Hooke was to Newton as Puthoff is to Sarfatti. :-)

http://www.scienceandyou.org/articles/ess_13.shtml

Newton realized that the fall of the apple was the same as the motion

of the Earth around the Sun. That was his Alchemical “As Above So

Below.” I have shown that the Galactic Halo holds the stars together in

the same way, through negative zero point energy density with equal and

opposite positive quantum pressure, that the electron’s distributed

repulsive electric charge is held together. It's "As Above So Below"

all over again.

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

## Sunday, February 29, 2004

Sarfatti Commentary 1

Sir Martin's agent is John Brockman who has the monopoly on pop physics media and who is good at maximizing the profits. Hence there are no equations in the book. A few equations in the back in an Appendix would have been nice for more scientifically literate readers, but that would spoil the corporate bottom line - a pity.

What are the six numbers that control the Universe we live in? The idea is that there are an infinity of infinity of parallel universes limited by the Hubble horizons of their past light cones from any observation point that reach back to the Big Bangs creating each one of them in quantum vacuum phase transitions. The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) of generalized Darwinian natural selection applies. There is no mystery to the "fine tuning" of these 6 control parameters. Intelligent Design is not needed. God is not needed -- at least not for this aspect of The Problem.

1. N = 10^36 = e^2/Gmp^2 ~ square of the (e/m) ratio for elementary particles.

e = electric charge on the proton of mass mp, where G is Newton's parameter for gravity at large scales. Note I use variable "parameter" rather than "constant" since spin 1 gauge force coupling strengths "run" and there is no reason that spin 2 coupling of gravity should also not "run", i.e. be scale dependent.

Sir Martin writes:

"This number measures the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a few less zeros only a short-lived miniature universe could exist ..." p.2

If G is a scale-dependent variable, one must not violate the kinds of constraints discussed in this book. For example, Hal Puthoff's idea for "metric engineering" the shape of space-time requires changing the e/m ratios - not a good idea and not at all necessary to achieve the mission objective of practical free-float warp drive through traversable wormhole star gates making Star Trek Real.

2. Another number E = 0.007 "defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together ... if E were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist."

3. The cosmic number Omega measures the amount of "stuff" in the universe. "Stuff" comes in two distinct forms "real" and "virtual" because of Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle. For example, suppose a quantum of stuff has energy E at time t with physical fluctuations delta(E) and delta(t.) If this quantum is "virtual" then its fluctuations obey

delta(E) delta (t) < h = Planck's quantum of dynamical action

In contrast, if the quantum of stuff is "real" then its fluctuations obey

delta(E) delta(t) > h = Planck's quantum of dynamical action

That is, the product of "conjugate" pairs of properties of the stuff like energy and time, momentum and position, and particle density and wave coherent phase, do not have enough action if they are virtual -- meaning they are inside the vacuum. Real stuff is outside the vacuum. Another way to look at this virtual/real distinction is that real quanta outside the vacuum have their energy E and momentum p yoked together by Einstein's famous equation E = Mc^2 where M^2 = (p/c)^2 + m^2. M is the "total mass" and m is the "rest mass." Real photons, forming the "far field," have zero m, but non-zero M. Real photons also only have two "transverse" states of "spin-polarization" and they propagate energy and momentum through space on "null geodesics" that lie on "light cones." Virtual quanta inside the vacuum do not obey this law. They can have any energy E and any momentum p at the same "time" (crudely speaking) unlike the same quanta in their real phase of existence outside the vacuum where there is a unique function connecting energy to momentum. The near induction fields in the electrical equipment we are surrounded by are entirely made out of virtual photons with an extra longitudinal state of spin-polarization. These near induction electromagnetic fields do not lie on the light cones. Whether or not a given quantum is real or virtual depends on whether or not its conjugate pairs of fluctuations or "uncertainties" exceed a critical threshold h of action.

4. Einstein's Cosmological Constant /\ for anti-gravitating dark zero point quantum exotic vacuum fluctuation energy is next. Sir Martin does not pin down the physical nature of this number as precisely as I have just done. Indeed, my way of interpreting this observed number is a definite prediction of my original theory and I could be wrong in the sense of Sir Karl Popper's "falsifiabilty," which any good physics theory must obey. It is not yet clear if the physics of string theory that is described by Brian Greene in his two popular books is Good Physics or Bogus Physics in Martin Gardner's sense, or is "Cargo Cult" physics in Richard Feynman's sense. The issue is whether or not the picture of physical reality given by "M Theory" as described by Greene, Ed Witten and other members of what Doctor Faustus called "The String Mafia" is falsifiable physics or unfalsifiable cultism masquerading as physics. String theory is definitely seductively beautiful mathematics, but unless one is a Platonist in the sense of Max Tegmark's "Level IV" (May 2003, Scientific American "Parallel Universes") if it does not make definite falsifiable predictions, like my theory does, it is not Good Physics. Note that Good Physics can be Wrong Physics. The problem with string theory or M theory is that it is not yet decided if it is "not even wrong" in Wolfgang Pauli's sense. Therefore, the public should not be hoodwinked and fooled into thinking that Brian Greene's story is anything more than wild speculation at this point in our understanding. It may turn out to be "true", i.e. not falsified by facts but it should not be itself considered as "proven" or, more precisely, "battle-tested" the way Newton's mechanics, Maxwell's electrodynamics, thermodynamics, quantum theory and Einstein's relativity (special and general) have been. Double standards should not be allowed. The same criteria applied by skeptics to flying saucers and the paranormal need to be objectively applied to "string theory" as presented by Brian Greene to the public. Note that Brian, in his NOVA show, does talk about time travel to the past and to parallel universes next door in hyperspace with extra dimensions and has a scene where he talks to an extra-terrestrial on the telephone. All of that is in my book "Destiny Matrix" published in 2002 at least one year before the NOVA show was presented. In fact there is a double standard in Physics Today backed by large multi-national corporate funding that is creating an artificial reality not unlike the artificial reality of WMD in Iraq as shown by Noam Chomsky on C-Span http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm . The scientific process, like the political process, has been corrupted with fiction pretending to be fact and we must speak out. It's nigh time for some error correction not only at the polls in 2004, but also in the media on PBS and elsewhere. Of course, in a complex world with incomplete information it is not easy to distinguish fact from fiction on many important issues which require trust in the people managing and brokering the knowledge. What I say about string theory also applies to loop quantum gravity of spin foams of the John Baez crowd. Also an interesting approach, but also at this point wildly speculative without seamless integration into known theories like Einstein's GR last I checked. I could be wrong about the last remark. I mean, is there a clear derivation of Einstein's GR field equation from the quantized area and volume operators of loop quantum gravity in an appropriate limiting case?

5. Is Q ~ 10^-5 the "seeds" of WMAP. More on that later.

6. D the dimensions of the universe at large scales.

to be continued

## Saturday, February 28, 2004

On Feb 27, 2004, at 8:49 PM, Colin Bennett wrote:

Hello all Sarfatti Savants,

As a member of appreciative

audience of this mighty (Jack's word) metaphysical drama coming in on ten

emails per day, I would like to express my thanks to all participants for

providing the most sophisticated and educational web entertainment in town.

I am editing and serializing this tale of quantum conflicts on my Combat

Diaries web site in order that at least some of it will be preserved rather

than being lost in threads. At times the battle between Jack Sarfatti and

and Hal Puthoff rivals that classic motion picture The Raven, with Vincent

Price and Peter Lorre. We have had the drama of the hot tubs, the story of

telephone conversations in the past with alien computers, and the story

threads through Marconi, Mussolini, and (yes!) now appear the awesome names

of Puharich and Geller! With that pair, anything can happen. Of late we have

had beautiful women gun-toting agents, threats, insults and denials, and all

this to gain control over the high frontier of quantum metaphor! Reputations

character, and even the uncertainties of higher mathematics all are at

stake.

Well it all has great class,

and Jack'’s brilliant new book as posted http://qedcorp.com/destiny is certainly better than the

lower-middle-class chatter of the plumbers and carpenters of the

nut-and-bolt school. To hell with them and their narrow-nosed docubox

language full of late Victorian steam-age legalise. Their practical sober

books listing long-gone high school scientific “facts” are enough to make

warthogs roll over and die cross-eyed with petite-bourgeois grief.

Congratulations all round.

Physics as Media has arrived.

Colin Bennett

**

Politics of the Imagination (the life, work, and ideas of Charles Fort)

awarded Best Biography for 2002

Hello all Sarfatti Savants,

As a member of appreciative

audience of this mighty (Jack's word) metaphysical drama coming in on ten

emails per day, I would like to express my thanks to all participants for

providing the most sophisticated and educational web entertainment in town.

I am editing and serializing this tale of quantum conflicts on my Combat

Diaries web site in order that at least some of it will be preserved rather

than being lost in threads. At times the battle between Jack Sarfatti and

and Hal Puthoff rivals that classic motion picture The Raven, with Vincent

Price and Peter Lorre. We have had the drama of the hot tubs, the story of

telephone conversations in the past with alien computers, and the story

threads through Marconi, Mussolini, and (yes!) now appear the awesome names

of Puharich and Geller! With that pair, anything can happen. Of late we have

had beautiful women gun-toting agents, threats, insults and denials, and all

this to gain control over the high frontier of quantum metaphor! Reputations

character, and even the uncertainties of higher mathematics all are at

stake.

Well it all has great class,

and Jack'’s brilliant new book as posted http://qedcorp.com/destiny is certainly better than the

lower-middle-class chatter of the plumbers and carpenters of the

nut-and-bolt school. To hell with them and their narrow-nosed docubox

language full of late Victorian steam-age legalise. Their practical sober

books listing long-gone high school scientific “facts” are enough to make

warthogs roll over and die cross-eyed with petite-bourgeois grief.

Congratulations all round.

Physics as Media has arrived.

Colin Bennett

**

Politics of the Imagination (the life, work, and ideas of Charles Fort)

awarded Best Biography for 2002

On Feb 27, 2004, at 11:18 PM, Victor Martinez wrote:

SAUL-PAUL:

1) GREAT! I can tell you're making fine use of Dr Greene's GREAT book

FABRIC OF THE COSMOS. Now, if we could only get the Doc to open up

Greene's terrific new book so he could get himself up-to-date on

leading-edge physics information like you, Captain Collins, Dr Puthoff,

Stan Friedman, Gary Bekkum, etc., already are! Working together, we can

bring the Doc up to speed!

Victor, you do not understand that string theory is pretty and interesting, but it is mathematics not physics. String theory has very little contact with the pressing experimental mysteries of the day - in contrast to my theory BTW.

Ed Witten himself has said that string theory is not able to explain "dark energy."

Saul-Paul correct me if I am wrong, but although string theory predicts a spin 2 graviton there is no direct mathematical derivation of Einstein's

Guv + /\guv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

from the mathematics of string theory?

String theory is not background independent so has problems with Diff(4)?

At best it corresponds only to the linear graviton, i.e. spin 2 perturbation theory on Minkowski space-time?

On the other hand. there does seem to be a string theory derivation of S = A/4Lp^2 with blackhole horizons?

Also is it not true that there is no mathematical derivation from string theory of the actual standard model

U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) of lepto-quarks and gauge forces?

Furthermore there is an embarrasing non-uniqueness of the theory - too many solutions leading to Susskind's "Landscape"?

Please correct my misunderstandings above if there are any?

Remember in my theory I have a very simple explanation for Witten's alpha' for observable hadron resonances, not for speculative stuff at Planck scale that has never been seen nor is there any real chance it ever will be? Also I explain the stability of spatially extended charged elementary particles and why they appear to shrink to points as "partons". I explain the "string tension" on scale of 1 fermi as strong short range gravity.

There is a running gravity coupling that gets strong to explain hadronic and leptonic structure. There is no Planck scale at the current cosmological epoch, no hiearchy problem.

Show me one experimental fact that Briane Greene is able to explain in any of his books on strings that do not have alternative explanations?

The Achilles Heel of string theory is its lack of contact with experiment and observation, it's lack of Popper falsifiability. Indeed, applying Feynman's test of "Cargo Cult pseudoscience" without any double standard to string theory, I am not sure if it would pass the test? I do not really know yet because I am not expert in it.

Granted that string theory is pretty math and seductive, but is it really good physics?

2) Dr Sarfatti had queried you earlier about Greene's writings on mirror

symmetry, so here are some very useful sites for everyone to utilize.

Watch your mailbox next week,.. a small package is on its way via NWO

black helicopters! --

http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/ssym.html

www.voting.ukscientists.com/greene2.html

The Official String Theory Web Site: Welcome to the Superstring Store!

http://superstringtheory.com/store/stringbooks.html

www.math.uiuc.edu/~katz/class/s03/ms.html

www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=1114&NLID=135

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

http://phys.columbia.edu/faculty/greene.htm

From: "S-P & M-M Sirag "

Date: February 27, 2004 5:09:32 PM PST

To: jacobsarfatti, jacobsarfatti

Subject: Brian Green, Mirror Symmetry & ADEX-theory

On Brian Greene & Mirror Symmetry:

In defense of Brian Greene's work in string theory I note the following.

Brian Greene and Ronen Plesser discovered a duality that became known as

mirror symmetry.

In the book *Mirror Symmetry and Algebraic Geometry* by David A. Cox and

Sheldon Katz (American Mathematical Society, 1999) we read:

"Early evidence for mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau threefolds was given

by lists of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in weighted projective spaces (or their

quotients by finite groups). The Hodge numbers of these hypersurfaces,

mirror symmetry was demonstrated in [GPl] by first showing mirror symmetry

for certian Landau-Ginzburg theories ... and then relating these theories to

the sigma models of the [Calabi-Yau] hypersurfaces."

[GPl] is the reference: B. Greene and M.R. Plesser, Duality in Calabi-Yau

moduli space, Nucl. Phys. B 338 (1990), 15-37.

There are two other Greene references in the bibliography:

B.R. Green, C. Vafa & N.P. Warner, Calabi-Yau manifold and renormalization

group flows, Nucl. Phys. B 324 (1989), 371-390.

B.R. Green, M.R. Plesser & S.S. Roan, New constructions of mirror manifolds:

Probing moduli space far from Fermat points, in *Essays on mirror manifolds*

(S.-T. Yau, ed.), Internat. Press, Hong Kong, 1992, pp. 347-389.

Mirror Symmetry has become a hot topic in string theory. A recent tutorial

book on the this topic is"

*Mirror Symmetry* by Kentaro Hori, Sheldon Katz, Albrecht Klemm, Rahul

Pandharipande, Richard Thomas Cumrun VAfa, Ravi Vakil, and Eric Zaslow,

published by the American Mathematical Society and the Clay Mathematics

Institute (2003).

This book cites in addition to the Greene Plesser paper of 1990 two more

Greene coauthored papers:

B. Greene, D. Morrison, & A. Strominger, Black hole condensation and the

unification of string Vacua, Nucl. Phys. B451 (1995) 109, hep-th/9504145.

B. Greene & H. Ooguri, Geometry & quantum field theory: A brief

introduction, in *Mirror Symmetry II (B. Greene & S.-T. Yau, eds.), AMS/IP

Stud. Adv. Math. 1, AMS, Providence, RI, 1997, 3-27.

Although I have only recently started reading the two Mirror Symmetry books

(of 1999 & 2003), I am intrigued by the fact that the A-D-E classifications

(via the A-D-E Coxeter-Dynkin graphs) plays a big role in this topic. I

already knew that the 2-d superconformal field theories are A-D-E

classified. But it was news to me that the these theories correspond to

certain Landau-Ginzburg theories, and the correspondence is via the A-D-E

Thom-Arnold catastrophe germs. On page 337 of the *Mirror Symmetry* (2003)

book we read:

"It turns out that (2,2) superconformal theoris with c < 3, or

equivalently D < 1, can be classified and all correspond to Landau-Ginzburg

theories with quasi-homogeneous superpotential. Moreover they are in 1-1

correspondence with ADE singularities of C^2/Gamma where Gamma is a discrete

subgroup of SU(2)."

So the McKay correspondence of the subgroups of SU(2) with the ADE

Kac-Moody Lie algebras is also entailed in the subject of Mirror Symmetry.

I have long conjectured that the the A-D-E classifications will provide

the underlying mathematical structure for string theory and its later

development into M-theory, Mirror Symmetry (which is a kind of T-duality)

and so on. There are 20 some mathematical objects already A-D-E classified

(including now a potent kind of Landau-Ginzburg superpotential). I call the

study of all the A-D-E classifications and their applications to mathematics

and physics by the name ADEX-theory.

I will attach a paper I wrote for ISSO and ISEP in 2000. I see that it needs

some updating after I have absorbed this (new to me) Mirror Symmetry stuff.

Apparently Brian Greene's peers consider him to be an important early

developer of the Mirror Symmetry. Perhaps his next book will be a popular

description of these ideas.

Nuff said ;-)

Saul-Paul

SAUL-PAUL:

1) GREAT! I can tell you're making fine use of Dr Greene's GREAT book

FABRIC OF THE COSMOS. Now, if we could only get the Doc to open up

Greene's terrific new book so he could get himself up-to-date on

leading-edge physics information like you, Captain Collins, Dr Puthoff,

Stan Friedman, Gary Bekkum, etc., already are! Working together, we can

bring the Doc up to speed!

Victor, you do not understand that string theory is pretty and interesting, but it is mathematics not physics. String theory has very little contact with the pressing experimental mysteries of the day - in contrast to my theory BTW.

Ed Witten himself has said that string theory is not able to explain "dark energy."

Saul-Paul correct me if I am wrong, but although string theory predicts a spin 2 graviton there is no direct mathematical derivation of Einstein's

Guv + /\guv = -8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

from the mathematics of string theory?

String theory is not background independent so has problems with Diff(4)?

At best it corresponds only to the linear graviton, i.e. spin 2 perturbation theory on Minkowski space-time?

On the other hand. there does seem to be a string theory derivation of S = A/4Lp^2 with blackhole horizons?

Also is it not true that there is no mathematical derivation from string theory of the actual standard model

U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) of lepto-quarks and gauge forces?

Furthermore there is an embarrasing non-uniqueness of the theory - too many solutions leading to Susskind's "Landscape"?

Please correct my misunderstandings above if there are any?

Remember in my theory I have a very simple explanation for Witten's alpha' for observable hadron resonances, not for speculative stuff at Planck scale that has never been seen nor is there any real chance it ever will be? Also I explain the stability of spatially extended charged elementary particles and why they appear to shrink to points as "partons". I explain the "string tension" on scale of 1 fermi as strong short range gravity.

There is a running gravity coupling that gets strong to explain hadronic and leptonic structure. There is no Planck scale at the current cosmological epoch, no hiearchy problem.

Show me one experimental fact that Briane Greene is able to explain in any of his books on strings that do not have alternative explanations?

The Achilles Heel of string theory is its lack of contact with experiment and observation, it's lack of Popper falsifiability. Indeed, applying Feynman's test of "Cargo Cult pseudoscience" without any double standard to string theory, I am not sure if it would pass the test? I do not really know yet because I am not expert in it.

Granted that string theory is pretty math and seductive, but is it really good physics?

2) Dr Sarfatti had queried you earlier about Greene's writings on mirror

symmetry, so here are some very useful sites for everyone to utilize.

Watch your mailbox next week,.. a small package is on its way via NWO

black helicopters! --

http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/ssym.html

www.voting.ukscientists.com/greene2.html

The Official String Theory Web Site: Welcome to the Superstring Store!

http://superstringtheory.com/store/stringbooks.html

www.math.uiuc.edu/~katz/class/s03/ms.html

www.drury.edu/multinl/story.cfm?ID=1114&NLID=135

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

http://phys.columbia.edu/faculty/greene.htm

From: "S-P & M-M Sirag "

Date: February 27, 2004 5:09:32 PM PST

To: jacobsarfatti

Subject: Brian Green, Mirror Symmetry & ADEX-theory

On Brian Greene & Mirror Symmetry:

In defense of Brian Greene's work in string theory I note the following.

Brian Greene and Ronen Plesser discovered a duality that became known as

mirror symmetry.

In the book *Mirror Symmetry and Algebraic Geometry* by David A. Cox and

Sheldon Katz (American Mathematical Society, 1999) we read:

"Early evidence for mirror symmetry of Calabi-Yau threefolds was given

by lists of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in weighted projective spaces (or their

quotients by finite groups). The Hodge numbers of these hypersurfaces,

mirror symmetry was demonstrated in [GPl] by first showing mirror symmetry

for certian Landau-Ginzburg theories ... and then relating these theories to

the sigma models of the [Calabi-Yau] hypersurfaces."

[GPl] is the reference: B. Greene and M.R. Plesser, Duality in Calabi-Yau

moduli space, Nucl. Phys. B 338 (1990), 15-37.

There are two other Greene references in the bibliography:

B.R. Green, C. Vafa & N.P. Warner, Calabi-Yau manifold and renormalization

group flows, Nucl. Phys. B 324 (1989), 371-390.

B.R. Green, M.R. Plesser & S.S. Roan, New constructions of mirror manifolds:

Probing moduli space far from Fermat points, in *Essays on mirror manifolds*

(S.-T. Yau, ed.), Internat. Press, Hong Kong, 1992, pp. 347-389.

Mirror Symmetry has become a hot topic in string theory. A recent tutorial

book on the this topic is"

*Mirror Symmetry* by Kentaro Hori, Sheldon Katz, Albrecht Klemm, Rahul

Pandharipande, Richard Thomas Cumrun VAfa, Ravi Vakil, and Eric Zaslow,

published by the American Mathematical Society and the Clay Mathematics

Institute (2003).

This book cites in addition to the Greene Plesser paper of 1990 two more

Greene coauthored papers:

B. Greene, D. Morrison, & A. Strominger, Black hole condensation and the

unification of string Vacua, Nucl. Phys. B451 (1995) 109, hep-th/9504145.

B. Greene & H. Ooguri, Geometry & quantum field theory: A brief

introduction, in *Mirror Symmetry II (B. Greene & S.-T. Yau, eds.), AMS/IP

Stud. Adv. Math. 1, AMS, Providence, RI, 1997, 3-27.

Although I have only recently started reading the two Mirror Symmetry books

(of 1999 & 2003), I am intrigued by the fact that the A-D-E classifications

(via the A-D-E Coxeter-Dynkin graphs) plays a big role in this topic. I

already knew that the 2-d superconformal field theories are A-D-E

classified. But it was news to me that the these theories correspond to

certain Landau-Ginzburg theories, and the correspondence is via the A-D-E

Thom-Arnold catastrophe germs. On page 337 of the *Mirror Symmetry* (2003)

book we read:

"It turns out that (2,2) superconformal theoris with c < 3, or

equivalently D < 1, can be classified and all correspond to Landau-Ginzburg

theories with quasi-homogeneous superpotential. Moreover they are in 1-1

correspondence with ADE singularities of C^2/Gamma where Gamma is a discrete

subgroup of SU(2)."

So the McKay correspondence of the subgroups of SU(2) with the ADE

Kac-Moody Lie algebras is also entailed in the subject of Mirror Symmetry.

I have long conjectured that the the A-D-E classifications will provide

the underlying mathematical structure for string theory and its later

development into M-theory, Mirror Symmetry (which is a kind of T-duality)

and so on. There are 20 some mathematical objects already A-D-E classified

(including now a potent kind of Landau-Ginzburg superpotential). I call the

study of all the A-D-E classifications and their applications to mathematics

and physics by the name ADEX-theory.

I will attach a paper I wrote for ISSO and ISEP in 2000. I see that it needs

some updating after I have absorbed this (new to me) Mirror Symmetry stuff.

Apparently Brian Greene's peers consider him to be an important early

developer of the Mirror Symmetry. Perhaps his next book will be a popular

description of these ideas.

Nuff said ;-)

Saul-Paul

## Friday, February 27, 2004

Note #4 Remember Ya Burinski using complex space-time in the Kerr micro-geon at Vigier Paris and that wavelet fellow showing that complexifying space-time is a kind of phase space for a wavelet transform describing extended objects like antennas for multi-resolution radar.

Therefore, we clearly want to complexify, if not hyper-complexify (Connes, Castro "extended relativity"?), space-time . Let's to keep it simple only complexify here.

We then want both groups, i.e. SL(2,C)xO(2,C) as a kind of wavelet transform phase space with multi-resolution scaling rather than the momentum of the rigid Fourier transform in say the Wigner phase space density formalism.

Or we want some group G that contains both SL(2,C) and O(2,C) as limits.

Therefore, we clearly want to complexify, if not hyper-complexify (Connes, Castro "extended relativity"?), space-time . Let's to keep it simple only complexify here.

We then want both groups, i.e. SL(2,C)xO(2,C) as a kind of wavelet transform phase space with multi-resolution scaling rather than the momentum of the rigid Fourier transform in say the Wigner phase space density formalism.

Or we want some group G that contains both SL(2,C) and O(2,C) as limits.

Note #3 The QUBIT Frame of Reference

The Hilbert space of a single qubit "string" is spanned by "dyad basis" (1,0) and (0,1). These base spinors are section of the complex vector bundle space 10.3 p. 562 Carmeli

p is a point in the base space M

l^A(p) = (1,0) (10.3.1a)

n^A(p) = (0,1) (10.3.1b)

Define the anti-symmetric spinor metric to raise and lower spin indices as

Epsilon^A^B(p) = l^An^B - n^Al^B (10.3.4a), which is proportional to one of the Pauli spin matrices

Note taking a symmetric spinor metric corresponds to "imaginary time" O(2,C) group not SL(2,C) with light cones.

O(2,C) = Conformal Scale Group x Phase Group

Phase Group = U(1) i.e. local gauging gives Maxwell's EM if you consider the symmetric spinor metric in "extra space dimensions" corresponding to "imaginary time." Or perhaps simply the same space dimensions, but with a topological signature transformation?

What about locally gauging the Conformal Scale Group?

Next step is 3 subsidiary bundles: dual, complex conjugate, dual conjugate.

Local gauge transformation of the spinor dyad basis p. 565

Spinor basis is &a^A

Global gauge transformation of the spinor basis is

&'a^A = (S^-1)a^b&b^A (10.3.2) p. 563

Physically this is like rotating the magnet in a Stern-Gerlach electron beam experiment, or like going from linear polarization to circular polarization in filtering light (boson not spinor fermion).

When S depends on p then it is a local gauge transformation.

These local spinor gauge transformations preserve normalization and completeness i.e. 10.3.10 & 10.3.11 p. 564

These local spinor gauge transformations are in an inner space the qubit fiber space and we need a "connection" to parallel transport things in qubit fiber space.

The compensating dynamical potentials is the affine connection for parallel transport to distant regions of base space along a given path in qubit fiber space of this complex vector bundle with SL(2,C) symmetry group.

Get to 10.3.23 p. 566

For the covariant derivative of a spinor field Spinor^A

Spinor^A:u = Spinor^A,u + Gamma|u^ABSpinor^B

The spinor affine connection is a covariant vector under Diff(4) but has the typical inhomogeneous term under the local gauge transformations.

Impose metricity i.e. covariant derivative of the antisymmetric spinor metric vanishes (10.3.26) This seems to also give a torsion-free limit.

The Hermitian Paul spin matrices connect the BIT spinors with the IT tensors.

Their covariant derivatives are also forced to vanish (10.3,27) & (10.3.28) p. 567

The SL(2,C) inhomogeneous BIT "gauge potentials" Bu (analog to Au in EM) are the Newman-Penrose spin coefficients.

&a^A;u = (Bu)a^b&b^A (10.3.30)

The homogeneous "field strengths" are the pure tensor "curvatures" (10.3.32) & (10.3.33)

With non-exotic classical vacuum Bianchi identities (10.3.36)

The BIT version of the IT "Einstein-Hilbert" vacuum dynamical action without coupling to matter is similar to that in EM theory (10.3.37)

The relation of the BIT gauge field strengths to the Einstein-Riemann IT 4th rank tidal curvature of the timelike geodesic deviation equation for pairs of point test particles is in (10.3.35) p. 568.

10.3.39 p. 569 is the spinor macro-QUBIT version of Einstein's vacuum IT equation

Ruv = 0

When /\zpf = 0.

When /\zpf =/= 0, the Bianchi identities acquire a source term, i.e. the exotic vacuum zero-point stress/Dark Energy/Matter tensor current density needed for real "metric engineering."

The Hilbert space of a single qubit "string" is spanned by "dyad basis" (1,0) and (0,1). These base spinors are section of the complex vector bundle space 10.3 p. 562 Carmeli

p is a point in the base space M

l^A(p) = (1,0) (10.3.1a)

n^A(p) = (0,1) (10.3.1b)

Define the anti-symmetric spinor metric to raise and lower spin indices as

Epsilon^A^B(p) = l^An^B - n^Al^B (10.3.4a), which is proportional to one of the Pauli spin matrices

Note taking a symmetric spinor metric corresponds to "imaginary time" O(2,C) group not SL(2,C) with light cones.

O(2,C) = Conformal Scale Group x Phase Group

Phase Group = U(1) i.e. local gauging gives Maxwell's EM if you consider the symmetric spinor metric in "extra space dimensions" corresponding to "imaginary time." Or perhaps simply the same space dimensions, but with a topological signature transformation?

What about locally gauging the Conformal Scale Group?

Next step is 3 subsidiary bundles: dual, complex conjugate, dual conjugate.

Local gauge transformation of the spinor dyad basis p. 565

Spinor basis is &a^A

Global gauge transformation of the spinor basis is

&'a^A = (S^-1)a^b&b^A (10.3.2) p. 563

Physically this is like rotating the magnet in a Stern-Gerlach electron beam experiment, or like going from linear polarization to circular polarization in filtering light (boson not spinor fermion).

When S depends on p then it is a local gauge transformation.

These local spinor gauge transformations preserve normalization and completeness i.e. 10.3.10 & 10.3.11 p. 564

These local spinor gauge transformations are in an inner space the qubit fiber space and we need a "connection" to parallel transport things in qubit fiber space.

The compensating dynamical potentials is the affine connection for parallel transport to distant regions of base space along a given path in qubit fiber space of this complex vector bundle with SL(2,C) symmetry group.

Get to 10.3.23 p. 566

For the covariant derivative of a spinor field Spinor^A

Spinor^A:u = Spinor^A,u + Gamma|u^ABSpinor^B

The spinor affine connection is a covariant vector under Diff(4) but has the typical inhomogeneous term under the local gauge transformations.

Impose metricity i.e. covariant derivative of the antisymmetric spinor metric vanishes (10.3.26) This seems to also give a torsion-free limit.

The Hermitian Paul spin matrices connect the BIT spinors with the IT tensors.

Their covariant derivatives are also forced to vanish (10.3,27) & (10.3.28) p. 567

The SL(2,C) inhomogeneous BIT "gauge potentials" Bu (analog to Au in EM) are the Newman-Penrose spin coefficients.

&a^A;u = (Bu)a^b&b^A (10.3.30)

The homogeneous "field strengths" are the pure tensor "curvatures" (10.3.32) & (10.3.33)

With non-exotic classical vacuum Bianchi identities (10.3.36)

The BIT version of the IT "Einstein-Hilbert" vacuum dynamical action without coupling to matter is similar to that in EM theory (10.3.37)

The relation of the BIT gauge field strengths to the Einstein-Riemann IT 4th rank tidal curvature of the timelike geodesic deviation equation for pairs of point test particles is in (10.3.35) p. 568.

10.3.39 p. 569 is the spinor macro-QUBIT version of Einstein's vacuum IT equation

Ruv = 0

When /\zpf = 0.

When /\zpf =/= 0, the Bianchi identities acquire a source term, i.e. the exotic vacuum zero-point stress/Dark Energy/Matter tensor current density needed for real "metric engineering."

Note #1

Ch. 10 of Moshe Carmeli's "Classical Fields, General Relativity and Gauge Theory" shows how to do that.

Roger Penrose did it with his spinor formulation of general relativity that has evolved into Loop Theory

with spin networks -> spin foams and "weaves" dual to string theory.

This is the SL(2,C) local gauge theory "complex vector bundle" way to get at Einstein's IT geometrodynamics with 2-component spinor "qubits" and their quantum computing gate 2x2 unitary matrices as the basic machinery.

Think of tensors as IT and spinors (or twistors) as QUBIT.

IT = Bohm's "hidden" or "extra" variable.

QUBIT = pilot wave of both active and inactive nonclassical information that is non-mechanical context-dependent.

QUBIT ~ (IT)^1/2 metaphorically

These must be, however, local macro-quantum spinors, which may also admit non-unitary transformations that may link up with R. Kiehn's Pfaffian classification dimension 4 (turbulence) to go beyond reversible unitary evolution (computing) with no-cloning (No Quantum Xerox of Nick Herbert & Lenny Susskind) breaking down to permit "presponse" "signal nonlocality" in the World Destiny Matrix with the irreversible "Arrow of Time's Flow."

Carmeli p. 561 for deep structure of "equivalence principle" eq. 10.2.2 "complex structure" to get local O(1,3) with causal light cones

"The map 10.2.2 induces a local Minkowski frame at a given point ... therefore the base space acquires a pseudo-Riemannian structure in addition to a spinor structure."

to be continued

Ch. 10 of Moshe Carmeli's "Classical Fields, General Relativity and Gauge Theory" shows how to do that.

Roger Penrose did it with his spinor formulation of general relativity that has evolved into Loop Theory

with spin networks -> spin foams and "weaves" dual to string theory.

This is the SL(2,C) local gauge theory "complex vector bundle" way to get at Einstein's IT geometrodynamics with 2-component spinor "qubits" and their quantum computing gate 2x2 unitary matrices as the basic machinery.

Think of tensors as IT and spinors (or twistors) as QUBIT.

IT = Bohm's "hidden" or "extra" variable.

QUBIT = pilot wave of both active and inactive nonclassical information that is non-mechanical context-dependent.

QUBIT ~ (IT)^1/2 metaphorically

These must be, however, local macro-quantum spinors, which may also admit non-unitary transformations that may link up with R. Kiehn's Pfaffian classification dimension 4 (turbulence) to go beyond reversible unitary evolution (computing) with no-cloning (No Quantum Xerox of Nick Herbert & Lenny Susskind) breaking down to permit "presponse" "signal nonlocality" in the World Destiny Matrix with the irreversible "Arrow of Time's Flow."

Carmeli p. 561 for deep structure of "equivalence principle" eq. 10.2.2 "complex structure" to get local O(1,3) with causal light cones

"The map 10.2.2 induces a local Minkowski frame at a given point ... therefore the base space acquires a pseudo-Riemannian structure in addition to a spinor structure."

to be continued

## Thursday, February 26, 2004

The World Picture of Super Cosmos

From APS News Feb 2004 http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/ or http://focus.aps.org/

Highlights of what subjectively struck me as worth reporting

1. WMAP ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html ) of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Black Body Radiation) in thermal equilibrium in slow enough adiabatic expansion of the Hubble spherical horizon of our past light cone. That is, think of our 3D space as effectively bounded by a slightly distorted spherical wave front that is c/H(t) away from us in our past. That is, it took light approximately 1/H(t) seconds to reach us from that initial wave front. Note, I use the word "approximately."

This Hubble sphere is one of an infinity of "Level 1" parallel IT Universes on a single 3D spatially flat "post-inflationary bubble", which is the 3D version of Euclid's globally flat infinite plane without boundary. There are a further "Level II"infinity of these bubbles (or infinite 3D rubber sheets expanding homogeneously and isotropically on the largest of scales only) in a Cosmic Champagne Cocktail as it were perhaps from the Qabalistic Vineyard of one Rashi des Troyes (1040 - 1105)? ;-) See Max Tegmark's article May 2003 Scientific American on "Parallel Universes" for the Level I and Level II classification of the chaotic inflation scenario with the Weak Anthropic Principle and Darwinian Natural Selection on the cosmic scale.

Angular resolution of WMAP space probe is 40 x better than COBE space probe.

Polarization of CMB is measured from last scattering of light from the time of 'recombination' when stable hydrogen atoms formed for the first time ~ 380,000 light years from the Big Bang, and also from ionization of atoms in space by UV photons from the first stars forming only 200 million light years from the Big Bang! The age of the Universe ~ c/Ho is 13.7 billion light years. This is the radius of the Hubble spherical horizon back to the Big Bang. Therefore, the Holographic Thermodynamic Entropy S of our Universe now is of order (10^28)^2/(10)^-26 ~ 10^82 BITS.

Atomic matter is about 4% of the large-scale structure of the Universe, i.e. Omega(Atomic Matter) ~ 0.04.

Exotic vacuum with gravitating positive zero point pressure is about 23% of the large-scale structure of the Universe, i.e. Omega(Dark Matter) ~ 0.23.

I have made a theoretical inference here that dark matter is not made out of real on-mass-shell particles of some exotic kind like super symmetry partners. That is, dark matter detectors, in principle, will never click with "The Right Stuff", if they click at all it will be with false positives, with Fool's Gold like Enron Stock After The Fall.

Exotic vacuum with anti-gravitating negative zero point pressure is about 73% of the large-scale structure of the Universe, i.e. Omega(Dark Matter) ~ 0.73.

Note that scale-dependence is crucial. You can imagine, in the sense of adaptive windowed "wavelet transforms" not the usual Fourier transforms of time and space, a "power spectrum" of different kinds of stuff plotted against scale of resolution. The above percentages are only measured at the largest scales ~ 10^26 to 10^28 cm in a "coarse graining" sense where the FRW metric approximation applies.

Homework Problem 1

Note that the Fourier transform of the temporal autocorrelation function of some disturbance is its "power spectrum". What is the autocorrelation function corresponding to the adaptive windowed wavelet "power spectrum" where "scale" is plotted instead of "frequency/wave numbers"?

2. SDSS of 200,000 galaxies + WMAP above give

ho ~ 0.7 +- 0.04

Omega(Dark Matter + Atomic Matter) = 0.3 +- 0.04

Upper limit on rest mass of the electron neutrino ~ 0.6 ev

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

SDSS 3D conformal scale-dependent "wavelet-transform"? map of past light cone from scale of Earth's core ->Solar System -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Clusters of Galaxies -> CMB "last light."

"We have produced a new conformal map of the universe illustrating recent discoveries, ranging from Kuiper belt objects in the Solar system, to the galaxies and quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. This map projection, based on the logarithm map of the complex plane, preserves shapes locally, and yet is able to display the entire range of astronomical scales from the Earth's neighborhood to the cosmic microwave background. The conformal nature of the projection, preserving shapes locally, may be of particular use for analyzing large scale structure. Prominent in the map is a Sloan Great Wall of galaxies 1.37 billion light years long, 80% longer than the Great Wall discovered by Geller and Huchra and therefore the largest observed structure in the universe."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310571

3. Speed of Gravity?

What Tom Van Flandern alleges in http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html about superluminal near field of gravity is controversial as is what he says about GPS in http://www.metaresearch.org/ But it is not my purpose here to dig into those issues. On the other hand his reference to William Walker's work is sound http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001063

Near-field Analysis of Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

"A near-field analysis based on Maxwells equations is presented which indicates that the fields generated by both an electric and a magnetic dipole or quadrapole, and also the gravitational waves generated by a quadrapole mass source propagate superluminally in the nearfield of the source and reduce to the speed of light as the waves propagate into the farfield. Both the phase speed and the group speed are shown to be superluminal in the nearfield of these systems. Although the information speed is shown to differ from group speed in the nearfield of these systems, provided the noise of the signal is small and the modulation method is known, the information can be extracted in a time period much smaller than the wave propagation time, thereby making the information speed only slightly less than the superluminal group speed. It is shown that relativity theory indicates that these superluminal signals can be reflected off of a moving frame causing the information to arrive before the signal was transmitted (i.e. backward in time). It is unknown if these signals can be used to change the past." http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304090

A mainstream experiment using gravity lensing by Jupiter of an aligned distant quasar's light give a speed of gravity 1.06 +-0.21 the speed of light http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294

However Clifford Will disagrees with that claim in

We calculate the delay in the propagation of a light signal past a massive body that moves with speed v, under the assumption that the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction c_g differs from that of light. Using the post-Newtonian approximation, we consider an expansion in powers of v/c beyond the leading ``Shapiro'' time delay effect, while working to first order only in Gm/c^2, and show that the altered propagation speed of the gravitational signal has no effect whatsoever on the time delay to first order in v/c beyond the leading term, although it will have an effect to second and higher order. We show that the only other possible effects of an altered speed c_g at this order arise from a modification of the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) coefficient \alpha_1 of the metric from the value zero predicted by general relativity. Current solar-system measurements already provide tight bounds on such a modification. We conclude that recent measurements of the propagation of radio signals past Jupiter are sensitive to \alpha_1, but are not directly sensitive to the speed of propagation of gravity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145

4. Gravity Waves? LIGO a giant strain gauge to measure ripples in space-time curvature. Two spiraling in neutron stars emit gravity waves that change distance between two mirrors 4km apart by less than one thousanth of the diameter of a proton! And they say that people who see UFOs are crazy? :-) Well Kip Thorne at Cal Tech thinks this can be measured and many millions of dollars are being spent to do so. Let's hope they do better than the hot fusion boys. :-) Nothing exciting to report as of Feb 2004.

5. The Big Rip Doomsday

The dark energy data from type 1a supernovae requires -1/3 > w = (pressure of dark energy)/(energy density of dark energy)

In my theory, dark energy and dark matter are both w = -1 zero point energy density of exotic vacuum regions that are positive and negative respectively, hence negative and positive quantum pressures respectively. Exotic vacuum with w = -1 and positive pressure will be mistaken for w ~ 0 CDM http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html

The Big Rip destroying future Universe only happens if -1 > w i.e. "phantom energy." There is no Big Rip in my theory where w = -1 on the nose.

Appendix 1. Digression on the Universe as a Hologram - one particular model that is probably false.

The pixel resolution of the Hubble surface deteriorates as the Universe 3D space expands and accelerates. The quantum of area or cosmic pixel size is

Lp*^2 ~ Lp^4/3(c/H(t))^2/3

3D space is the holographic image of the expanding accelerating Hubble 2D surface.

The number of Bekenstein BITS in the Universe then gives the Entropy of the Universe S(t) at Cosmic Time t to be

S(t) ~ k(c/H(t))^2Lp*^-2 ~ k(c/H(t)Lp)^4/3

This explains the Second Law of Thermodynamics "Arrow of Time" as tied to the expansion of the Universe. That's The Good News. There is also some Bad News. That is, this particular model may be false. I do not know as yet.

k = Boltzmann's constant, Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2, c/H(today) ~ 10^28 cm, Lp*(today) ~ 1 Gev, i.e. 1 fermi (10^-13 cm)

Witten's "alpha'" today ~ 1/(1Gev)^2 = Universal Geometrodynamic Regge Slope of hadronic resonances of the strong force ~ (string tension)^-1

All of this is testable and this model may be false.

Rest mass of lepto-quarks m ~ (e/c)^2Lp*^-1 ~ Mev

Therefore, e/m ~ (c^2/e)Lp*

IF e/m is to be a constant of the Universe's evolution in global FRW large-scale cosmic time ~ h/k(Absolute Temperature of the CMB), then

(c^2/e)^2Lp*^2 is constant

That is,

(c4/e^2)hG*/c^3 = (hc/e^2)G* is constant in cosmic time though not in scale!

Note, that the only way to keep H(t) constant would be

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

R(t) = Roe^Hot

i.e. a state of continuous inflation.

If we exclude this, then the e/m ratios of the lepto-quarks must be increasing if this particular version of the world hologram idea were true.

From APS News Feb 2004 http://www.aip.org/physnews/update/ or http://focus.aps.org/

Highlights of what subjectively struck me as worth reporting

1. WMAP ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html ) of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Black Body Radiation) in thermal equilibrium in slow enough adiabatic expansion of the Hubble spherical horizon of our past light cone. That is, think of our 3D space as effectively bounded by a slightly distorted spherical wave front that is c/H(t) away from us in our past. That is, it took light approximately 1/H(t) seconds to reach us from that initial wave front. Note, I use the word "approximately."

This Hubble sphere is one of an infinity of "Level 1" parallel IT Universes on a single 3D spatially flat "post-inflationary bubble", which is the 3D version of Euclid's globally flat infinite plane without boundary. There are a further "Level II"infinity of these bubbles (or infinite 3D rubber sheets expanding homogeneously and isotropically on the largest of scales only) in a Cosmic Champagne Cocktail as it were perhaps from the Qabalistic Vineyard of one Rashi des Troyes (1040 - 1105)? ;-) See Max Tegmark's article May 2003 Scientific American on "Parallel Universes" for the Level I and Level II classification of the chaotic inflation scenario with the Weak Anthropic Principle and Darwinian Natural Selection on the cosmic scale.

Angular resolution of WMAP space probe is 40 x better than COBE space probe.

Polarization of CMB is measured from last scattering of light from the time of 'recombination' when stable hydrogen atoms formed for the first time ~ 380,000 light years from the Big Bang, and also from ionization of atoms in space by UV photons from the first stars forming only 200 million light years from the Big Bang! The age of the Universe ~ c/Ho is 13.7 billion light years. This is the radius of the Hubble spherical horizon back to the Big Bang. Therefore, the Holographic Thermodynamic Entropy S of our Universe now is of order (10^28)^2/(10)^-26 ~ 10^82 BITS.

Atomic matter is about 4% of the large-scale structure of the Universe, i.e. Omega(Atomic Matter) ~ 0.04.

Exotic vacuum with gravitating positive zero point pressure is about 23% of the large-scale structure of the Universe, i.e. Omega(Dark Matter) ~ 0.23.

I have made a theoretical inference here that dark matter is not made out of real on-mass-shell particles of some exotic kind like super symmetry partners. That is, dark matter detectors, in principle, will never click with "The Right Stuff", if they click at all it will be with false positives, with Fool's Gold like Enron Stock After The Fall.

Exotic vacuum with anti-gravitating negative zero point pressure is about 73% of the large-scale structure of the Universe, i.e. Omega(Dark Matter) ~ 0.73.

Note that scale-dependence is crucial. You can imagine, in the sense of adaptive windowed "wavelet transforms" not the usual Fourier transforms of time and space, a "power spectrum" of different kinds of stuff plotted against scale of resolution. The above percentages are only measured at the largest scales ~ 10^26 to 10^28 cm in a "coarse graining" sense where the FRW metric approximation applies.

Homework Problem 1

Note that the Fourier transform of the temporal autocorrelation function of some disturbance is its "power spectrum". What is the autocorrelation function corresponding to the adaptive windowed wavelet "power spectrum" where "scale" is plotted instead of "frequency/wave numbers"?

2. SDSS of 200,000 galaxies + WMAP above give

ho ~ 0.7 +- 0.04

Omega(Dark Matter + Atomic Matter) = 0.3 +- 0.04

Upper limit on rest mass of the electron neutrino ~ 0.6 ev

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

SDSS 3D conformal scale-dependent "wavelet-transform"? map of past light cone from scale of Earth's core ->Solar System -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Clusters of Galaxies -> CMB "last light."

"We have produced a new conformal map of the universe illustrating recent discoveries, ranging from Kuiper belt objects in the Solar system, to the galaxies and quasars from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. This map projection, based on the logarithm map of the complex plane, preserves shapes locally, and yet is able to display the entire range of astronomical scales from the Earth's neighborhood to the cosmic microwave background. The conformal nature of the projection, preserving shapes locally, may be of particular use for analyzing large scale structure. Prominent in the map is a Sloan Great Wall of galaxies 1.37 billion light years long, 80% longer than the Great Wall discovered by Geller and Huchra and therefore the largest observed structure in the universe."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310571

3. Speed of Gravity?

What Tom Van Flandern alleges in http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html about superluminal near field of gravity is controversial as is what he says about GPS in http://www.metaresearch.org/ But it is not my purpose here to dig into those issues. On the other hand his reference to William Walker's work is sound http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0001063

Near-field Analysis of Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

"A near-field analysis based on Maxwells equations is presented which indicates that the fields generated by both an electric and a magnetic dipole or quadrapole, and also the gravitational waves generated by a quadrapole mass source propagate superluminally in the nearfield of the source and reduce to the speed of light as the waves propagate into the farfield. Both the phase speed and the group speed are shown to be superluminal in the nearfield of these systems. Although the information speed is shown to differ from group speed in the nearfield of these systems, provided the noise of the signal is small and the modulation method is known, the information can be extracted in a time period much smaller than the wave propagation time, thereby making the information speed only slightly less than the superluminal group speed. It is shown that relativity theory indicates that these superluminal signals can be reflected off of a moving frame causing the information to arrive before the signal was transmitted (i.e. backward in time). It is unknown if these signals can be used to change the past." http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304090

A mainstream experiment using gravity lensing by Jupiter of an aligned distant quasar's light give a speed of gravity 1.06 +-0.21 the speed of light http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294

However Clifford Will disagrees with that claim in

We calculate the delay in the propagation of a light signal past a massive body that moves with speed v, under the assumption that the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction c_g differs from that of light. Using the post-Newtonian approximation, we consider an expansion in powers of v/c beyond the leading ``Shapiro'' time delay effect, while working to first order only in Gm/c^2, and show that the altered propagation speed of the gravitational signal has no effect whatsoever on the time delay to first order in v/c beyond the leading term, although it will have an effect to second and higher order. We show that the only other possible effects of an altered speed c_g at this order arise from a modification of the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) coefficient \alpha_1 of the metric from the value zero predicted by general relativity. Current solar-system measurements already provide tight bounds on such a modification. We conclude that recent measurements of the propagation of radio signals past Jupiter are sensitive to \alpha_1, but are not directly sensitive to the speed of propagation of gravity.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145

4. Gravity Waves? LIGO a giant strain gauge to measure ripples in space-time curvature. Two spiraling in neutron stars emit gravity waves that change distance between two mirrors 4km apart by less than one thousanth of the diameter of a proton! And they say that people who see UFOs are crazy? :-) Well Kip Thorne at Cal Tech thinks this can be measured and many millions of dollars are being spent to do so. Let's hope they do better than the hot fusion boys. :-) Nothing exciting to report as of Feb 2004.

5. The Big Rip Doomsday

The dark energy data from type 1a supernovae requires -1/3 > w = (pressure of dark energy)/(energy density of dark energy)

In my theory, dark energy and dark matter are both w = -1 zero point energy density of exotic vacuum regions that are positive and negative respectively, hence negative and positive quantum pressures respectively. Exotic vacuum with w = -1 and positive pressure will be mistaken for w ~ 0 CDM http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/redingtn/www/netadv/specr/012/012.html

The Big Rip destroying future Universe only happens if -1 > w i.e. "phantom energy." There is no Big Rip in my theory where w = -1 on the nose.

Appendix 1. Digression on the Universe as a Hologram - one particular model that is probably false.

The pixel resolution of the Hubble surface deteriorates as the Universe 3D space expands and accelerates. The quantum of area or cosmic pixel size is

Lp*^2 ~ Lp^4/3(c/H(t))^2/3

3D space is the holographic image of the expanding accelerating Hubble 2D surface.

The number of Bekenstein BITS in the Universe then gives the Entropy of the Universe S(t) at Cosmic Time t to be

S(t) ~ k(c/H(t))^2Lp*^-2 ~ k(c/H(t)Lp)^4/3

This explains the Second Law of Thermodynamics "Arrow of Time" as tied to the expansion of the Universe. That's The Good News. There is also some Bad News. That is, this particular model may be false. I do not know as yet.

k = Boltzmann's constant, Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2, c/H(today) ~ 10^28 cm, Lp*(today) ~ 1 Gev, i.e. 1 fermi (10^-13 cm)

Witten's "alpha'" today ~ 1/(1Gev)^2 = Universal Geometrodynamic Regge Slope of hadronic resonances of the strong force ~ (string tension)^-1

All of this is testable and this model may be false.

Rest mass of lepto-quarks m ~ (e/c)^2Lp*^-1 ~ Mev

Therefore, e/m ~ (c^2/e)Lp*

IF e/m is to be a constant of the Universe's evolution in global FRW large-scale cosmic time ~ h/k(Absolute Temperature of the CMB), then

(c^2/e)^2Lp*^2 is constant

That is,

(c4/e^2)hG*/c^3 = (hc/e^2)G* is constant in cosmic time though not in scale!

Note, that the only way to keep H(t) constant would be

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

R(t) = Roe^Hot

i.e. a state of continuous inflation.

If we exclude this, then the e/m ratios of the lepto-quarks must be increasing if this particular version of the world hologram idea were true.

PS Hal still has not explained why "it would be nice to reduce inertial mass to lower values." To me that would be a disaster like blowing up the car when the thief enters. If Hal can explain what he means here? I am not able to connect his dots so that may mean one of us is senile here and I am not quite sure at this point in Alice's Mad Tea Party who? :-) (GRIN) What have I missed here? Can someone please explain?

Finally a peep out of Hal, but it is a wrong remark that misses the point:

On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:06 PM, sonata wrote:

That's what I thought but wanted to check....Rmc

Hal; Why would e/m blow up if you lowered K?

"Blow up" is pretty strong! Mass goes as m = m(o) K^3/2. Therefore, e/m goes as 1/K^3/2. You would have to take K all the way to 0 to have e/m blow up. Don't think we can ever get that far, though it would be nice to reduce inertial mass to lower values.

BTW, my cell phone 512-970-5270 is no longer a viable number to use, so use my work phone 512-346-9947.

Thanks,

Hal

Hal has not understood the real issue here. Hal makes the correct formal remark that e/m "blows up" when K -> 0 in his theory. But that is not what I was talking about. Obviously, Hal has no idea of the arguments of the Anthropic Principle in which relatively small changes in key parameters like e/m for the electron, etc. maybe a few percent or less would make matter as we know it unstable! It is the material of the saucers that would blow up, or disintegrate by changing e/m by small fractional amounts!

The world of matter is all in very delicate balance. Even tiny fractional changes will dramatically alter matter's properties. Hal, in his reply to Collins, shows no understanding of this fundamental fact. Or, Hal did not take enough time to ponder what Collins was really asking him?

References:

Just six numbers, however, is an understatement. The story describes these six numbers thoroughly, but to do so, it is necessary to introduce many more numbers. In particular, we are asked to imagine zooming in and out by factors of ten, to get an idea of the scale of the universe we inhabit. Different values of the numbers are suggested, and then eliminated as impossible or unlikely from the evidence around us. In the first half of the book, there would seem to be a number in nearly every sentence, though this drops off in later chapters. Experts may find this explaining of the scale of things tedious, but for the rest of us it is useful to understand the overwhelmingly large and small numbers that let us exist.

So what are the six numbers? One is the number of dimensions we live in: three. The rest are, at least at first sight, more obscure. For the record, they are N, the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism; e (epsilon), the ratio of mass lost to energy when hydrogen is fused to form helium; W (Omega), describing the amount of dark matter; l (lambda), the cosmological constant; and Q, related to the scale at which the universe looks smooth. Martin Rees takes 180 pages to explain them - I can do no better here.

http://plus.maths.org/issue26/reviews/book2/

OK, take for example N

N = Gm^2/e^2 = G(m/e)^2 a dimensionless number.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:06 PM, sonata wrote:

That's what I thought but wanted to check....Rmc

Hal; Why would e/m blow up if you lowered K?

"Blow up" is pretty strong! Mass goes as m = m(o) K^3/2. Therefore, e/m goes as 1/K^3/2. You would have to take K all the way to 0 to have e/m blow up. Don't think we can ever get that far, though it would be nice to reduce inertial mass to lower values.

BTW, my cell phone 512-970-5270 is no longer a viable number to use, so use my work phone 512-346-9947.

Thanks,

Hal

Hal has not understood the real issue here. Hal makes the correct formal remark that e/m "blows up" when K -> 0 in his theory. But that is not what I was talking about. Obviously, Hal has no idea of the arguments of the Anthropic Principle in which relatively small changes in key parameters like e/m for the electron, etc. maybe a few percent or less would make matter as we know it unstable! It is the material of the saucers that would blow up, or disintegrate by changing e/m by small fractional amounts!

The world of matter is all in very delicate balance. Even tiny fractional changes will dramatically alter matter's properties. Hal, in his reply to Collins, shows no understanding of this fundamental fact. Or, Hal did not take enough time to ponder what Collins was really asking him?

References:

Just six numbers, however, is an understatement. The story describes these six numbers thoroughly, but to do so, it is necessary to introduce many more numbers. In particular, we are asked to imagine zooming in and out by factors of ten, to get an idea of the scale of the universe we inhabit. Different values of the numbers are suggested, and then eliminated as impossible or unlikely from the evidence around us. In the first half of the book, there would seem to be a number in nearly every sentence, though this drops off in later chapters. Experts may find this explaining of the scale of things tedious, but for the rest of us it is useful to understand the overwhelmingly large and small numbers that let us exist.

So what are the six numbers? One is the number of dimensions we live in: three. The rest are, at least at first sight, more obscure. For the record, they are N, the ratio of the strength of gravity to that of electromagnetism; e (epsilon), the ratio of mass lost to energy when hydrogen is fused to form helium; W (Omega), describing the amount of dark matter; l (lambda), the cosmological constant; and Q, related to the scale at which the universe looks smooth. Martin Rees takes 180 pages to explain them - I can do no better here.

http://plus.maths.org/issue26/reviews/book2/

OK, take for example N

N = Gm^2/e^2 = G(m/e)^2 a dimensionless number.

http://www.anthropic-principle.com/

On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:16 AM, sonata wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:59 PM, sonata wrote:

Ok and, I think it depends more on "polarization"

not intensity.

My model is very precise. My vacuum coherence field is a simple complex scalar field. If you want to think spin-polarization that makes it spin 0 with only one polarization state.

What type of Scalar Field, what is composed of?

Virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate mostly.

I hope you're not talking about Higgs?....

It's formally similar. There are many different types of Higgs fields.

Complex, meaning

three states of Spin alignment?

No, "complex" meaning a complex number in the complex plane for each space-time event x.

If you have two complex fields you can assign it a "spin" 1/2 but you need to specify which

group of "frame transformations" you mean.

My field is Lorentz group scalar, i.e. spin 0. One can make more complex models but more with less and no reason to do so.

Reference http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

Also in http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

Spins up or down for polarization states.......Rmc

My formula is definite

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1 [(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

"Intensity" = |Vacuum Coherence|^2

What's your reference for above?.........Rmc

It's my original idea. See http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

It's based upon Landau 1937 to P.W. Anderson 1967 "More is different" & Andrei Sakharov 1967 "Metric elasticity" & Hagen Kleinert's 4D elasticity model of Einstein's GR and Bohm's quantum realism etc. I also use some string theory, some loop quantum gravity and Susskind's "World Hologram i.e. 3D space is a holographic image of the 2D Hubble horizon in the past light cone. The 2D surface of the "last wave front" in the Hubble horizon is pixelated with 1 Bit per Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3(c/H(t))^2 area where Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2 and H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt in the post-inflation bubble "Level 1" (Max Tegmark, May 2003 Scientific American) FRW large-scale cosmological metric with Einstein Cosmological Constant /\ > 0 corresponding to FRW parameter Omega(Dark Energy) ~ 0.73.

/\zpf(x) is a local "spin 0" complex numbered scalar field (relative to local Lorentz O(1,3) group) that limits to Einstein's Cosmological Constant /\ in the large-scale limit c/H(t).

Like Pod suggested

ref his rotating super-conductor that

the "local vacuum" was being "polarized"

to produce a repulsive force......Rmc

These words have no real scientific meaning. They are out of context, dangling without any mathematics of battle-tested theory to give them meaning. Everything I write is standard battle-tested physics of Einstein, Landau, Onsager-Penrose, Goldstone, P.W. Anderson et-al.

The /\zpf field fits right into Alcubierre's metric for geodesic warp drive. I am showing how to use exotic vacuum dark stress-energy density to achieve the kind of metric field configuration that is required where the "saucer" is both source and test particle simultaneously on its self-created timelike geodesic.

"The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of

the vacuum coherence local field."

Pod's words do have Scientific meaning when talking about vacuum states. Also, you just said it above

ref ZPE or it can be either attractive or repulsive.......Rmc

Maybe they have meaning to you, but not to me with the incomplete information you have given. If you have a detailed technical reference let us know and I will take a look. I am able to formulate all the interesting metric engineering issues inside my way of looking at the problem or the "paradigm." Now maybe I completely misunderstand Hal, but no one else I know seems to understand him either. No one has given a comprehensible explanation of how his math in his papers to date really pertain to the flight of flying saucers, which is what we all, if the truth be told, are really interested in. Even if they are not real, could they be real as a matter of physics principles? One need not accept the evidence, the problem as a gedankenexperiment is still interesting to the theoretical physicist not afraid to push the envelope.

Are you talking to Hal?

The only math where Hal's K appears is in his SSS metric (forget the EM one for now)

goo = K^-1

Therefore K is a source parameter

K = e^2GM/c^2r

M is the source mass warping the metric.

Whether you want to think of it as dielectric is completely irrelevant to the actual mathematics.

Hal writes a metric

ds^2 = K^-1(cdt)^2 - K(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

and then refuses to play Einstein's Game and uses a wrong idea of "r"

Not so, the value K is determined by the source that's why you have consistency in

a flat metric where K =1. And, ZPE is beyond Einstein, we're talking about the realm of

Sakarhov here......Rmc

Near a massive body or far out in space where M=0 therefore K =1. You can use any Mass you want to get a result of how it effects K. If you have K < 1 in a vacinity of space that lowers the resistence you feel or decreases your inertia........Rmc

No it's not M = 0

The dimensionless parameter is

GM/c^2r << 1

M = 0 is flat space-time.

I know M=0 is flat Space, that's what I meant......Rmc

If M = 0, then the problem vanishes. Hal's PV model is not needed when his M = 0.

Lowering inertia is no good for anything!

Not so according to Hal's Metric Engineering papers......Rmc

So -according to everything I learned about physics at Cornell and UC with physics degrees BA, MS and Ph.D. In any case, I have an open mind. perhaps I have missed some genius insight of Hal's. That is possible. Simply let him, or anyone else explain it so all of us assembled here can come to some rational scientific conclusion. If Hal justifies his allegations and makes sensible correct answers to my objections then I will certainly accurately report that in my book "Super Cosmos" if I get his reply by March 31, 2004.

Since warp drive must be timelike geodesic to be any good like Alcubierre's for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive , the inertial mass m of the flying saucer cancels out of the problem! Furthermore you do not want to mess around with the e/m ratio of electrons and protons and neutrons that make up the saucer and its living occupants or its AI robots whatever, even if you could! So what's Hal's point here?

If you could do it it would destroy the saucer by increasing e/m! Read John Barrow and Frank Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" or Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers" or Paul Davies "The Accidental Universe."

Secondly, m drops out of the geodesic equation by Galileo's equivalence principle.

What Hal is thinking here is completely obscure, off the wall and makes no sense, no rhyme nor reason for any sound concept of metric engineering.

The whole point of warp drive is free float - to control your path of free float! There is no "inertial resistance", i.e. if you want to think "forces" the "force" is zero even when saucer makes a Mach 10 180 degree turn! That's what Paul Hill was trying to formulate in his "acceleration field".

The Above is meaningless, "free float" using what? How do you negate things?

That is what motion on a timelike geodesic is. You seem not to understand the basics of Einstein's theory of general relativity. I suggest you read

John Archibald Wheeler's "A Journey into Gravity and Space-Time" then look at Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation" and Wheeler and Ciufolini's "Gravitation and Inertia" to understand the central role of "free float" in Einstein's theory of gravity.

In elementary Newtonian physics with Galilean relativity of absolute time split off from space, with the speed of light in vacuum effectively infinite, inertial motions are straight lines in 3 space at constant speed with zero net force. This idea is first generalized to globally flat special relativity for timelike geodesics inside the local light cones with zero gravity field. It is then generalized a second time to the idea of the weightless free float for timelike geodesics inside the field of relatively tilted light cones in curved space-time. The relative tilt of neighboring light cones is a measure of the tidal space-time curvature as Roger Penrose shows in his lectures.

Newton's equation for inertial motion of ZERO FORCE

d^2x/dt^2 = 0

x is the 3-vector displacement of a point particle of inertial mass m

The solution is obviously

x(t) = x(0) + v(0)t

Where x(0) and v(0) are the initial conditions (initial displacement and initial velocity) - all 3 vectors in some global inertial reference frame.

note that there is no m in the above equation.

is generalized in Einstein's theory of general relativity to the timelike geodesic "free float" equation

d^2x^u/sd^2 + {^uvw}(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds) = 0

You can think of the vanishing LHS as the "force" in curved space-time if you like to think "forces."

where

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

{^uvw} is the torsion-free Levi-Civita connection field for parallel transport or dragging of vector fields along other vector fields in the curved space-time geometry.

Einstein's local equivalence principle is that there is a tetrad transformation to a set of local inertial frames i.e. LIFs or Cartan Mobile Frames that move along timelike geodesics without rotation in which {^uvw} = 0 locally even though the 4th rank local curvature tensor need not vanish.

One sees this with the astronauts in orbital motion around earth. They are weightless continually in free float in their closed orbits, which are timelike geodesics. Now they are passive observers having no control over the timelike geodesic they are on. With metric engineering of the local zero point energy density of the vacuum they can change their own local timelike geodesics. That is what the flying saucers do. They do not fire rockets. They do not feel g-forces when they alter course. That's what warp drive and metric engineering is really all about.

Anti-grav will do that but how? If Pod's rotating super conductor accomplishes that then what physically happens? You haven't solved that problem...Rmc

"The Question is: What is The Question?" (Wheeler)

Who is "Pod"? There is not enough information in what you write to come to any conclusion. It is merely vague hearsay and I cannot even understand what the the allegation is.

Hal never gives a proper theory of K and how to control it.

In his neutral solution he only writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Big deal. So what? M is the source mass warping space-time. So what is the mass of the saucer? Where is it? Is it also M?

The Anti-grav field will generate a negative pressure by means of vacuum polarization, how much I don't know...Rmc

Show me where "Pod" or "Hal 2000" et-al use the words "negative pressure" and when that document was written. As far as I know I am the only one to use that idea in the context of UFOs and metric engineering. I have never seen it at all in any of Hal's papers. I think you are now unconsciously using my words by osmosis. However if you can point to independent documents that an expert like Stanton Friedman can authenticate, then that would be exceedingly interesting and relevant.

He also I think has a K with EM fields, but the numbers do not work out. You cannot change K much with any realistic EM field intensities. Certainly saucers do not fly that way.

Hal seems to want K < 1. How does that help?

Note that when M < 0 , you have K < 1. So that Hal may be thinking negative mass propulsion. He cannot use EM fields to do it because they are too enormous. Also the saucer cannot carry enough unbalanced charge.

Don't speculate for M < 0 for what Hal means. It's better to let him explain.....

Yes you can if Pod's super conducting results are correct. An Anti-grav field will flip K or drive it negative

or reverse the refraction index....Rmc

There is no way to make Hal Puthoff's K negative using his definition

K = e^2GM/c^2

Even if you could, what good would it do?

Remember in Hal's model goo = K^-1 for example.

K goes from > 1 to < 1 if M goes from + to -.

What is your precise definition of an "Anti-grav field"?

Mine is simply /\zpf > 0 implying negative quantum pressure in the GR conventions I use.

What does it mean to "reverse the refraction index"?

What good would it do, even if some how you could do it?

Hal has been strangely silent. He is stonewalling because I think he must not have any good answers to my questions. I wish he would explain. That's exactly what I have been trying to get him to do. He says I misunderstand him. Perhaps I do. So let him explain exactly how to all of us.

And, from what Charles says at http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/lanl_message.htm

It looks crackpot to me. No real physics there.

That's because like the rest including me you don't understand what's going on.

One of the signs of a crackpot is that they cannot explain what they are doing to people with proper credentials in the field they are alleging to be working in. Faith is bad and bogus in physics. There is no room for blind faith. Physics is not religion and one must oppose its drift into religion whether it's flying saucers or string weaves in the Elegant Universe.

But Charles' statements

are very consistant with what's in the Einstein notes on the 5th Edition CD at, http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/cd_for_sale.htm

One can have self-consistent fantasies like Lord of The Rings.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:59 PM, sonata wrote:

Ok and, I think it depends more on "polarization"

not intensity.

My model is very precise. My vacuum coherence field is a simple complex scalar field. If you want to think spin-polarization that makes it spin 0 with only one polarization state.

What type of Scalar Field, what is composed of?

Virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate mostly.

I hope you're not talking about Higgs?....

It's formally similar. There are many different types of Higgs fields.

Complex, meaning

three states of Spin alignment?

No, "complex" meaning a complex number in the complex plane for each space-time event x.

If you have two complex fields you can assign it a "spin" 1/2 but you need to specify which

group of "frame transformations" you mean.

My field is Lorentz group scalar, i.e. spin 0. One can make more complex models but more with less and no reason to do so.

Reference http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

Also in http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

Spins up or down for polarization states.......Rmc

My formula is definite

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1 [(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

"Intensity" = |Vacuum Coherence|^2

What's your reference for above?.........Rmc

It's my original idea. See http://qedcorp.com/APS/EmergentGravity.pdf

It's based upon Landau 1937 to P.W. Anderson 1967 "More is different" & Andrei Sakharov 1967 "Metric elasticity" & Hagen Kleinert's 4D elasticity model of Einstein's GR and Bohm's quantum realism etc. I also use some string theory, some loop quantum gravity and Susskind's "World Hologram i.e. 3D space is a holographic image of the 2D Hubble horizon in the past light cone. The 2D surface of the "last wave front" in the Hubble horizon is pixelated with 1 Bit per Lp*^2 = Lp^4/3(c/H(t))^2 area where Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2 and H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt in the post-inflation bubble "Level 1" (Max Tegmark, May 2003 Scientific American) FRW large-scale cosmological metric with Einstein Cosmological Constant /\ > 0 corresponding to FRW parameter Omega(Dark Energy) ~ 0.73.

/\zpf(x) is a local "spin 0" complex numbered scalar field (relative to local Lorentz O(1,3) group) that limits to Einstein's Cosmological Constant /\ in the large-scale limit c/H(t).

Like Pod suggested

ref his rotating super-conductor that

the "local vacuum" was being "polarized"

to produce a repulsive force......Rmc

These words have no real scientific meaning. They are out of context, dangling without any mathematics of battle-tested theory to give them meaning. Everything I write is standard battle-tested physics of Einstein, Landau, Onsager-Penrose, Goldstone, P.W. Anderson et-al.

The /\zpf field fits right into Alcubierre's metric for geodesic warp drive. I am showing how to use exotic vacuum dark stress-energy density to achieve the kind of metric field configuration that is required where the "saucer" is both source and test particle simultaneously on its self-created timelike geodesic.

"The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of

the vacuum coherence local field."

Pod's words do have Scientific meaning when talking about vacuum states. Also, you just said it above

ref ZPE or it can be either attractive or repulsive.......Rmc

Maybe they have meaning to you, but not to me with the incomplete information you have given. If you have a detailed technical reference let us know and I will take a look. I am able to formulate all the interesting metric engineering issues inside my way of looking at the problem or the "paradigm." Now maybe I completely misunderstand Hal, but no one else I know seems to understand him either. No one has given a comprehensible explanation of how his math in his papers to date really pertain to the flight of flying saucers, which is what we all, if the truth be told, are really interested in. Even if they are not real, could they be real as a matter of physics principles? One need not accept the evidence, the problem as a gedankenexperiment is still interesting to the theoretical physicist not afraid to push the envelope.

Are you talking to Hal?

The only math where Hal's K appears is in his SSS metric (forget the EM one for now)

goo = K^-1

Therefore K is a source parameter

K = e^2GM/c^2r

M is the source mass warping the metric.

Whether you want to think of it as dielectric is completely irrelevant to the actual mathematics.

Hal writes a metric

ds^2 = K^-1(cdt)^2 - K(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

and then refuses to play Einstein's Game and uses a wrong idea of "r"

Not so, the value K is determined by the source that's why you have consistency in

a flat metric where K =1. And, ZPE is beyond Einstein, we're talking about the realm of

Sakarhov here......Rmc

Near a massive body or far out in space where M=0 therefore K =1. You can use any Mass you want to get a result of how it effects K. If you have K < 1 in a vacinity of space that lowers the resistence you feel or decreases your inertia........Rmc

No it's not M = 0

The dimensionless parameter is

GM/c^2r << 1

M = 0 is flat space-time.

I know M=0 is flat Space, that's what I meant......Rmc

If M = 0, then the problem vanishes. Hal's PV model is not needed when his M = 0.

Lowering inertia is no good for anything!

Not so according to Hal's Metric Engineering papers......Rmc

So -according to everything I learned about physics at Cornell and UC with physics degrees BA, MS and Ph.D. In any case, I have an open mind. perhaps I have missed some genius insight of Hal's. That is possible. Simply let him, or anyone else explain it so all of us assembled here can come to some rational scientific conclusion. If Hal justifies his allegations and makes sensible correct answers to my objections then I will certainly accurately report that in my book "Super Cosmos" if I get his reply by March 31, 2004.

Since warp drive must be timelike geodesic to be any good like Alcubierre's for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive , the inertial mass m of the flying saucer cancels out of the problem! Furthermore you do not want to mess around with the e/m ratio of electrons and protons and neutrons that make up the saucer and its living occupants or its AI robots whatever, even if you could! So what's Hal's point here?

If you could do it it would destroy the saucer by increasing e/m! Read John Barrow and Frank Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" or Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers" or Paul Davies "The Accidental Universe."

Secondly, m drops out of the geodesic equation by Galileo's equivalence principle.

What Hal is thinking here is completely obscure, off the wall and makes no sense, no rhyme nor reason for any sound concept of metric engineering.

The whole point of warp drive is free float - to control your path of free float! There is no "inertial resistance", i.e. if you want to think "forces" the "force" is zero even when saucer makes a Mach 10 180 degree turn! That's what Paul Hill was trying to formulate in his "acceleration field".

The Above is meaningless, "free float" using what? How do you negate things?

That is what motion on a timelike geodesic is. You seem not to understand the basics of Einstein's theory of general relativity. I suggest you read

John Archibald Wheeler's "A Journey into Gravity and Space-Time" then look at Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's "Gravitation" and Wheeler and Ciufolini's "Gravitation and Inertia" to understand the central role of "free float" in Einstein's theory of gravity.

In elementary Newtonian physics with Galilean relativity of absolute time split off from space, with the speed of light in vacuum effectively infinite, inertial motions are straight lines in 3 space at constant speed with zero net force. This idea is first generalized to globally flat special relativity for timelike geodesics inside the local light cones with zero gravity field. It is then generalized a second time to the idea of the weightless free float for timelike geodesics inside the field of relatively tilted light cones in curved space-time. The relative tilt of neighboring light cones is a measure of the tidal space-time curvature as Roger Penrose shows in his lectures.

Newton's equation for inertial motion of ZERO FORCE

d^2x/dt^2 = 0

x is the 3-vector displacement of a point particle of inertial mass m

The solution is obviously

x(t) = x(0) + v(0)t

Where x(0) and v(0) are the initial conditions (initial displacement and initial velocity) - all 3 vectors in some global inertial reference frame.

note that there is no m in the above equation.

is generalized in Einstein's theory of general relativity to the timelike geodesic "free float" equation

d^2x^u/sd^2 + {^uvw}(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds) = 0

You can think of the vanishing LHS as the "force" in curved space-time if you like to think "forces."

where

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

{^uvw} is the torsion-free Levi-Civita connection field for parallel transport or dragging of vector fields along other vector fields in the curved space-time geometry.

Einstein's local equivalence principle is that there is a tetrad transformation to a set of local inertial frames i.e. LIFs or Cartan Mobile Frames that move along timelike geodesics without rotation in which {^uvw} = 0 locally even though the 4th rank local curvature tensor need not vanish.

One sees this with the astronauts in orbital motion around earth. They are weightless continually in free float in their closed orbits, which are timelike geodesics. Now they are passive observers having no control over the timelike geodesic they are on. With metric engineering of the local zero point energy density of the vacuum they can change their own local timelike geodesics. That is what the flying saucers do. They do not fire rockets. They do not feel g-forces when they alter course. That's what warp drive and metric engineering is really all about.

Anti-grav will do that but how? If Pod's rotating super conductor accomplishes that then what physically happens? You haven't solved that problem...Rmc

"The Question is: What is The Question?" (Wheeler)

Who is "Pod"? There is not enough information in what you write to come to any conclusion. It is merely vague hearsay and I cannot even understand what the the allegation is.

Hal never gives a proper theory of K and how to control it.

In his neutral solution he only writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Big deal. So what? M is the source mass warping space-time. So what is the mass of the saucer? Where is it? Is it also M?

The Anti-grav field will generate a negative pressure by means of vacuum polarization, how much I don't know...Rmc

Show me where "Pod" or "Hal 2000" et-al use the words "negative pressure" and when that document was written. As far as I know I am the only one to use that idea in the context of UFOs and metric engineering. I have never seen it at all in any of Hal's papers. I think you are now unconsciously using my words by osmosis. However if you can point to independent documents that an expert like Stanton Friedman can authenticate, then that would be exceedingly interesting and relevant.

He also I think has a K with EM fields, but the numbers do not work out. You cannot change K much with any realistic EM field intensities. Certainly saucers do not fly that way.

Hal seems to want K < 1. How does that help?

Note that when M < 0 , you have K < 1. So that Hal may be thinking negative mass propulsion. He cannot use EM fields to do it because they are too enormous. Also the saucer cannot carry enough unbalanced charge.

Don't speculate for M < 0 for what Hal means. It's better to let him explain.....

Yes you can if Pod's super conducting results are correct. An Anti-grav field will flip K or drive it negative

or reverse the refraction index....Rmc

There is no way to make Hal Puthoff's K negative using his definition

K = e^2GM/c^2

Even if you could, what good would it do?

Remember in Hal's model goo = K^-1 for example.

K goes from > 1 to < 1 if M goes from + to -.

What is your precise definition of an "Anti-grav field"?

Mine is simply /\zpf > 0 implying negative quantum pressure in the GR conventions I use.

What does it mean to "reverse the refraction index"?

What good would it do, even if some how you could do it?

Hal has been strangely silent. He is stonewalling because I think he must not have any good answers to my questions. I wish he would explain. That's exactly what I have been trying to get him to do. He says I misunderstand him. Perhaps I do. So let him explain exactly how to all of us.

And, from what Charles says at http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/lanl_message.htm

It looks crackpot to me. No real physics there.

That's because like the rest including me you don't understand what's going on.

One of the signs of a crackpot is that they cannot explain what they are doing to people with proper credentials in the field they are alleging to be working in. Faith is bad and bogus in physics. There is no room for blind faith. Physics is not religion and one must oppose its drift into religion whether it's flying saucers or string weaves in the Elegant Universe.

But Charles' statements

are very consistant with what's in the Einstein notes on the 5th Edition CD at, http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/cd_for_sale.htm

One can have self-consistent fantasies like Lord of The Rings.

On Feb 26, 2004, at 9:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:59 PM, sonata wrote:

Ok and, I think it depends more on "polarization"

not intensity.

My model is very precise. My vacuum coherence field is a simple complex scalar field. If you want to think spin-polarization that makes it spin 0 with only one polarization state.

My formula is definite

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1 [(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

"Intensity" = |Vacuum Coherence|^2

Like Pod suggested

ref his rotating super-conductor that

the "local vacuum" was being "polarized"

to produce a repulsive force......Rmc

These words have no real scientific meaning. They are out of context, dangling without any mathematics of battle-tested theory to give them meaning. Everything I write is standard battle-tested physics of Einstein, Landau, Onsager-Penrose, Goldstone, P.W. Anderson et-al.

The /\zpf field fits right into Alcubierre's metric for geodesic warp drive. I am showing how to use exotic vacuum dark stress-energy density to achieve the kind of metric field configuration that is required where the "saucer" is both source and test particle simultaneously on its self-created timelike geodesic.

"The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of

the vacuum coherence local field."

jacobsarfatti wrote:

No I did not. What I said was that ordinary matter w ~ 0 or positive and radiation w = 1/3 only

shows attraction, as distinct from exotic vacuum which can go either way.

energy density + pressure = 0

for ZPF

This is required by covariance.

i.e. w = -1

in tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (ZPF energy density)(1 + 3w)guv

The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of the vacuum coherence local field.

Ordinary slow speed matter has w = 0 in Tuv(Ordinary matter)

Radiation has w = 1/3 in Tuv(Radiation)

Quintessent field has -1/3 > w > - 1

Phantom energy has -1 > w

See, http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/anti_grav_comments.htm

Your mixing thinks up: The K you cite below is for all conditions.

Are you talking to Hal?

The only math where Hal's K appears is in his SSS metric (forget the EM one for now)

goo = K^-1

Therefore K is a source parameter

K = e^2GM/c^2r

M is the source mass warping the metric.

Whether you want to think of it as dielectric is completely irrelevant to the actual mathematics.

Hal writes a metric

ds^2 = K^-1(cdt)^2 - K(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

and then refuses to play Einstein's Game and uses a wrong idea of "r"

Near a massive body or far out in space where M=0 therefore K =1. You can use any Mass you want to get a result of how it effects K. If you have K < 1 in a vacinity of space that lowers the resistence you feel or decreases your inertia........Rmc

No it's not M = 0

The dimensionless parameter is

GM/c^2r << 1

M = 0 is flat space-time.

Lowering inertia is no good for anything!

If you could do it it would destroy the saucer by increasing e/m! Read John Barrow and Frank Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" or Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers" or Paul Davies "The Accidental Universe."

Secondly, m drops out of the geodesic equation by Galileo's equivalence principle.

What Hal is thinking here is completely obscure, off the wall and makes no sense, no rhyme nor reason for any sound concept of metric engineering.

The whole point of warp drive is free float - to control your path of free float! There is no "inertial resistance", i.e. if you want to think "forces" the "force" is zero even when saucer makes a Mach 10 180 degree turn! That's what Paul Hill was trying to formulate in his "acceleration field".

Hal never gives a proper theory of K and how to control it.

In his neutral solution he only writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Big deal. So what? M is the source mass warping space-time. So what is the mass of the saucer? Where is it? Is it also M?

He also I think has a K with EM fields, but the numbers do not work out. You cannot change K much with any realistic EM field intensities. Certainly saucers do not fly that way.

Hal seems to want K < 1. How does that help?

Note that when M < 0 , you have K < 1. So that Hal may be thinking negative mass propulsion. He cannot use EM fields to do it because they are too enormous. Also the saucer cannot carry enough unbalanced charge.

Don't speculate for M < 0 for what Hal means. It's better to let him explain.....

Hal has been strangely silent. He is stonewalling because I think he must not have any good answers to my questions. I wish he would explain. That's exactly what I have been trying to get him to do. He says I misunderstand him. Perhaps I do. So let him explain exactly how to all of us.

And, from what Charles says at http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/lanl_message.htm

It looks crackpot to me. No real physics there.

it doesn't sound like anything you're saying or the two don't meet.......Rmc

That's good news. I feel relieved. ;-)

Note in my exotic vacuum theory you replace GM/c^2 with /\zpfR^3

where R is "size of the saucer" roughly and

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-2[ (Quantum of Area)^3/2|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Using the Josephson effect

|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 ~ |Non-Exotic Vacuum Coherence||Control Superconductor Coherence|cosine(Relative Phase Shift)

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:59 PM, sonata wrote:

Ok and, I think it depends more on "polarization"

not intensity.

My model is very precise. My vacuum coherence field is a simple complex scalar field. If you want to think spin-polarization that makes it spin 0 with only one polarization state.

My formula is definite

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1 [(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

"Intensity" = |Vacuum Coherence|^2

Like Pod suggested

ref his rotating super-conductor that

the "local vacuum" was being "polarized"

to produce a repulsive force......Rmc

These words have no real scientific meaning. They are out of context, dangling without any mathematics of battle-tested theory to give them meaning. Everything I write is standard battle-tested physics of Einstein, Landau, Onsager-Penrose, Goldstone, P.W. Anderson et-al.

The /\zpf field fits right into Alcubierre's metric for geodesic warp drive. I am showing how to use exotic vacuum dark stress-energy density to achieve the kind of metric field configuration that is required where the "saucer" is both source and test particle simultaneously on its self-created timelike geodesic.

"The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of

the vacuum coherence local field."

jacobsarfatti wrote:

No I did not. What I said was that ordinary matter w ~ 0 or positive and radiation w = 1/3 only

shows attraction, as distinct from exotic vacuum which can go either way.

energy density + pressure = 0

for ZPF

This is required by covariance.

i.e. w = -1

in tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (ZPF energy density)(1 + 3w)guv

The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of the vacuum coherence local field.

Ordinary slow speed matter has w = 0 in Tuv(Ordinary matter)

Radiation has w = 1/3 in Tuv(Radiation)

Quintessent field has -1/3 > w > - 1

Phantom energy has -1 > w

See, http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/anti_grav_comments.htm

Your mixing thinks up: The K you cite below is for all conditions.

Are you talking to Hal?

The only math where Hal's K appears is in his SSS metric (forget the EM one for now)

goo = K^-1

Therefore K is a source parameter

K = e^2GM/c^2r

M is the source mass warping the metric.

Whether you want to think of it as dielectric is completely irrelevant to the actual mathematics.

Hal writes a metric

ds^2 = K^-1(cdt)^2 - K(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

and then refuses to play Einstein's Game and uses a wrong idea of "r"

Near a massive body or far out in space where M=0 therefore K =1. You can use any Mass you want to get a result of how it effects K. If you have K < 1 in a vacinity of space that lowers the resistence you feel or decreases your inertia........Rmc

No it's not M = 0

The dimensionless parameter is

GM/c^2r << 1

M = 0 is flat space-time.

Lowering inertia is no good for anything!

If you could do it it would destroy the saucer by increasing e/m! Read John Barrow and Frank Tipler "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" or Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers" or Paul Davies "The Accidental Universe."

Secondly, m drops out of the geodesic equation by Galileo's equivalence principle.

What Hal is thinking here is completely obscure, off the wall and makes no sense, no rhyme nor reason for any sound concept of metric engineering.

The whole point of warp drive is free float - to control your path of free float! There is no "inertial resistance", i.e. if you want to think "forces" the "force" is zero even when saucer makes a Mach 10 180 degree turn! That's what Paul Hill was trying to formulate in his "acceleration field".

Hal never gives a proper theory of K and how to control it.

In his neutral solution he only writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Big deal. So what? M is the source mass warping space-time. So what is the mass of the saucer? Where is it? Is it also M?

He also I think has a K with EM fields, but the numbers do not work out. You cannot change K much with any realistic EM field intensities. Certainly saucers do not fly that way.

Hal seems to want K < 1. How does that help?

Note that when M < 0 , you have K < 1. So that Hal may be thinking negative mass propulsion. He cannot use EM fields to do it because they are too enormous. Also the saucer cannot carry enough unbalanced charge.

Don't speculate for M < 0 for what Hal means. It's better to let him explain.....

Hal has been strangely silent. He is stonewalling because I think he must not have any good answers to my questions. I wish he would explain. That's exactly what I have been trying to get him to do. He says I misunderstand him. Perhaps I do. So let him explain exactly how to all of us.

And, from what Charles says at http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/lanl_message.htm

It looks crackpot to me. No real physics there.

it doesn't sound like anything you're saying or the two don't meet.......Rmc

That's good news. I feel relieved. ;-)

Note in my exotic vacuum theory you replace GM/c^2 with /\zpfR^3

where R is "size of the saucer" roughly and

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-2[ (Quantum of Area)^3/2|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Using the Josephson effect

|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 ~ |Non-Exotic Vacuum Coherence||Control Superconductor Coherence|cosine(Relative Phase Shift)

## Wednesday, February 25, 2004

No I did not. What I said was that ordinary matter w ~ 0 or positive and radiation w = 1/3 only shows attraction, as distinct from exotic vacuum which can go either way.

energy density + pressure = 0

for ZPF

This is required by covariance.

i.e. w = -1

in tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (ZPF energy density)(1 + 3w)guv

The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of the vacuum coherence local field.

Ordinary slow speed matter has w = 0 in Tuv(Ordinary matter)

Radiation has w = 1/3 in Tuv(Radiation)

Quintessent field has -1/3 > w > - 1

Phantom energy has -1 > w

On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:29 PM, sonata wrote:

You sure did, but, should of saved the email.....Rmc

jacobsarfatti wrote:

On Feb 23, 2004, at 12:19 PM, sonata wrote:

Jack; you say that Einstein's energy-momentum tensor

Huh? I never said that.

only shows an attractive force for matter-energy.

I then ask how can they say that Dark Energy is repulsive.

See, http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/anti_grav_comments.htm

And Hal; you say that rulers shrink because K is getting bigger

ref L = L(0)/sqr(K). But under Inflation (mini Inflation now) energy

gets dumped so that as the space expands the energy density would

remain constant and therfore K would remain constant. All the

observational evidence says the expansion is real.....Rmc

Hal never gives a proper theory of K and how to control it.

In his neutral solution he only writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Big deal. So what? M is the source mass warping space-time. So what is the mass of the saucer? Where is it? Is it also M?

He also I think has a K with EM fields, but the numbers do not work out. You cannot change K much with any realistic EM field intensities. Certainly saucers do not fly that way.

Hal seems to want K < 1. How does that help?

Note that when M < 0 , you have K < 1. So that Hal may be thinking negative mass propulsion. He cannot use EM fields to do it because they are too enormous. Also the saucer cannot carry enough unbalanced charge.

Note in my exotic vacuum theory you replace GM/c^2 with /\zpfR^3

where R is "size of the saucer" roughly and

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-2[ (Quantum of Area)^3/2|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Using the Josephson effect

|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 ~ |Non-Exotic Vacuum Coherence||Control Superconductor Coherence|cosine(Relative Phase Shift)

energy density + pressure = 0

for ZPF

This is required by covariance.

i.e. w = -1

in tuv(Exotic Vacuum) = (ZPF energy density)(1 + 3w)guv

The ZPF energy density can be positive or negative depending on the intensity of the vacuum coherence local field.

Ordinary slow speed matter has w = 0 in Tuv(Ordinary matter)

Radiation has w = 1/3 in Tuv(Radiation)

Quintessent field has -1/3 > w > - 1

Phantom energy has -1 > w

On Feb 23, 2004, at 5:29 PM, sonata wrote:

You sure did, but, should of saved the email.....Rmc

jacobsarfatti wrote:

On Feb 23, 2004, at 12:19 PM, sonata wrote:

Jack; you say that Einstein's energy-momentum tensor

Huh? I never said that.

only shows an attractive force for matter-energy.

I then ask how can they say that Dark Energy is repulsive.

See, http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/reports/anti_grav_comments.htm

And Hal; you say that rulers shrink because K is getting bigger

ref L = L(0)/sqr(K). But under Inflation (mini Inflation now) energy

gets dumped so that as the space expands the energy density would

remain constant and therfore K would remain constant. All the

observational evidence says the expansion is real.....Rmc

Hal never gives a proper theory of K and how to control it.

In his neutral solution he only writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Big deal. So what? M is the source mass warping space-time. So what is the mass of the saucer? Where is it? Is it also M?

He also I think has a K with EM fields, but the numbers do not work out. You cannot change K much with any realistic EM field intensities. Certainly saucers do not fly that way.

Hal seems to want K < 1. How does that help?

Note that when M < 0 , you have K < 1. So that Hal may be thinking negative mass propulsion. He cannot use EM fields to do it because they are too enormous. Also the saucer cannot carry enough unbalanced charge.

Note in my exotic vacuum theory you replace GM/c^2 with /\zpfR^3

where R is "size of the saucer" roughly and

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-2[ (Quantum of Area)^3/2|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Using the Josephson effect

|Exotic Vacuum Coherence|^2 ~ |Non-Exotic Vacuum Coherence||Control Superconductor Coherence|cosine(Relative Phase Shift)

re: http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 24, 2004, at 9:53 PM, Victor Martinez wrote:

www.stardrive.org/starship.shtml

www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap12.htm

This is a useful reference. Thanks. He makes an error at the beginning of his metric engineering section

not understanding the w = -1 property of zero point energy and the (energy density)(1 + 3w) active source in Einstein's GR from the /\zpfguv term of the effective exotic vacuum stress-dark energy/matter tensor field. Hence he gets it wrong saying positive zero point energy density gravitates. In fact it anti-gravitates from the domination of the negative exotic vacuum quantum pressure. However, this error is easily fixed.

Note w = 0 for ordinary matter at slow speeds.

w = + 1/3 for EM radiation like the CBR

w = - 1 for zero point vacuum fluctuations

w = -1/3 to > -1 for "quintessent fields"

w < - 1 for "phantom energy fields"

My vacuum coherence theory makes the strong Popper falsifiable prediction w = -1 on the nose, exactly.

i.e. no quintessence, no phantom energy and also no real particles for dark matter, i.e. dark matter detectors forever silent as a matter of principle except for false positive errors.

Globs of w = -1 dark matter of positive pressure will be mistaken for w = 0 CDM when detected distantly from, e.g. gravity lensing.

www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm

www.ldolphin.org/hill.html

On Feb 25, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 24, 2004, at 9:53 PM, Victor Martinez wrote:

www.stardrive.org/starship.shtml

www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap12.htm

This is a useful reference. Thanks. He makes an error at the beginning of his metric engineering section

not understanding the w = -1 property of zero point energy and the (energy density)(1 + 3w) active source in Einstein's GR from the /\zpfguv term of the effective exotic vacuum stress-dark energy/matter tensor field. Hence he gets it wrong saying positive zero point energy density gravitates. In fact it anti-gravitates from the domination of the negative exotic vacuum quantum pressure. However, this error is easily fixed.

Note w = 0 for ordinary matter at slow speeds.

w = + 1/3 for EM radiation like the CBR

w = - 1 for zero point vacuum fluctuations

w = -1/3 to > -1 for "quintessent fields"

w < - 1 for "phantom energy fields"

My vacuum coherence theory makes the strong Popper falsifiable prediction w = -1 on the nose, exactly.

i.e. no quintessence, no phantom energy and also no real particles for dark matter, i.e. dark matter detectors forever silent as a matter of principle except for false positive errors.

Globs of w = -1 dark matter of positive pressure will be mistaken for w = 0 CDM when detected distantly from, e.g. gravity lensing.

www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-107289.htm

www.ldolphin.org/hill.html

## Monday, February 23, 2004

S/k ~ (Lp*^2/\)^-1

= [Lp^4/3(c/H)^2/3(H/c)^2]^-1 = [c/H(t)Lp]^4/3

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

Similarly the Regge slope should change as

alpha' ~ Lp^4/3(c/H(t))^2/3

Starting out as ~ Lp^2, i.e. (Lp/hc)^2 ~ (10^19Gev)^-2

Today it is ~ (1 Gev)^-2.

This model, suggested by the world hologram idea, is obviously falsifiable because of the Mach Principle H(t) dependence of the strong force it implies.

The increasing Regge slope as the Universe expands would obviously affect how stars form in the early universe. It also has profound implications for the future of the Universe if it is "true" - assuming that metric engineering is not possible.

## Sunday, February 22, 2004

On Feb 21, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 2/21/04 5:40:42 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

"I have a section in my new book Super

Cosmos under construction

that the oft-cited Forward-Haisch-Puthoff-Cole speculations that the

purely quantum electrodynamic Casimir effect can be used

one day to extract zero point energy in enough quantity to be used ..."

Such misrepresentation, Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself. Extract ZPE for use? Possibly. Via the Casimir Effect? Hardly, the effect is too small. All our potential approaches involve interactions other than the Casimir effect, and you know it. Your continuous red herrings and straw men do a disservice to the field. What I'm not certain of with regard to your statements is if there's malice of forethought, or if you really don't understand the field.

Hal Puthoff

Paul Wesson did a paper for CIPA in 1999 or so. Here are relevant excerpts pertaining to Hal Puthoff's version of UFO metric engineering in contrast to mine.

"ZERO-POINT FIELDS,

GRAVITATION AND NEW

PHYSICS

A Report by

Professor Paul S. Wesson, F.R.A.S.*

Department of Physics

University of Waterloo

Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1

Canada

for

The California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

366 Cambridge Avenue

Palo Alto, California 94306

U.S.A.

wesson@astro.uwaterloo.ca or wesson@step.stanford.edu

1

ZERO-POINT FIELDS, GRAVITATION AND NEW PHYSICS

CONTENTS

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Recent Work on the Electromagnetic ZPF

3. Outstanding Problems

4. Recommendations for Research

5. Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

2

Abstract

Research over the last decade has shown that problems exist about how

to reconcile the zero-point fields that follow from quantum mechanics with

the energy conditions built into classical gravitational theories such as general

relativity. Here, these problems are identified, and possible resolutions

are suggested. The inference from the material presented here is that research

into zero-point physics is justiØed and should continue to be supported.

However, a catalog is given detailing 11 topics wherein past research has run

into difficulties. These difficulties are in principle surmountable, and there

is given a list of 6 topics that are theoretically and practically important for

future pursuit.

3

1 Introduction

In recent years, it has been suggested that the electromagnetic zero-point

field (zpf) is not merely an artefact of quantum mechanics, but a real entity

with major implications for gravity, astrophysics and technology. This view

is shared by a number of researchers, including Boyer (1980), McCrea (1986),

Puthoff (1987) and Rueda and Haisch (1998a). The present work is a report

on research into the zpf during the last decade, with recommendations about

where investigations should be directed in the future.

...

The countervailing approach to modern physics is via Einstein's theory of

general relativity. This is supported by the so-called (3 + 1) classical solar system

tests, as well as data from binary pulsars and gravitational lensing.

According to general relativity, all forms of energy produce gravitational

effects."

This last sentence is crucial. Hal simply hand waves that away with a completely unacceptable argument about homogeneity that no physicist in the field accepts for good reason.

"The quantum and classical pillars of modern physics are not architecturally

compatible: the (electromagnetic) zero-point field does not appear to

produce the expected classical gravitational effects."

Note the word "appear." I have solved this problem with the vacuum coherence (inflation) field.

...

2 Recent Work on the Electromagnetic ZPF

This section presents an objective discussion of the most significant work

that has been done on the zpf and its implications for gravity in the last

decade. The emphasis is on how a quantum-mechanical electromagnetic zpf

can be reconciled with a classical theory of gravity such as general relativity.

Haisch, Rueda and PuthoÆ (1994) argued that the elementary constituents

of matter, such as electrons and quarks, when accelerating through the electromagnetic

zero-point field, experience a Lorentz-type force. This force

acts against the acceleration, and the authors identified this as giving rise

to inertia. The calculations leading to this conclusion are lengthy, but the

main result is simple: a particle acquires an inertial mass

m ~ Qhf*/c^2 (1)"

I have changed Wesson's notation. Q is like the quality factor in a resonant cavity/waveguide oscillator for leakage of radiation. f* is a cutoff frequency. This formula is not, in itself, bad and it may transcend its origin in this too naive model under study. One thing to notice is that it's a very leaky cavity i.e. Q << 1.

"Here Q/f* is the Abraham-Lorentz damping constant" ... f*is not fixed by theoretical considerations.

From the physical side, one might expect c/f* to correspond to the size of the particle, and its

inability to respond to oscillations of the zpf with wavelengths of arbitrary

smallness. Provided f* is large enough (or the wavelength small enough),

the Lorentz invariance of the zpf spectrum will not be measurably affected.

One could, of course, relate f* to the Planck frequency:

.... This argument, as pointed out by Wesson

(1992a) and others, is logically suspect. The same dimensional argument,

applied to the mass, would imply that the Universe should be dominated by

particles with the Planck mass of order 10^5 gm. This is manifestly not the

case. Wisely, Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994) avoid the identification of

f* with [Planck frequency] .

...

Another physical constant which the authors leave out of their discussion

is /\, the cosmological constant (loc. cit., p. 693). This parameter is

present in Einstein's field equations of general relativity... Then Einstein's

field equations in full read

Rij - (R/2)gij + /\gij = (8piG/c^4)Tij (3)

Here Rij is the Ricci tensor, R is the Ricci scalar, and Tij is the energy-momentum

tensor. For a perfect fluid [with dimensionless velocity 4-vector ui]

Tij = [(energy density + pressure)]uiuj - (pressure)gij

= (energy density)(1 + w)uiuj - (pressure)gij

However ... /\ can also be

regarded as describing a density and pressure for the vacuum, given by"

w = -1 (5)

I have taken liberties here with Wesson's original and recast it in modern standard notation such as Mike Turner's in

April 2003 Physics Today. Therefore, for zpf

Tij = - (pressure)gij = +(energy density)gij

Einstein's GR vacuum field equations in the weak-field slow-speed Newtonian gravity limit reduce to the Poisson equation

Laplacian of the Exotic Vacuum Gravity Potential Energy per unit test mass ~ c^2/\zpf

"It is well known that the zero-point fields predicted by particle physics

are many orders more intense than the cosmological /\ field, a puzzle which

is usually termed the cosmological constant problem... This is basically a contradiction between

a particle-physics prediction and an astrophysical observation."

Again I have solved this problem with the vacuum coherence field. In the SED and even in orthodox quantum field theory QFT the

zero point vacuum fluctuations ZPF are considered uncontrollably random. This is what causes the paradox. Haisch, Puthoff & Co, nor any other theorists for that matter, with possible exception of G. E. Volovik and G. Chapline and maybe others I am not aware of, do not explicitly invoke the vacuum coherence field to damp down the random noise ZPF component of Einstein's cosmological constant, nor do they give a dynamics for the vacuum coherence field to come into being and becoming.

"There are several possible resolutions of it, but the consensus is that the zpf's associated

with the interactions of particles must in some way cancel"

That's what my vacuum coherence field does. "Some" way? I show The Way, The Tao of Zero.

"perhaps due to the

operation of a physical principle such as supersymmetry (see Wesson 1999, p.

33). From the viewpoint of the electromagnetic zpf and the origin of inertia

as discussed by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1994), something similar must

necessarily happen."

Vain promises and hopes unfulfilled for decades now not only for SED, but for supersymmetry and string theory.

Humpty Dumpty still lies fragmented on the State Grounds in spite of the efforts of All The King's Men and All The Kings Horses pulling the Coach of the Naked Emperor.

"Otherwise, the energy-density of the zpf would curve

spacetime (as does /\) to a degree which is incompatible with astrophysical

observations such as the dynamics of galaxies and the lensing of QSOs. The

authors in fact avoid this and related problems by arguing that it is only the

perturbation of the zpf which produces gravity and curvature; and that the

zpf itself does not gravitate or produce a /\-type field."

That is what I meant before. That is a bogus argument and also it is very ugly in Dirac's sense.

Good Physics should not be done that way. One should be "elegant" though I kid Brian Greene about that with Ludwig Boltzman's remark. Of course, string theory is not elegant in spite of stretching it to the extreme. Talk about excess mathematical baggage - too many solutions and one must invoke the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP) as Lenny Susskind does in his "Landscape" idea. On the other hand, there may well be universes next door as the hyperspace crow flies, which would explain C-violation in terms of Wheeler wormholes of "Mass without mass" and "Charge without charge" with strong short range ZPF induced gravity G* ~ 10^40G(Newton) at the Lp* fermi scale of the world hologram in today's cosmic epoch, stabilizing the tiny wormhole's extended electric charge distributions.

"... the Friedman equations (,t means cosmic time derivative)

(8piG/c^2)(energy density) = 3kc^2R^-2 + 3(R,t)^2R^-2 -c^2/

(8piG/c^2)(energy density) = -kc^2R^-2 -(R,t)^2R^-2 - 2R,t,tR^-1 + c^2/\ (6)"

The concordance "precision cosmology" of 2004 i.e. WMAP, Type 1a Supernovae, Gravity Lensing et-al give

k = 0 and Omega(Dark Matter) ~ 0.23, Omega(Dark Energy) ~ 0.73, Omega(Matter-Radiation) ~ 0.04.

"Here R = R(t) is the scale factor, k is the curvature constant ...

The joining of a quantum-mechanical zpf to classical models in Einstein's

theory which obey (6) is technically problematical, and the original model of

Puthowas criticized in connection with its application to general relativity

and its derivation of a quasi-Newtonian law of gravity (Santos 1991, Wesson

1992b, Carlip 1993). However, the reformulation of the model by Wesson

(1991) is technically sound. This is not to say, though, that its implications

for cosmology and astrophysics are benign. For example, it is difficult to see

how an electromagnetic zpf does not leak energy into wavelength bands on

which conventional astrophysics has much data."

Curiously Wesson did not seem to know when he wrote this paper that the SED model

implies an anti-gravity dark energy although it lacks the necessary damping mechanism.

....This constraint

can, however, be reinterpreted to mean that the view of Puthoff, Haisch and

Rueda is correct and that the zpf does not gravitate."

They do not explain why and in fact miss completely the anti-gravity repulsion implicit in Peter Milonni's book

"The Quantum Vacuum."

Rueda and Haisch (1998 a,b) revisited the issues discussed above, removing

certain ad hoc aspects of the particle-field interaction, but reaching

similar results. In particular, they reiterated that inertia is a kind of electromagnetic

drag that affects charged particles undergoing acceleration through

the (electromagnetic) zpf, and connected this again to the existence of a

gravity-like force as originally envisioned by Sakharov (1968). They concentrated

on rectilinear motion with uniform constant acceleration, which

results in hyperbolic orbits, but also considered more general motion. They

also pointed out that their model for the origin of inertia is Machian, in the

sense that a local particle acquires its (inertial) mass through an interaction

with a global field.

The history of Mach's principle is long, and there are several different

formulations of it in the literature (see Wesson 1978, 1999 for reviews).

Though it is widely conceded that Einstein's theory of general relativity

is not Machian, there is a consensus among researchers that an extension

of that theory would be appealing if it gave an account of the properties of

particles in terms of some cosmological field. Theories of this type have been

proposed by Dirac, Hoyle and Narlikar, Canuto and coworkers, and Wesson

and coworkers.

...

Both of the latter characteristics were mentioned by Rueda and Haisch

(1998) as attributes of their approach to the origin of inertia by accelerated

motion through vacuum. This approach can be based on stochastic electrodynamics

or SED, which briefly is an alternative approach using classical

field theory to results derived from quantum field theory ...

However, as described above, a Machian theory

of non-linear fields can also be approached through dimensionally-extended

Riemannian geometry as used in modern Kaluza-Klein or KK theory (for a

review see Wesson 1999). The choice between SED and KK - or other theories

- depends on academic concerns to do with consistency and practical

concerns to do with testability. We will return to these issues below.

Haisch and Rueda (1999a) returned to the issue of non-linearities, arguing

that the observed masses of particles (e.g., the electron mass at 512 keV) are

due to resonances in the electromagnetic zpf."

What does a "resonance" mean in SED? How about a toy model example?

I note Wesson's (7)

Lg = Gm/c^2 and Lq = h/mc (7)

There is a "wav/ particle duality principle" hidden here not noted by Wesson or Haisch/Puthoff et-al because

LgLq = Lp^2 ~ 1 Bekenstein BIT of the World Hologram

Lg is a "particle" parameter from Einstein's IT geometrodynamics in the sense of Bohm's "extra variable" (replace "hidden" by "extra")

and Lq is a pilot wave QUBIT parameter of nonclassical "active/inactive" information in the sense of Bohm and Hiley.

Susskind's IR/UV duality is like in projective geometry interchange of "point" and "line."

That is Lg -> Lq' and Lq -> Lg'.

Now in the exotic vacuum theory, there is no m really. It's all "Mass without mass" of Wheeler's micro-wormhole geons.

Therefore

GM/c^2 is replaced by |/\zpf|r*^3 where r* is the size of the micro-wormhole mouth.

Also, we should perhaps replace Lp^2 for the Bekenstein BIT by Lp*^2 from the World Hologram?

"They also suggested that

the scattering of the zpf by a charged particle takes place at the Compton

wavelength defined by the second relation in (7); and that this leads to the de

Broglie relation..."

This is a bait and switch shell game empty bogus argument. The Emperor has no clothes. The whole problem here is to compute what m is!

Nothing is gained in this play of words. There is no new insight. Or if there is, it passed under my radar that's for sure. They assumed the de Broglie relation to begin with.

"This extension of their previous

work is interesting; but in terms of making contact with the testable aspects

of wave-mechanics, needs to be extended to a full discussion of the wave

function and how its modulus defines the probability of finding a particle at

a given place in a given potential."

Wesson is being diplomatic here since Haisch paid him to write the article. It's like research on smoking from Phillip Morris. But here we come to the important part on metric engineering.

"Haisch, Rueda and PuthoÆ (1998) discussed further aspects of their approach

to the zpf, including its possible practical application to spacecraft

propulsion (see below) and the concept of negative mass."

I note that in Puthoff's actual metric engineering propulsion papers, he has Tables I and II with entries

m(K) = moK^3/2

Nowhere have I seen Puthoff, or anyone else in that group, use the term "negative mass" in their published papers. So is Wesson throwing in his own idea here. Puthoff, for some dark reason I cannot fathom thinks that K < 1 is relevant to metric engineering. Well one can see from his equation that m(K) can never go negative if mo > 0, which it is always in PV theory - is it not?

Also, what is m? Is m for the particles in the ship? In the flying saucer? Well that will not work obviously. Also m cancels out of the geodesic equation for the motion of the test particle in the external geometrodynamical field because of the equivalence principle.

In fact what matters is the negative pressure of the zero point "dark energy"exotic vacuum to warp spacetime in the front of the saucer in the way required by Alcubierrie's metric for geodesic warp drive and for positive zero point pressure of "dark matter" exotic vacuum in the back of the saucer. This zero point energy /\zpf field must be controlled in the skin of the saucer the way Puthoff correctly described phenomenologically in his review of Paul Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects." This gives a Reverse Doppler Shift, i.e. frequency shifts opposite to normal motional Doppler shifts. (e.g Bruce Cornet's alleged observations).

"The latter idea

may sound unusual. However, it should be recalled that a negative-energy field is potentially a way of cancelling the enormous positive energy densities of particle physics, and would lead to a cosmological model of the Milne

type."

I am surprised that Wesson falls into this confusion since he basically wrote down the correct equations. However he did not write down the important Newtonian limit of his equations with the (energy density)(1 + 3w) for the source of the Laplacian of the ZPF induced exotic vacuum gravity potential. Wesson completely misses the role of the quantum pressure! Also the large-scale limit of cosmology is not appropriate for breakthrough propulsion of a "spacecraft" that he mentions above.

...

"However, Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1998) argued that the concept of

negative inertial mass is unacceptable within their formalism of the zpf, basically

because inertia is the resistance of a charged particle to acceleration

in the zpf, and so cannot be reversed. "

Yes, and they are correct there. But they have not formulated the problem correctly!

"The Question is: What is The Question."

You do not want to modify the m of the real particles making up the ship and its occupants!

What you want to modify is the geometrodynamic field that the ship is free floating in.

Puthoff & Co have not, to this day, correctly formulated what the "metric engineering problem" really is!

I have formulated it correctly in my 2002 book "Destiny Matrix" copyrighted in the US Library of Congress so

there can be no doubt in the historical record of the Amazing Things To Come.

"As the authors note, this runs counter

to the work by Bondi (1957), which showed that negative inertia is a viable

proposition. On a more recent note, Bonnor (1989) has discussed the various

types of mass which enter the laws of physics, and concluded that negative

mass does not violate any of the standard postulates, including the weak

equivalence principle."

Here Wesson is beating around the bush and grasping at straws because he did not realize that the zero point energy itself can provide a field of negative quantum pressure to do exactgly what Bondi wished for in his naive use of "negative mass." I was there at Bondi's lectures on all this. I speak as a first-hand witness. I think Rindler was there at Cornell then as well in the same room at the same time.

"A dichotomy therefore becomes apparent: one can either argue that the

zpf does not gravitate at all, or one can argue that it does gravitate but is

cancelled by another field of negative energy density."

This is all garbled and does not pose the issues properly and leads to nothing but confused thinking.

"Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff (1998) also mentioned several other eÆects

which are in principle measurable. The Davis-Unruh effect really follows

from work by Hawking on the match between quantum field theory and

general relativity, originally applied to black holes."

BTW Both Unruh and John Baez have written that they are very against this whole approach of Haisch and Puthoff.

Whether Unruh and Baez have made good refutations is another issue.

Then Wesson comes to the Casimir effect:

"The same is not true of the Casimir effect. This is commonly derived

on the basis of a wave-mechanical argument, wherein two parallel plates exclude

modes with wavelengths larger than the plate separation, producing

a decrease in energy between the plates compared to their external environment,

or equivalently a force of attraction between the plates...

This reasoning is actually generic, applying not only to electromagnetism but

also to other wave phenomena such as gravity. However, the Casimir eÆect

has only been measured in the laboratory for the electromagnetic interaction.

The best experiment, which supersedes earlier questionable ones, was carried

out by Lamoreaux (1997). Due to the difficulty of aligning plane plates, he

used a plate and a sphere. The results confirmed the predicted (distance)^4

dependency of the Casimir force to an accuracy of 5%.

This result is unique in the realm of vacuum physics. However, it should

be recalled that the excluded-mode derivation is generic (De Witt 1975,

1989). This leaves an opportunity for more detailed interpretations, including

ones which are not dependent on the assumption of an electromagnetic

zpf.

In a series of collected papers, Haisch and Rueda (1997a,b; 1998, 1999b)

discussed possible experimental and technological applications of the zpf.

Of these articles, the one presented at the NASA conference on spacecraft

propulsion offers the most intriguing suggestions for future space drives (Haisch

and Rueda 1997a)."

So Wesson's remark here belies Puthoff's insistence yesterday that he never has led people to believe that he thought the Casimir effect was relevant to the search for breakthrough propulsion! Unless Hal meant to distance himself from Haisch and Rueda on that?

"One cannot but agree with other workers in the field that

conventional spacecraft limited to velocities v < c are an impractical way of

exploring space beyond our solar system. If the (electromagnetic) zpf exists,

then it represents an untapped source of energy; and in conjunction with

modern quantum field theory wherein virtual particles can come into and go

out of existence below the limits set by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,

the opportunity exists in principle for new forms of travel. Indeed, that communication

at v > c is possible is already presaged by quantum-interference

experiments and the Aharanov-Bohm effect. "

Curious remark that violated signal locality in micro-quantum theory and the no-cloning theorem that

Susskind needs in his complementarity solution of information flow down a blackhole. BTW Puthoff's PV theorem

that there are no black hole event horizons, hence no Hawking radiation, hence no Bekenstein BIT, hence no Unruh

acceleration effect, seems falsified by the observation of a black hole ripping apart a star reported this week?

"One should, however, be careful

to note that concrete models of propagation at v > c are theory-dependent.

The zpf formalism, non-localized quantum field theory, and Kaluza-Klein

theory all in principle allow communication with v > c."

I would like to see that spelled out in detail. Note again Casimir effect and spacecraft propulsion in close proximity below.

... "10. The Casimir effect (contrary to the preceding) exists, and has been

measured. This is a strong argument in favour of the existence of a

real zpf. However, a practical effect can derive from several theories,

and there is controversy about the underlying mechanism.

If the (electromagnetic) zpf is real, it does in principle provide a new

source of energy that has potential applications to technology, and

particularly spacecraft propulsion. Now one could argue that current

understanding of the zpf is similar to the understanding of electromagnetism

in the 1800's, insofar as the equations were written down but

nobody had built a radio. However, one could also argue that the

physics of the zpf is based on known laws and is mathematically fairly

straightforward, so that a practical application should be deliverable

in relatively short order.

...

5. The Casimir effect is central to the zpf argument. However, the magnitude

of the force is topology-dependent. Therefore, theoretical studies

should be made on the Casimir effect for various configurations, as a

precursor to practical measurements of the force which might be of

technological value.

6. Following from the experimental verification of the Casimir eÆect, work

should be continued to identify technological applications of a zpf.

Conventional spacecraft are pre-obsolete in regard to interstellar exploration,

so alternatives should be investigated.

Acknowledgements

This report is an independent study supported under grants from the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Natural Sciences

and Engineering Research Council. The author thanks J.M. Overduin of

Stanford University for comments on theoretical issues, and J. Rather of

N.A.S.A. for comments on practical issues.

On Feb 21, 2004, at 6:49 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Dear Hal

Again I invite you to submit a statement to me before March 31, 2004 to include in my book Super Cosmos

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/

(under construction)

before I send it off to the publisher.

If you can clarify where you think I misrepresent you and/or misunderstand your position, I will certainly change the current text in regard to your ideas if you can persuade me you are correct and I am wrong. In any case I will give your entire statement and make my comments below it.

I am trying to be as fair and accurate as possible and I certainly have no wish to misrepresent your ideas on

1. Zero point energy.

2. The nature of gravity (e.g. how your PV differs from Einstein's GR)

3. The relationship between 1 & 2

4. Metric engineering or "vacuum engineering".

5. The role of "Casimir effect" in 4 if any? If not, why do you talk about it so much and mention R. Forward's work whose main interest was propulsion?

6. Reality of flying saucers: fact or fiction? Your position and reasons?

re: http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html and similar links

e.g. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0767906276/reviews/ref%3Dase%5Fcoasttocoastam/103-7674942-6669402

http://www.universalresearchanddevelopment.com/outside-references.htm

7. “Can the Vacuum Be Engineered for Spaceflight Application? Overview of Theory and Experiments,” H.E. Puthoff, NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, Aug. 12-14, 1997, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH.

8. According to Sakharov, general relativistic phenomena can be seen in the induced effects brought about by changes in zero-point-energy, due to the presence of matter. The causes for gravity and inertia are different, but the effects are similar. The measure of a body’s resistance being accelerated by a distant gravitational field has the same value as the gravitational attraction between two bodies. Both are determined by their relationships to vacuum fluctuations. Mach’s principle attributes inertia to acceleration relative to the masses of the Universe, caused by the masses. In zero-point-energy model, uniform motion doesn’t experience a drag from Lorentz-invariant vacuum fluctuations in perfect balance, but an accelerated body meets a resistance force proportional to the acceleration, relative to the fixed stars. It is a vacuum fluctuation relationship to zero-point-energy with distant matter structure. Gravitational and inertial masses can be altered."

How can altering gravity and inertial mass explain flying saucers? How do you connect those dots?

Changing the inertial/gravity rest mass either with ZPE or PV is certainly one of your metric engineering leitmotifs.

How is that relevant? The equivalence principle says that the mass of the test particle in the geometrodynamic field drops out of the geodesic equation! Any warp drive must be timelike geodesic like Alcubierre's to explain the saucer acceleration field in Paul Hill's sense. So even if you could lessen the rest mass with ZPE how would that help. Also you would change the e/m ratios and that would destroy the materials and the organisms. So that is not a good idea. I am amazed that Paul Wesson and my old Cornell teacher Wolfgang Rindler did not point that out to Bernie Haisch at CIPA? Obviously, they never really thought very deeply about what all of you were proposing.

What am I missing here? What do I not understand? Please enlighten me on this point.

For example your

"8 Proposals to push directly against the space-time metric or quantum vacuum, i.e., use the rest of the

Universe as a springboard by means presently unknown, fall into the latter category.

When a hypothetical ZPE-powered spaceship strains against gravity and inertia,

there are three elements of the equation that the ZPE technology could in principle

address: (1) a decoupling from gravity, (2) a reduction of inertia, or (3) the generation of

energy to overcome both."

Specifically your (2) "a reduction of inertia."

I do not see how that is relevant. You seem to confuse the source of the geometrodynamic field with the test particle responding to that field, or do you mean something else like what I already published in 2002 in "Destiny Matrix"? If you mean that, where did you write it down prior to the publication of my book?

Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum

For Interstellar Flight

H. E. Puthoff

S. R. Little

M. Ibison

Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

4030 W. Braker Ln., Suite 300

Austin, Texas 78759-5329

To be presented

at the

First International Workshop in Field Propulsion

University of Sussex

Brighton, UK

January 2001

Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum

For Interstellar Flight

H. E. Puthoff1

S. R. Little

M. Ibison

Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

4030 W. Braker Ln., Suite 300

Austin, Texas 78759-5329

ABSTRACT

A theme that has come to the fore in advanced planning for long-range space

exploration is the concept of "propellantless propulsion" or "field propulsion." One

version of this concept involves the projected possibility that empty space itself (the

quantum vacuum, or space-time metric) might be manipulated so as to provide

energy/thrust for future space vehicles.2 Although such a proposal has a certain sciencefiction

quality about it, modern theory describes the vacuum as a polarizable medium that

sustains energetic quantum fluctuations. Thus the possibility that matter/vacuum

interactions might be engineered for space-flight applications is not a priori ruled out,

although certain constraints need to be acknowledged. The structure and implications of

such a far-reaching hypothesis are considered herein.

1. INTRODUCTION

The concept of "engineering the vacuum" found its first expression in the

mainstream physics literature when it was introduced by T. D. Lee in his textbook

Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory.3 There he stated: "The experimental

method to alter the properties of the vacuum may be called vacuum engineering.... If

indeed we are able to alter the vacuum, then we may encounter some new phenomena,

totally unexpected." This legitimization of the vacuum engineering concept was based on

the recognition that the vacuum is characterized by parameters and structure that leave no

doubt that it constitutes an energetic medium in its own right. Foremost among these are

its properties that (1) within the context of quantum theory the vacuum is the seat of

energetic particle and field fluctuations, and (2) within the context of general relativity

the vacuum is the seat of a space-time structure (metric) that encodes the distribution of

matter and energy. ....

To begin, in the case of quantum fluctuations there

are uncertainties that remain to be clarified regarding global thermodynamic and energy

constraints. Furthermore, the energetic components of potential utility involve very

small-wavelength, high-frequency fields and thus resist facile engineering solutions.

With regard to perturbation of the space-time metric, the required energy densities exceed

by many orders of magnitude values achievable with existing engineering techniques.

Nonetheless, we can examine the constraints, possibilities and implications under the

expectation that as technology matures, felicitous means may be found that permit the

exploitation of the enormous, as-yet-untapped potential of so-called "empty space."

2. PROPELLANTLESS PROPULSION

2.1 Global Constraint

Regardless of the mechanisms that might be entertained with regard to

"propellantless" or "field" propulsion of a spaceship, there exist certain constraints that

can be easily overlooked but must be taken into consideration. ...

3. THE QUANTUM VACUUM

3.1 Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) Background

Quantum theory tells us that so-called "empty space" is not truly empty, but is the

seat of myriad energetic quantum processes. Specifically, quantum field theory tells us

that, even in empty space, fields (e.g., the electromagnetic field) continuously fluctuate

about their zero baseline values. The energy associated with these fluctuations is called

zero-point energy (ZPE), reflecting the fact that such activity remains even at a

temperature of absolute zero. Such a concept is almost certain to have profound

implications for future space travel, as we will now discuss.

.....

8 Proposals to push directly against the space-time metric or quantum vacuum, i.e., use the rest of the

Universe as a springboard by means presently unknown, fall into the latter category.

When a hypothetical ZPE-powered spaceship strains against gravity and inertia,

there are three elements of the equation that the ZPE technology could in principle

address: (1) a decoupling from gravity, (2) a reduction of inertia, or (3) the generation of

energy to overcome both.

3.2 Gravity

With regard to a ZPE basis for gravity, the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov

was the first to propose that in a certain sense gravitation is not a fundamental interaction

at all, but rather an induced effect brought about by changes in the quantum-fluctuation

energy of the vacuum when matter is present.9 In this view, the attractive gravitational

force is more akin to the induced van der Waals and Casimir forces, than to the

fundamental Coulomb force. Although quite speculative when first introduced by

Sakharov in 1967, this hypothesis has led to a rich literature on quantum-fluctuationinduced

gravity. (The latter includes an attempt by one of the authors to flesh out the

details of the Sakharov proposal,10 though difficulties remain.11) Given the possibility of

a deep connection between gravity and the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, it

would therefore appear that a potential route to gravity decoupling would be via control

of vacuum fluctuations.

....

Again, as in the gravity case, it would therefore appear that a

potential route to the reduction of inertial mass would be via control of vacuum

fluctuations.

...

Investigation into this possibility by the U.S. Air Force's Advanced Concepts

Office at Edwards Air Force Base resulted in the generation of a report entitled Mass

Modification Experiment Definition Study that addressed just this issue.14 Included in its

recommendations was a call for precision measurement of what is called the Casimir

force. The Casimir force is an attractive quantum force between closely spaced metal or

dielectric plates (or other structures) that derives from partial shielding of the interior

region from the background zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field,

which results in unbalanced ZPE radiation pressures.15 Since issuance of the report, such

precision measurements have been made which confirm the Casimir effect to high

accuracy,16 measurements which even attracted high-profile attention in the media.17 The

relevance of the Casimir effect to our considerations is that it constitutes experimental

evidence that vacuum fluctuations can be altered by technological means. This suggests

the possibility that, given the models discussed, gravitational and inertial masses might

also be amenable to modification. The control of vacuum fluctuations by the use of

cavity structures has already found practical application in the field of cavity quantum

electrodynamics, where the spontaneous emission rates of atoms are subject to

manipulation.18 Therefore, it is not unreasonable to contemplate the possibility of such

control in the field of space propulsion.

3.4 Energy Extraction

With regard to the extraction of energy from the vacuum fluctuation energy

reservoir, there are no energetic or thermodynamic constraints preventing such release

under certain conditions.19 And, in fact, there are analyses in the literature that suggest

that such mechanisms are already operative in Nature in the "powering up" of cosmic

rays,20 or as the source of energy release from supernovas21 and gamma-ray bursts.22

For our purposes, the question is whether the ZPE can be "mined" at a level

practical for use in space propulsion. Given that the ZPE energy density is

...

conservatively estimated to be on the order of nuclear energy densities or greater,23 it

would constitute a seemingly ubiquitous energy supply, a veritable "Holy Grail" energy

source.

One of the first researchers to call attention to the principle of the use of the

Casimir effect as a potential energy source was Robert Forward at Hughes Research

Laboratories in Malibu, CA.24 Though providing "proof-of-principle," unlike the

astrophysical implications cited above the amount of energy release for mechanical

structures under laboratory conditions is minuscule. In addition, the conservative nature

of the Casimir effect would appear to prevent recycling, though there have been some

suggestions for getting around this barrier.25 Alternatives involving non-recycling

behavior, such as plasma pinches26 or bubble collapse in sonoluminescence,27 have been

investigated in our laboratory and elsewhere, but as yet without real promise for energy

applications.

Vacuum energy extraction approaches by other than the Casimir effect are also

being considered. One approach that emerged from the Air Force's Mass Modification…

study (Ref. 14) was the suggestion that the ZPE-driven cosmic ray model be explored

under laboratory conditions to determine whether protons could be accelerated by the

proposed cosmic ray mechanism in a cryogenically-cooled, collision-free vacuum trap.

Yet another proposal (for which a patent has been issued) is based on the concept of beatfrequency

downshifting of the more energetic high-frequency components of the ZPE, by

use of slightly detuned dielectric-sphere antennas.28

In our own laboratory we have considered an approach based on perturbation of

atomic or molecular ground states, hypothesized to be equilibrium states involving

dynamic radiation/absorption exchange with the vacuum fluctuations.29 In this model

atoms or molecules in a ZPE-limiting Casimir cavity are expected to undergo energy

shifts that would alter the spectroscopic signatures of excitations involving the ground

state. We have initiated experiments at a synchrotron facility to explore this ZPE/groundstate

relationship, though so far without success.

...

Whether tapping the ZPE as an energy source or manipulating the ZPE for

gravity/inertia control are but gleams in a spaceship designer's eye, or a Royal Road to

practical space propulsion, is yet to be determined. Only by explorations of the type

described here will the answer emerge. In the interim a quote by the Russian science

historian Roman Podolny would seem to apply: "It would be just as presumptuous to

deny the feasibility of useful application as it would be irresponsible to guarantee such

application."30

....

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have touched briefly on innovative forms of space propulsion,

especially those that might exploit properties of the quantum vacuum or the space-time

metric in a fundamental way. At this point in the development of such nascent concepts

it is premature to even guess at an optimum strategy, let alone attempt to forge a critical

path; in fact, it remains to be determined whether such exploitation is even feasible.

Nonetheless, only by inquiring into such concepts in a rigorous way can we hope to

arrive at a proper assessment of the possibilities and thereby determine the best course of

...

SECOND CORRECTED EXPANDED DRAFT

"Another, also named for its discoverer, is the Casimir Effect, a unique attractive quantum force between closely-spaced metal plates. An elegant analysis by Milonni et. al. at Los Angeles National Laboratory (3) shows the Casimir force to be due to radiation pressure from the background electromagnetic zero-point energy which has become unbalanced due to the presence of the plates, and which results in the plates being pushed together. From this it would seem that it might be possible to extract electrical energy from the vacuum, and indeed the possibility of doing so (at least in principle) has been shown in a paper of that same name by Robert Forward (4) at Hughes Research Laboratories in Malibu, California. ...

Specifically, Sakharov suggested that gravity might be an induced effect brought about by changes in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, due to the presence of matter. If correct, gravity would then be understood as a variation on the Casimir theme, in which background zero-point-energy pressures were again responsible. Although Sakharov did not develop the concept much further, he did outline certain criteria such a theory would have to meet such as predicting the value of the gravitational constant G in terms of zero-point-energy parameters. The approach to gravity outlined by Sakharov has recently been addressed in detail, and with positive reults, again by the author. (7) The gravitational interaction is shown to begin with the fact that a particle situated in the sea of electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations develops a "jitter" motion, or ZITTERBEWEGUNG as it is called. When there are two or more particles they are each influenced not only by the fluctuating background field, but also by the fields generated by the other particles, all similarly undergoing ZITTERBEWEGUNG motion, and the inter-particle coupling due to these fields results in the attractive gravitational force.

Gravity can thus be understood as a kind of long-range Casimir force. Because of its electromagnetic unerpinning, gravitational theory in this form constitutes what is known in the literature as an "already-unified" theory. The major benefit of the new approach is that it provides a basis for understanding various characteristics of the gravitational interaction hitherto unexplained. These include the relative weakness of the gravitational force under ordinary circumstances (shown to be due to the fact that the coupling constant G depends inversely on the large value of the high-frequency cutoff of the zero-point-fluctuation spectrum); the existence of positive but not negative mass (traceable to a positive-only kinetic-energy basis for the mass parameter); and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded (a consequence of the fact that quantum zero-point-fluctuation "noise" in general cannot be shielded, a factor which in other contexts sets a lower limit on the detectability of electromagnetic signals).

Those with a practical bent of mind may be left with yet one more unanswered question. Can this emerging Rosetta Stone of physics be used to translate such lofty insights into mundane application? Could the engineer of the future specialize in "vacuum engineering?" Could the energy crisis be solved by harnessing the energies of the zero-point sea? After all, since the basic zero-point energy form is highly random in nature, and tending towards self-cancellation, if a way could be found to bring order out of chaos, the, because of the highly energetic nature of the vacuum fluctuations, relatively large effects could in principle be produced. Given our relative ignorance at this point, we must fall back on a quote given by Podolny (12) when contemplating this same issue." - Hal Puthoff

Me earlier:

You clearly equate gravity as a kind of Casimir force and obviously metric engineering (AKA "vacuum engineering") is the control of gravity. So how did I misrepresent you?

Also you do not in the above paper understand that zero point energy can also give anti-gravity. You show no understanding of "dark energy" at least when you wrote the above paper. I mean you show no knowledge of the role of w = -1 and the fact that virtual electron-positrons have negative zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive pressure. In contrast, virtual photons have positive zero point energy density with equal and opposite negative pressure. Therefore, virtual photon ZPF anti-gravitates contradicting what you wrote above!

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 vacuum solution with zero point stress-energy density

allows repulsive anti-gravity when there is negative pressure. Nowhere do you mention negative pressure. Indeed you write

"and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded "

Which is false. And if it were true, metric engineering would be impossible and flying saucers could not be real. Very simple. Your position is obviously self-contradictory.

For example, in the weak field simple case, Einstein's vacuum equation reduces to

Laplacian of Potential Energy of Exotic Vacuum per unit test particle ~ c^2 /\zpf

/\zpf can be positive, negative or zero. It allows anti-gravity as dark energy shows.

Gravity can definitely be shielded and is!

Omega(Dark Energy) ~ 0.73 in the FRW large scale limit. The universe accelerates because gravity is shielded BIG TIME!

No mention of this in any of your papers I have seen.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)