in a gas, for example, w << 1 so that Einstein's pressure correction to the creation of gravity is ignorable. For black body random thermal radiation w = +1/3. Dubya or w determines how the density of stuff changes in the expanding space of our visible universe with cosmic scale factor R(t), with t as a convenient but arbitrary measure of cosmic time.

Indeed, the large-scale geometry of our spatially flat universe is simply cast in Riemann's 19th century language used by Einstein in 1915, still used today is, for example, in a convenient choice of cosmic time t

ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - R(t)^2[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2theta dphi^2)]

using high school spherical polar coordinates. The initial universe is a flat "plane" (actually a 3 space unless we invoke world holography so that it really is Euclid's plane - again only on large scale > 10^24 meters!) with initial distance between two "galaxies" as R(t --> Big Bang) normalize so that R(now) = 1.]

The variation of density of this or that stuff scale as R(t)^-3(1 + w).

Ordinary non-relativistic matter density with w ~ 0 then scales as common sense would suggest
R(t)^-3. Not so for thermal radiation density that scales as R(t)^-3(4/3) = R(t)^-4. This last result shows that you cannot trust common sense in physics. All good physicists have long ago lost their common sense! Einstein alluded to "common sense" as mere superstitious childhood prejudice. Fundamentalists, crackpots, Luddites and illiterates generally, whether in science or religion or politics, find that hard to digest. It is a good litmus test. ;-)

*OK so now let's quickly cut to the chase with ZERO POINT VACUUM ENERGY! This is, after all, what you have all been waiting for. ;-)

The best discussion of this is in Peacock op cit p.26 who uses Heisenberg's micro-quantum uncertainty principle plus classical "covariance", i.e. form invariance of the LOCAL laws of physics under any relevant physical group G of frame of reference transformations, plus Einstein's LOCAL "principle of equivalence", i.e. it is possible to find a non-rotating timelike geodesic Local Inertial Frame or "LIF" such that, so long as the local curvature is not exploding in a spacetime singularity, the local phenomena and laws of physics are approximately "flat" like in special relativity. This remark is restricted at two ends the large and the small. First, the scale of measurement must be small compared to scale of radius curvature. This is no problem at Earth's surface where scale of radius of curvature of the source mass of Earth is ~ 1AU ~ 10^13cm. Second, we can ignore quantum gravity quantum zero point vacuum fluctuations in the geometry of spacetime. What happens if there are torsion fields and non-metricity fields from additional hyperspace dimensions requires additional study. Einstein's theory assumes both of the latter are zero. In any case, covariance + local equivalence of gravity to acceleration imply that w = -1 for any renormalizable quantum field on a classical curved spacetime background of any spin i.e. spins 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2 but I am not sure about 2. At this point Turner seems to make an error of detail when he says that "the virtual pairs that fill the vacuum have negative pressure". Peter Milonni's book on the quantum vacuum, if I remember correctly, has spin 1 virtual photons with negative zero point pressure and spin 1/2 Dirac virtual electron-positron pairs with positive zero point pressure since they have negative zero point energy density from the Pauli exclusion principle Fermi-Dirac statistics that requires anticommutators for fermion creation and destruction second quantized field operators. Therefore, although w = -1 for the zero point virtual quanta inside the vacuum for all spins up to 3/2 and maybe even 2, the sign of zero point energy density cannot be assumed positive in all cases. What happens for SU(2) weak force bosons and SU(3) strong force boson (gluons) is not obvious. One also has to see what the weak and strong charges do to the lepto-quarks - even to the electron with now additional weak charge.

Einstein's gravity source, in all the above cases, is still of course

energy density + 3 pressure

which for any zero point fluctuation of any quantum field is

- 2 (energy density)

This implies that the zero point fluctuations of any quantum field with positive energy density will ANTI-GRAVITATE like the now observed "dark energy". But if it walks like a duck ... is it a duck? There are some deep problems here.

Turner writes: "Something that is very elastic (that is negative pressure ...) has gravity that repels, rather than attracts." At this point I remind you that Kip Thorne showed in 1986 under prodding from Carl Sagan that you need negative pressure "exotic matter" to keep wormholes open for fast space travel and even for time travel to the past. A few years later, Alcubierre showed you need the same negative pressure exotic matter to make a weightless warp drive in which stuff inside the ship does not feel non-inertial "g-forces". No need for pressure suits even when that saucer makes a high speed sudden reversal of direction for example! Observed flying saucers show, according to Bruce Cornet, a "reverse Doppler shift" which is consistent with a dark energy based "vacuum propeller" (Roger Coolidge's term). The next idea is to distinguish real "on mass shell" stuff outside the vacuum from virtual "off-mass-shell" stuff inside the vacuum. This is a micro-quantum distinction beyond common sense only made thinkable by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. So what we need for both dark energy and dark matter is the idea of virtual stuff forming the /\zpf net residual zero point field of all spins in a new kind of "macro-quantum vacuum" with a "condensate" that is not at all part of Turner's thinking in the Physics Today Op Ed. It's because Turner is not thinking "vacuum condensate" here that he repeats the lament of the current conventional wisdom of the Pundits that

"Quantum vacuum energy is equivalent to Einstein's infamous cosmological constant."

That is true. But then

"Even the best quantum 'mechanics' have failed to produce a sensible prediction for /\zpf" p. 11

Not true. Here is my heuristic "two-fluid" MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM counter-example that is partially computed dynamically dynamically in a toy model interacting boson gas by G.E. Volovik in "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" (Oxford, 2003) in which my 1 is a slightly different number and Lp is the average inter-boson separation. In the case of Hagen Kleinert's "World Crystal Lattice" the "bare bosons" are of mass-energy hc/Lp and are closely packed. Observed low energy lepto-quarks are "quasi-particle" complex energy poles of a first reduced "particle" ODLRO density matrix. The gauge forces are "collective mode" complex energy poles of a second reduced "pair" ODLRO density matrix. The LOCAL field at scale L is

/\zpf(x,L) = Lp^-2[1 - Lp^3|<0|e(x,L)+e-(x,L)|0>|^2]

/\zpf = 0 in equilibrium as in G.E. Volovik's "The Universe in a Helium Droplet" (Oxford, 2003)

/\zpf > 0 is dark energy exotic vacuum with strong short range anti-gravity

/\zpf < 0 is dark matter exotic vacuum with strong short range gravity, e.g. cores of charged elementary particles like the electron.

Note that Einstein's source energy density + 3 pressure is simply, in the case of exotic vacua,
~ 2(c^4/G)/\zpf.

for details see my books at

Current papers at

This leads Professor Turner to his "greatest blunder" :-)

"Even though repulsive gravity sounds like fun, dark energy - as far as we know - can't be bottled up to create an object with antigravity."

Look at the flying saucers. The Truth is Out There. We shall make it so. :-)

A note on Giovanni Modanese's Modanese wrote this at Bernie Haisch's short-lived ill-fated CIPA that sadly rested on DOT.COM quicksand. It is an attempt to do correctly what Puthoff, Haisch and Rueda (PHR) did not do because their starting point was too naive and incomplete IMHO. Indeed Modanese concludes that what PHR try to do, i.e. produce a non-zero rest mass from a massless charge in the EM ZPF is impossible in standard quantum electrodynamics. See p. 12.

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 09:59 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 06:47 AM, wrote:

Hmmm. . . . not a theory known to me.

Jack said: You mean Ryazanov's. It's not well known and probably not coherent.

James said: By the way, the ADM version of elementary particles is an exact solution
of the Einstein field equaions; but the only way you can get stable
particles of finite radius and realistic mass is by assuming that the
bare mass is negative. . . .

Jack continued: That is exactly what my exotic vacuum dark matter core /\zpf < 0 does! This is all about to published in "Progress in Quantum Physics Research" Nova Scientific Publishers.

The unified exotic vacuum dark energy/matter /\zpf(x) field is a LOCAL field just like Einstein's local geometrodynamical field guv(x) at all scales micro to macro in my theory. Indeed guv is from the Goldstone phase modulation and /\zpf is from the Higgs amplitude modulation of the same giant MACRO-QUANTUM vacuum-polarization coherent local wave PSI(x) = <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0>.

Note that the local zero point stress-energy density tensor of exotic vacuum at scale L is

tuv(x,L)zpf ~ [c^4/G*(L)]/\zpf(x,L)guv(x,L)

in an adaptive windowed wavelet transform generalization of the rigid window Fourier-transform based Wigner phase space density for local ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM order parameters PSI(x,L).

As is known from Wheeler-Feynman/Hoyle-Narlikar you can reinterpret at least the EM part of local tuvzpf in terms of a Machian Feynman influence functional of the response of the universe as a whole as the radiation reaction/EM ZPF of a real photon emission. Depending on the cosmology solution of GR, both past and future light cones are involved in a mixture. This is all in Hoyle-Narlikar published work.

Rest mass of lepto-quarks are simply from micro Wheeler "mass without mass"/"charge without charge"/"spin without spin" "geon" exotic vacuum solutions of

Guv(x) + /\zpf(x)guv(x) ~ -8pi(G*/c^4)Tuv(x)em

where G* >> G(Newton) on scale L ~ 1 fermi.

I am implementing what Wheeler started in mid 1950s in his book "Geometrodynamics" before we knew about dark energy and dark matter. It's a whole new ball game now.
From The Off Off Broadway Comedy of Errors that Every One Who is Any One is snickering about On The Beltway and even in the Hallowed Ivy Halls of Langley and Bohemian Grove:

Jack Sarfatti's Entrance Like Jay Leno doing Joel Gray's part in "Cabaret"

With the Hit Song and Dance Chorus Line by The Cockettes choreographed by Leni Riefenstahl and Mel Brooks

"Perle Over Baghdad"

"Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Mouth?

We took this show On the Iraqi Road, but quite frankly it bombed!

We're still working on it. We will get it right in the end."

On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 01:31 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

The "opposition" is clearly running out of ammo.

Yet we have hardly even started... wrote:

Gillette is right that this thread is useless and is taking up far too much time. If some of you need to strike back at SS, get a doll and paint his face on it or go see a shrink.

Jack: I'll shrink to that! Scotch and soda neat. BTW Did you know Jack Dempsey was Jewish? His real name was "Ginzburg". No wonder my Grand Pa knew him. He used to take me to Dempsey's restaurant in late 40's or maybe early 50's.

DG: Let's get to something else, like science or politics! Pearl Harbor anyone?

Jack: How about "Perle Over Baghdad" by "The Cockettes" as the sequel to "Pearls Over Shanghai" and "Tricia's Wedding"? :-)

Something pretty amazing happens when we include electric charge, i.e. not only Wheeler's "Mass without mass", but also "Charge without charge".

Remember I have a heuristic "Tiza two-fluid" macro-quantum vacuum with the ODLRO smooth "superfluid" c-number part guv(x) Einstein geometrodynamic field as the Goldstone phase modulation of the coherence order parameter <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0>, and the residual zero point "normal fluid" of virtual zero point energy density (c^4/G*)/\zpf(x) from the Higgs field amplitude modulation of that same local coherent giant vacuum wave <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0>. The electron "geon" solution of Einstein's VACUUM field equation

Ruv(x) - (1/2)R(x)guv(x) + /\zpf(x)guv(x) = 0

In the Reissner-Nordstrom case, for an extreme non-radiating black hole must have a Blackett relation

G*m^2 = e^2

so that the strong short range zero point energy induced Sakharov gravity of the dark matter core exotic vacuum balances the electrical self-repulsion. Ignore spin for now for simplicity.

This balance of the exploding electrical self-energy against the dark matter zero point energy means that the electron wormhole throat size is the classical electron radius

e^2/mc^2 = alpha(h/mc) ~ (1/137)(h/mc) = (1/137)/\zpf^-1/2

Therefore, we have

l* ~ [1 - 2/\zpf(alpha)^3(h/mc)^3(p/h)]^1/2(h/mc)

Since the cloud of zero point energy virtual photons and unbound ionized plasma of virtual electron-positron pairs has a characteristic scale h/mc.

This is why h/mc ~ /\zpf^-1/2 above.

Therefore the effective dimensionless control parameter of the electron zero point energy geon is

(alpha)^3(p/h)/\zpf^-1/2 ~ 10^-6 10^-11(p/h) ~ 10-17(p/h) for scattering momentum transfers in cm^-1.

Obviously the effective "event horizon" where the electron wormhole looks like a point particle is for scattering probe momentum transfers of ~ 10^17 cm^-1, i.e. 10^3 Gev/c where the control parameter -> 1 under the square root, which fits experiments pretty well. The point here is that the third power of the fine structure constant enters the macro-quantum geometrodynamics naturally connecting the length scales 10^-17 cm, 10^-13 cm and 10^-11 cm.

Note also that the effective Planck scale Lp* in Susskind's "world hologram" is 10^-13 cm for L ~ c/H(now) ~ 10^28 cm in

Lp* = Lp^2/3L^1/3

Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3

Lp*^2(L) = hG*(Lp*)/c^3

Therefore Lp*(cosmology) ~ (1 Gev)^-1 which is the hadronic scale as well as the classical electron radius scale.

e^2/mc^2 ~ G*(Lp*)m/c^2

is the Blackett relation

e^2 ~ G*m^2

*Also note how Hal Puthoff's PV fails completely here because he has no event horizon in his exponential metric based on the wrong Yilmaz idea anyway. Also, in Puthoff's theory the lepto-quarks must get bigger in apparent size in high energy scattering as the momentum transfer increases. Puthoff & Ibison's theory is thus falsified by experiment. Furthermore, Giovanni Modanese has shown that the other idea of HRP does not work either that the electron's rest mass m is 100% from Trevor Marshall's idea of SED semi-classical EM quasi-ZPF acceleration friction conflicts with Feynman's quantum electrodynamics.

The Leo Strauss - Alan Bloom - (Saul Bellow's "Ravelstein") Occult Jacobin Neo Con Cabal's pre-March 20, 2003 fantasy of massive deployments of WMD by So Damn Insane in Iraq was the strong light of shock and awe (Perle Over Baghdad) aimed in the wrong part of the dark room. What really matters in the long run is what is definitely brewing, percolating and bubbling, like The Witching Pot in "Macbeth", in Serbia, in Ukraine and probably Iran and PRC. You don't have to take my word for it. British Astronomer Royal, Cambridge Don FRS Sir Martin Rees warns about it in his new book "Our Final Hour" that agrees with some of the same points (e.g. "Ice Nine") I raised in my earlier book "Destiny Matrix". Another good background reference on the history of the Neo Con Tradition is Erik Davis's "Techgnosis"

Figure does not show in this Blog. Contact me at for the picture.

Here is Fig 5 from Saul Perlmutter's article in April 2003 Physics Today showing the real facts why Hal Fox's claim of "no Big Bang" has been proven wrong and to maintain that false idea today is untenable. The data from independent measurement techniques cluster in the left mid-corner of the diagram with Omega(anti-gravity dark energy) on the vertical and Omega(gravitating dark matter + ordinary matter) on the horizontal. The best fit is ~ 0.73 and 0.27 respectively. Of the 0.27 only ~ 0.04 is ordinary matter made from on-mass-shell real lepto-quarks and real photons (EM far field radiation) + near induction EM fields that are giant coherent Glauber quantum states of off-light-cone virtual photons that should not be confused with virtual photon zero point energy vacuum fluctuations. Only 1/4 of the 0.04 is our kind of "star stuff" i.e. stars, planets, comets, asteroids, living matter. That is "we" are much less than 0.01 of all the stuff in the past light cone universe. The 0.03 seems to be dark clouds of hydrogen and helium not yet formed into stars. The important point is that ~ 96% of all the large scale gravitationally active stuff of the universe is exotic macro-quantum vacuum! Of that ~ 73% is the stuff of star gates and free float warp drive, i.e. /\zpf(x) > 0 with Omega ~ 0.73, and ~ 23% is the exotic vacuum "dark matter" /\zpf < 0 with Omega ~ 0.23. Note also that real electrically charged on-mass-shell lepto-quarks have /\zpf < 0 exotic vacuum strong "dark matter" cores on a scale of ~ 1 fermi that prevent them from exploding from their self electric charge. Even the massive neutrino has a dark matter core. Note most of hadronic mass is kinetic energy as shown in quantum chromodynamics with the dark matter cores only providing the effective small Higgs rest masses of the lepto-quarks from micro-wormhole /\zpf < 0 geons as first visualized by John Archibald Wheeler in his "Geometrodynamics" in mid 1950's. Wheeler's "mass without mass" "geons" were gigantic because [G(Newton)/c^4] ~ 10^-33 cm per 10^19Gev. The new zero point /\zpf(x) changes all that allowing all lepto-quarks to be pictured in the Bohmian ontology as spatially extended "hidden variable" system points rolling on a "pilot qubit wave" landscape. The lepto-quarks look like point particles in high energy scattering 4-momentum transfers because of huge micro-curvature induced by the /\zpf < 0 exotic vacuum cores. That is a huge radius for a small surface area in the spatial curvature.

Einstein's GR factor 2GM/rc^2 ~ 2G(density)R^3/r is replaced by 2/\zpfR^3/r

Look at the Schwarzschild SSS vacuum solution for a neutrino core of radius R on the micro-scale, or a giant galactic dark matter halo of radius R on the macro-scale

[1 - 2GM/c^2r] is replaced by [1 + 8pi/\zpfR^3/r]

dR = dr/[1 + 8pi/\zpfR^3/r]^1/2

Area(r) = 4pir^2

r = Schwarzschild radial coordinate

/\zpf < 0 for lepto-quark stabilizing exotic vacuum dark matter cores.

This is a theory for all scales L.

Note that Vaidman Foundations of Physics, 21, p, 947 (1991) shows how to make a qubit time machine that we can adapt the /\zpf field for to make it practical in the laboratory.

The implications for energy release much bigger than thermonuclear fusion and nuclear fission are briefly mentioned by Martin Rees in "Our Final Hour" and are implicit in papers such as

"On the Possible Existence of Tight Bound States in Quantum Mechanics"
J.P. Vigier with A. Dragic & Z. Maric (Institute of Physics, Beograd, Serbia) pp 349-356

My own paper "Progress in Post-Quantum Physics and Unified Field Theory" pp 419-430

both in Volume 126 (2002) Fundamental Theories of Physics Series Kluwer Academic Publishers

and in work in Kiev, Ukraine:

Physics, abstract
From: Yuri Arepjev
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:49:32 GMT (151kb)

Physical Mechanism of Nuclear Reactions at Low Energies
Authors: V.P.Oleinik, Yu.D Arepjev
Comments: 14 pages, pdf, 2 figures
Subj-class: General Physics
Journal-ref: New Energy Technologies, 3(6), pp.17-23, (2002)

The physical mechanism of nuclear reactions at low energies caused by
spatial extension of electron is considered. Nuclear reactions of this type
represent intra-electronic processes, more precisely, the processes
occurring inside the area of basic localization of electron. Distinctive
characteristics of these processes are defined by interaction of the own
field produced by electrically charged matter of electron with free nuclei.
Heavy nucleus, appearing inside the area of basic localization of electron,
is inevitably deformed because of interaction of protons with the adjoining
layers of electronic cloud, which may cause nuclear fission. If there occur
"inside" electron two or greater number of light nuclei, an attractive force
appears between the nuclei which may result in the fusion of nuclei. The
intra-electronic mechanism of nuclear reactions is of a universal character.
For its realization it is necessary to have merely a sufficiently intensive
stream of free electrons, i.e. heavy electric current, and as long as
sufficiently great number of free nuclei. This mechanism may operate only at
small energies of translational motion of the centers of mass of nuclei and
electron. Because of the existence of simple mechanism of nuclear reactions
at low energies, nuclear reactor turns out to be an atomic delayed-action
bomb which may blow up by virtue of casual reasons, as it has taken place,
apparently, in Chernobyl. The use of cold nuclear reactions for production
of energy will provide mankind with cheap, practically inexhaustible, and
non-polluting energy sources.

More details are in

test test test