Tuesday, August 31, 2004

I am here giving Hal's remarks without detailed comment. I will comment in detail in Part II after I have had a chance to think about what he says here.

From Hal Puthoff

In a message dated 8/30/2004 7:19:16 PM Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net asks several questions, all of which are answered here:

 [Hal]  "I have spotted your source of confusion, so I will carry you through the arguments in detail in order to clear up the confusion.  They are implicit in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 , but apparently it was not transparent. 

The source of confusion is this: Since Casimir suggested the model I evaluate, you may have assumed that we are talking about the (relatively weak) "Casimir force" model.  We are not.  Just because Casimir suggested this model and therefore his name is associated with it, this does not mean it has anything to do with the "Casimir force."  It does not.  The so-called "Casimir  force" has to do with partially canceling vacuum fluctuation fields determined by cavity geometries.  This other Casimir-suggested model I'm dealing with has essentially nothing to do with cavity characteristics.  This should all become transparent as we walk through the math. 

BTW, I acknowledge that you offer a cosmological model for charge cluster formation, and that is OK, but this is something different.  I am not offering an alternative cosmological model, different from yours.  This is a different kind of model, a quantum physics model.  In the real world of empirical results my quantum physics model may apply, your vacuum cosmology model may apply, or a combination of both may apply.  I have no argument with your claim that my model may not apply.  I do have an argument with your claim that I have not done my model correctly because it does not coincide with your take on the problem at hand. 

[Jack now] Not "cosmological model" but "cosmological motivated model" OK.

Ansatz: Wheeler's "geometrodynamics" as a model for elementary particles as spatially-extended "Mass without mass" purely vacuum "micro-geons" works because the effective strength of gravity in exotic vacua is large on short scales. This is a new micro-physics that demands Bohm's pilot wave - hidden variable interpretation of micro-quantum theory. Quantized charges are quantized fluxes from single-valuedness of the macro-quantum LOCAL order parameter out of which Einstein's LOCAL smooth c-number exotic vacuum field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

EMERGES. This equation is assumed to be valid down to at least 10^-16 cm.

The FRW homogeneous isotropic cosmological metric of course does not hold at this scale. Instead something like the purely vacuum Kerr-Newman metric is expected generalized for /\zpf =/= 0.

[Jack]  You seem to be saying, correct me if I am wrong, that the POSITIVE 
virtual photon ZPF energy density is

u(virtual photon) ~ hc(h/mc)^-4 ~ 10^-27 10^10 (10-11)-4 ~ 
(10^-17)(10^44) ~ 10^27 ergs/cc

Yes? No?

[Hal]  Yes on equation, though for magnitude I get 1.8 x 10^23 ergs/cc.  (Not a big issue here.) 

[Jack now] Where is that 10^3 from? A fine structure constant factor? I was basically only doing a dimensional analysis in the back-of-the-envelope estimate above.

[Jack]  You next say that the POSITIVE virtual photon pressure is

P(virtual photon) ~ (1/3)u(virtual photon)

[Hal] Yes

[Jack now] OK so one definite point of real disagreement here is that you say

P(virtual photon) ~ (1/3)u(virtual photon) Puthoff

I say

P(virtual photon) ~ - u(virtual photon) Sarfatti

[Jack] That's a very BIG PRESSURE of course

[Hal] "Yes, indeed.  That's why it has the potential to balance the the large coulomb pressure."

[Jack] You have ZERO VACUUM COHERENCE here in the sense that I mean it.

[Hal]  "Definitely.  This is the standard, random vacuum EM ZPF quantum fluctuation field."

[Jack]  OK, a typical EVO has an electron shell of radius a ~ 10^-5 - 10^-6 cm 
says Ken Shoulders.

[Hal]  "Actually, for the witness marks it's 1 - 10 microns, or 10^-5 - 10^-6 m; however, the "bomb" that caused the crater may be more on the order of the dimensions you give, so that's OK (a minor point here)" 

[Jack now] OK that's a factor of 10^2 larger in size, i.e. N ~ 10^16 not 10^12 for the smaller EVOs.

[Jack] Now you and I both agree that

N^1/2(h/mc) ~ a

[Hal] "OK, within an order of magnitude."

[Jack]  Let's take a ~ 10^-5 cm, h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

Therefore N ~ 10^12 electrons close-packed to make a thin spherical 
shell 100 nanometers across that is 10^-4 nanometers thick. Right? Yes? 
No? Are we on the same page here?

[Hal] "You will note from my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 , 5th equation in Section 3,  that for 10^12 electrons, the diameter d ~ N^1/2 x (h-bar/mc) ~ 400 nm, close enough."

[Jack] The electrostatic self energy is

U(self-energy) ~ +(Ne)^2/a ~ N^2(1/137)hc/a ~ 
(10^24)(10^-2)(10^-27)(10^10)(10^5) ~ (10^39)(10-29) ~ 10^10 ergs ~ 1 

[Hal]  "OK, I get about half that, close enough."

[Jack now] I am ignoring factors of pi, 1/2 etc. This is only rough.

[Jack] Now what virtual photon modes are allowed outside the spherical shell, 

[Hal]  "Essentially all, not constrained outside to first order."

[Jack now] Yes I agree with that.

[Jack] and what modes inside the shell are allowed according to you?

[Hal]  "In Casimir's "Model 2" -- see paper --  only those modes whose frequency > Compton frequency cutoff."

[Jack now] OK, I do not understand the physical plausibility for that assumption. Thinking of a closed cavity of radius a ~ 10-5 cm --> 10^-5 meters (depending on conditions of EVO manufacture), wavelengths larger than "a" should be cut off by the boundary conditions. I do not understand why you only will permit wavelengths less than 10^-11 cm inside a cavity that is from one million to a one hundred million times larger? Please explain this mystery.

BTW Do you assume f = ck here? Of course that is not really true for virtual photons. It would be possible to have both

f > mc^2/h = Compton low frequency cutoff


k > pi/a

Since f =/= ck for virtual ZPF photons.


f > mc^2/h = Compton low frequency cutoff

is not physically obvious to me and needs justification.

In contrast

k > pi/a

is physically obvious, i.e. one cannot fit wavelengths into the cavity larger than roughly the diameter of the cavity.

Hal: "This cutoff model is not according to me, it's according to Casimir."

Jack: "Then maybe this is Casimir's greatest blunder?" ;-)

Note Einstein called his cosmological constant his "greatest blunder" - in fact it wasn't. I think Hawking's latest flip-flop on information loss down a black hole at GR 17 really is his greatest blunder. But I could be wrong.

Hal" Unlike the "Casimir force" model ("Model 1" that you have considered) where interior modes that satisfy the boundary conditions are permitted and thus the  problem can be treated as a cavity boundary value problem, Casimir's "Model 2" is one in which cavity modes play no role.  Rather, it is a model in which individual electron-ZPE interactions on the surface of the sphere is where the action is, and for the close-packed shell (each surface electron taking up a Compton-sized disk), interior EM modes are taken to be shielded up to the Compton cutoff frequency.  Realize that this is Casimir's model, not mine.  Don't shoot the messenger!  :-)"

[Jack now] Well you explained it a little, but I still do not understand it. I cannot instantly picture what Casimir was seeing when he suggested this. It makes no instant sense to me at this moment. It would make some sense if it was the virtual electron-positron pairs that dominated and there was some kind of plasma frequency shielding effect over the scale h/mc? Some kind of virtual plasma shield? But I would need to see the detailed equations.

[Jack] The radial outward electrostatic force F is therefore

10^10 ergs/10^-5 cm ~ 10^15 dynes

Your EXTRAORDINARY claim is that dP(virtual photon) cancels this radial 

[Hal] "Force?"

[Jack now] I simply took the spherically symmetric Coulomb self-energy for 10^12 electrons in a shell of radius 10^-5 cm and divided by another 10-5 cm to get the radial gradient at the shell.

[Hal] "ZPE force/unit area ~ 10^23 dynes/cm^2 to balance coulomb pressure."

[Jack now] I do not understand what you mean by Coulomb pressure? Do you compute the electric field E(a) at the shell at radius a, i.e. E(a) ~ (Ne)^2/a^2 and then compute the electrostatic energy density ~ E(a)^2/8pi? Is that what you mean? Even if that is what you mean, I do not see how anything gets "balanced" here? You have a "classical" electrostatic energy density and a micro-quantum ZPF virtual photon density. Both are positive. In what sense do they balance? BTW the "classical" electrostatic field is also made of virtual photons but they are in macro-quantum coherent Glauber states (displaced minimum number-phase uncertainty Gaussian wave packets in the phase space of each mode oscillator).

What I was doing was looking for the virtual photon pressure differential between inside and outside the shell and converting that to a local radial force vector at each point on surface of the shell - using the spherical symmetry. I.e. multiply the pressure differential dP(virtual photons across shell) = dF/A by the area A of the shell to get the net radial force dF of virtual photons at each point on the surface of the shell.

[Jack]  If the only virtual photon modes allowed inside the N-electron shell 
have wavelengths less than a = 10^-5 cm, then ... (snip) .......This is very small Hal.

[Hal]  "Your calculation here (yes, it is small) is based on the cavity model of the Casimir force (Model 1) in which (to first order) only long-wavelength cavity modes are cut off.  For Casimir's Model 2 (which is not the more familiar Casimir force cavity model) all modes below the Compton frequency of individual electron-ZPF interactions are cut off.  With regard to charge clusters this model may be applicable, it may be inapplicable.... but it IS the model!  (And, as I point out in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 , it provides a reasonable match to the charge cluster data.  Your model may also.  May the best model win!)"

[Jack now] Model II seems like pulling a White Rabbit out of the Top Hat. I see no "there " there. No physical motivation. No plausible idea.

[Jack] Where does your 
cutoff at h/mc even enter into the dP = P(Outside) - P(Inside) > 0 
computation? Please explain this mystery.

[Hal] "Hopefully this is now clear from the above discussion.   The basis for it derives from my Phys. Rev. paper:

 H. E. Puthoff, "On the Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy," Phys. Rev. A 40, 4857 (1989); Errata and Comments, Phys. Rev. A 44, 3382, 3385 (1991)

wherein it is argued that the vacuum fluctuation fields are not "hard-wired" into the fabric of spacetime, but rather are fields generated by the quantum fluctuation motion of charged particles distributed over cosmological space, and are therefore in principle capable of being shielded from compact regions of space by (as in Casimir's Model 2) electron-ZPF interactions."

[Jack now] This model is not at all even plausible because the fact is that the number of charged particles (on mass shell) in the universe is at most only ~ 4% of all the "stuff" in the universe. 96% of the stuff of the universe is off-mass-shell virtual stuff that both gravitates and anti-gravitates depending on the LOCAL intensity of vacuum coherence at the given scale of phenomena. A kind of Wheeler-Feynman "total absorber" condition model for the origin of say virtual photons from future absorptions is no longer tenable. That model must be rejected. 



[Jack] Therefore, Hal your prediction is TOO WEAK BY 33 POWERS OF 
TEN!  As I said, the Casimir force is irrelevant to this problem!

[Hal]  Indeed, your prediction is too weak, and the Casimir force cavity model (Casimir Model 1) which you used is irrelevant to this problem.  Only a second model, also proposed by Casimir - - perhaps unfortunately, given the confusion - - is relevant. 

[Jack now] Again I say the second model is in sore need of heuristic justification. It does not appear even plausible without more explanation of what Casimir had in mind?

[Jack] OK, if I have done the numbers above WRONG, show us all how to do it 
right according to your idea!

[Hal] Done!

[Jack now] No because you have not clearly explained exactly what you mean by:

[Hal] "ZPE force/unit area ~ 10^23 dynes/cm^2 to balance coulomb pressure."

[Jack now] This is very obscure.

Hal: "BTW, please forward to the yahoo groups in the header. 



No comments: