What is the Nature of The Beast that this way comes? Remember The Sufi Elephant Story. The Hunt for Zero Point is like Moby Dick, The Great Leviathan that lies beneath. There is Cold Fire in IT's FROM BIT's Belly.

On the meaning of "w" AKA "dubya" (Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today).

Note that Alex's value w = -1/3 he gives below is exactly what we do not want! That throws the EVO baby out with the bathwater.

I shall now pontificate on the true nature of the Exotic Stuff that dominates The World and paves the way to the Conquest of Space-Time in which We, Men Like Gods, weave The Fabric of Space-Time into Warp, Wormhole, and Weapon (if need be). The Handwriting is On The Great Wall.

w = -1/3 is the EXACT BOUNDARY VALUE at The Edge of Eschaton's Apocalypse Now for which the "exotic stuff" of The World DOES NOT GRAVITATE OR ANTI-GRAVITE!

Nothing Hal Puthoff & Co have written about this problem is even in the right ball park because you never see the key equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

in anything "they" write on this problem.

If you want to use Einstein's

Guv = (String Tension)^-1Tuv

Note that

Guv a curvature has dimensions of Area^-1.

Tuv has dimensions Energy/Volume

String Tension = c^4/8piG has dimensions Energy/Length

Then

Tuv(Exotic Stuff) must be, because of EEP, GCT and Heisenberg's micro-quantum principle, of the RESTRICTED form

(Energy Density)(1 + 3w)guv

Obviously w = -1/3 means Tuv(Exotic Stuff) = 0 i.e. COMPLETELY USELESS for metric engineering WARP, WORMHOLE and WEAPON! Capische? ;-)

Besides, Hal uses w = +1/3 in his Type II Casimir Model, which, if I understood his cryptic remarks, means TOTAL virtual photon pressure inside the EVO shell is zero, whilst it is positive outside the shell of magnitude

~ (1/3)(String Tension)(mc/h)^2 ~ 10^83 ev/cc MUCH TOO BIG!

Alex, what you wrote about the long wave cutoff inside the shell below is not what Hal means at all. That obvious Casimir force effect ~ hc/a^4 (for an EVO of size "a") is much too small as I showed and as Hal even agreed. That is the Type I model not the Type II model. In any case neither is even close to being correct. They both miss the mark!

Corrected 2nd Draft for the record

On Sep 7, 2004, at 11:17 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS A major issue with regard to Ken Shoulders EVO laboratory observations is the huge unbalanced negative electric charge Ne on the EVO shell, that I say is a "bottle" or "cage" for the completely virtual "dark energy" ZPF positive energy density "core" /\zpf > 0 inside the EVO "cosmic eggshell". Also where did the positive charges go? Using only supersymmetry/parton/conventional QED Casimir force ideas et-al leads to very doubtful large values of N ~ 10^12 to 10^16 for the observed EVOs, that are also, it appears, the sources of "Cold Fusion" when the EVO eggshells break. Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall. :-) With the STRONG direct ZPF warping of space-time from

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

independent of the QED Casimir forces, that remain only as relatively small corrections, N is much smaller because of the large local short-range space warp as explained by Kip Thorne in "Black Holes and Time Warps" (Fig on ~ p. 30).

That is

N(h/mc)^2 ~ (Space Warp Factor)(Observed Size of EVO)^2

(Space Warp Factor) << 1 for POSITIVE SPACE CURVATURE

i.e. essence of the EVO is a MESOSCOPIC GR EFFECT of RESIDUAL ZERO POINT ENERGY DENSITY.

The EVO is a ZPF driven dark energy mesoscopic Wheeler "Geon".

The single electron can be modeled in a similar way with Kerr-Newman type metrics as you have been doing.

Remember effective potential per unit electron mass of the dark energy interior is

V(dark energy core of EVO) = c^2/\zpfr^2 > 0 a 3D Harmonic Oscillator Potential with NEGATIVE PRESSURE making an attractive force to balance against the Coulomb repulsive self-force per unit electron mass ~ (Ne)^2/mr^2.

That's basically the simple EVO story - elementary physics!

On Sep 7, 2004, at 8:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:



On Sep 7, 2004, at 3:31 AM, Burinskii Alexander wrote:

Dear Jack,

I will try to answer here some of your questions as I understand the problem
now.

JS.
Let's make sure you mean the same model as Hal. Hal models each
electron as a tiny sphere of radius ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm. Using flat
Euclidean space geometry, Hal then imagines N of these electrons
closely packed to form a larger EVO sphere ~ N(h/mc)^2 in area. Again
using flat space Euclidean geometry.

AB.
1. I considered Casimir II effect in 1989 without application to a charged
body, but with an intention
to apply it in future to the stress of the charged electron shell. I
understood later (in 2000-2002) that
it has an almost equivalent description in terms of supersymmetry.
All the VOLUME of sphere (not a thin area) was closely packed by some
partons. (This is the VOLUME Casimir effect II).
These partons in a cosmic case could be the neutron
constituents of a superdense star, or other superdense matter in a cluster.

I do not know what you mean here by "partons"? Are they "particles" "on-mass-shell" or "off-mass-shell"? If the former, then it is not a vacuum inside the EVO shell. Also, I think I can explain the whole thing without these additional assumptions of "partons" and "supersymmetry". Remember these EVOs are rather large typically 10^-5 cm to 10^-5 meters. We should not need to use high-energy physics ideas to explain them. My model is much simpler and we want to do more with less. :-)

JS.
Apparently the Casimir Type II Ansatz is that the zero point energy
density ~ /\zpf INSIDE the EVO sphere is ZERO.
The zero point energy density OUTSIDE the EVO sphere is positive of
order /\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2. You need to multiply /\zpf by (c^4/8piG) to get
dimensions of energy density. Hal then assume a POSITIVE ZPF pressure
that is (1/3) the positive ZPF energy density. He then balances the
Coulomb repulsion force ~ (Ne)^2/r^2 against this lop-sided EXTERNAL
positive ZPF pressure.

Now is the above your picture below?

AB

In the effect II the low frequency PART of ZPF
INSIDE the EVO sphere is ZERO and pressure has the factor - 1/3.

I have THREE objections.

1. I believe Hal has said that the total ZPF pressure from virtual photons inside the EVO shell is zero, not only the low frequency part as it would be in the Casimir Type 1 model. Also one cannot assume f = ck for virtual photons. This detail is ignored by almost all papers on the Casimir effect. It is a serious error.

2. w = -1 for ALL virtual quanta, whether photons, electron-positron pairs, partons et-al. This requirement is from General Relativity explained by John Peacock on p. 26 "Cosmological Physics" and completely absent in Milonni's book "The Quantum Vacuum" with no mention of "dubya" w as explained in Mike Turner's April 2003 Physics Today article. The only issue is what is the sign of their ZPF energy density and that depends on the spin-statistics connection and possibly the non-Abelian nature of the field theory.

3. Hal claims in his Type II that w = +1/3 not w = -1/3.

Therefore, I do not see that your model is the same as Hal Puthoff's Model II at all. :-)


However (!), /\zpf INSIDE the EVO sphere is composed from ZPF + superdense
matter + gravity, and total /\=/\tot has to satisfy the relation w = -1
which follows from supersymmetry for the flat, de Sitter and anti-de Sitter
states. It was also shown
for a charged gravitating ball without supersymmetry in some of my papers in
2002.

Again, I say these EVOs are large. You can almost see them with the unaided eye. My explanation is much simpler and does not require these additional ideas from really short-scale physics in globally flat space-time.

Similar, the EXTERNAL ZPF electromagnetic pressure is combined with other
zero point fields
( fermionic and other ???, structure of vacuum is not clear now) leading to
the observable /\tot ~ 0.

No this simple argument from supersymmetry is well known to fail because supersymmetry is badly broken and in fact there is no evidence for it at all as Carlos Castro has pointed out. I do not need supersymmetry at all. It is replaced by "vacuum coherence" in my theory, which is extremely simple and parsimonious only needing Einstein's ideas, Heisenberg's and well known broken symmetry "ODLRO" ideas of Lars Onsager, Oliver Penrose and P.W. Anderson used extensively in soft condensed matter physics in the emergence of complex forms of organization from less organized sub-strata.


Therefore, the results of Casimir II effect coincide
with your results:
``...of the Ken Shoulders EVO has /\zpf ~ 0 OUTSIDE the EVO shell. This is
a vacuum coherence effect that simply solves the
cosmological constant mystery.....INSIDE the EVO shell with w = -1
NEGATIVE PRESSURE.''

The balance of the pressure and energy + energy of gravity for charged EVOs
is a very thin thing which I tried to discuss in hep-th/0008129,
hep-th/0205127 (there is a simple graphical analysis for the Kerr
background in gr-qc/010985, showing that w= -1 for interior.)

A few words on the origin of the Compton cutoff for
the low frequency ZPF in Casimir II. As I know it is not a Casimir
suggestion, but it follows from the properties of the conducting matter. It
is not shielding of waves, but rather is similar to the Meisner effect. The
conducting lattice is not penetrable for the modes of e.m. fields if the
length of wave is bigger then the cell of the lattice, but is penetrable
for the high frequency modes having the small length of waves. This effect
may be described by the Higgs or Landau-Ginzburg model of superconductivity
showing that the FALSE vacuum which is INSIDE the EVO may be considered as
superconducting one.
This is exactly yours ``...vacuum coherence as
the origin of both the inflation field and the Higgs field... ''

OK I would need to see the math here, but I doubt one needs partons and supersymmetry.

So, in my opinion, Puthoff and Piestrup have apparently a good insight on
the important role of the Casimir II effect, but do some mistakes in his
application. It seems to me that their mistakes are going from the
misunderstanding that the Casimir effect II it is the VOLUME effect, not
the ``...Casimir Shell Model II...'' .

I don't think so. In my model the Casimir force is there but it is very small. The essence of the effect is the strong DIRECT WARPING of space-time demanded by general relativity in the equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

That's almost the whole simple story. It is a qualitative error to try to explain EVOs as essentially a Casimir effect using orthodox QED in globally flat space-time.

Sorry that was not able to answer all the your questions,
Yours sincerely,
Alexander



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com"

Cc: "ItalianPhysicsCenter" ;
"Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars"
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: How big is the unbalanced EVO electric charge anyway?


Hi Alex

Let's make sure you mean the same model as Hal. Hal models each
electron as a tiny sphere of radius ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm. Using flat
Euclidean space geometry, Hal then imagines N of these electrons
closely packed to form a larger EVO sphere ~ N(h/mc)^2 in area. Again
using flat space Euclidean geometry.

Apparently the Casimir Type II Ansatz is that the zero point energy
density ~ /\zpf INSIDE the EVO sphere is ZERO.
The zero point energy density OUTSIDE the EVO sphere is positive of
order /\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2. You need to multiply /\zpf by (c^4/8piG) to get
dimensions of energy density. Hal then assume a POSITIVE ZPF pressure
that is (1/3) the positive ZPF energy density. He then balances the
Coulomb repulsion force ~ (Ne)^2/r^2 against this lop-sided EXTERNAL
positive ZPF pressure.

Now is the above your picture below?

My objections to Hal's model are:

1. Hal assumes w = pressure/(energy density) = + 1/3 which is false for
all ZPF virtual quanta of any spin. w = +1/3 only works for on mass
shell REAL photons forming the radiation far field with only transverse
polarizations for zero rest mass photons.

2. General relativity and Heisenberg quantum uncertainty demand w = -1
for all such virtual ZPF quanta

Reference: p. 26 of John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics".

3. ZPF energy density and pressure DO (ANTI) GRAVITATE depending on the
sign of the ZPF energy density. This is required by Einstein's theory.
You cannot simply hand wave ZPF energy density away as Hal essentially
does. Therefore Hal's assumption that the external ZPF energy density
is

~ 10^19Gev 10^33 cm^-1 10^22 cm^-2 ~ 10^28x10^33x10^22 ~ 10^83 ev/cc

is obviously wrong. The universe could not exist in such a state! This
is essentially the cosmological constant paradox, which no human
physicist alive today, from this time (excluding time travelers from
the future in their Unconventional Flying Objects) properly understands
except for me! I must be candid here.

What is lacking here is the proper understanding of vacuum coherence as
the origin of both the inflation field and the Higgs field for the
coherent origin of the rest mass inertia of the lepto-quarks directly
opposed to the random ZPF acceleration friction model of Haisch and
Puthoff.

4. My model of the Ken Shoulders EVO has /\zpf ~ 0 OUTSIDE the EVO
shell. This is a vacuum coherence effect that simply solves the
cosmological constant mystery. With /\zpf roughly (mc/h)^2 (factor of
alpha fine structure constant ignored for now) INSIDE the EVO shell
with w = -1 NEGATIVE PRESSURE. That is the interior of the EVO N
electron shell is DARK ENERGY! The N-electron shell is a DARK ENERGY
BOTTLE.

The Dark Energy potential per unit electron mass is a POSITIVE 3D
Harmonic Oscillator potential

c^2/\zpfr^2

Therefore, its force gradient -2c^2/\zpfr is attractive and it balances
the repulsive Coulomb self-force per unit electon mass +(Ne)^2/mr^2 -
very simple, neat and pretty. Any bright high school serious physics
student can follow this argument.

5. Finally, there is the issue of the unacceptibly large unbalanced
negative electric charge on the EVO and where did the compensating
positive charge disappear to in the violent creation of the EVO?

The EVO is a mesoscopic geon in Wheeler's sense.

The surface area of the EVO = (Space Warp Factor)(radial size of EVO)^2

In flat space geometry

(Space Warp Factor) = 4pi

However, we need in the EVO

(Space Warp Factor) << 1

Therefore

N(h/mc)^2 ~ (Space Warp Factor)a^2

where a is directly observed to be ~ 10^-5 cm to 10^-5 meters in Ken
Shoulders lab measurements.

This means that N can be a lot smaller than the FLAT SPACE estimates of
N ~ 10^12 to 10^16 unbalanced electron charges.

Recall that 10^18 electron charges (1/10 Coulomb) would make a flat
space EVO of radius ~ 10^9 10^-11 cm ~ 10^-4 meters.

Two unbalanced 1 Coulomb like charges separated by 1 meter repel with a
force ~ 10^10 Newtons ~ 1 MILLION TONS!

i.e. the MKS reciprocal permitivity of vacuum is ~ 10^10 - another
reason why Hal's PV model is no good for practical metric engineering
or tailoring of the fabric of 4D spacetime into weightless warp drives,
wide wormhole star gate time travel passage ways, and the weird "vacuum
bubble" WMD of Andrei Sakharov described by Martin Rees in "Our Final
Hour."

Therefore, for the (1/10) Coulomb EVO the self-ripping destructive
force is

~ 10^-2 10^8(Million Tons) ~ ONE TRILLION TONS!


On Sep 6, 2004, at 3:11 AM, Burinskii Alexander, Ph.D physicist in
Moscow wrote:

Dear Jack,
Returning from country I looked the mail and
met the very strong fights on the field of the Casimir effect between
you
and Puthoff. Your discussions are now in a very deep stage, so it is
not
easy to me to understand the origin of arguments now.
However, looking at the Puthoff and Piestrup paper I have noted that
the
Casimir II model was described by me in Phys Lett B216(1989)p.123 and
reconsidered recently from another point of view
(connected to supersymmetry) in hep-th/0205127. I called it the Volume
Casimir effect for a ball contrary to the effect for plates.
My previous attempts (from 1986) to publish it in Russian Academic
journals
led to a rejection from journals and to a very big storm of critique.
And I
was not able to convince my skilled opponents. Some troubles occurred
also
by publication of the paper hep-th/0205127. This problem is very
non-trivial as all what concerns the vacuum structure.
I heard also, that some similar paper was published by Thorn about
1989.
Best regards,
Yours, Alexander