Monday, November 01, 2004

To be published in "Super Cosmos".

Nick Cook in his book "The Hunt for Zero Point" and Aviation Week in "To the Stars" have been put on a wild goose chase. Here is the True Story with The Right Virtual Stuff.

Casimir force? We don't need no damn Casimir force to reach for The Stars and Beyond! ;-)

Start from Matt Visser's "Lorentzian Wormholes" 2.3.12 Generic static spherically symmetric spacetime: Without horizon i.e. Stargate metric toy model.

Visser's eq. (2.72) is essentially Davis's eq. (2.1). Visser's equations (2.73) - (2.84) p. 26 have what we need.

Notation: ' is ,r i.e. radial partial derivative. r is the Schwarzschild coordinate not the isotropic one Hal Puthoff misuses in his "PV without PV" "corrupted file will not display" parody of GR. :-) Matt Visser agreed with me on that at GR 17 in our double decker bus ride for drinks to The Vault on Dublin's river front. See Visser's eq. (2.40) p. 20 on Schwarzschild r vs isotropic r for GR SSS, see also Fig 2.2 Kruskal coordinate patches, p. 21 ignored in PV completely because of the "exponential" that does not work for now observed gravimagnetism (essential to metric engineering warp, wormhole & weapon).

b(r) is the wormhole mouth (stargate portal) shape function. Z(r) is the "time machine" through the stargate function. Z(r) = 0 means no time-travel shift through the star gate. Ignore Hawking's "chronology protection" infinite blue shift barrier against time travel to the past for now since it looks to me like we can time reverse it to a harmless infinite red shift. I cannot prove this yet but there is indirect empirical evidence from UFO "high strangeness" as in Eric Davis's NIDS paper with Jacques Vallee.

T00 is the energy density. Trr is the radial tension, p = transverse pressure = Ttheta,theta = Tphi,phi in spherical polar coordinates.

Trace Tuv (energy-momentum tensor of gravity source real and/or virtual exotic vacuum) = (energy density) + (radial tension) + 2(transverse pressure)

For isotropy (radial tension = transverse pressure) this reduces to (energy density)(1 + 3w)

For zpf w - -1 from Lorentz covariance in tangent space + WEP minimal coupling of source to geometry, i.e. local gauge invariance relative to 4-parameter translation group.

The Einstein field equations, reduce to

b' = (8piG/c^4)r^2T00 a dimensionless pure number

Z' = [b - (8piG/c^4)r^3Trr]/2r^2(1 - b/r)

Trr' = (T00 - Trr)Z' - 2(p + Trr)/r

In the special case of the exotic vacuum dark zero point energy

Tuv(exotic vacuum) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv

Therefore, the stargate field equations with exotic vacuum dark zero point energy are:

b' = r^2/\zpfg00

Z' = [b - r^3/\zpfgrr]/2r^2(1 - b/r)

(/\zpfgrr)' = /\zpf(g00 - grr)Z' + [/\zpf(gtheta,theta + gphi,phi)]/r

Where we can use Eric Davis's eq. (2.2) i.e. in my notation

g00 = -e^2Z(r) (metric time travel distortion through the stargate)

grr = [1 - b(r)/r]^-1 (shape of star gate passage way AKA throat function)

gtheta,theta = 1

gphi,phi = sin^2(theta)

The guv must be dimensionless.

On Oct 31, 2004, at 9:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

The particular thin shell star gate (traversable wormhole) model in Eric's 2.1 Engineering the Space-Time Metric assumes a form of exotic on-mass-shell matter that anti-gravitates for which there is not the slightest shred of actual evidence. On the other hand ~ 73% of our universe is exotic vacuum w = -1 "dark energy" that does anti-gravitate! However, the form of the particular solution to Einstein's field equations that Eric gives cannot be implemented by any kind of zero point energy as a matter of basic principle. Therefore Eric's discussion on p. 10 is misleading and gives false hope. The Casimir force is not at all relevant to the problem for one thing.

The exotic vacuum field equation that must be solved is

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

where /\zpf is a local scalar field.

Guv,^;v =/= 0 i.e. usual Bianchi identities break down for exotic vacua with non-vanishing zero point energy density.

Lorentz covariance + the Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) that the motion of the centers of mass of extended bodies follow time-like geodesics in curved space-time, if there are no non-gravity forces (with zero weight in the geodesic rest frame of the freely floating object) imply

w = (pressure)/energy density) = -1

Proof is in John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics" p. 26.

Look at Eric's 2D wormhole mouth thin shell equation (2.9)

The LHS for ZPF virtual exotic vacuum stuff must be a 3x3 diagonal matrix with eigenvalues s, -s, -s i.e. trace = -s where s is the thin shell surface energy density. A positive surface energy density is needed to get the anti-gravity.

The model Eric gives cannot do this. We need a different model here.

Start with Eric's equations (2.1) & (2.2) and force it to fit

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

where at this stage /\zpf is an arbitrary scalar field.

To be continued.

On Oct 30, 2004, at 3:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

See "Teleportation Physics Study" by Eric W. Davis, Air Force
Research Lab Special Report, Edwards Air Force Base, August
2004, distribution unlimited (1.7 MB PDF file):

Eqs. (2.10)

About negative surface energy and negative surface tensions for a flat mouth stargate traversable wormhole toy model. It has a singularity so it is not a practical solution. But that is not the error. The error creeps in when Eric talks about the Casimir force i.e. ZPF. Like Hal Puthoff, who Eric says is his "mentor", Eric does not understand that w = (pressure/energy density) or in this thin shell case (surface tension/surface energy density) must = -1 for reasons of Lorentz covariance + equivalence principle (i.e. gravity-matter minimal local gauge coupling).

Kip Thorne's exotic matter source for the star gate (1986) was on-mass-shell real not off-mass-shell virtual.

In the case Eric treats rather than (1 + 3w) for 3D we have (1 + 2w) for 2D "thin shell".

That is we approximate Einstein's equation to the weak field Poisson equation

Grad^2V(exotic 2D shell throat) = (4piG/c^2)(energy density)(1 + 2w)

For Eric's solution (2.10)

This is w = +1 (on-mass-shell exotic matter)

But as soon as one talks about ZPF, then w = -1. Therefore, a negative zpf energy density has a positive pressure and this will gravitate not anti-gravitate as is needed. So what you want is a positive zero point energy density to get the anti-gravity. Eric explains this incorrectly. Also the QED Casimir force has nothing to do with this totally new kind of induced strong gravity from exotic vacuum zero point energy!

The discussion on p. 10 of this USAF report is seriously wrong. This is a common confusion in the literature BTW. Eric makes no mention of dark energy in precision cosmology so it is not surprising that he makes this conceptual error. Had he read Mike Turner's reviews on dark energy he would have realized this error, which has propagated in Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" and in Aviation Week's "To The Stars" earlier this year.

On Oct 31, 2004, at 9:21 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

My point here is that in my macro-quantum theory gravity comes from the phase of a post-inflation giant quantum vacuum wave (Higgs Ocean) of small entropy that comes from an instability in the pre-inflation micro-quantum Dirac Sea of charged massless virtual fermions with large entropy. This is analogous to a superconductor. The origin of inertia of the lepto-quarks is a vacuum coherence effect, not the random ZPF EM drag of Haisch and Puthoff. This is like the energy-gap in the fermion quasi-particle spectrum of the BCS superconductor from the binding energy of electron pairs in the condensate. Nambu & Jona Lasino had this basic idea decades ago. But they did not have gravity and dark energy built in as I do.

There is no quantum gravity foam here. When the giant quantum wave vanishes in a dark energy macro-quantum topological defect like the one at the center of the Sun causing the anomaly in the motion of the NASA Pioneer space probes then we simply get back the globally flat unstable pre-inflation false vacuum inside the core of a topological defect in the coherent calm low entropy Higgs Ocean.

Note for NASA Space Probes Pioneer 10/11:

a_p = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 to ~ 10% precision = anomalous acceleration back towards Sun.

Here /\zpf(Pioneer anomaly) = H(t)/cr

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

R(t) = dimensionless FRW scale factor

t = cosmic time

Gravity potential energy per unit test mass of the exotic vacuum hedgehog topological defect between the 2 spheres, the first at 20 AU from Sun is

V(zpf) = c^2/\zpfr^2 = cHr = cv Pioneer anomaly

v = Hubble recession speed of the expanding space of the universe.

Or, like the flat stellar rotation curves around the dark matter Galactic Halo concentric to the giant black hole in the galactic center

V(zpf) = c^2/\zpfr^2 = v'^2 Galactic Halo

v' is constant stellar circulating speed in the flat part of the rotation curve of the Galaxy

/\zpf(Galactic Halo) = (v'/cr)^2

On Oct 31, 2004, at 8:40 PM, Robert J. Brown wrote:

"Jack" == Jack Sarfatti writes:

What you call confusion is called deep insight by
professional physicists.

Actually Rovelli made exactly this distinction in the article
you sent me, and I agree with him on this.

Actual physical symmetry of a system is very different from
coordinate insensitivity of the physics.

Jack> No he is talking quantum gravity not classical general
Jack> relativity. The former is only a hope not a theory. If my
Jack> theory is right there is no quantum gravity in the canonical
Jack> sense and their criterion of "observable" which BTW is ONLY
Jack> NONLOCAL is silly.

On the quantum scale, how can something be truly local? Only if it
is the *SAME* thing, I think -- or at least within the radius of a
Planck-like distance Lp...

The entropy of the universe if it is a hologram in sense of Hawking's formula

S/kB = A/4Lp^2

in my theory is exactly

S(Universe)/kB = R(t)^2/4 BITS

R(today t = 13.7 billion years from Big Bang) = 10^61

The entropy/kB of our universe today is ~ 10^122 BITS.

The universe starts from 1/4 BIT at the initial singularity, i.e. Dirac Sea to Higgs Ocean vacuum phase transition.

On Nov 1, 2004, at 9:03 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Oct 31, 2004, at 10:51 PM, Robert J. Brown wrote: said:

You mean you can't even understand this see-spot-run explanation?

I think it is more like "See? Spot has the runs!" Better clean up the
mess. ;-)

2nd draft:

Yes Robert I agree. Paul Zielinski is confused because he uses too much English and not enough math. Paul is strong at polemics and lawyer tricks but that is not good physics argumentation. Also he has not kept up with the relevant reviews. He is seeing problems that are not there. He is out of touch. I have been to 3 major GR meetings in past 2 years and am in touch with the top people in the field. These are exciting times in "precision cosmology" and Paul has no real conception of what the reality is. Paul would be instantly rejected as a nut crank if any of the top guns were to read some of his polemics and his not-even-wrong objections. WEP is good enough. Nonlocality of gravity energy is explained by Penrose. If you have a really closed system, i.e. no energy flow out of it, there is no way to measure the gravity energy anyway! You can only do it with gravity waves, i.e. open system, and that is the context of the real issue. Paul is in Laputa Land on these issues. Anyone today challenging the foundations of GR within its classical domain of validity is considered a crackpot by the top guns at GR 17. That includes Puthoff in both his PV and ZPF programs that he is trying to sell to USAF. 4 top physicists at GR 17 told me in no uncertain terms that they do not like what Puthoff is pitching in this regard. They also did not like the kaput NASA BPP program mostly because they saw it as a platform for Puthoff's ideas. I was rather surprised at that actually. I did not even mention NASA BPP. 3 of them brought it up on their own in the context of Puthoff's PV model. These are all facts that can be checked.

See "Teleportation Physics Study" by Eric W. Davis, Air Force
Research Lab Special Report, Edwards Air Force Base, August
2004, distribution unlimited (1.7 MB PDF file):

Substantiates what I claim. It has good, bad and bogus ideas in it like Eric's paper at NIDS with Jacques Vallee that has been suppressed with the closure of NIDS (unfortunately). I am delaying release of my book Super Cosmos to include fair-balanced detailed critiqueS of both of Eric Davis's useful papers.

No comments: