On Jun 15, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jun 15, 2004, at 8:44 AM, michael ibison wrote using the changed subject line:

Re: Physics Today conclusively laughable in light of May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter

On Jun 15, 2004, at 10:32 AM, michael ibison wrote:

....
Michael, if you read carefully you will see it was the Brazilian guy
who initially used CAPS "REAL SCIENTIFIC" not me. I simply copied his
usage. Here again a double standard. Put the blame, if blame there be,
where the blame belongs. ;-)

The criticism of unnecessary adjectives doesn't apply to Domingos' usage,
wherein it is not being used to buttress a weak noun, since his argument is
the reverse of yours. Your usage however is susceptible to that criticism.

Even so, let us not continue with wasting time on semantics.

I agree but you raised the issue not me. ;-)

I haven't read the Freedman paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418
If Domingos has, perhaps he would be good enough to offer comments on it.

Michael

The point here is that there is a preponderance of evidence from independent sources for the basic picture that essentially all the stuff of the universe is, at its core, exotic vacuum zero point energy density including Omega (atoms, radiation etc) ~ 0.04. Mundane explanations for anomalous dimming of Type 1a supernovae have been clearly eliminated observationally by the evidence. There will be more evidence. The ideas in the May 22, 2004 are not contenders to the objective mind without an ax to grind or a hobby horse to ride - assuming one can find such a mind? ;-)


Not only that, but this large scale picture solves unsolved basic problems of the particle physics,

I. Is the electron (lepto-quark) a point particle? NO.

Hence no more need for infinite renormalizations and no more need perhaps for using distributions and the need for regularization that plays such a big role in say Ashtekar's program of spin foams and weaves to make smooth space-time.

II. What stabilizes the spatially extended electron (perhaps with "tight atomic states" J.P. Vigier)?
Zero point energy pressure. These are the Lorentz-Abraham-Becker stresses.

III. Why does the electron (and the quark) appear to shrink from 10^-11 cm at low energy imaging to ~ 10^-17 cm at high energy imaging? Strong space-warp from the exotic vacuum zero point energy core.

IV. Why Regge universal slope for hadronic resonances? Kerr-Newman "micro-geon" (e.g. A. Burinskii) solution in strong short-range gravity induced in the zero point exotic vacuum core.

Which interpretation of quantum theory is needed? Bohm's.

Does the quantum wave describe individual particles or only statistical ensembles? Individual particles.

Why does our solar system not escape into inter-galactic space? For the same reason that the electric charge on a single electron does not explode! i.e. the pressure from w = -1 zero point energy cores.

Note that the present "best fit" for dark energy is not w = -1, however, I say that more data will show w = -1. I also say that dark matter detectors will never "click" with The Right Stuff. These are two crucial tests that will falsify my theory.

Finally, look to the skies. Heads up. What do you see "Out There" Michael? How do they fly? Dark energy that's how.

Therefore, I have a clear story to tell that most people can understand compared to the alternatives. Also my story is clearly falsifiable in Karl Popper's sense.


....
Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter of dark matter, but if
you feel there is 'REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE', perhaps you could share what
you think that is - i.e. what specific data do you find so persuasive?

Michael

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418 Here is the evidence. It is more than satisfactory to my mind. Not only that, it explains what Hal Puthoff has been attempting to explain for at least 30 years.

BTW you need to distinguish "dark energy" from "dark matter" though I think they are essentially the same, i.e. net zero point energy density of negative and positive pressure respectively modulated by variable partial vacuum coherence, I am alone in that opinion. All of The Pundits think dark matter consists of real on-mass-shell particles whizzing around in space. I say that is a mistake. Dark matter, like dark energy, is a form of exotic quantum vacuum that is essentially 100% of all the stuff of the Universe. Even ordinary matter made from spatially-extended lepto-quarks (Bohm's hidden variables) is exotic vacuum quantum pressure gluing together shells of charge as I show in a recent paper with Ken Shoulders on "charge clusters" http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf still under construction. Note that Ken worked with Hal on this same problem for many years and has now obviously voted with his feet! The point here is that Hal has never written down the correct zero point energy/gravity relationship, which in the simplest Newtonian limit of Einstein's GR is the static Poisson equation, sans factors of pi

Laplacian of Gravity Potential Energy Per Unit Test Mass of Exotic Vacuum ~ c^2/\zpf

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Vacuum Coherence obeys a generally covariant Landau-Ginzburg equation with a Mexican Hat Potential.