Tuesday, October 19, 2004

From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: UPPER LENGTH shot down?
Date: October 19, 2004 7:47:45 PM PDT
To: czarlosromanov@yahoo.com, gravitics1@aol.com, bur@ibrae.ac.ru
Cc: creon@isso.org, Laurent.Nottale@obsmp.fr, f130smith@mindspring.com, sarfatti@attglobal.net, sirag@mindspring.com, bdj10@cam.ac.uk, and 2 more...

Memorandum for the Record

It is pretty obvious that what Creon Levit, a Top Gun at NASA AMES, found today shoots down your idea and Notalle's idea of a lower and upper scale definitively. See Creon's message below. The experimentalists clearly say they can measure at least down to 10^-9 cm/sec^2 which is 10^-2 of your alleged irreducible minimum. I just sent you a pdf on that.

My idea of a dark energy halo surrounding the Sun with

/\zpf = c^2/LpR(t)r

where R(t) is a pure number (dimensionless) FRW scale-factor also seems to be shot down, but for a different reason unless Tony Smith can save it with his hollow halo idea?

No, there is absolutely no evidence at all for either an upper or a lower scale in Nature. All tests so far seem to go in the wrong direction in this regard. If anyone has evidence to the contrary please tell us. Of course, my macro-quantum theory for the emergence of Einstein's curved spacetime from an instability in the flat micro-quantum Dirac Sea to the non-perturbative background independent curved macro-quantum Higgs Ocean shows WHY there should not be ANY quantum gravity foamy grainy structure to space-time. So far the experiments are consistent with that idea.

On Oct 19, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Jack and friends :

If Laurent Nottale and Max Born are correct, in
postulating a lower and upper scale in Nature, and a
maximal proper force, if we take R to be the
asymptotic upper length in Nature, then the minimal
acceleration should be
of the order of c^2 / R .

The question is wether or not the asymptotic value of
upper scale agrees or not with Laurent Nottale's
postulate, R = of the order of the Hubble scale

I am open to possibility that the upper asymptotic
scale could be larger than 10^{ 28 } cm and in this
case the minimal acceleration is pushed to a lower

But that is no good. It is ugly and adhoc without any great idea like adding epicycles. You have been doing too much string theory Carlos! :-)

Laurent Nottale is the expert astrophysicist and he
can better defend his judicious choice for value for
the asymptotic scale R in Nature ( of the order of
Hubble scale today ) that is related to the
resolution of the cosmological constant problem.

You do not solve the cosmological constant problem with anything you have said.

The problem is WHY is /\ ~ 1/R^2 where R ~ 10^28 cm instead of the QED prediction /\ ~ 1/Lp^2 where Lp ~ 10^-33 cm. This is an error of 122 powers of ten! I do have the explanation - I think. No one else has anything better, that much is sure.

I am not including the issue of the cosmological
variations of the fundamental constants. This is
another book to explore.

Best wishes


On Oct 19, 2004, at 4:22 PM, Creon Levit wrote:


Please scan what I believe is the definitive paper:
"Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11" ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064 )

In particular I think you should read the (relatively short) section XI, and especially subsections XI-B and C (pages 43-46). In particular, section XI-B makes the the following two points, either one of which may shoot down the 1/r dark energy theory, and both of which we will need to address if dark energy really is the explanation, IMHO. (And yes, I know dark energy ≠ dark matter)

Point 1:

"If the cause is dark matter, it is hard to understand. A
spherically-symmetric distribution of matter which goes
ρ ∼ r^−1 produces a constant acceleration inside the
distribution. To produce our anomalous acceleration
even only out to 50 AU would require the total dark
matter to be greater than 3 × 10^−4M⊙. But this is in
conflict with the accuracy of the ephemeris, which allows
only of order a few times 10^−6M⊙ of dark matter even
within the orbit of Uranus [8]"...

Point 2:

"... any universal gravitational explanation for
the Pioneer effect comes up against a hard experimental
wall. The anomalous acceleration is too large to
have gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly
for Earth and Mars. NASA’s Viking mission provided
radio-ranging measurements to an accuracy of about 12
m [137, 138]. If a planet experiences a small, anomalous,
radial acceleration, a_A, its orbital radius r is perturbed
r = ... [eqn] (58)...

"For Earth and Mars, delta-r is about −21 km and −76
km. However, the Viking data determines the difference
between the Mars and Earth orbital radii to about a 100m
accuracy, and their sum to an accuracy of about 150m.
The Pioneer effect is not seen.

"Further, a perturbation in r produces a perturbation
to the orbital angular velocity of
ω = .... [eqn] (59)
The determination of the synodic angular velocity (ωE − ωM)
is accurate to 7 parts in 1011, or to about 5 ms accuracy
in synodic period. The only parameter that could
possibly mask the spacecraft-determined a_R is (GM⊙).
But a large error here would cause inconsistencies with
the overall planetary ephemeris [8, 49]. [Also, there
would be a problem with the advance of the perihelion
of Icarus [139].]

"We conclude that the Viking ranging data limit any
unmodeled radial acceleration acting on Earth and Mars
to no more than 0.1 × 10−8 cm/s2. Consequently, if the
anomalous radial acceleration acting on spinning spacecraft
is gravitational in origin, it is not universal. That
is, it must affect bodies in the 1000 kg range more than
bodies of planetary size by a factor of 100 or more. This
would be a strange violation of the Principle of Equivalence..."

Meantime look at the last pdf.

I have been reading http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064 - take a glance. It is a comprehensive summary of the experimental evidence so far. It contains statistics, software, and celestial mechanics - about which I know just enough to get us into trouble.

Be good for you to do some fancy computer stuff if possible - for the longer paper.

No comments: