Memorandum for the Record
Subject: QED is incomplete (does not permit gravity), unstable and inadequate for EVO Charge Clusters and for Metric Engineering
First of all there is this weird lock on only Hal's e-mail. I am not able to directly reply to any of Hal's messages. I must copy and then paste them into a reply to someone else. This only happens with Hal's messages and no one else's. Very weird.
In a message dated 8/29/2004 5:20:33 PM Central Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
Hal implicitly uses w = + 1/3 in his latest wrong paper on Ken
Shoulders charge clusters.
See his p.3 with his "1/3" in his
(1/3)uzpf(virtual photon) = ue-(electron Coulomb)
This is Hal's "greatest blunder". Hal has confused REAL PHOTONS, which
do have w = 1/3 with POSITIVE radiation pressure with VIRTUAL ZPF
photons that have w = -1 with NEGATIVE PRESSURE!
Hal replies: "Wrong again, Jack. You are misapplying cosmological aspects of the ZPF vacuum to a boundary condition Casimir problem."
Jack: Wrong! You are making an error of logic and physics here. GCT applies on all scales! Furthermore, your logic in your Type II model is illogical. I consulted with the Vulcans and they confirm that! ;-
Hal continues: "Real" or "virtual photons" is not the issue here.
Jack: Jack: Wrong! You are making another error of logic and physics here. Zero point energy is a property of virtual photons that are off-mass-shell, in this case, they are not lying on the smooth c-number light cones. This distinction like GCT and EEP above must be obeyed. You disobey them and that leads to your wrong Type II model.
Hal: "You need to understand the Casimir effect literature. You may have some traction with the cosmological literature, but are woefully untutored with regard to the vacuum Casimir Effect literature."
Jack: I have read it. Ian Peterson, an expert at University of Coventry in UK, has argued that they way you use it does not work the way you wish it to. Be that as it may, you should debate that with Ian directly. It is quite obvious that the QED Casimir effect is always a tiny effect compared to the repulsive electrostatic self-energy barrier. The latter scales as N^2, the former scales as N as is obvious from the parallel plate geometry and topology. True, the sign of the effective Casimir energy, i.e. whether its negative gradient gives attraction or repulsion is sensitive to geometry and topology. Remember, I am claiming essentially the Type I Casimir model not your Type II. I am claiming that Type I works beautifully when you add the missing physical effect from Einstein's GCT, EEP, Heisenberg uncertainty, and macro-quantum "ODLRO" vacuum coherence. At a future time I will refute your assumptions for Type II in more detail. I claim there is no way in principle that you can use the Casimir effect to stabilize Ken Shoulders charge clusters. You certainly cannot use it to explain the old classical electron problem, which you seem to admit in your latest paper. I CAN SOLVE THAT PROBLEM! And have.
w = -1 for ALL virtual quanta, not only virtual photons is a general law of nature not limited only to the large-scale symmetries of isotropy and homogeneity of the Einstein gravity standard FRW cosmological model.
In addition Bose-Einstein quantum statistics demands that the virtual photon ZPF energy density is POSITIVE. Therefore, the virtual photon ZPF pressure is negative (of equal magnitude). Casimir effect cannot violate that law of physics as you are doing - your greatest blunder.
Hal: "The type of calculation I use is what generates Casimir attraction. (If you're not careful, Jack, you would predict that the negative pressure of virtual photons would push Casimir plates apart, not attract them together, counter to both theory and experiment!)"
Jack: Nonsense. I already answered you on that. The Casimir calculation works as is in the limit /\zpf = 0 both between and outside the plates. It will not work when there are exotic dark energy/matter vacua. QED is only a globally flat special relativity quantum theory. Its results are superceded by general relativity! That's the deep idea here you are not taking account of.
Hal: You need to read Milonni, P.W., Cook, R.J., and Goggin, M.E. (1988) "Radiation pressure from the vacuum: Physical interpretation of the Casimir force", Phys. Rev. A, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 1621-1623.
Jack: Even if those calculations are correct, they are irrelevant to the present problem of Ken Shoulders charge clusters because they assume, implicitly, /\zpf = 0. Those guys had no idea that there even was a /\zpf! This is new physics from 2002 based on the unexpected discovery of dark energy in 1999 from Type 1a supernovae data! There is nothing sacred about QED Casimir models that ignore this new physics!
Hal: "There you will see that the form of my radiation pressure calculation for the problem at hand (modeling of the charge cluster phenomenon at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 ) is correct and of the type that leads to agreement between theory and experiment.
Jack: First of all, what you say here using "radiation" is sloppy. You use the term "radiation pressure". There is no such thing as "radiation pressure" in the Casimir effect. "Radiation" means "real photons" on mass shell with w = +1/3. You cannot use "radiation" while talking about "virtual photons" because virtual photons do not transport energy to infinity and cannot make detectors "click".
The virtual photon quantum zero point pressure = - virtual photon quantum zero point energy density ALWAYS!
Any calculations that say otherwise are simply wrong.
Hal: "The Casimir plate collapse due to reduced ZPF radiation pressure (yes, of virtul photons!) between the plate boundaries as compared with that outside is precisely applied in my case. My case is simply one where the reduction inside the boundary is the extreme case of reduced interior pressure defined by Casimir in his Type II model."
Jack: I think the Type II model, at least as you too vaguely describe it in your latest paper, is illogical. Please spell out in complete detail what the physical picture is here. What assumptions are you making? You are definitely assuming POSITIVE VIRTUAL PHOTON PRESSURE. This is already wrong. There is no way you can ever have a positive virtual photon quantum pressure unless the virtual photon energy density is negative. The latter is not possible because it violates boson quantum statistics. The energy scale is absolute in general relativity.
QED is a wrong theory in these mesoscopic application EXCEPT when /\zpf = 0, which throws the baby out with the bath water. The QED vacuum is unstable and it cannot accommodate gravity as a matter of principle. EVOs only exist because of the breakdown of the QED vacuum to form dark energy and dark matter. Therefore, showing me a QED calculation, that only works when /\zpf = 0, is as valid as your PV theory! It is not valid at all! ;-)
Hal: Your (incorrect) commentary with regard to my calculation is a misapplication to the boundary-condition Casimir-type effects under consideration here. Based on your misapplication of the w = -1 principle to the Milonni, Puthoff et al. type of Casimir pressure imbalance problem, as I said above, you could very well end up predicting parallel Casimir plate repulsion instead of attraction due to negative virtual photon vacuum pressure!
Jack: Milonni's calculation, if he uses w = +1/3 at least implicitly is simply wrong. There is no general relativity in Milonni's text book. It is not complete and does not apply to these qualitatively new /\zpf =/= 0 exotic vacuum physics. Metric engineering is all about exotic vacua. This is why none of your current vague ideas about metric engineering based only on the incomplete unstable QED Casimir force will survive.
Hal: So what we're dealing with here is a blunder on Jack's, not Hal's, part.
Jack: Others will decide that. At least you admit you are not using w = -1. I say this is your greatest blunder. You are using w = +1/3. If Milonni et-al also do that then they are blundering also! Physics is not ruled by the tyranny of a majority vote.
Hal: I've done my best to spell it out in detail.
Jack: Not good enough. Spell out in detail the assumptions of your Type II model. You seem to say that a positive pressure of virtual photons on the outside, i.e. P(Out) is greater than a positive pressure P(In) on the inside of the spherical shell of radius a of N electrons? Is this correct? Of course that demands w = +1/3. Your argument, correct me if I am wrong here, is then
[P(Out) - P(In)](Surface Area of N Poly-Electron Shell) ~ (Ne)^2/a^2 ?
Is this essentially your physical picture? Yes? No?
You seem to assume that the POSITIVE virtual photon pressure P in each region (inside & outside closed boundary of N electrons each of effective area ~ (h/mc)^2 which I also have in my GR model, but with NEGATIVE PRESSURE) obeys
P = (1/3)(Positive Virtual Photon Energy Density)
Of course I claim this is wrong.
Hal: "If it's still not clear, I recommend you reread Milonni et al.'s paper, then Casimir's paper that is in my references of my arxiv posting, then reread mine."
Jack: No for reasons given above, to wit:
1. Assumption w = + 1/3 is serious error.
2. Implicit assumption /\zpf = 0 is a limiting case not obeyed by the actual phenomenon in question.
Text book QED is strictly a /\zpf = 0 LIMITING CASE!
Hal: "Until you've done that, there is no use discussing this matter any further. (And yes, I have read Peacock many times, understand it well, know all about w =-1, etc., etc., so let's not waste any time on that irrelevant Red Herring either. Now it's your turn, you need to read the Casimir calculation literature.)"
Jack: No, Hal you are missing my fundamental thesis here that standard text book QED is no good in this new realm of physics. Ken Shoulders laboratory EVOS like the cosmic dark energy and dark matter is a qualitatively new realm of physics requiring a really radical new idea, which I am showing you. Digging up old physics beyond its proper domain of validity begs the question! So far we are not on the same page here.
Answer this Hal, how to you explain the net energy production Ken Shoulders is claiming or implying in e.g. "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" using ONLY the Casimir force? This seems to fly in the fact of Ian Peterson's papers on the subject?
On Aug 29, 2004, at 3:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hal implicitly uses w = + 1/3 in his latest wrong paper on Ken Shoulders charge clusters.
See his p.3 with his "1/3" in his
(1/3)uzpf(virtual photon) = ue-(electron Coulomb)
This is Hal's "greatest blunder". Hal has confused REAL PHOTONS, which do have w = 1/3 with POSITIVE radiation pressure with VIRTUAL ZPF photons that have w = -1 with NEGATIVE PRESSURE! Ask Mike Turner at U of Chicago or any other physicist like Saul Perlmutter at UC Berkeley working in precision cosmology on the dark energy problem. The proof is on pp 25-26 of John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics" Cambridge 1999 p. 26 eq (1.88).
On Aug 29, 2004, at 6:46 AM, ItalianPhysicsCenter@yahoogroups.com wrote:
There is 1 message in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Errors (sic!) in Puthoff's Casimir Force Explanation of Shoulders' Charge
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:30:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Errors (sic!) in Puthoff's Casimir Force Explanation of Shoulders' Charge
In a message dated 8/27/2004 8:22:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
Jack: Hal does not understand his own equations. Look at that equation Hal
points to, it depends on the 4th power of the cutoff frequency, but
that cutoff frequency is obviously ~ c/a where a is the dynamical
equilibrium value of the radius of the poly-electron charge cluster
mini-bomb. Therefore, my general power law analysis holds since the
cut-off is itself a dynamical variable and is not fixed.
Hal: "Sorry, Jack, wrong again. Read the sentence that follows that equation.
The cutoff frequency is NOT a dynamical variable, it is fixed; specifically, it
is hardwired to the electron's Compton frequency h-bar X omega_cutoff = m_e
c^2 (just like it says!)."
Jack: This is not a correct step is what I am saying here. I know you did it. I say you should not have done it.
I will explain this in more detail later.
Hal: That equation you refer to simply yields, when
solved, the poly-electron charge cluster radius a at which the ZPF radiation
and coulomb pressures balance (and the ZPF vacuum energy now excluded from the
interior of the spherical charge distribution has been transferred to the
Jack: When you do that correctly you will not get EVO N poly-electron charge cluster stability. My claim is you are modeling this incorrectly and have thrown the baby out with the bath water leaving out the essential phenomenon. The Casimir force is a secondary generally small effect that for the actual problem is repulsive not attractive as you assume.
The ZPF VIRTUAL PHOTON pressure, UNLIKE REAL PHOTON RADIATION PRESSURE that you confuse it with, must be NEGATIVE! You cannot use Einstein's gravity on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays and ignore it the rest of the days of the week as you are, in effect, doing here.
The virtual photon ZPF pressure is equal and opposite to the virtual photon ZPF energy density!
w = -1 ALWAYS.
The only thing we seem to agree on here, which seems to fit Ken Shoulders measurements is
r* ~ N^1/2(h/mc)
I get it from a simple geometric close-packing Ansatz, you claim to derive it from Casimir force.
P = -dU/dV > 0
U = total internal energy
V = total enclosed volume e.g. piston in a cylinder
If pressure is positive (normal situation for real stuff) U decreases as V increases.
For real photons in fact w = +1/3, therefore, indeed, U decreases as V increases. This is what we see in the cosmic black body (BB) radiation U(cosmic BB) of absolute temperature TBB where V is the effective volume of the expanding universe i.e.
V(t) ~ Lp^3R(t)^3
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
t = h/kTBB
R(t) is the FRW dimensionless large-scale factor for the expansion of 3D space.
On the other hand if pressure is negative (i.e. what actually happens for the virtual photons inside the enclosed volume)
Then U(virtual ZPF photons) increases as V increases! "Springiness of vacuum" or, equivalently, U decreases as V decreases. Think of stretching a rubber band.
BTW look at the ZPF virtual photon energy density per polarization mode per unit frequency in interval df
du(virtual photon) ~ (1/2c^3)hf f^2df
Let the EVO thin spherical shell of e- be of radius a and IGNORE VACUUM COHERENCE as Hal in fact does ignore.
The integral for the energy density outside the closed shell is between the limits fmax = c/a and fmin = c/LpR(t) (although this on mass shell condition is not really justified) where fmax(outside) >> fmin(outside)
i.e. ~ (1/8c^3)hf^4 ~ (1/8c^3)h(c/a)^4 = u(virtual photon outside) > 0
The integral inside the closed shell is from fmin(inside) = fmax(outside) and fmax(inside).
You assume without any real justification that
fmax(inside) = c/(h/mc) ~ 10^21 Hz >> fmin(inside) ~ 10^10/10^-5 ~ 10^15 Hz
OK so then the integral is ~ (1/8c^3)h(c/(h/mc)^4) = u(virtual photon inside) >> u(virtual photon outside)
*Now Hal how in heaven's name do you get a huge positive virtual photon energy density inside the electron shell to glue together the repulsion between the N electrons making up the shell? Especially since you say that the virtual photon quantum ZPF pressure is positive! That is completely illogical!
Consider a cylinder of volume V with a movable circular plate dividing V into V1 and V2 and suppose the pressure of the stuff inside on both sides is negative.
Imagine initially V1 << V2
with P1 << P2 < 0
Try to increase V1 that automatically decreases V2 since V = V1 + V2.
You need to do positive work dW1 to do this. You only get back negative work dW2 where
dW1 - |dW2| > 0
This is qualitatively different from the "common sense" case where P1 >> P2 > 0!
Therefore, since the ZPF virtual photon pressure is in fact the NEGATIVE of the ZPF energy density, and since the negative ZPF virtual photon pressure is much more negative than it is on the outside, you need to do more work to expand the volume V(inside) of the shell from the inside than you gain from the decrease of V(outside). Your published argument where you explicitly say POSITIVE VIRTUAL PHOTON ZPF PRESSURE on this Hal is completely nonsensical logically.
Again Hal you used w = +1/3 for virtual ZPF photons, which is incorrect. You need to use w = -1 where
w = pressure/(energy density).
Consequently the total repulsive electron Coulomb self-energy density is
u(N electron shell) ~ N^2(e^2/a^4) > 0
but w = 0 for these on-mass shell electrons. They have zero pressure! Your argument Hal completely falls apart if you want to talk about balancing pressures! You need to use my equation for the total conservative potential energy per unit electron mass
V(r) = (@1)(Ne)^2/mr + (@2)N(h/mcr)^2(hc/mr) + (@3)(NJ)^2/2m^2r^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2
J = total angular momentum per electron
dV/dr = 0
at equilibrium and
d^2V/dr^2 > 0 for stability
violating the last equation creates a cold fusion explosion from the pent-up anti-gravity repulsive dark zero point energy!
Hal: I can see that attention to detail is not your forte! :-)
(Unfortunately, your yahoo groups in the cc list above won't get this.)
Jack: They will now!