"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler, The Daring Conservative
We need to distinguish several issues:
1. Is a virtual photon ZPF cutoff actually observed in the lab? - empirical question.
2. If yes, does that imply a new experimental effect of anisotropy in Lamb shift radiation as observed perhaps in angular correlation measurements on such radiation? - empirical question.
3.What is the value of the cutoff if it exists? - empirical question
4. If a virtual photon cutoff is a fact, is this evidence for non-commuting space-time? theoretical question
.....
On Jun 29, 2004, at 6:35 PM, carlos castro wrote:
Dear Tony. Gary and Jack :
Tony wrote :
Jack, when Mark Davidson said
"... There is no known way to apply a cuttoff
in the zero point spectrum and still have
perfect Lorentz invariance. ...",
This is NO problem at all . In1940 Snyder proved that you could have a noncommutative space time
without violating Lorentz invariance by introducing a Planck scale cuttoff.
Max Born in 1938 and Heisenberg already had similar ideas. The commutator is
[ X^mu , X^nu ] = L theta^{ mu nu } = not equal to zero .
L = Planck scale
Snyder set the tensor theta^{ \mu \nu }
to be just given by M^{ \mu \nu } = a generalized rotation .
Yang also proposed a noncommutative spacetime algebra related to
the de Sitter and Anti de Sitter algebras that has TWO scales :
an upper and lower scale , like the Planck scale and the Hubble radius =
ultraviolet/Infrared DUALITY.
URL for this?
Tanaka even showed the holographic connection of YANG's algebra .
See hep-th/0406166.
I recommend very strongly Tanaka's papers because you will see the two scales and de Sitter,
Anti de Sitter space and holography.
In my work on the Extended Relativity Theory in Clifford Spaces there is NO violation of Lorentz inavriance despite the existence of Planck scale as a cutoff.
In Nottale's work it is the same story.
You need to see the work by Nottale on vacuum fluctuations and his solution to the cosmological constant problem. His work precedes, by many years, the work by all these people in the web .
I told Beck in person) to look up Nottale's work. I don't know if he did.
URLS? Does Notalle solve the cosmological constant problem with macro-quantum vacuum coherence the way I do? Of course he did not know about dark energy before 1999.
I see a lot of papers in the web today based on the same
ideas of Nottale , but nobody, hardly anybody, gives Nottale the proper credit.
The same Stueckelberg story. As Tony said :
It is the big shot who says these things that counts and NOT those who said them first.
Best wishes
Carlos
On Jun 29, 2004, at 8:12 PM, Mark Davidson wrote:
Jack,
Yes, loop integrals as in Feynman integrals coming from Feynman diagrams with loops in them.
I would add to what I've said that if the cutoff were as low as 10^12Hz, ie. in the microwave region, then probably the Lamb shift will be much too small to agree with the exquisitely precise experiments that have been done.
Yes, and that is logically separate from the Lorentz invariance issue. Beck's result seems very strange, but I have not had time as yet to understand it.
With the best and latest up-to-date experiments and theory the Lamb shift data agrees with QED for a wide spectrum of atoms, ions, and isotope variations in nuclei according to Peter Mohr at NIST. I'm almost certain that imposing such a severe cutoff as 10^12 Hz would make the Lamb shift all but disappear. I put this question to Beck and Mackey and Beck responded that (I'm paraphrasing his response and abbreviating it considerably) the QED zero point field is not the real zero point field that was being measured in the Josephson experiment, but is rather a calculational artifice that isn't real and which requires a very high cutoff to agree with experiment. One of the main experimental pieces of evidence historically for the existence of the zero point field was in fact the Lamb shift though (a la Wentzel if I remember correctly), and so I don't find this argument compelling.
I certainly do not understand what Beck is allegedly saying! :-)
The Lamb shift is due entirely to the electromagnetic interaction, and so if there were other zero point energy terms from other fields with a negative sign they could cancel the electromagnetic contribution to the energy density without affecting the Lamb shift results.
Best wishes,
Mark
At 03:43 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
Thanks. I will be thinking about all this. By "loop integrals" you mean the virtual electron-positron loop "PV" absent in Hal Puthoff's "PV" gravity?
On Jun 29, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Davidson wrote:
Jack,
As Tony pointed out, Pauli-Villars regularization can be applied to loop integrals which appear in QED. But I don't think the same approach works for the zero point field. Once one puts an energy cutoff in the zero point field, making its total energy per unit volume finite, then there is a preferred Lorentz frame of reference.
Only in this preferred frame will the zero point radiation be isotropic.
You mean there will be some anisotropy in the Lamb shift in hydrogen in a new kind of experiment? Now that would be interesting! Maybe some kind of angular correlation measurement in microwaves from hydrogen transtions where Lamb effect is detected would show it?
Apply a Lorentz boost to it and you end up with a distorted and non-isotropic distribution of radiation. I don't see how one avoids this conclusion by attenuating the zero point density function by a smooth function of energy or by any other means. If the energy per unit volume is finite the radiation density will change with Lorentz boosts and the resulting theory will not be Lorentz invariant. This will lead to experimental predictions. Charged particles will probably experience a viscous drag slowing down their relative velocity to the center of momentum of the radiation field, etc.
I should add there is one trivial exception to what I just said. That is when the cuttoff is at zero energy in which case the zero point field is totally eliminated and you just have a classical vacuum.
Well we do not want that. Also there is the issue of scale dependence.
Best wishes,
Mark
On Jun 29, 2004, at 9:26 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Gary, I am not sure how
Jack's G* and strong short-range gravity and the SU(3) color force
all fit together, but here is my guess:
1- Jack's G* and the A. I. Arbab stuff seem to have a G that
varies as the universe ages, sort of somehow connected
with the large number hypothesis
That depends on other things like whether Lenny Susskind's hologram idea is correct?
Let R(t) be the dimensionless FRW scale factor. The Hubble horizon distance is then
LpR(t). If Lenny's idea is correct then
Lp*(t) = Lp^2/3(LpR(t))^1/3 = LpR(t)^1/3
The hologram entropy of the Universe is then
S/kB = 4piR(t)^2/4Lp*(t)^2 = piR(t)^4/3
and the thermodynamic arrow of time is explained by the expansion of the Universe.
However, the large scale structure of Universe is still given by Newton's G, which may increase only on small scales ~ 1 fermi.
My /\zpf field gives an effective G* >> Newton's G only on small scales because
(Newton's G)(stuff effective mass density)(1 + 3w(stuff)) ----> c^2/\zpf for ZPF (of all quantum fields)
In particular, if the bare electron is a Bohm hidden variable thin spherical shell of charge e of radius 10^-13 cm, spinning like a gyro with hbar/2, with a repulsive self-Casimir force then /\zpf ~ (10^-15 cm)^-2 dynamically stabilizes it as a micro-geon. Note that 10^-15 cm = 10^-17 meters ~ 100 Gev ~ mass of W boson.
2 - strong short-range gravity (in my model, and in some of
Jack's discussions) may not vary with the age of the universe,
but only becomes strong at short distances, as a near-field
phenomenon like near-field electromagnetism, which is well-known
and experimentally verified and useful and does NOT obey the
1/r^2 law that applies to far-field electromagnetic radiation
4 - the SU(3) color force, in my view, is something else again,
and involves SU(3) gluons - its short-range character is
due to how the SU(3) color force works, and is not directly
related to why the strong short-range gravity is short-range.
I like local gauge invariance to the max. All the dynamical fields are compensating fields of all symmetry groups both space-time and internal. Do the internal groups mean extra space dimensions? Can the conformal group in 4D explain the internal groups? etc. I don't know.
------------------------------
Since my model uses mostly 2 and not 1,
and since Arbab's astro-ph/9811422 seems to me to be about 1,
I don't have much to say about it.
As to Arbab's newer paper gr-qc/0406055, he says
"... we have found that for every bound system
(nucleus, atom, star, galaxy, the whole universe)
there is a characteristic Planck constant ...",
and I strongly feel that nuclei and atoms and planets
and stars and galaxies etc do NOT each have their
own different Planck constant, so I don't have any
further comment here on that paper.
Tony
I also sense intuitively that Arbab's stuff is not correct, but I have not studied it.
On Jun 29, 2004, at 10:50 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
http://www-spires.fnal.gov/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=ea+Salam,+Abdus
Abdus Salam's f-gravity paper:
http://library.ictp.trieste.it/DOCS/P/73/050.pdf
Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com
On Jun 29, 2004, at 9:49 PM, carlos castro wrote:
...
The commissioned review of the "Extended Relativity Theory in Clifford spaces" was accepted in the IJMPA journal. Hereby I am attaching the revised PDF file after correcting it according to the referee.
For me the most important part of the paper is pages 11, 12, 13, 14 on superluminal propagation.
where we show ( the C-space boosts arguments are mine; the Stueckelberg stuff is Pavsic's )
why one can have superluminal propagation in this Extended Relativity Theory
without violations of causality, and other paradoxes.
...
You do not need to be an expert of any kind to read and understand this review. ...
At 03:01 PM 6/29/2004, you wrote:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, when Mark Davidson said
"... There is no known way to apply a cuttoff
in the zero point spectrum and still have
perfect Lorentz invariance. ...",
I am not sure that he is correct.
For example,
Lubos Motl said in an spr post at
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033286.html
But he also says he is an ET! ;-)
"... Abstract: cutoffs ...[can be]... Lorentz invariant
...
Take a Klein-Gordon theory.
The momenta in the loops are integrated in the Euclidean momentum
space up to the limit p_{euclidean}^2 <= Lambda^2.
Recall that p_{euclidean}^2 really corresponds to E^2 - p_{vector}^2
- i.e. how far you are from mass shell.
This condition is completely Lorentz symmetric.
Another topic are the gauge symmetries:
the regulators must be of specific kind to preserve these kinds
of symmetry - but they almost always preserve Lorentz symmetry. ...".
and
a web page at
http://mcelrath.org/Notes/PauliVillars
states "... PauliVillars regularization ...
also called "Covariant regularization" ... introduces an explicit
dependence on the cutoff while still being Lorentz invariant and
gauge invariant. ...".
Thanks I will study that. :-)
---------------------------------------------------
To me, the Beck and Mackey paper at
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406504
has some very interesting statements:
"... the zero-point term has proved important in explaining
X-ray scattering in solids [4];
understanding of the Lamb shift ... in hydrogen [5, 6];
predicting the Casimir eect [7, 8];
understanding the origin of Van der Waals forces [7];
interpretation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect [9, 10];
explaining Compton scattering [5];
and
predicting the spectrum of noise in electrical circuits
[11, 12, 13, 14]. It is this latter effect that concerns us here.
...
We predict that the measured spectrum in Josephson
junction experiments must exhibit a cutoff at the critical
frequency nu_c. If not, the corresponding vacuum energy
density would exceed the currently measured dark energy
density of the universe.
...
The energy associated with the computed cutoff frequency nu_c
...[ about 10^12 Hz ]...
E_c = h nu_c = (7.00 ± 0.17) x 10^-3 eV ...
coincides
with current experimental estimates of neutrino masses. ...".
It seems to me that Beck and Mackey are saying that you can see
zpf in Josephson junction experiments, which have been done up to
about the frequency 6 x 10^11 Hz or about 4 x 10^-3 eV,
and
that the observed zpf corresponds to a dark energy density
of about 0.062 GeV/m^3
and
that if there is no change in the equation (i.e., no cut-off)
with increasing frequency then the zpf would exceed the
cosmologically observed dark energy (3.9 ± 0.4) GeV/m^3
corresponding to /\_DE = 0.73
and
the energy range where a change/cut-off is neccessary to
avoid DE exceeding about 4 GeV/m^3 is about 10^-2 eV
which is the energy range of neutrinos.
All this makes good sense to me in light of the statement
by Beck and Mackey
"... It is likely that the Josephson junction experiment only
measures the photonic part of the vacuum fluctuations,
since this experiment is purely based on electromagnetic
interaction. ...".
What is probably going on (in my opinion) is that you need
to have ALL the forces (gravity, color, weak, and QED) to get
cancellations that give a cosmological constant near zero
(instead of something like 10^120),
and
when you get energetic enough to introduce neutrinos,
you are effectively bringing in the weak force that is
felt by the neutrino
so that
you begin to change the equation (or introduce a cut-off)
at that energy
and
since
the cut-off is due to introduction of weak force effects
(and probably NOT a simple hard-line energy/frequency cut-off,
which could violate Lorentz symmetry)
it probably is a cut-off of the type cited by Lubos Motl
as preserving Lorentz symmetry.
As you go to higher and higher energies, you introduce
more and more forces, etc, and in the high-energy limit
(in my model in particular) the cosmological constant
terms all cancel out to zero.
The fact that we "see" a non-zero cosmological constant
in our universe may be related to the fact that our universe
has cooled down a lot and is in a QED regime in which its
characteristic zpf does not have a lot of components from
the other forces (this is something that I am thinking out
loud about, so it might not be right, but maybe it is).
Tony
On Jun 29, 2004, at 3:01 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:22 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, when Mark Davidson said
"... There is no known way to apply a cuttoff
in the zero point spectrum and still have
perfect Lorentz invariance. ...",
I am not sure that he is correct.
For example,
Lubos Motl said in an spr post at
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033286.html
But he also says he is an ET! ;-)
"... Abstract: cutoffs ...[can be]... Lorentz invariant
...
Take a Klein-Gordon theory.
The momenta in the loops are integrated in the Euclidean momentum
space up to the limit p_{euclidean}^2 <= Lambda^2.
Recall that p_{euclidean}^2 really corresponds to E^2 - p_{vector}^2
- i.e. how far you are from mass shell.
This condition is completely Lorentz symmetric.
Another topic are the gauge symmetries:
the regulators must be of specific kind to preserve these kinds
of symmetry - but they almost always preserve Lorentz symmetry. ...".
and
a web page at
http://mcelrath.org/Notes/PauliVillars
states "... PauliVillars regularization ...
also called "Covariant regularization" ... introduces an explicit
dependence on the cutoff while still being Lorentz invariant and
gauge invariant. ...".
Thanks I will study that. :-)
---------------------------------------------------
To me, the Beck and Mackey paper at
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406504
has some very interesting statements:
"... the zero-point term has proved important in explaining
X-ray scattering in solids [4];
understanding of the Lamb shift ... in hydrogen [5, 6];
predicting the Casimir eect [7, 8];
understanding the origin of Van der Waals forces [7];
interpretation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect [9, 10];
explaining Compton scattering [5];
and
predicting the spectrum of noise in electrical circuits
[11, 12, 13, 14]. It is this latter effect that concerns us here.
...
We predict that the measured spectrum in Josephson
junction experiments must exhibit a cutoff at the critical
frequency nu_c. If not, the corresponding vacuum energy
density would exceed the currently measured dark energy
density of the universe.
...
The energy associated with the computed cutoff frequency nu_c
...[ about 10^12 Hz ]...
E_c = h nu_c = (7.00 ± 0.17) x 10^-3 eV ...
coincides
with current experimental estimates of neutrino masses. ...".
It seems to me that Beck and Mackey are saying that you can see
zpf in Josephson junction experiments, which have been done up to
about the frequency 6 x 10^11 Hz or about 4 x 10^-3 eV,
and
that the observed zpf corresponds to a dark energy density
of about 0.062 GeV/m^3
and
that if there is no change in the equation (i.e., no cut-off)
with increasing frequency then the zpf would exceed the
cosmologically observed dark energy (3.9 ± 0.4) GeV/m^3
corresponding to /\_DE = 0.73
and
the energy range where a change/cut-off is neccessary to
avoid DE exceeding about 4 GeV/m^3 is about 10^-2 eV
which is the energy range of neutrinos.
All this makes good sense to me in light of the statement
by Beck and Mackey
"... It is likely that the Josephson junction experiment only
measures the photonic part of the vacuum fluctuations,
since this experiment is purely based on electromagnetic
interaction. ...".
What is probably going on (in my opinion) is that you need
to have ALL the forces (gravity, color, weak, and QED) to get
cancellations that give a cosmological constant near zero
(instead of something like 10^120),
and
when you get energetic enough to introduce neutrinos,
you are effectively bringing in the weak force that is
felt by the neutrino
so that
you begin to change the equation (or introduce a cut-off)
at that energy
and
since
the cut-off is due to introduction of weak force effects
(and probably NOT a simple hard-line energy/frequency cut-off,
which could violate Lorentz symmetry)
it probably is a cut-off of the type cited by Lubos Motl
as preserving Lorentz symmetry.
As you go to higher and higher energies, you introduce
more and more forces, etc, and in the high-energy limit
(in my model in particular) the cosmological constant
terms all cancel out to zero.
The fact that we "see" a non-zero cosmological constant
in our universe may be related to the fact that our universe
has cooled down a lot and is in a QED regime in which its
characteristic zpf does not have a lot of components from
the other forces (this is something that I am thinking out
loud about, so it might not be right, but maybe it is).
Tony
On Jun 29, 2004, at 5:06 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
2.7 meg document (from Ken Shoulders' EVO photos) with details posted at
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.doc
if you need a pdf let me know.
On Jun 29, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Corrected below
OK, in reworking my EVO collaboration with Ken Shoulders and preparing paper for Vigier V Paris Proceedings (Kluwer) and for GR 17 I included my Bohm hidden variable rotating thin charged spherical shell model of Vigier's spatially-extended electron for the "tight atomic states" (with Maric et-al in Beograd) "cold fusion" anomalous atomic energy release. Dynamical stability including the repulsive QED Casimir force + the centrifugal barrier in the rotating frame + Coulomb self-energy + strong gravitational effect of the exotic vacuum core of the electron gives apriori
/\zpf ~ (10^-15 cm)^-2
inside the charged thin spherical shell of total charge e of radius e^2/mc^2 = 10^-13 cm to stabilize the electron!
That is I APRIORI DERIVE the weak force scale (alpha)(e^2/mc^2) from a simple Bohm-Vigier HV model!
That was not my intent. It popped out in a surprise. I did not get it earlier because I did not include the repulsive QED Casimir force in spherical cavity explicitly in my toy model for the semi-classical electron a la Lorentz theory of the electron of 100 years ago that fits in with Bohm's pilot wave theory.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
OK, in reworking my EVO collaboration with Ken Shoulders and preparing paper for Vigier V Paris Proceedings (Kluwer) and for GR 17 I included my Bohm hidden variable rotating thin charged spherical shell model of Vigier's spatially-extended electron for the "tight atomic states" (with Maric et-al in Beograd) "cold fusion" anomalous atomic energy release. Dynamical stability including the repulsive QED Casimir force + the centrifugal barrier in the rotating frame + Coulomb self-energy + strong gravitational effect of the exotic vacuum dark energy core of the electron gives apriori
/\zpf ~ (10^-15 cm)^-2
inside the charged thin spherical shell of total charge e of radius e^2/mc^2 = 10^-13 cm to stabilize the electron!
That is I APRIORI DERIVE the weak force scale (alpha)(e^2/mc^2) from a simple Bohm-Vigier HV model!
That was not my intent. It popped out in a surprise. I did not get it earlier because I did not include the repulsive QED Casimir force in spherical cavity explicitly in my toy model for the semi-classical electron a la Lorentz theory of the electron of 100 years ago that fits in with Bohm's pilot wave theory.
/\zpf ~ (10^-15 cm)^-2
inside the charged thin spherical shell of total charge e of radius e^2/mc^2 = 10^-13 cm to stabilize the electron!
That is I APRIORI DERIVE the weak force scale (alpha)(e^2/mc^2) from a simple Bohm-Vigier HV model!
That was not my intent. It popped out in a surprise. I did not get it earlier because I did not include the repulsive QED Casimir force in spherical cavity explicitly in my toy model for the semi-classical electron a la Lorentz theory of the electron of 100 years ago that fits in with Bohm's pilot wave theory.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Thanks, who wrote it? What's the reference to Bulgaria 1988 about?
The point is that the vacuum coherence is dynamical and can wobble around /\zpf = 0 causing an mini explosion of the "charge cluster." We are playing here with cosmic dynamite. This /\zpf field is the ultimate stuff of Super Cosmos. In one form it is dark energy, in another form it is dark matter. It stabilizes the spatially extended electron - hence J.P. Vigier's "tight atomic states" (Maric et-al in Belgrade), it explains the galactic halo, the absence of dark matter particles, the formation of galaxies, the universal Regge slope of hadrons, and its key parameter is the "quantum of area." /\zpf is what vibrates to make "strings."
On Jun 27, 2004, at 7:57 AM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:
"Gary S. Bekkum" schrieb:
> Found this old file, for your archives:
>
...
> Actually, some guys from Livermore published in Phys. Rev. a
> model to show that Elektrum Validum was stabilized by the
> Bohm potential, i.e, one could have a collective ringlike
> motion of electrons that was stable. They probably worked
> for Jupiter Toy Company as well.
...
> This is very important! You got the papers? Which guys? Not
> the "C Bennett" of "precausal quantum mechanics"? He was
> also at Livermore. I wonder if Clauser knows them? If we get
> the big bucks we can hire Clauser as a consultant at The
> Presidio Laboratory. He's quite a friendly fellow.
"Jupiter Toy Company" in google gives only 3 items.
Link 3:
http://www.bandwidthmarket.com/resources/patents/data8/5123039.html
United States Patent 5,123,039 Shoulders * June 16, 1992
Energy conversion using high charge density
Abstract
Disclosed are apparatus and method for obtaining energy from high electrical charge density entities. The energy may be received by the conductor of a traveling wave device positioned along the path which the propagating entities follow. Multiple traveling wave devices may be combined. Energy output from a traveling wave device may also be directed to the generation of a subsequent such entity. Thermal energy may also be obtained from an EV.
Inventors: Shoulders; Kenneth R. (Austin, TX)
Assignee: Jupiter Toy Company (Austin, TX)
[*] Notice: The portion of the term of this patent subsequent to May 21, 2008 has been disclaimed.
Appl. No.: 684640
Filed: April 12, 1991
Other References
Boyer, T. H., "The Classical Vacuum" Scientific American, Aug. 1985, pp. 70-78.
Morrow, D. L. et al., "Concentration and Guidance of Intense Relativistic Electron Beams" Applied Physics Letters, vol. 19, No. 10, Nov. 15, 1971, pp. 441-443.
Bennett, W. H. "Self-Focusing Streams" Physical Review, vol. 98 No. 6, Jun. 15, 1955, pp. 1584-1593.
Bennett, Willard H. "A More General Theory of Magnetic Self-Focusing" Abstract of Presented Paper.
"Bulgarian Sensation in Physics?" report from Sofia BTA, Bulgaria, Nov. 28, 1988, 2 pages.
Shoulders, K. R., "Toward Complex Systems" from Symposium on Microelectronics and Large Systems, Nov. 17, 18, 1964, Washington, D.C.,
Mathis, S. U. et al., editors, Spartan Books & MacMillan, 1965, pp. 97-128.
Bergstrom Arne "Electromagnetic Theory of Strong Interaction" Physical Review D, vol. 8, No. 12, Dec. 15, 1973, pp. 4394-4402.
Boyer, T. H. "A Brief Survey of Stochastic Electrodynamics" from Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics, Barut, A. O., editor, Plenum Press, 1980, pp. 49-63.
Boyer, T. H. "Quantum Zero-Point Energy and Long-Range Forces" Annals of Physics, vol. 56, 1970, pp. 474-503.
Boyle, W. S. et al., "Electrical Breakdown in High Vacuum" Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 26, No. 6, Jun. 1955, pp. 720-725.
Forward, R. L. "Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged Foliated Conductors" Physical Review B, vol. 30, No. 4, Aug. 15, 1984, pp. 1700-1702.
Kahles, J. F., "Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM)" from Metals Handbook, 8th Ed., vol. 3, Machining, Lyman, T., editor, American Society for Metals, pp. 227-233.
Kisliuk, P. P. "Arcing at Telephone Relay Contacts" Bell Laboratories Record, vol. 34, Jun. 1956, pp. 218-222.
Vacuum Arcs Theory and Application, Lafferty, J. M., Editor, John Wiley & Sons, 1980.
Malmberg, J. H. et al., "Pure Electron Plasma, Liquid and Crystal" Physical Review Letters, vol. 39, No. 21, Nov. 21, 1977, pp. 1333-1336.
Mesyats, G. A., "Fast Processes on the Cathode in a Vacuum Discharge" IEEE Proceedings, Xth Int'l Symposium on Discharge and Electrical Insulation in Vacuum, Oct. 25-28, 1982, Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 37-42.
Mesyatas, G. A. "Explosive Processes on the Cathode in a Vacuum Discharge" IEEE Transactions on Electrical Insulation, vol. EI-18 No. 3, Jun. 1983, pp. 218-225.
Nardi, V. et al., "Internal Structure of Electron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, vol. 22, No. 5, Nov., 1980, pp. 2211-2217.
Puthoff, H. E., "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Physical Review D, vol. 35, No. 10, May 15, 1987, pp. 3266-3269; "SUMMARY" attached.
Schwirzke, F. "Laser Induced Unipolar Arcuing" from Laser Interaction and Related Plasma Phenomena, vol. 6, Hara, H. et al., editors, Plenum Publishing, 1984, pp. 335-352.
Schwirzke, F. "Unipolar Arc Model", Journal of Nuclear Materials vol. 128 and 129, 1984, pp. 609-612.
Shoulders, K. R., "Microelectronics Using Electron-Beam-Activated Machining Techniques" from Advances in Computers, vol. 2, Alt, F. L., editor, Academic Press, 1961, pp. 135-293.
Thin Film Processes, Vossen, J. L. et al., editors, Academic Press, 1978.
Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs, Tannas, L. E. Jr., editor, Van Norstrand Reinhold, 1985.
"Eye of the Storm" from The Sharper Image, May, 1988, catalog, p. 45.
"Blue Lightning", one page literature from The Sharper Image.
Primary Examiner: Howell; Janice A.
Assistant Examiner: Forta; David F.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Lowe, Price, Leblanc & Becker
The point is that the vacuum coherence is dynamical and can wobble around /\zpf = 0 causing an mini explosion of the "charge cluster." We are playing here with cosmic dynamite. This /\zpf field is the ultimate stuff of Super Cosmos. In one form it is dark energy, in another form it is dark matter. It stabilizes the spatially extended electron - hence J.P. Vigier's "tight atomic states" (Maric et-al in Belgrade), it explains the galactic halo, the absence of dark matter particles, the formation of galaxies, the universal Regge slope of hadrons, and its key parameter is the "quantum of area." /\zpf is what vibrates to make "strings."
On Jun 27, 2004, at 7:57 AM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:
"Gary S. Bekkum"
> Found this old file, for your archives:
>
...
> Actually, some guys from Livermore published in Phys. Rev. a
> model to show that Elektrum Validum was stabilized by the
> Bohm potential, i.e, one could have a collective ringlike
> motion of electrons that was stable. They probably worked
> for Jupiter Toy Company as well.
...
> This is very important! You got the papers? Which guys? Not
> the "C Bennett" of "precausal quantum mechanics"? He was
> also at Livermore. I wonder if Clauser knows them? If we get
> the big bucks we can hire Clauser as a consultant at The
> Presidio Laboratory. He's quite a friendly fellow.
"Jupiter Toy Company" in google gives only 3 items.
Link 3:
http://www.bandwidthmarket.com/resources/patents/data8/5123039.html
United States Patent 5,123,039 Shoulders * June 16, 1992
Energy conversion using high charge density
Abstract
Disclosed are apparatus and method for obtaining energy from high electrical charge density entities. The energy may be received by the conductor of a traveling wave device positioned along the path which the propagating entities follow. Multiple traveling wave devices may be combined. Energy output from a traveling wave device may also be directed to the generation of a subsequent such entity. Thermal energy may also be obtained from an EV.
Inventors: Shoulders; Kenneth R. (Austin, TX)
Assignee: Jupiter Toy Company (Austin, TX)
[*] Notice: The portion of the term of this patent subsequent to May 21, 2008 has been disclaimed.
Appl. No.: 684640
Filed: April 12, 1991
Other References
Boyer, T. H., "The Classical Vacuum" Scientific American, Aug. 1985, pp. 70-78.
Morrow, D. L. et al., "Concentration and Guidance of Intense Relativistic Electron Beams" Applied Physics Letters, vol. 19, No. 10, Nov. 15, 1971, pp. 441-443.
Bennett, W. H. "Self-Focusing Streams" Physical Review, vol. 98 No. 6, Jun. 15, 1955, pp. 1584-1593.
Bennett, Willard H. "A More General Theory of Magnetic Self-Focusing" Abstract of Presented Paper.
"Bulgarian Sensation in Physics?" report from Sofia BTA, Bulgaria, Nov. 28, 1988, 2 pages.
Shoulders, K. R., "Toward Complex Systems" from Symposium on Microelectronics and Large Systems, Nov. 17, 18, 1964, Washington, D.C.,
Mathis, S. U. et al., editors, Spartan Books & MacMillan, 1965, pp. 97-128.
Bergstrom Arne "Electromagnetic Theory of Strong Interaction" Physical Review D, vol. 8, No. 12, Dec. 15, 1973, pp. 4394-4402.
Boyer, T. H. "A Brief Survey of Stochastic Electrodynamics" from Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics, Barut, A. O., editor, Plenum Press, 1980, pp. 49-63.
Boyer, T. H. "Quantum Zero-Point Energy and Long-Range Forces" Annals of Physics, vol. 56, 1970, pp. 474-503.
Boyle, W. S. et al., "Electrical Breakdown in High Vacuum" Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 26, No. 6, Jun. 1955, pp. 720-725.
Forward, R. L. "Extracting Electrical Energy from the Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged Foliated Conductors" Physical Review B, vol. 30, No. 4, Aug. 15, 1984, pp. 1700-1702.
Kahles, J. F., "Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM)" from Metals Handbook, 8th Ed., vol. 3, Machining, Lyman, T., editor, American Society for Metals, pp. 227-233.
Kisliuk, P. P. "Arcing at Telephone Relay Contacts" Bell Laboratories Record, vol. 34, Jun. 1956, pp. 218-222.
Vacuum Arcs Theory and Application, Lafferty, J. M., Editor, John Wiley & Sons, 1980.
Malmberg, J. H. et al., "Pure Electron Plasma, Liquid and Crystal" Physical Review Letters, vol. 39, No. 21, Nov. 21, 1977, pp. 1333-1336.
Mesyats, G. A., "Fast Processes on the Cathode in a Vacuum Discharge" IEEE Proceedings, Xth Int'l Symposium on Discharge and Electrical Insulation in Vacuum, Oct. 25-28, 1982, Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 37-42.
Mesyatas, G. A. "Explosive Processes on the Cathode in a Vacuum Discharge" IEEE Transactions on Electrical Insulation, vol. EI-18 No. 3, Jun. 1983, pp. 218-225.
Nardi, V. et al., "Internal Structure of Electron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, vol. 22, No. 5, Nov., 1980, pp. 2211-2217.
Puthoff, H. E., "Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State," Physical Review D, vol. 35, No. 10, May 15, 1987, pp. 3266-3269; "SUMMARY" attached.
Schwirzke, F. "Laser Induced Unipolar Arcuing" from Laser Interaction and Related Plasma Phenomena, vol. 6, Hara, H. et al., editors, Plenum Publishing, 1984, pp. 335-352.
Schwirzke, F. "Unipolar Arc Model", Journal of Nuclear Materials vol. 128 and 129, 1984, pp. 609-612.
Shoulders, K. R., "Microelectronics Using Electron-Beam-Activated Machining Techniques" from Advances in Computers, vol. 2, Alt, F. L., editor, Academic Press, 1961, pp. 135-293.
Thin Film Processes, Vossen, J. L. et al., editors, Academic Press, 1978.
Flat-Panel Displays and CRTs, Tannas, L. E. Jr., editor, Van Norstrand Reinhold, 1985.
"Eye of the Storm" from The Sharper Image, May, 1988, catalog, p. 45.
"Blue Lightning", one page literature from The Sharper Image.
Primary Examiner: Howell; Janice A.
Assistant Examiner: Forta; David F.
Attorney, Agent or Firm: Lowe, Price, Leblanc & Becker
Friday, June 25, 2004
On Jun 25, 2004, at 6:46 AM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, when I said, about your UFO energy source ideas,
"... I would like to see a demonstration
(preferably theatrical a la Otto von Guericke)
but
so far Jack has pleaded "I am not an engineer" whenever I have asked
for him to design a proof-of-principle experiment (like horses
harnessed to hemispheres containing a vacuum) ...".
you replied
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"... This is not really accurate. I have explained many observations
that cannot be explained any other way such as (not a complete list)
1. Why the cosmological constant is so small. The discrepancy is 122
powers of ten!
2. Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it
shrinks when hit hard in scattering.
3. What the galactic halo is.
4. What Ken Shoulders' charge clusters are.
I have correctly predicted that dark matter detectors will not click
with the right stuff to explain the 0.23 observations. This prediction
can falsify my theory.
I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are!
How Einstein's GR actually emerges from the substratum! To see how
confused The Pundits are on all this simply watch Alan Alda's interview
of Mike Turner on PBS Scientific American Frontiers! ...".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the things your mention, except 4,
do NOT involve any experiment done by humans to CONTROL the energy.
They only EXPLAIN PHENOMENA AS THEY EXIST IN NATURE WITHOUT
INTERACTION OR CONTROL BY HUMANS.
Yes, but they represent an important advance in basic physics IF I have not made
a stupid error or errors - always possible. Or if I simply have the wrong qualitative
conception of the deep structure of reality like I think Hal Puthoff has in both his
RANDOM ZPF origin of inertia and his PV model of gravity. Like Kerry and Bush there
is a clear difference between our physics ideas.
Now as to CONTROL. The good evidence for the reality of flying saucers is given on
the NIDS Website http://www.nidsci.org/ , so I take that as a FACT.
What you ask is not really what a theorist does. It's like asking Einstein for a detailed blueprint
of a nuclear reactor in 1905 right before he published E = mc^2. Nevertheless, I do have a general idea how THEY make the saucers fly and the math for that is in
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf
More is on the way. What is important is that my ideas for the "vacuum propeller" are part of the above grand scheme on the nature of reality and involve the explanation of the cosmological constant problem and other hitherto unsolved basic problems in physical understanding. Once others start thinking seriously about what I have wrought here - technological implementations will be rather direct. Meantime no one really has grasped what I am saying in any detail. They simply do not want to hear it as yet. It's a long upward battle to get the Pundits to pay attention -- but I am working on it. As Romulus and Remos will tell you, Rome was not built in a day! :-)
Ken Shoulders EVOs are quite close to proof of principle.
They have only the level of utility as Gamov's observation
that fusion could be the source of solar energy
has for building a hydrogen bomb,
i.e., they are a way of describing natural phenomena,
but
they are NOT YET a way of CONTROLLING the underlying energy flow.
Again I say heads up, look to the sky. There we see proof of principle and have been seeing it for 50 years.
YOU MUST SHOW A PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE EXPERIMENT TO DEMONSTRATE
HUMAN CONTROL IN ORDER TO CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE A USEFUL MODEL
OF HOW UFOs WORK. That is what I have not yet seen,
and would like to see.
Well I have been working alone on this problem. First I have had to solve the cosmological constant problem to my satisfaction. I first had to understand the real nature of dark energy and dark matter and how together they make a vacuum propeller in terms of Hermann Bondi's "negative matter propeller" with a "reverse Doppler effect" as allegedly seen by Bruce Cornet of NIDS. I only understood the dark energy/matter from vacuum coherence at beginning of 2002! So, this is good progress - a very big bang for a very small buck as these things go. I have been trying to get Hal Puthoff off his hobby horse to help me with this problem. Ken Shoulders, Hal's key experimental collaborator for many years back to NSA days in DC, has crossed over to my side on this and Ken is trying to get Hal to hop on my bandwagon - at least to shoot down my ideas as I have shot down his - quid pro quo. http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.pdf
Also,
I have no problem with you saying things that indicate
that "... string theorists like Lenny Susskind and Ed Witten
and the loop quantum gravity people like Ashtekar and Baez to
pass a similar test of not being "not even wrong" ..."
but
I do have a problem with your statement that you
"... have explained many observations that cannot be
explained any other way ..."
because my model
(see my web site at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/TShome.html )
can not only do those things, it can also calculate the WMAP ratios
presently observed (which you indicated in correspondence that
your model cannot do) and can also calculate particle masses
and force strengths and K-M parameters.
Yes, maybe. I cannot understand your ideas here. I have been too busy with my own, which are mathematically much simpler and more direct. That's why I have suggested you work with Saul-Paul Sirag and Carlos Castro to make your basic ideas more understandable. My basic ideas are very mainstream and battle-tested. I simply use Einstein's text book GR, text book QM and text book ideas from soft condensed matter physics on the topological defects in macro-quantum order parameters etc. I also need Bohm's pilot wave-hidden variable theory. My math is little more than high school level, except for basic ideas of group theory and most importantly local gauge invariance and Hagen Kleinert's elastic world crystal lattice formulation of GR's tensor calculus. My BIG INSIGHT is replacing h/m quantum of vorticity in superfluids with quantum of area Lp*^2 in supersolids, which gives hologram picture and Hawking-Bekenstein bits automatically BTW.
I should note your model does have some points of similarity to mine
because some of its features are based on some of your ideas,
which I have tried to explicitly credit on my web site,
but there are some major differences, so they really are distinct
models.
I got idea of locally gauging 15 parameter conformal group basically from you. Also discussion with you clarified how w = -1 geons with positive quantum pressure simulates CDM with w ~ 0 as explanation of Omega(DM) ~ 0.23.
I should also note that, like you, I have not yet written up
a proof-of-principle experiment such as I would like to see,
so my model is no better than yours in that regard,
but as of now it is as good and is in fact "another way" to
explain 1, 2, 3 etc.
Explain cosmological constant.
As to 4 - Ken Shoulder's charge clusters,
maybe they are produced by humans, but I have not yet seen
how they are useful for energy production or proof.
You need to talk to Ken. He has lots of evidence.
You described the clusters in this way:
------------------
"... A typical EVO has r ~ 10^-4 cm, N = 10^11.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1 with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to the EVO self-electrical force 10^22x10^8 = 10^30
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the surface of the typical EVO assumed
to be in a spherical thin shell is ~ 10^14 stronger than
the electrical force on the atomic electron in the ground state
of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e at the
classical electron radius 10^-13cm. The relative self-electric
force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of the typical mid-range EVO is only
about 10^4 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40G.
That is the effective Planck length Lp* in the interior of a
single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm. The effective Planck length
in the interior of a typical EVO is therefore ~ 10^-11 cm ~ h/mc
(a curious coincidence) since G* ~ Lp^*2. That is the ìEddington
numberî G*/G ~ 10^44 to stabilize the typical EVO. Note in this
thin shell model the uniform zero point energy density core actually
has negative pressure to give a springy positive potential self-energy
that scales as r^5 whose force slope is opposite to the positive
Coulomb potential self-energy that scales as 1/r. ...".
I have a new calculation on that, which will be in the GR17 paper. I think they are both consistent with
each other, but I am still working on it.
-------------------------
and, after reading that, about a month ago,
I wrote to you asking how your analysis of the clusters might or
might not apply to ball lightning,
but I have not received a reply. In case you trashed my message,
I am attaching a copy of it below my signature.
I am too busy with other things. However, ball lightning is probably a good association.
electrons -> charge clusters -> ball lightning as we ascend the great chain of being and becoming ... a kind of scale invariance perhaps.
Basically, it is a question about how your model behaves
if you scale up the Ken Shoulders charge clusters,
and I think that it is something that should be evaluated
if clusters are to be used in your model for UFOs or star gates.
Tony
Absolutely - this all takes time.
--------------------------------------------------------
Copy of earlier message from me to Jack:
Status: U
X-Sender: f130smith@pop.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:46:44 -0400
To: sarfatti@well.com
From: Tony Smith
Subject: Ball Lightning etc
Cc: f130smith@mindspring.com
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Jack,
your recent message about EVO with r = 10^-4 cm, and N = 10^11
started me thinking about Ball Lightning,
so I tried to rewrite your message with the idea
that N is proportional to area r^2.
If you have a chance to look at the stuff,
please let me know what you think.
------------------------------------------------------
A typical Ball Lightning has r ~ 10 cm, N = 10^21.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1
with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to
the Ball Lightning self-electrical force 10^42 x 10^-2 = 10^40
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the
surface of the Ball Lightning assumed to be in a spherical thin shell
is ~ 10^24 stronger than the electrical force on
the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e
at the classical electron radius 10^-13cm.
The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of the Ball Lightning is
about 10^14 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40 G.
That is
the effective Planck length Lp* in
the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm.
The effective Planck length in the interior of the Ball Lightning
is therefore ~ 10^-6 cm since G* ~ Lp^*2.
---------------------------------------------------
A big (football field) Ball Lightning has r ~ 10^4 cm, N = 10^27.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1
with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to
big Ball Lightning self-electrical force 10^54 x 10^-8 = 10^46
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the
surface of big Ball Lightning assumed to be in a spherical thin shell
is ~ 10^30 stronger than the electrical force on
the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e
at the classical electron radius 10^-13 cm.
The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of big Ball Lightning is
about 10^20 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40 G.
That is
the effective Planck length Lp* in
the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm.
The effective Planck length in the interior of big Ball Lightning
is therefore ~ 10^-3 cm since G* ~ Lp^*2.
---------------------------------------------------
Tony
On Jun 25, 2004, at 4:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
BTW latest version - paper still under construction
See also http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.pdf
On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:44 PM, Gary G. Ford wrote:
Tony Smith wrote:
> Whether you are entertained or repelled by Jack's theatrics,
> his physics should be evaluated as physics, and in my opinion his
> physics is interesting. My main complaint is that I would like to
> see a demonstration (preferably theatrical a la Otto von Guericke)
> but
> so far Jack has pleaded "I am not an engineer" whenever I have asked
> for him to design a proof-of-principle experiment (like horses harnessed
> to hemispheres containing a vacuum).
This is not really accurate. I have explained many observations that cannot be explained any other way such as (not a complete list)
1. Why the cosmological constant is so small. The discrepancy is 122 powers of ten!
2. Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it shrinks when hit hard in scattering.
3. What the galactic halo is.
4. What Ken Shoulders' charge clusters are.
I have correctly predicted that dark matter detectors will not click with the right stuff to explain the 0.23 observations. This prediction can falsify my theory.
I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are! How Einstein's GR actually emerges from the substratum! To see how confused The Pundits are on all this simply watch Alan Alda's interview of Mike Turner on PBS Scientific American Frontiers!
Ask the string theorists like Lenny Susskind and Ed Witten and the loop quantum gravity people like Ashtekar and Baez to pass a similar test of not being "not even wrong" (W. Pauli).
As for proof of concept - VERY SIMPLE! The Flying Saucers! Heads up! The Truth is Out There.
Jack, when I said, about your UFO energy source ideas,
"... I would like to see a demonstration
(preferably theatrical a la Otto von Guericke)
but
so far Jack has pleaded "I am not an engineer" whenever I have asked
for him to design a proof-of-principle experiment (like horses
harnessed to hemispheres containing a vacuum) ...".
you replied
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"... This is not really accurate. I have explained many observations
that cannot be explained any other way such as (not a complete list)
1. Why the cosmological constant is so small. The discrepancy is 122
powers of ten!
2. Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it
shrinks when hit hard in scattering.
3. What the galactic halo is.
4. What Ken Shoulders' charge clusters are.
I have correctly predicted that dark matter detectors will not click
with the right stuff to explain the 0.23 observations. This prediction
can falsify my theory.
I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are!
How Einstein's GR actually emerges from the substratum! To see how
confused The Pundits are on all this simply watch Alan Alda's interview
of Mike Turner on PBS Scientific American Frontiers! ...".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the things your mention, except 4,
do NOT involve any experiment done by humans to CONTROL the energy.
They only EXPLAIN PHENOMENA AS THEY EXIST IN NATURE WITHOUT
INTERACTION OR CONTROL BY HUMANS.
Yes, but they represent an important advance in basic physics IF I have not made
a stupid error or errors - always possible. Or if I simply have the wrong qualitative
conception of the deep structure of reality like I think Hal Puthoff has in both his
RANDOM ZPF origin of inertia and his PV model of gravity. Like Kerry and Bush there
is a clear difference between our physics ideas.
Now as to CONTROL. The good evidence for the reality of flying saucers is given on
the NIDS Website http://www.nidsci.org/ , so I take that as a FACT.
What you ask is not really what a theorist does. It's like asking Einstein for a detailed blueprint
of a nuclear reactor in 1905 right before he published E = mc^2. Nevertheless, I do have a general idea how THEY make the saucers fly and the math for that is in
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf
More is on the way. What is important is that my ideas for the "vacuum propeller" are part of the above grand scheme on the nature of reality and involve the explanation of the cosmological constant problem and other hitherto unsolved basic problems in physical understanding. Once others start thinking seriously about what I have wrought here - technological implementations will be rather direct. Meantime no one really has grasped what I am saying in any detail. They simply do not want to hear it as yet. It's a long upward battle to get the Pundits to pay attention -- but I am working on it. As Romulus and Remos will tell you, Rome was not built in a day! :-)
Ken Shoulders EVOs are quite close to proof of principle.
They have only the level of utility as Gamov's observation
that fusion could be the source of solar energy
has for building a hydrogen bomb,
i.e., they are a way of describing natural phenomena,
but
they are NOT YET a way of CONTROLLING the underlying energy flow.
Again I say heads up, look to the sky. There we see proof of principle and have been seeing it for 50 years.
YOU MUST SHOW A PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE EXPERIMENT TO DEMONSTRATE
HUMAN CONTROL IN ORDER TO CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE A USEFUL MODEL
OF HOW UFOs WORK. That is what I have not yet seen,
and would like to see.
Well I have been working alone on this problem. First I have had to solve the cosmological constant problem to my satisfaction. I first had to understand the real nature of dark energy and dark matter and how together they make a vacuum propeller in terms of Hermann Bondi's "negative matter propeller" with a "reverse Doppler effect" as allegedly seen by Bruce Cornet of NIDS. I only understood the dark energy/matter from vacuum coherence at beginning of 2002! So, this is good progress - a very big bang for a very small buck as these things go. I have been trying to get Hal Puthoff off his hobby horse to help me with this problem. Ken Shoulders, Hal's key experimental collaborator for many years back to NSA days in DC, has crossed over to my side on this and Ken is trying to get Hal to hop on my bandwagon - at least to shoot down my ideas as I have shot down his - quid pro quo. http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.pdf
Also,
I have no problem with you saying things that indicate
that "... string theorists like Lenny Susskind and Ed Witten
and the loop quantum gravity people like Ashtekar and Baez to
pass a similar test of not being "not even wrong" ..."
but
I do have a problem with your statement that you
"... have explained many observations that cannot be
explained any other way ..."
because my model
(see my web site at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/TShome.html )
can not only do those things, it can also calculate the WMAP ratios
presently observed (which you indicated in correspondence that
your model cannot do) and can also calculate particle masses
and force strengths and K-M parameters.
Yes, maybe. I cannot understand your ideas here. I have been too busy with my own, which are mathematically much simpler and more direct. That's why I have suggested you work with Saul-Paul Sirag and Carlos Castro to make your basic ideas more understandable. My basic ideas are very mainstream and battle-tested. I simply use Einstein's text book GR, text book QM and text book ideas from soft condensed matter physics on the topological defects in macro-quantum order parameters etc. I also need Bohm's pilot wave-hidden variable theory. My math is little more than high school level, except for basic ideas of group theory and most importantly local gauge invariance and Hagen Kleinert's elastic world crystal lattice formulation of GR's tensor calculus. My BIG INSIGHT is replacing h/m quantum of vorticity in superfluids with quantum of area Lp*^2 in supersolids, which gives hologram picture and Hawking-Bekenstein bits automatically BTW.
I should note your model does have some points of similarity to mine
because some of its features are based on some of your ideas,
which I have tried to explicitly credit on my web site,
but there are some major differences, so they really are distinct
models.
I got idea of locally gauging 15 parameter conformal group basically from you. Also discussion with you clarified how w = -1 geons with positive quantum pressure simulates CDM with w ~ 0 as explanation of Omega(DM) ~ 0.23.
I should also note that, like you, I have not yet written up
a proof-of-principle experiment such as I would like to see,
so my model is no better than yours in that regard,
but as of now it is as good and is in fact "another way" to
explain 1, 2, 3 etc.
Explain cosmological constant.
As to 4 - Ken Shoulder's charge clusters,
maybe they are produced by humans, but I have not yet seen
how they are useful for energy production or proof.
You need to talk to Ken. He has lots of evidence.
You described the clusters in this way:
------------------
"... A typical EVO has r ~ 10^-4 cm, N = 10^11.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1 with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to the EVO self-electrical force 10^22x10^8 = 10^30
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the surface of the typical EVO assumed
to be in a spherical thin shell is ~ 10^14 stronger than
the electrical force on the atomic electron in the ground state
of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e at the
classical electron radius 10^-13cm. The relative self-electric
force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of the typical mid-range EVO is only
about 10^4 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40G.
That is the effective Planck length Lp* in the interior of a
single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm. The effective Planck length
in the interior of a typical EVO is therefore ~ 10^-11 cm ~ h/mc
(a curious coincidence) since G* ~ Lp^*2. That is the ìEddington
numberî G*/G ~ 10^44 to stabilize the typical EVO. Note in this
thin shell model the uniform zero point energy density core actually
has negative pressure to give a springy positive potential self-energy
that scales as r^5 whose force slope is opposite to the positive
Coulomb potential self-energy that scales as 1/r. ...".
I have a new calculation on that, which will be in the GR17 paper. I think they are both consistent with
each other, but I am still working on it.
-------------------------
and, after reading that, about a month ago,
I wrote to you asking how your analysis of the clusters might or
might not apply to ball lightning,
but I have not received a reply. In case you trashed my message,
I am attaching a copy of it below my signature.
I am too busy with other things. However, ball lightning is probably a good association.
electrons -> charge clusters -> ball lightning as we ascend the great chain of being and becoming ... a kind of scale invariance perhaps.
Basically, it is a question about how your model behaves
if you scale up the Ken Shoulders charge clusters,
and I think that it is something that should be evaluated
if clusters are to be used in your model for UFOs or star gates.
Tony
Absolutely - this all takes time.
--------------------------------------------------------
Copy of earlier message from me to Jack:
Status: U
X-Sender: f130smith@pop.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:46:44 -0400
To: sarfatti@well.com
From: Tony Smith
Subject: Ball Lightning etc
Cc: f130smith@mindspring.com
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Jack,
your recent message about EVO with r = 10^-4 cm, and N = 10^11
started me thinking about Ball Lightning,
so I tried to rewrite your message with the idea
that N is proportional to area r^2.
If you have a chance to look at the stuff,
please let me know what you think.
------------------------------------------------------
A typical Ball Lightning has r ~ 10 cm, N = 10^21.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1
with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to
the Ball Lightning self-electrical force 10^42 x 10^-2 = 10^40
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the
surface of the Ball Lightning assumed to be in a spherical thin shell
is ~ 10^24 stronger than the electrical force on
the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e
at the classical electron radius 10^-13cm.
The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of the Ball Lightning is
about 10^14 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40 G.
That is
the effective Planck length Lp* in
the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm.
The effective Planck length in the interior of the Ball Lightning
is therefore ~ 10^-6 cm since G* ~ Lp^*2.
---------------------------------------------------
A big (football field) Ball Lightning has r ~ 10^4 cm, N = 10^27.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1
with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to
big Ball Lightning self-electrical force 10^54 x 10^-8 = 10^46
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the
surface of big Ball Lightning assumed to be in a spherical thin shell
is ~ 10^30 stronger than the electrical force on
the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e
at the classical electron radius 10^-13 cm.
The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of big Ball Lightning is
about 10^20 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40 G.
That is
the effective Planck length Lp* in
the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm.
The effective Planck length in the interior of big Ball Lightning
is therefore ~ 10^-3 cm since G* ~ Lp^*2.
---------------------------------------------------
Tony
On Jun 25, 2004, at 4:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
BTW latest version - paper still under construction
See also http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.pdf
On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:44 PM, Gary G. Ford wrote:
Tony Smith wrote:
> Whether you are entertained or repelled by Jack's theatrics,
> his physics should be evaluated as physics, and in my opinion his
> physics is interesting. My main complaint is that I would like to
> see a demonstration (preferably theatrical a la Otto von Guericke)
> but
> so far Jack has pleaded "I am not an engineer" whenever I have asked
> for him to design a proof-of-principle experiment (like horses harnessed
> to hemispheres containing a vacuum).
This is not really accurate. I have explained many observations that cannot be explained any other way such as (not a complete list)
1. Why the cosmological constant is so small. The discrepancy is 122 powers of ten!
2. Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it shrinks when hit hard in scattering.
3. What the galactic halo is.
4. What Ken Shoulders' charge clusters are.
I have correctly predicted that dark matter detectors will not click with the right stuff to explain the 0.23 observations. This prediction can falsify my theory.
I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are! How Einstein's GR actually emerges from the substratum! To see how confused The Pundits are on all this simply watch Alan Alda's interview of Mike Turner on PBS Scientific American Frontiers!
Ask the string theorists like Lenny Susskind and Ed Witten and the loop quantum gravity people like Ashtekar and Baez to pass a similar test of not being "not even wrong" (W. Pauli).
As for proof of concept - VERY SIMPLE! The Flying Saucers! Heads up! The Truth is Out There.
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
So far so good.
I am investigating whether I can use the generic Alcubierre warp drive metric in the ADM form with my exotic vacuum field equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
These are 10 independent nonlinear partial differential equations that are constraints on the form function f and its first and second order partial derivatives.
However, we need the form function f and its first and second order partial derivatives on a spacelike surface. This gives exactly 10 free functions to fit the 10 constraints. So we are neither under or over determined! That's a good sign. Of course, all of this is a function of the vacuum coherence since the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect here is
/\zpf(induced) = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Overlap Volume)(number density of control condensate)^1/2(number density of vacuum condensate)Cos(Relative Phase between Control and Vacuum Condensates)
Visser's and Lobo's cautionary remarks on the impassible gap between theory and technology are not correct because they are not using the relevant exotic vacuum equation, but are still thinking of brute force Tuv sources! It's a whole new ball game now. We know they are wrong from the factual observations of flying saucers that have already rendered our air and space defence impotent and obsolete by violating our nuclear weapons base air space with impunity for the last 50 years - not a very well kept secret!
On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks Kim
Very useful paper consistent with my theory I think. I will have more to say on it later. I can apply his equations right away.
On Jun 21, 2004, at 6:28 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:
New Mattt Visser paper.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406083
I am investigating whether I can use the generic Alcubierre warp drive metric in the ADM form with my exotic vacuum field equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
These are 10 independent nonlinear partial differential equations that are constraints on the form function f and its first and second order partial derivatives.
However, we need the form function f and its first and second order partial derivatives on a spacelike surface. This gives exactly 10 free functions to fit the 10 constraints. So we are neither under or over determined! That's a good sign. Of course, all of this is a function of the vacuum coherence since the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect here is
/\zpf(induced) = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Overlap Volume)(number density of control condensate)^1/2(number density of vacuum condensate)Cos(Relative Phase between Control and Vacuum Condensates)
Visser's and Lobo's cautionary remarks on the impassible gap between theory and technology are not correct because they are not using the relevant exotic vacuum equation, but are still thinking of brute force Tuv sources! It's a whole new ball game now. We know they are wrong from the factual observations of flying saucers that have already rendered our air and space defence impotent and obsolete by violating our nuclear weapons base air space with impunity for the last 50 years - not a very well kept secret!
On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks Kim
Very useful paper consistent with my theory I think. I will have more to say on it later. I can apply his equations right away.
On Jun 21, 2004, at 6:28 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:
New Mattt Visser paper.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406083
Yeah, thanks. This looks interesting and relevant to a lot of problems I am working on. Remember, the double-well potential plays a key role in my theory of emergence of consciousness from the hydrophobically caged electrons inside the micro-tubules. Also the Mexican Hat (Sombrero) Potential for vacuum coherence is a kind of double well in abstract 3 space if we make it vibrate stochastically with transient bumps and ripples around the Goldstone phase direction along the circular rim as well as up the Higgs slope.
V(Mexican Sombrero) = a|Vacuum Coherence|^2 + b|Vacuum Coherence|^4
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Intensity)^1/2 e^i(Goldstone Phase)
a < 0, b > 0
On Jun 22, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Also very interesting idea of array enhanced S.R.
http://environ.spawar.navy.mil/randd/sr/stochastic/tutorial/aesr/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "Gary S. Bekkum"
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Hutchison Effect?
Yes, perhaps.
On Jun 22, 2004, at 1:18 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Subject: Hutchison Effect?
Dark energy anti-gravity might explain it. I have seen the films. The
inability to reproduce the effect could be the phase noise masking I
discuss in http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf ???
I think that is why my intuition says to check into using noise for
signal recovery, i.e. stochastic resonance etc.
http://environ.spawar.navy.mil/randd/sr/stochastic/tutorial/SRintro/
V(Mexican Sombrero) = a|Vacuum Coherence|^2 + b|Vacuum Coherence|^4
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Intensity)^1/2 e^i(Goldstone Phase)
a < 0, b > 0
On Jun 22, 2004, at 1:40 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Also very interesting idea of array enhanced S.R.
http://environ.spawar.navy.mil/randd/sr/stochastic/tutorial/aesr/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Sarfatti"
To: "Gary S. Bekkum"
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Hutchison Effect?
Yes, perhaps.
On Jun 22, 2004, at 1:18 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
Subject: Hutchison Effect?
Dark energy anti-gravity might explain it. I have seen the films. The
inability to reproduce the effect could be the phase noise masking I
discuss in http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf ???
I think that is why my intuition says to check into using noise for
signal recovery, i.e. stochastic resonance etc.
http://environ.spawar.navy.mil/randd/sr/stochastic/tutorial/SRintro/
bcc
Memorandum for the historical record on the emergence of metric engineering concepts.
Dear Marc
Mine is the only one of your proposals coming in which has even a ghost of a chance of working as practical metric engineering because:
It only uses battle-tested mainstream physics, i.e. Einstein's GR, quantum theory, condensed matter physics of macro-quantum coherent order parameters described by P.W. Anderson as "More is different" that includes Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity" 1967 for emergent gravity as "generalized phase rigidity" of the local macro-quantum vacuum coherence order parameter. Also, unlike ALL of your proposals coming in, mine has a seamless connection with the major problems in physics today e.g. the dark energy/cosmological constant problem, the renormalization problem in quantum field theory (e.g. stability of electron under its self-charge), stability of galaxy, universal Regge slope of hadronic resonances, Ken Shoulders' "charge clusters." Dare I also mention the heretical 3 letter word "UFO"? No, I guess not. :-)
Hal Puthoff's competing program to mine, i.e. the "PV" dielectric analogy approach to GR is much further out of the mainstream and so far his published results disagree with actual empirical data. Hal tries to avoid standard tensor calculus with metrics, consequently he has yet to publish a model with a rotating source, and he has yet to show how his theory based on a special action principle can give a warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre and the recent paper by Visser et-al http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0406/0406083.pdf
Also Hal has yet to show how an applied electromagnetic Fuv field can change his vacuum K function by a large enough amount to make a practical difference for actual metric engineering. He cannot do it using orthodox QED, the effect is too small.
Note that Visser and Lobo also make reference to dark energy in the context of a warp drive - probably first in a mainstream paper, but my two books from end of 2002 already have that idea clearly spelled out. Visser also bends over backwards to caution the reader not to get too enthusiastic about imminent technological applications since the "fact" of UFOs is denied otherwise he could not publish his paper - quite obviously.
One important technical point on Visser's latest paper on warp drive
He uses only
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
Not the equation I use which is
Guv + /\zpfguv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
That I approximate as the pure exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0
assuming G/c^4 ~ 10^-33 cm/10^19Gev
so that, with my subsidiary vacuum coherence equations
/\zpfguv >> (8piG/c^4)Tuv
Is the "metric engineering regime" of practical interest with
/\zpf controlled by an electromagnetic Au potential in a Bohm-Aharonov- Josephson gauge covariant "weak link" in the relative phase between a control macro-quantum coherent field and the vacuum coherence of virtual electron-positron pairs.
Ken Shoulders EVO data http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExotcVacuumObjects.pdf seem to confirm this basic idea, as well as the absence of dark matter particles after 14 years of trying with only false alarms.
On Jun 22, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Marc G. Millis wrote:
PS The work is published in 3 books copyrighted and in the US Library of
Congress database.
The titles of these books are given in the xls, which I find extremely
difficult to understand BTW I mean what the categories even mean in some
cases. I am not used to dealing with USG bureaucratic jargon and dotting all
the i's etc. I ran into this same problem with Paul Murad at STAIF.
I appreciate the difficulty of converting one's work to fit the formats of others. Considering that I'm expecting dozens, perhaps hundreds of submissions, I need some uniform way to compare them. After I've had a chance to screen the submissions, I'll get back with you if yours needs adjustments to be considered for inclusion.
Marc
Memorandum for the historical record on the emergence of metric engineering concepts.
Dear Marc
Mine is the only one of your proposals coming in which has even a ghost of a chance of working as practical metric engineering because:
It only uses battle-tested mainstream physics, i.e. Einstein's GR, quantum theory, condensed matter physics of macro-quantum coherent order parameters described by P.W. Anderson as "More is different" that includes Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity" 1967 for emergent gravity as "generalized phase rigidity" of the local macro-quantum vacuum coherence order parameter. Also, unlike ALL of your proposals coming in, mine has a seamless connection with the major problems in physics today e.g. the dark energy/cosmological constant problem, the renormalization problem in quantum field theory (e.g. stability of electron under its self-charge), stability of galaxy, universal Regge slope of hadronic resonances, Ken Shoulders' "charge clusters." Dare I also mention the heretical 3 letter word "UFO"? No, I guess not. :-)
Hal Puthoff's competing program to mine, i.e. the "PV" dielectric analogy approach to GR is much further out of the mainstream and so far his published results disagree with actual empirical data. Hal tries to avoid standard tensor calculus with metrics, consequently he has yet to publish a model with a rotating source, and he has yet to show how his theory based on a special action principle can give a warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre and the recent paper by Visser et-al http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0406/0406083.pdf
Also Hal has yet to show how an applied electromagnetic Fuv field can change his vacuum K function by a large enough amount to make a practical difference for actual metric engineering. He cannot do it using orthodox QED, the effect is too small.
Note that Visser and Lobo also make reference to dark energy in the context of a warp drive - probably first in a mainstream paper, but my two books from end of 2002 already have that idea clearly spelled out. Visser also bends over backwards to caution the reader not to get too enthusiastic about imminent technological applications since the "fact" of UFOs is denied otherwise he could not publish his paper - quite obviously.
One important technical point on Visser's latest paper on warp drive
He uses only
Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
Not the equation I use which is
Guv + /\zpfguv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
That I approximate as the pure exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0
assuming G/c^4 ~ 10^-33 cm/10^19Gev
so that, with my subsidiary vacuum coherence equations
/\zpfguv >> (8piG/c^4)Tuv
Is the "metric engineering regime" of practical interest with
/\zpf controlled by an electromagnetic Au potential in a Bohm-Aharonov- Josephson gauge covariant "weak link" in the relative phase between a control macro-quantum coherent field and the vacuum coherence of virtual electron-positron pairs.
Ken Shoulders EVO data http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExotcVacuumObjects.pdf seem to confirm this basic idea, as well as the absence of dark matter particles after 14 years of trying with only false alarms.
On Jun 22, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Marc G. Millis wrote:
PS The work is published in 3 books copyrighted and in the US Library of
Congress database.
The titles of these books are given in the xls, which I find extremely
difficult to understand BTW I mean what the categories even mean in some
cases. I am not used to dealing with USG bureaucratic jargon and dotting all
the i's etc. I ran into this same problem with Paul Murad at STAIF.
I appreciate the difficulty of converting one's work to fit the formats of others. Considering that I'm expecting dozens, perhaps hundreds of submissions, I need some uniform way to compare them. After I've had a chance to screen the submissions, I'll get back with you if yours needs adjustments to be considered for inclusion.
Marc
Monday, June 21, 2004
On Jun 21, 2004, at 11:37 AM, SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com wrote:
There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Spin Triplets - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
From: "Berkant"
2. Spin Triplets - Spintronics - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
From: "Berkant"
3. Re: Multiple Universes and Creation; Big Bang Goes Bust? NO!
From: Jack Sarfatti
Good.
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:00:41 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Spin Triplets - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
Jack wrote that we need spin triplets.. Terry mentioned nanotube
quantum dots..
Let's look for "spin triplets" nanotubes in google:
7 items..
PDF] Towards Quantum Communication with Electron
SpinsDateiformat: ... a noise measurement can distinguish spin-
singlet states from spin-triplets by probing ... superconductivity
was found in ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes [39 ...
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/ issues/fiz-03-27-5/fiz-27-5-
10-0309-3.pdf
[PDF] Creation of Nonlocal Spin-Entangled Electrons via Andreev
.... by strong correlations in one-dimensional leads (such as
nanotubes) with Luttinger ... whereas the noise is suppressed in the
case of spin triplets because of ...
http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=367297&PDF=1
[PDF] arXiv:cond-mat/0205484 v1 23 May ... correlations in one-
dimensional leads (such as nanotubes) with Luttinger liquid
properties. ... whereas the noise is suppressed in the case of spin
triplets due to ...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0205484
[PDF] arXiv:cond-mat/0009452 v2 13 Oct 2000Dateiformat: PDF/Adobe
Acrobat - HTML-Version
.... to bunching behavior, whereas the noise is suppressed for spin-
triplets leading to ... Other candidate materials are eg carbon
nanotubes which also show Coulomb ...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0009452
[PDF] THE GENERATION AND DETECTION OF ELECTRON
ENTANGLEMENTDateiformat: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - HTML-Version
.... Kim on numerous experimental and theoreti- cal issues, including
the very exciting observation of noise suppression in single-walled
Carbon nanotubes with our ...
http://marcuslab.harvard.edu/theses/ othertheses/Oliver_Thesis.pdf
[PDF] Few-electron quantum dots
Page 1. I NSTITUTE OF P HYSICS P UBLISHING R EPORTS ON P ROGRESS IN
P HYSICS Rep. Prog. Phys. 64 (2001) 701–736 www.iop.org/Journals ...
http://qt.tn.tudelft.nl/publi/Leok/IOPLeok01-dreamteam.pdf
Phys. Rev. B 63, 165314 (2001): Recher et al. - Andreev
tunneling ...... bunching behavior, whereas the noise is suppressed
for spin triplets leading toantibunching ... 19 Other candidate
materials are, eg, carbon nanotubes, which also ...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.63.165314
--- In SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, Jack Sarfatti
wrote:
The team considered nanotori with various radii, made from
different
types of metallic nanotube, known as 'armchair' or 'zigzag'. In
their
calculations, the researchers assume that the nanotori are in a
magnetic field of 0.1 tesla, which causes the spins of the
electrons
to line up, producing a magnetic moment. They also imagined that
the
electrons were flowing around the rings as an electrical current.
Problem with Cooper pairs are that they are spin singlets. We
would
need spin triplets.
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:18:41 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Spin Triplets - Spintronics - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
Yesterday, I started reading the Corso book.. in the introduction we
can read: "And this is not to mention the military fears at first
that the craft might have been an experimental Soviet weapon because
it bore a resemblance to some of the German-designed aircraft that
had made their appearances near the end of the war, especially the
crescent-shaped Horton flying wing..."
I will soon upload some of results related to my intuitive Fibonacci
flying wing design.. see at http://www.future-workshop.com
Interesting, the first search item of the search function "spin
triplets" nanotubes shows a spintronics link to the
TURKISH JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/
-->
SARAGA sounds like a Turkish name...
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-03-27-5/fiz-27-5-
10-0309-3.pdf
Towards Quantum Communication with Electron Spins
D.S. SARAGA1, G. BURKARD2, J. C. EGUES3, H.-A. ENGEL1,
P. RECHER1, D. LOSS1
1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Basel
Klingelbergstrasse 82, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
2IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, P. O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights,
NY 10598
3Department of Physics and Informatics, University of S~ao Paulo at
S~ao Carlos, 13560-970 S~ao Carlos/SP, Brazil
in Turk J Phys 27 (2003) , 427 - 441.
We review our recent work towards quantum communication in a solid-
state environment with qubits carried by electron spins. We propose
three schemes to produce spin-entangled electrons, where the
required separation of the partner electrons is achieved via Coulomb
interaction. The non-product spinstates originate either from the
Cooper pairs found in a superconductor, or in the ground state of a
quantum dot with an even number of electrons. In a second stage, we
show how spin-entanglement carried by a singlet can be detected in a
beam-splitter geometry by an increased (bunching) or decreased
(antibunching) noise signal. We also discuss how a local spin-orbit
interaction can be used to provide a continuous modulation of the
noise as a signature of entanglement. Finally, we review how one can
use a quantum dot as a spin-filter, a spin-memory read-out, a probe
for single-spin decoherence and, ultimately, a single-spin
measurement apparatus.
Yes, this looks good. A step in the right direction. I thought of qualitative idea of spintronics for quantum computing quite independently in late 1970's and it was very much part of Harold Chipman's plan in 1984 as shown in documents in "Destiny Matrix." It's actually an obvious idea, but it took awhile to become "mainstream" and "respectable."
Note, that spintronics may well involve the Soviet torsion fields, if Nature allows them. Nature should allow them since they have the same origin as Einstein's gravity, i.e. local gauge invariance principle applied to the space-time symmetries of the conformal group. This demands additional gauge force fields, i.e.
1. Einstein's 1916 gravity from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group infinitesimally generated by total Energy-Momentum Pu
2. Soviet (Shipov/Akimov) torsion fields from locally gauging the 6-parameter Lorentz group infinitesimally generated by 3 total angular momenta J = L + S for space-space rotations and 3 Lorentz boosts for mixed space-time rotations.
3. A local gauge force field from the 4 special conformal transformations to uniformly accelerated "hyperbolic" special relativistic rocket motion.
4. A local gauge force field from 1 dilation, which seems to be linked to Bohm's quantum potential.
guv(x) ---> g'uv(x) = D(x)guv(x)
The idea here is simple. Use the local gauge invariance principle for ALL continuous symmetries both internal and space-time.
The issue of the strength of the coupling constants - generally not constants at all, but scale-dependent variables is largely an empirical matter. See "renormalization group flows to fixed points."
1. Introduction
The goal of the growing field of spintronics [1, 2] is to harness the
spin degree-of-freedom of the electron in a solid-state environment.
By going beyond the manipulation of the electron charge found in
standard electronics, one pursues the development of new devices
that use specifically the electron spin: for instance, magnetic read-
out heads for computer hard drives, single-spin memories, or spin
transistors [3, 4]. One ingredient is the injection and detection of
spin-polarized currents, which has now been studied experimentally
with various approaches [5, 6, 7]. A more ambitious step is to
consider quantum computation [8], for which it has been proposed to
use the electron spin as a qubit [9]. This naturally requires
coherent manipulation of the quantum spin-state, which is limited by
decoherence. The issue of electron spin decoherence in semiconductors
has found positive support from a number of experiments, which have
now demonstrated long decoherence times (exceeding 100 ns) for
electron spins in bulk n-doped GaAs, as well as coherent transport
of spins over distances up to 100 m [11]. In this work, we address
the most fundamental issues concerning the use of the electron spin
in quantum communication [10], the basic resource being Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pairs [12]. Here the motivation stems from for
the desire to use the same physical qubit as the one used for
quantum computation [9], in order to have "on-chip" quantum
communication without transfers to photonic states. Secondly, these
e orts open the path towards experimental tests of quantum
non-locality with massive particles in the solid state (via
violation of Bell's inequality [13]).
....
5. Conclusion
We have proposed and theoretically analyzed devices which address a
number of milestones of quantum communication protocols with
electron spins in mesoscopic systems. For the creation of EPR-pairs,
we have proposed three di erent schemes for the preparation of spin-
singlet electron pairs, and their injection into solid-state quantum
channels. In the second part, we have discussed an interference
device able to distinguish, via noise measurement, the entangled
spin singlet from the spin triplet states. A local spin-orbit
interaction extends this proposal by allowing a continuously
variable noise signature, controllable by external gates.
Finally, we have shown how one can use single quantum dots as
fundamental tools for accessing quantum information stored as a
single spin. We have described a spin-lter, a spin-memory read-out,
and, finally, a device able to estimate the decoherence rate of a
single-spin in a quantum dot |a crucial parameter for the coherent
manipulation of the fundamental quantum system that is an electron
spin.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank E.V. Sukhorukov for his contribution to the
work presented here. Financial support from NCCR "Nanoscale
Science", Swiss NSF, U.S. DARPA and ARO is gratefully acknowledged.
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:23:22 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Multiple Universes and Creation; Big Bang Goes Bust? NO!
On Jun 21, 2004, at 9:34 AM, michael ibison wrote:
HI Victor
That I don't embrace BB is an accurate description. I do not hold a
strong
view on whether or not the currently accepted view is correct. That
makes me
a radical. Not because I say it is wrong, but because I am an agnostic.
Cheers,
Michael
That's only because you have not kept up with advances in the field. I
agree that prior to say end of 2002 the position held in that May 22,
2004 New Scientist Letter was slightly plausible and defensible as a
long shot - but no longer. Without applying a double standard, the
Baysean probability that the standard model with chaotic inflation,
dark energy/matter is essentially correct is very close to 100% and
getting closer all the time as new data comes in. What we have here is
a debate on how to weigh the new data that you admit you are not very
up on. I have been to 2 APS meetings on this topic in 2003 and listened
closely to Mike Turner and Saul Perlmutter - the experimental work is
beautiful - some of the best in the history of physics. This is a real
turning point. It also explains the saucers, the emergence of
Einstein's gravity from the cohering of random noise ZPF not from its
friction, the stability of electrically charged elementary particles as
spatially extended structures that shrink when hit hard, the stability
of the galaxy, the universal Regge slope, Ken Shoulders' charge
clusters, the Arrow of Time and even the emergence of consciousness in
the many worlds. What more do you want? This is grand!
Strong prediction that can falsify my idea: Dark matter detectors
cannot click, in principle, with the right stuff to explain Omega(DM) ~
0.23 any more than the motion of the Earth through the Galilean ether
can be detected with a Michelson-Morley interferometer in the domain of
validity of special relativity where the scale of the relative phase
measurements are small compared to the radius of curvature that the Sun
makes at the position of the Earth in its orbit.
PS How do Marshall Trevor/Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole et-al explain
observed sub-Poisson statistics of photon anti-bunching in laser light
which requires negative probability if you use SED?
There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Spin Triplets - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
From: "Berkant"
2. Spin Triplets - Spintronics - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
From: "Berkant"
3. Re: Multiple Universes and Creation; Big Bang Goes Bust? NO!
From: Jack Sarfatti
Good.
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:00:41 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Spin Triplets - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
Jack wrote that we need spin triplets.. Terry mentioned nanotube
quantum dots..
Let's look for "spin triplets" nanotubes in google:
7 items..
PDF] Towards Quantum Communication with Electron
SpinsDateiformat: ... a noise measurement can distinguish spin-
singlet states from spin-triplets by probing ... superconductivity
was found in ropes of single-walled carbon nanotubes [39 ...
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/ issues/fiz-03-27-5/fiz-27-5-
10-0309-3.pdf
[PDF] Creation of Nonlocal Spin-Entangled Electrons via Andreev
.... by strong correlations in one-dimensional leads (such as
nanotubes) with Luttinger ... whereas the noise is suppressed in the
case of spin triplets because of ...
http://www.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=367297&PDF=1
[PDF] arXiv:cond-mat/0205484 v1 23 May ... correlations in one-
dimensional leads (such as nanotubes) with Luttinger liquid
properties. ... whereas the noise is suppressed in the case of spin
triplets due to ...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0205484
[PDF] arXiv:cond-mat/0009452 v2 13 Oct 2000Dateiformat: PDF/Adobe
Acrobat - HTML-Version
.... to bunching behavior, whereas the noise is suppressed for spin-
triplets leading to ... Other candidate materials are eg carbon
nanotubes which also show Coulomb ...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0009452
[PDF] THE GENERATION AND DETECTION OF ELECTRON
ENTANGLEMENTDateiformat: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - HTML-Version
.... Kim on numerous experimental and theoreti- cal issues, including
the very exciting observation of noise suppression in single-walled
Carbon nanotubes with our ...
http://marcuslab.harvard.edu/theses/ othertheses/Oliver_Thesis.pdf
[PDF] Few-electron quantum dots
Page 1. I NSTITUTE OF P HYSICS P UBLISHING R EPORTS ON P ROGRESS IN
P HYSICS Rep. Prog. Phys. 64 (2001) 701–736 www.iop.org/Journals ...
http://qt.tn.tudelft.nl/publi/Leok/IOPLeok01-dreamteam.pdf
Phys. Rev. B 63, 165314 (2001): Recher et al. - Andreev
tunneling ...... bunching behavior, whereas the noise is suppressed
for spin triplets leading toantibunching ... 19 Other candidate
materials are, eg, carbon nanotubes, which also ...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.63.165314
--- In SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, Jack Sarfatti
The team considered nanotori with various radii, made from
different
types of metallic nanotube, known as 'armchair' or 'zigzag'. In
their
calculations, the researchers assume that the nanotori are in a
magnetic field of 0.1 tesla, which causes the spins of the
electrons
to line up, producing a magnetic moment. They also imagined that
the
electrons were flowing around the rings as an electrical current.
Problem with Cooper pairs are that they are spin singlets. We
would
need spin triplets.
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:18:41 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Spin Triplets - Spintronics - Nano-scale metric engineering with self-assembly?
Yesterday, I started reading the Corso book.. in the introduction we
can read: "And this is not to mention the military fears at first
that the craft might have been an experimental Soviet weapon because
it bore a resemblance to some of the German-designed aircraft that
had made their appearances near the end of the war, especially the
crescent-shaped Horton flying wing..."
I will soon upload some of results related to my intuitive Fibonacci
flying wing design.. see at http://www.future-workshop.com
Interesting, the first search item of the search function "spin
triplets" nanotubes shows a spintronics link to the
TURKISH JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/
-->
SARAGA sounds like a Turkish name...
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/physics/issues/fiz-03-27-5/fiz-27-5-
10-0309-3.pdf
Towards Quantum Communication with Electron Spins
D.S. SARAGA1, G. BURKARD2, J. C. EGUES3, H.-A. ENGEL1,
P. RECHER1, D. LOSS1
1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Basel
Klingelbergstrasse 82, 4056 Basel, Switzerland
2IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, P. O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights,
NY 10598
3Department of Physics and Informatics, University of S~ao Paulo at
S~ao Carlos, 13560-970 S~ao Carlos/SP, Brazil
in Turk J Phys 27 (2003) , 427 - 441.
We review our recent work towards quantum communication in a solid-
state environment with qubits carried by electron spins. We propose
three schemes to produce spin-entangled electrons, where the
required separation of the partner electrons is achieved via Coulomb
interaction. The non-product spinstates originate either from the
Cooper pairs found in a superconductor, or in the ground state of a
quantum dot with an even number of electrons. In a second stage, we
show how spin-entanglement carried by a singlet can be detected in a
beam-splitter geometry by an increased (bunching) or decreased
(antibunching) noise signal. We also discuss how a local spin-orbit
interaction can be used to provide a continuous modulation of the
noise as a signature of entanglement. Finally, we review how one can
use a quantum dot as a spin-filter, a spin-memory read-out, a probe
for single-spin decoherence and, ultimately, a single-spin
measurement apparatus.
Yes, this looks good. A step in the right direction. I thought of qualitative idea of spintronics for quantum computing quite independently in late 1970's and it was very much part of Harold Chipman's plan in 1984 as shown in documents in "Destiny Matrix." It's actually an obvious idea, but it took awhile to become "mainstream" and "respectable."
Note, that spintronics may well involve the Soviet torsion fields, if Nature allows them. Nature should allow them since they have the same origin as Einstein's gravity, i.e. local gauge invariance principle applied to the space-time symmetries of the conformal group. This demands additional gauge force fields, i.e.
1. Einstein's 1916 gravity from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group infinitesimally generated by total Energy-Momentum Pu
2. Soviet (Shipov/Akimov) torsion fields from locally gauging the 6-parameter Lorentz group infinitesimally generated by 3 total angular momenta J = L + S for space-space rotations and 3 Lorentz boosts for mixed space-time rotations.
3. A local gauge force field from the 4 special conformal transformations to uniformly accelerated "hyperbolic" special relativistic rocket motion.
4. A local gauge force field from 1 dilation, which seems to be linked to Bohm's quantum potential.
guv(x) ---> g'uv(x) = D(x)guv(x)
The idea here is simple. Use the local gauge invariance principle for ALL continuous symmetries both internal and space-time.
The issue of the strength of the coupling constants - generally not constants at all, but scale-dependent variables is largely an empirical matter. See "renormalization group flows to fixed points."
1. Introduction
The goal of the growing field of spintronics [1, 2] is to harness the
spin degree-of-freedom of the electron in a solid-state environment.
By going beyond the manipulation of the electron charge found in
standard electronics, one pursues the development of new devices
that use specifically the electron spin: for instance, magnetic read-
out heads for computer hard drives, single-spin memories, or spin
transistors [3, 4]. One ingredient is the injection and detection of
spin-polarized currents, which has now been studied experimentally
with various approaches [5, 6, 7]. A more ambitious step is to
consider quantum computation [8], for which it has been proposed to
use the electron spin as a qubit [9]. This naturally requires
coherent manipulation of the quantum spin-state, which is limited by
decoherence. The issue of electron spin decoherence in semiconductors
has found positive support from a number of experiments, which have
now demonstrated long decoherence times (exceeding 100 ns) for
electron spins in bulk n-doped GaAs, as well as coherent transport
of spins over distances up to 100 m [11]. In this work, we address
the most fundamental issues concerning the use of the electron spin
in quantum communication [10], the basic resource being Einstein-
Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) pairs [12]. Here the motivation stems from for
the desire to use the same physical qubit as the one used for
quantum computation [9], in order to have "on-chip" quantum
communication without transfers to photonic states. Secondly, these
e orts open the path towards experimental tests of quantum
non-locality with massive particles in the solid state (via
violation of Bell's inequality [13]).
....
5. Conclusion
We have proposed and theoretically analyzed devices which address a
number of milestones of quantum communication protocols with
electron spins in mesoscopic systems. For the creation of EPR-pairs,
we have proposed three di erent schemes for the preparation of spin-
singlet electron pairs, and their injection into solid-state quantum
channels. In the second part, we have discussed an interference
device able to distinguish, via noise measurement, the entangled
spin singlet from the spin triplet states. A local spin-orbit
interaction extends this proposal by allowing a continuously
variable noise signature, controllable by external gates.
Finally, we have shown how one can use single quantum dots as
fundamental tools for accessing quantum information stored as a
single spin. We have described a spin-lter, a spin-memory read-out,
and, finally, a device able to estimate the decoherence rate of a
single-spin in a quantum dot |a crucial parameter for the coherent
manipulation of the fundamental quantum system that is an electron
spin.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank E.V. Sukhorukov for his contribution to the
work presented here. Financial support from NCCR "Nanoscale
Science", Swiss NSF, U.S. DARPA and ARO is gratefully acknowledged.
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:23:22 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Multiple Universes and Creation; Big Bang Goes Bust? NO!
On Jun 21, 2004, at 9:34 AM, michael ibison wrote:
HI Victor
That I don't embrace BB is an accurate description. I do not hold a
strong
view on whether or not the currently accepted view is correct. That
makes me
a radical. Not because I say it is wrong, but because I am an agnostic.
Cheers,
Michael
That's only because you have not kept up with advances in the field. I
agree that prior to say end of 2002 the position held in that May 22,
2004 New Scientist Letter was slightly plausible and defensible as a
long shot - but no longer. Without applying a double standard, the
Baysean probability that the standard model with chaotic inflation,
dark energy/matter is essentially correct is very close to 100% and
getting closer all the time as new data comes in. What we have here is
a debate on how to weigh the new data that you admit you are not very
up on. I have been to 2 APS meetings on this topic in 2003 and listened
closely to Mike Turner and Saul Perlmutter - the experimental work is
beautiful - some of the best in the history of physics. This is a real
turning point. It also explains the saucers, the emergence of
Einstein's gravity from the cohering of random noise ZPF not from its
friction, the stability of electrically charged elementary particles as
spatially extended structures that shrink when hit hard, the stability
of the galaxy, the universal Regge slope, Ken Shoulders' charge
clusters, the Arrow of Time and even the emergence of consciousness in
the many worlds. What more do you want? This is grand!
Strong prediction that can falsify my idea: Dark matter detectors
cannot click, in principle, with the right stuff to explain Omega(DM) ~
0.23 any more than the motion of the Earth through the Galilean ether
can be detected with a Michelson-Morley interferometer in the domain of
validity of special relativity where the scale of the relative phase
measurements are small compared to the radius of curvature that the Sun
makes at the position of the Earth in its orbit.
PS How do Marshall Trevor/Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole et-al explain
observed sub-Poisson statistics of photon anti-bunching in laser light
which requires negative probability if you use SED?
On Jun 21, 2004, at 9:34 AM, michael ibison wrote:
"HI Victor
That I don't embrace BB is an accurate description. I do not hold a strong
view on whether or not the currently accepted view is correct. That makes me
a radical. Not because I say it is wrong, but because I am an agnostic.
Cheers,
Michael"
That's only because you have not kept up with advances in the field. I agree that prior to say end of 2002 the position held in that May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter was slightly plausible and defensible as a long shot - but no longer. Without applying a double standard, the Baysean probability that the standard model with chaotic inflation, dark energy/matter is essentially correct is very close to 100% and getting closer all the time as new data comes in. What we have here is a debate on how to weigh the new data that you admit you are not very up on. I have been to 2 APS meetings on this topic in 2003 and listened closely to Mike Turner and Saul Perlmutter - the experimental work is beautiful - some of the best in the history of physics. This is a real turning point. It also explains the saucers, the emergence of Einstein's gravity from the cohering of random noise ZPF not from its friction, the stability of electrically charged elementary particles as spatially extended structures that shrink when hit hard, the stability of the galaxy, the universal Regge slope, Ken Shoulder's charge clusters, the Arrow of Time and even the emergence of consciousness in the many worlds. What more do you want? This is grand!
Strong prediction that can falsify my idea: Dark matter detectors cannot click, in principle, with the right stuff to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23 any more than the motion of the Earth through the Galilean ether can be detected with a Michelson-Morley interferometer in the domain of validity of special relativity where the scale of the relative phase measurements are small compared to the radius of curvature that the Sun makes at the position of the Earth in its orbit.
PS How do Marshall Trevor/Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole et-al explain observed sub-Poisson statistics of photon anti-bunching in laser light which requires negative probability if you use SED?
"HI Victor
That I don't embrace BB is an accurate description. I do not hold a strong
view on whether or not the currently accepted view is correct. That makes me
a radical. Not because I say it is wrong, but because I am an agnostic.
Cheers,
Michael"
That's only because you have not kept up with advances in the field. I agree that prior to say end of 2002 the position held in that May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter was slightly plausible and defensible as a long shot - but no longer. Without applying a double standard, the Baysean probability that the standard model with chaotic inflation, dark energy/matter is essentially correct is very close to 100% and getting closer all the time as new data comes in. What we have here is a debate on how to weigh the new data that you admit you are not very up on. I have been to 2 APS meetings on this topic in 2003 and listened closely to Mike Turner and Saul Perlmutter - the experimental work is beautiful - some of the best in the history of physics. This is a real turning point. It also explains the saucers, the emergence of Einstein's gravity from the cohering of random noise ZPF not from its friction, the stability of electrically charged elementary particles as spatially extended structures that shrink when hit hard, the stability of the galaxy, the universal Regge slope, Ken Shoulder's charge clusters, the Arrow of Time and even the emergence of consciousness in the many worlds. What more do you want? This is grand!
Strong prediction that can falsify my idea: Dark matter detectors cannot click, in principle, with the right stuff to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23 any more than the motion of the Earth through the Galilean ether can be detected with a Michelson-Morley interferometer in the domain of validity of special relativity where the scale of the relative phase measurements are small compared to the radius of curvature that the Sun makes at the position of the Earth in its orbit.
PS How do Marshall Trevor/Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole et-al explain observed sub-Poisson statistics of photon anti-bunching in laser light which requires negative probability if you use SED?
Saturday, June 19, 2004
The Landscape at Davis
"I'm in Nothern California this week, and have been attending some of the talks at the conference at UC Davis celebrating Albert Schwarz's 70th birthday. The landscape at Davis is exceedingly flat, but this morning Lenny Susskind gave a remarkable talk with the title "Exploring the Landscape".
It was a pretty strange talk for a mathematical physics conference since it contained zero mathematics (and it's arguable whether there was any physics...). Susskind blamed Iz Singer for this, claiming that Singer told him he should talk about the landscape stuff since it was leading to a new mathematical field of "statistical topology". He began by holding up a copy of Steven Weinberg's "Dreams of a Final Theory" and reading a quote from it about the cosmological constant. He liked this so much he read the same quote a second time a little while later.
He then discussed some of the recent history of string theory, noting that for a long time string theorists were hoping for a mathematical silver bullet that would provide a more or less unique solution to the theory that looked like the real world. He announced that now the probability of this is less than 1 in 10^500.
Susskind then explained a bit about KKLT vacua, saying that his main reason for discussing them was to show how silly and inelegant they are. He compared them to a Rube Goldberg machine and called Shamit Kachru the "master Rube Goldberg architect".
The most dramatic part of Susskind's talk was something new: an attack on the idea of low-energy supersymmetry. He explained the standard fine-tuning argument for supersymmetry, but then indicated that he thought an anthropic argument made more sense. The reason the Higgs mass is so much smaller than the Planck mass is not supersymmetry, but instead because that small size is necessary for our existence. He said that the question of low-energy supersymmetry is something that Douglas's statistical analysis of vacua should address (Douglas will talk tomorrow), but his view is that low-energy supersymmetry will be very unlikely."
[Sarfatti Commentary: According to Lenny's world hologram idea, the effective Planck scale Lp* should be increasing as the universe expands with scale factor R(t) in units of length as
Lp*(t) = Lp^2/3R(t)^1/3
This means that time's arrow is tied to the expansion of the universe with the Hawking hologram entropy of the universe S(t) obeying
S(t)/k ~ R(t)^2/Lp*^2 ~ R(t)^4/3
On the other hand, the effective G* from
Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
cannot operate on the large scale where we know G is Newton's.
Note that Lp*(now) ~ 1 fermi
This is very curious, making G* ~ 10^40G, which we can posit to act only on the scale of Lp*.
Note also that Lp** = Lp^2/3(c/Ho)^1/3 is also ~ 1 fermi
Einstein's cosmological constant is /\ ~ (Ho/c)^2
where
/\ = (Lp*)^-2[(Lp*^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
H = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt
Lp* ~ R(t)^1/3
So we seem to get a differential equation in this model. However, Vacuum Coherence also has a dynamics. It has a covariant Landau-Ginzburg eq with a Mexican Hat Potential for spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry.
So the idea is still not coherent in my mind, but it seems to be pointing to something important.]
"In the question session, John Schwarz challenged him about this, claiming that there were other reasons to believe in low-energy supersymmetry, including the unification of coupling constants and the idea that dark matter is the lowest mass superpartner."
[Sarfatti Commentary: This is a wrong idea. Dark matter is exotic vacuum with positive zero point pressure. Dark matter detectors will never click in principle with the "Right Stuff" to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23. So far observation is on my side in this hard exact prediction. The Italian claims to contrary have proved wrong. So far, so good.]
"Susskind's response was that even though there were a couple reasons like those, there were many more that indicated problems with the idea of low-energy supersymmetry, including problems with too fast proton decay."
[Sarfatti Commentary: Susskind is on right track here.]
"It was pretty amazing to see someone challenging the supersymmetry orthodoxy. On the other hand, the whole program Susskind and others are pursuing is completely loony."
[Sarfatti Commentary: But is it loony enough to be true?]
"String theory predicts absolutely nothing, and instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that it is a useless idea, Susskind is trying to turn this failure into some perverse sort of virtue."
[Sarfatti Commentary: Indeed string theory has much less observational support than
1. Flying saucers
2. Parapsychology
3. Cold Fusion
It probably has as much observational support as does Ashtekar's non-perturbative background independent quantum gravity?
I do think however that all of the above have some interesting ideas and factual support that will survive - even sting theory, oh pardon me, I meant even string theory. ;-)]
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/2004_05.html
On Jun 19, 2004, at 5:43 PM, Doc Savage wrote:
bcc
Isn't Brian Greene a member of Professor Woit's Department? You mean the landscape is not elegant? Kidding aside, I think Lenny's work is not as bad as it is made out to be below. "Sting Theory" may be a more appropriate name after all? :-)
Lenny's holographic universe idea may turn out to be true. It is certainly very interesting.
The generalized uncertainty relation is also interesting
uncertainty in position ~ h/(uncertainty in momentum) + (quantum of area)(uncertainty in momentum)/h
is a good idea coming from black hole formation when too much energy is concentrated into too small a volume.
On Jun 19, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Doc Savage wrote:
More Landscape Stream of Consciousness
It looks like particle theory has now degenerated to the point where its leading figures can't think of anything better to do than to write rambling articles with virtually no equations that reach no real conclusions. Last week was Lenny Susskind, tonight there's a new article by Michael Douglas.
His conclusion, such as it is, goes like this:
"If I had to bet at the moment, I would still bet that string theory favors the low scale, for the reasons outlined above, but it is not at all obvious that this is what will come out in the end.... We should keep in mind that 'favoring' one type of vacuum or mechanism over another is not a strong result, if both types of vacuums exist..."
So, maybe string theory "favors" a low supersymmetry-breaking scale, maybe not. As usual, not only can't it predict anything, it can't even predict the scale at which it can't predict anything. I really cannot understand why anyone thinks this kind of thing is science."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000031.html
The stupendous Landscape of sting theory vacua
"At an early stage in the Los Alamos preprint archive it was split up into hep-th (for more formal or speculative work not directly relevant to experiment) and hep-ph (for "phenomenological" papers directly related to experiment). Susskind has just come out with his latest and now seems to feel that his ideas about the "Landscape" are directly of interest to experimenters and so belong in hep-ph.
The preprint is riddled with typos, for instance the third paragraph starts like this:
"During the last couple of years an entirely new paradigm has emerged from the ashes of a more traditional view of string theory. The basis of the new paradigm is the stupendous Landscape of sting [sic] theory vacua -- especially the non-supersymmetric vacua. These vacua appear to be so numerous that the word Discrtuum [sic] is used to describe the spectrum of possible values of the cosmological constant....."
You get the idea.
Some high points of the article:
1. "low energy supersymmetry - an ugly solution" to the naturalness problem. Now he tells us. From what I remember the "beauty of supersymmetry" has always been one argument made in its favor.
2. "the ashes of a more traditional view of string theory". It seems that the picture of the world according to string theory that has been heavily sold for the last twenty years has burned down to the ground.
3. The argument in his last paper, such as it was, was wrong. Now he's got a new one with a similar conclusion.
4. "... a prediction that supersymmetry will not be seen at the TEV scale seems warranted". OK, string theory is finally making a prediction.
5. "If it turns out that low energy supersymmetry is a feature of TEV physics, then we will have to conclude that other considerations outweigh the counting of vacua on the Landscape". So, even though string theory predicts no low energy supersymmetry, if it is found it doesn't mean string theory is wrong. Got it?"
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/2004_06.html
"I'm in Nothern California this week, and have been attending some of the talks at the conference at UC Davis celebrating Albert Schwarz's 70th birthday. The landscape at Davis is exceedingly flat, but this morning Lenny Susskind gave a remarkable talk with the title "Exploring the Landscape".
It was a pretty strange talk for a mathematical physics conference since it contained zero mathematics (and it's arguable whether there was any physics...). Susskind blamed Iz Singer for this, claiming that Singer told him he should talk about the landscape stuff since it was leading to a new mathematical field of "statistical topology". He began by holding up a copy of Steven Weinberg's "Dreams of a Final Theory" and reading a quote from it about the cosmological constant. He liked this so much he read the same quote a second time a little while later.
He then discussed some of the recent history of string theory, noting that for a long time string theorists were hoping for a mathematical silver bullet that would provide a more or less unique solution to the theory that looked like the real world. He announced that now the probability of this is less than 1 in 10^500.
Susskind then explained a bit about KKLT vacua, saying that his main reason for discussing them was to show how silly and inelegant they are. He compared them to a Rube Goldberg machine and called Shamit Kachru the "master Rube Goldberg architect".
The most dramatic part of Susskind's talk was something new: an attack on the idea of low-energy supersymmetry. He explained the standard fine-tuning argument for supersymmetry, but then indicated that he thought an anthropic argument made more sense. The reason the Higgs mass is so much smaller than the Planck mass is not supersymmetry, but instead because that small size is necessary for our existence. He said that the question of low-energy supersymmetry is something that Douglas's statistical analysis of vacua should address (Douglas will talk tomorrow), but his view is that low-energy supersymmetry will be very unlikely."
[Sarfatti Commentary: According to Lenny's world hologram idea, the effective Planck scale Lp* should be increasing as the universe expands with scale factor R(t) in units of length as
Lp*(t) = Lp^2/3R(t)^1/3
This means that time's arrow is tied to the expansion of the universe with the Hawking hologram entropy of the universe S(t) obeying
S(t)/k ~ R(t)^2/Lp*^2 ~ R(t)^4/3
On the other hand, the effective G* from
Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3
cannot operate on the large scale where we know G is Newton's.
Note that Lp*(now) ~ 1 fermi
This is very curious, making G* ~ 10^40G, which we can posit to act only on the scale of Lp*.
Note also that Lp** = Lp^2/3(c/Ho)^1/3 is also ~ 1 fermi
Einstein's cosmological constant is /\ ~ (Ho/c)^2
where
/\ = (Lp*)^-2[(Lp*^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
H = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt
Lp* ~ R(t)^1/3
So we seem to get a differential equation in this model. However, Vacuum Coherence also has a dynamics. It has a covariant Landau-Ginzburg eq with a Mexican Hat Potential for spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry.
So the idea is still not coherent in my mind, but it seems to be pointing to something important.]
"In the question session, John Schwarz challenged him about this, claiming that there were other reasons to believe in low-energy supersymmetry, including the unification of coupling constants and the idea that dark matter is the lowest mass superpartner."
[Sarfatti Commentary: This is a wrong idea. Dark matter is exotic vacuum with positive zero point pressure. Dark matter detectors will never click in principle with the "Right Stuff" to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23. So far observation is on my side in this hard exact prediction. The Italian claims to contrary have proved wrong. So far, so good.]
"Susskind's response was that even though there were a couple reasons like those, there were many more that indicated problems with the idea of low-energy supersymmetry, including problems with too fast proton decay."
[Sarfatti Commentary: Susskind is on right track here.]
"It was pretty amazing to see someone challenging the supersymmetry orthodoxy. On the other hand, the whole program Susskind and others are pursuing is completely loony."
[Sarfatti Commentary: But is it loony enough to be true?]
"String theory predicts absolutely nothing, and instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that it is a useless idea, Susskind is trying to turn this failure into some perverse sort of virtue."
[Sarfatti Commentary: Indeed string theory has much less observational support than
1. Flying saucers
2. Parapsychology
3. Cold Fusion
It probably has as much observational support as does Ashtekar's non-perturbative background independent quantum gravity?
I do think however that all of the above have some interesting ideas and factual support that will survive - even sting theory, oh pardon me, I meant even string theory. ;-)]
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/2004_05.html
On Jun 19, 2004, at 5:43 PM, Doc Savage wrote:
bcc
Isn't Brian Greene a member of Professor Woit's Department? You mean the landscape is not elegant? Kidding aside, I think Lenny's work is not as bad as it is made out to be below. "Sting Theory" may be a more appropriate name after all? :-)
Lenny's holographic universe idea may turn out to be true. It is certainly very interesting.
The generalized uncertainty relation is also interesting
uncertainty in position ~ h/(uncertainty in momentum) + (quantum of area)(uncertainty in momentum)/h
is a good idea coming from black hole formation when too much energy is concentrated into too small a volume.
On Jun 19, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Doc Savage wrote:
More Landscape Stream of Consciousness
It looks like particle theory has now degenerated to the point where its leading figures can't think of anything better to do than to write rambling articles with virtually no equations that reach no real conclusions. Last week was Lenny Susskind, tonight there's a new article by Michael Douglas.
His conclusion, such as it is, goes like this:
"If I had to bet at the moment, I would still bet that string theory favors the low scale, for the reasons outlined above, but it is not at all obvious that this is what will come out in the end.... We should keep in mind that 'favoring' one type of vacuum or mechanism over another is not a strong result, if both types of vacuums exist..."
So, maybe string theory "favors" a low supersymmetry-breaking scale, maybe not. As usual, not only can't it predict anything, it can't even predict the scale at which it can't predict anything. I really cannot understand why anyone thinks this kind of thing is science."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000031.html
The stupendous Landscape of sting theory vacua
"At an early stage in the Los Alamos preprint archive it was split up into hep-th (for more formal or speculative work not directly relevant to experiment) and hep-ph (for "phenomenological" papers directly related to experiment). Susskind has just come out with his latest and now seems to feel that his ideas about the "Landscape" are directly of interest to experimenters and so belong in hep-ph.
The preprint is riddled with typos, for instance the third paragraph starts like this:
"During the last couple of years an entirely new paradigm has emerged from the ashes of a more traditional view of string theory. The basis of the new paradigm is the stupendous Landscape of sting [sic] theory vacua -- especially the non-supersymmetric vacua. These vacua appear to be so numerous that the word Discrtuum [sic] is used to describe the spectrum of possible values of the cosmological constant....."
You get the idea.
Some high points of the article:
1. "low energy supersymmetry - an ugly solution" to the naturalness problem. Now he tells us. From what I remember the "beauty of supersymmetry" has always been one argument made in its favor.
2. "the ashes of a more traditional view of string theory". It seems that the picture of the world according to string theory that has been heavily sold for the last twenty years has burned down to the ground.
3. The argument in his last paper, such as it was, was wrong. Now he's got a new one with a similar conclusion.
4. "... a prediction that supersymmetry will not be seen at the TEV scale seems warranted". OK, string theory is finally making a prediction.
5. "If it turns out that low energy supersymmetry is a feature of TEV physics, then we will have to conclude that other considerations outweigh the counting of vacua on the Landscape". So, even though string theory predicts no low energy supersymmetry, if it is found it doesn't mean string theory is wrong. Got it?"
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/2004_06.html
For GR 17 and also for Kluwer volume on last year's 2003 Vigier Conference in Paris.
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE MADE OF?
The emergence of gravity and dark energy/matter from the cohering of zero point energy.
JACK SARFATTI
ISEP
Abstract
Ordinary matter made from real on-mass-shell lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons only accounts for approximately 4% of all the large-scale stuff of our universe, which may be one of a infinity of parallel universes in hyperspace that we call “Super Cosmos.” I propose that the remaining 96% of our universe consists of two forms of partially coherent exotic vacuum dominated by a condensate of bound virtual electron-positron pairs. Einstein’s gravity emerges from the variations in the macro-quantum coherent phase field of the condensate. This condensate is the inflation field in the large-scale cosmological limit. Both dark energy and dark matter are simply residual total zero point energy densities that emerge from the vacuum condensate’s intensity variations. Approximately 73% is anti-gravitating zero point “dark energy” density with equal and opposite negative pressure that is causing our universe to accelerate in its expansion rate. The remaining gravitating 23%, called “dark matter,” is also zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive pressure found concentrated in large-scale structures like the galactic halo that prevents our solar system from escaping into inter-galactic space. Astrophysical scale geon structures of w = -1 dark matter simulate w = 0 CDM in terms of their gravity lensing. The electron, as a Bohm "hidden variable" on the micro-scale for example, is a spatially extended structure whose repulsive self-electric charge, Casimir force and repulsive spin rotation are balanced by the strong short-range zero point energy induced gravity from its exotic vacuum core. The electron, and the quarks, shrink in size, up to a certain minimum, when hit with large momentum scattering transfers from strong space warping that makes their surface areas small compared to what they would be in flat space for a given radial distance. An experimental appendix by Ken Shoulders on "exotic vacuum objects" or "EVO" charged geons made from large numbers of electrons glued together by zero point energy is included. The zero point force holding as many as one hundred billion electrons together is not the QED Casimir force, which may even be repulsive, but is the entirely different strong short-range gravity force induced by the zero point energy by the entirely different process of Einstein's general relativity omitted from the flat space-time QED calculations. These EVOs show anomalous motions and energies that seem to be examples of Alcubierre's "warp drive" and "cold fusion" respectively.
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE MADE OF?
The emergence of gravity and dark energy/matter from the cohering of zero point energy.
JACK SARFATTI
ISEP
Abstract
Ordinary matter made from real on-mass-shell lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons only accounts for approximately 4% of all the large-scale stuff of our universe, which may be one of a infinity of parallel universes in hyperspace that we call “Super Cosmos.” I propose that the remaining 96% of our universe consists of two forms of partially coherent exotic vacuum dominated by a condensate of bound virtual electron-positron pairs. Einstein’s gravity emerges from the variations in the macro-quantum coherent phase field of the condensate. This condensate is the inflation field in the large-scale cosmological limit. Both dark energy and dark matter are simply residual total zero point energy densities that emerge from the vacuum condensate’s intensity variations. Approximately 73% is anti-gravitating zero point “dark energy” density with equal and opposite negative pressure that is causing our universe to accelerate in its expansion rate. The remaining gravitating 23%, called “dark matter,” is also zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive pressure found concentrated in large-scale structures like the galactic halo that prevents our solar system from escaping into inter-galactic space. Astrophysical scale geon structures of w = -1 dark matter simulate w = 0 CDM in terms of their gravity lensing. The electron, as a Bohm "hidden variable" on the micro-scale for example, is a spatially extended structure whose repulsive self-electric charge, Casimir force and repulsive spin rotation are balanced by the strong short-range zero point energy induced gravity from its exotic vacuum core. The electron, and the quarks, shrink in size, up to a certain minimum, when hit with large momentum scattering transfers from strong space warping that makes their surface areas small compared to what they would be in flat space for a given radial distance. An experimental appendix by Ken Shoulders on "exotic vacuum objects" or "EVO" charged geons made from large numbers of electrons glued together by zero point energy is included. The zero point force holding as many as one hundred billion electrons together is not the QED Casimir force, which may even be repulsive, but is the entirely different strong short-range gravity force induced by the zero point energy by the entirely different process of Einstein's general relativity omitted from the flat space-time QED calculations. These EVOs show anomalous motions and energies that seem to be examples of Alcubierre's "warp drive" and "cold fusion" respectively.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
I support intelligent debate on this topic of course. However, having attended two major APS meetings on the topic with Mike Turner, Saul Perlmutter talking at both, and I will also be at GR17 in Dublin, it is clear to me that you are fighting a hopeless rear guard action. In the course of doing so, you will be led to change your mind. Resistance is futile. I think Sean Carroll's attitude is the objective optimum one - the best Bayesean estimate. ;-)
Note best fit in latest Physics Today is a Big Rip Phantom Energy w ~ -1.31 (if I recall correctly) but it is ~ 1 standard deviation away from my hard prediction of w = -1 as an exact result. So we will see how new data affects this. Also recall my other hard prediction, no dark matter detectors will click with the right stuff that explains Omega(DM) ~ 0.23. That would be like Michelson-Morley showing the speed through aether - I mean once we remove curvature corrections from general relativity. There is some small discrepancy there as I recall, but it is my impression that it can be explained by GR?
On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:23 AM, michael ibison wrote:
Thank you for your note Domingos.
"I appreciate your comments and am interested in what you have to say.
Sean Carroll (according to Jack) cites the following alleged PREDICTIONS
made by BB:
'How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves?'
I think I can contest the allegedly predictive role of BB for some of these, but would appreciate a view from someone more qualified. Would you be good enough to offer a short comment on each of them?
Best wishes,
Michael"
On Jun 16, 2004, at 12:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 16, 2004, at 5:23 AM, Domingos Savio de Lima Soares wrote:
16jun04
"Hello Jack,
Thanks for your message --- enthusiastic message, I should say --- defending the inflationary Big Bang model. I, and my students as well, have now material for much discussion. Thanks, indeed. Ned Wright's web page is present in my own personal page for a long time now, I would like to mention. And I always recommend it for those interested
in cosmology. In any case, I added, after receiving your note on the "Errors" section, a special link for this particular section of Ned's page. What you, Sean Carroll, Mike Turner and followers, need to explain is
1- Why the "dark cake", Fig. 10 of Freedman and Turner (astro-ph/0308418), has only 0.5% that is actually observed? Remember, from the 4% of baryons,there are some 3.5% still dark, i.e., invisible, that is to say, we can't see, measure, whatever. Do they exist or perhaps should we wait a bit more?"
I do not claim to be an expert in data analysis. That's Turner's et-al's job. I seem to recall Turner saying that was mostly cold hydrogen gas? What is important however is the 96%!
"2- Take w=-1."
That's what my theory says it must be - both dark energy and dark matter. However globs of w = -1 dark matter will look like w = 0 CDM from far away in terms of gravity lensing. This is a crucial test of my theory BTW. No dark matter particles! We, I mean Ken Shoulders, seem to be seeing this phenomena on lab scale!
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
"What do you do with the so-called 'cosmological constantproblem'?"
I have solved it! Vacuum coherence explains it. The dominant contribution to Vacuum Coherence is a condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs bound together by virtual photons all occupying the same center of mass bound pair state. The phase variations in this macro-quantum occupied single particle state give Einstein's metric guv field.
The incoherent estimate of Einstein's cosmological constant /\ is ~ 1/Lp^2
My theory says that the coherent value of the cosmological constant is
/\ = Lp^-2[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
The "equilibrium" is at /\ = 0 where the Vacuum Coherence is the Planck density.
Vacuum Coherence obeys a covariant Landau Ginzburg eq. that must be solved self-consistently with Einstein's eq
Guv + /\guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
"You know, the value implied by the inflationary BB model makes our universe 10 to the minus 10 second old and 3 cm large, which is definitely, and frankly, not observed."
Again this is no longer a problem - it is solved conceptually.
"3- Why not make science with a character, I mean, following strictly "scientific method" and listening to what Nature presents and we can see?"
This is polemics - not a valid objection. It is obvious to my mind, that the preponderance of evidence is on the side of mainstream precision cosmology with dark energy now that I have explained the cosmological constant paradox as a simple vacuum coherence effect analogous to the two-fluid model of superfluids. Einstein's gravity emerges as a simple ODLRO effect with general coordinate transformations as derivative from local phase transformations on the vacuum coherence field. Curvature and torsion are simply local compensating gauge fields from stringy "vortex" singular lines in the phase of the vacuum coherence where the intensity of the vacuum coherent scalar field(s) drop to zero. Space-time physics is local because of the locality of the ODLRO vacuum coherence.
"Of course, you may turn out to be right in the end, BUT --- sorry fot the capitals --- you are not with all that just now. So, it is perfectly normal that others have their chance also. That's the point.
Cheers, explain that,
Domingos"
========================================================================
Domingos S.L. Soares
Depto. de Fisica - ICEx
UFMG - C.P. 702
30161-970 - Belo Horizonte
========================================================================
URL: http://www.fisica.ufmg.br/~dsoares/
Let's keep the censorship issue distinct from the physics content. I completely support your complaint of censorship and black listing of physicists. Censorship prevents the kind of debate we are having here. I personally agree with Sean Carroll that funding of the kind of alternative you profess is a bad bet. Up until ~ 2003 you may have had a valid case there, but no longer. The kind of cosmology you profess is dead in the water and will lose support rapidly with all the new data coming in. It's time to move on. The same is true for the two eccentric theories Hal Puthoff has been promoting in the media i.e. PV theory of gravity and random EM ZPF origin of inertia of lepto-quarks, which BTW cannot explain the rest mass of the neutrinos. Both gravity and inertia are like Siamese Twins. They BOTH come from vacuum coherence (e.g. Higgs mechanism). You cannot have real matter Omega ~ 0.04 without vacuum coherence. All you have then is pre-inflation false globally flat vacuum. Vacuum coherence is also the inflation scalar field(s).
Note best fit in latest Physics Today is a Big Rip Phantom Energy w ~ -1.31 (if I recall correctly) but it is ~ 1 standard deviation away from my hard prediction of w = -1 as an exact result. So we will see how new data affects this. Also recall my other hard prediction, no dark matter detectors will click with the right stuff that explains Omega(DM) ~ 0.23. That would be like Michelson-Morley showing the speed through aether - I mean once we remove curvature corrections from general relativity. There is some small discrepancy there as I recall, but it is my impression that it can be explained by GR?
On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:23 AM, michael ibison wrote:
Thank you for your note Domingos.
"I appreciate your comments and am interested in what you have to say.
Sean Carroll (according to Jack) cites the following alleged PREDICTIONS
made by BB:
'How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves?'
I think I can contest the allegedly predictive role of BB for some of these, but would appreciate a view from someone more qualified. Would you be good enough to offer a short comment on each of them?
Best wishes,
Michael"
On Jun 16, 2004, at 12:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 16, 2004, at 5:23 AM, Domingos Savio de Lima Soares wrote:
16jun04
"Hello Jack,
Thanks for your message --- enthusiastic message, I should say --- defending the inflationary Big Bang model. I, and my students as well, have now material for much discussion. Thanks, indeed. Ned Wright's web page is present in my own personal page for a long time now, I would like to mention. And I always recommend it for those interested
in cosmology. In any case, I added, after receiving your note on the "Errors" section, a special link for this particular section of Ned's page. What you, Sean Carroll, Mike Turner and followers, need to explain is
1- Why the "dark cake", Fig. 10 of Freedman and Turner (astro-ph/0308418), has only 0.5% that is actually observed? Remember, from the 4% of baryons,there are some 3.5% still dark, i.e., invisible, that is to say, we can't see, measure, whatever. Do they exist or perhaps should we wait a bit more?"
I do not claim to be an expert in data analysis. That's Turner's et-al's job. I seem to recall Turner saying that was mostly cold hydrogen gas? What is important however is the 96%!
"2- Take w=-1."
That's what my theory says it must be - both dark energy and dark matter. However globs of w = -1 dark matter will look like w = 0 CDM from far away in terms of gravity lensing. This is a crucial test of my theory BTW. No dark matter particles! We, I mean Ken Shoulders, seem to be seeing this phenomena on lab scale!
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
"What do you do with the so-called 'cosmological constantproblem'?"
I have solved it! Vacuum coherence explains it. The dominant contribution to Vacuum Coherence is a condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs bound together by virtual photons all occupying the same center of mass bound pair state. The phase variations in this macro-quantum occupied single particle state give Einstein's metric guv field.
The incoherent estimate of Einstein's cosmological constant /\ is ~ 1/Lp^2
My theory says that the coherent value of the cosmological constant is
/\ = Lp^-2[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
The "equilibrium" is at /\ = 0 where the Vacuum Coherence is the Planck density.
Vacuum Coherence obeys a covariant Landau Ginzburg eq. that must be solved self-consistently with Einstein's eq
Guv + /\guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
"You know, the value implied by the inflationary BB model makes our universe 10 to the minus 10 second old and 3 cm large, which is definitely, and frankly, not observed."
Again this is no longer a problem - it is solved conceptually.
"3- Why not make science with a character, I mean, following strictly "scientific method" and listening to what Nature presents and we can see?"
This is polemics - not a valid objection. It is obvious to my mind, that the preponderance of evidence is on the side of mainstream precision cosmology with dark energy now that I have explained the cosmological constant paradox as a simple vacuum coherence effect analogous to the two-fluid model of superfluids. Einstein's gravity emerges as a simple ODLRO effect with general coordinate transformations as derivative from local phase transformations on the vacuum coherence field. Curvature and torsion are simply local compensating gauge fields from stringy "vortex" singular lines in the phase of the vacuum coherence where the intensity of the vacuum coherent scalar field(s) drop to zero. Space-time physics is local because of the locality of the ODLRO vacuum coherence.
"Of course, you may turn out to be right in the end, BUT --- sorry fot the capitals --- you are not with all that just now. So, it is perfectly normal that others have their chance also. That's the point.
Cheers, explain that,
Domingos"
========================================================================
Domingos S.L. Soares
Depto. de Fisica - ICEx
UFMG - C.P. 702
30161-970 - Belo Horizonte
========================================================================
URL: http://www.fisica.ufmg.br/~dsoares/
Let's keep the censorship issue distinct from the physics content. I completely support your complaint of censorship and black listing of physicists. Censorship prevents the kind of debate we are having here. I personally agree with Sean Carroll that funding of the kind of alternative you profess is a bad bet. Up until ~ 2003 you may have had a valid case there, but no longer. The kind of cosmology you profess is dead in the water and will lose support rapidly with all the new data coming in. It's time to move on. The same is true for the two eccentric theories Hal Puthoff has been promoting in the media i.e. PV theory of gravity and random EM ZPF origin of inertia of lepto-quarks, which BTW cannot explain the rest mass of the neutrinos. Both gravity and inertia are like Siamese Twins. They BOTH come from vacuum coherence (e.g. Higgs mechanism). You cannot have real matter Omega ~ 0.04 without vacuum coherence. All you have then is pre-inflation false globally flat vacuum. Vacuum coherence is also the inflation scalar field(s).
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
On Jun 15, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 15, 2004, at 8:44 AM, michael ibison wrote using the changed subject line:
Re: Physics Today conclusively laughable in light of May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter
On Jun 15, 2004, at 10:32 AM, michael ibison wrote:
....
Michael, if you read carefully you will see it was the Brazilian guy
who initially used CAPS "REAL SCIENTIFIC" not me. I simply copied his
usage. Here again a double standard. Put the blame, if blame there be,
where the blame belongs. ;-)
The criticism of unnecessary adjectives doesn't apply to Domingos' usage,
wherein it is not being used to buttress a weak noun, since his argument is
the reverse of yours. Your usage however is susceptible to that criticism.
Even so, let us not continue with wasting time on semantics.
I agree but you raised the issue not me. ;-)
I haven't read the Freedman paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418
If Domingos has, perhaps he would be good enough to offer comments on it.
Michael
The point here is that there is a preponderance of evidence from independent sources for the basic picture that essentially all the stuff of the universe is, at its core, exotic vacuum zero point energy density including Omega (atoms, radiation etc) ~ 0.04. Mundane explanations for anomalous dimming of Type 1a supernovae have been clearly eliminated observationally by the evidence. There will be more evidence. The ideas in the May 22, 2004 are not contenders to the objective mind without an ax to grind or a hobby horse to ride - assuming one can find such a mind? ;-)
Not only that, but this large scale picture solves unsolved basic problems of the particle physics,
I. Is the electron (lepto-quark) a point particle? NO.
Hence no more need for infinite renormalizations and no more need perhaps for using distributions and the need for regularization that plays such a big role in say Ashtekar's program of spin foams and weaves to make smooth space-time.
II. What stabilizes the spatially extended electron (perhaps with "tight atomic states" J.P. Vigier)?
Zero point energy pressure. These are the Lorentz-Abraham-Becker stresses.
III. Why does the electron (and the quark) appear to shrink from 10^-11 cm at low energy imaging to ~ 10^-17 cm at high energy imaging? Strong space-warp from the exotic vacuum zero point energy core.
IV. Why Regge universal slope for hadronic resonances? Kerr-Newman "micro-geon" (e.g. A. Burinskii) solution in strong short-range gravity induced in the zero point exotic vacuum core.
Which interpretation of quantum theory is needed? Bohm's.
Does the quantum wave describe individual particles or only statistical ensembles? Individual particles.
Why does our solar system not escape into inter-galactic space? For the same reason that the electric charge on a single electron does not explode! i.e. the pressure from w = -1 zero point energy cores.
Note that the present "best fit" for dark energy is not w = -1, however, I say that more data will show w = -1. I also say that dark matter detectors will never "click" with The Right Stuff. These are two crucial tests that will falsify my theory.
Finally, look to the skies. Heads up. What do you see "Out There" Michael? How do they fly? Dark energy that's how.
Therefore, I have a clear story to tell that most people can understand compared to the alternatives. Also my story is clearly falsifiable in Karl Popper's sense.
....
Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter of dark matter, but if
you feel there is 'REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE', perhaps you could share what
you think that is - i.e. what specific data do you find so persuasive?
Michael
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418 Here is the evidence. It is more than satisfactory to my mind. Not only that, it explains what Hal Puthoff has been attempting to explain for at least 30 years.
BTW you need to distinguish "dark energy" from "dark matter" though I think they are essentially the same, i.e. net zero point energy density of negative and positive pressure respectively modulated by variable partial vacuum coherence, I am alone in that opinion. All of The Pundits think dark matter consists of real on-mass-shell particles whizzing around in space. I say that is a mistake. Dark matter, like dark energy, is a form of exotic quantum vacuum that is essentially 100% of all the stuff of the Universe. Even ordinary matter made from spatially-extended lepto-quarks (Bohm's hidden variables) is exotic vacuum quantum pressure gluing together shells of charge as I show in a recent paper with Ken Shoulders on "charge clusters" http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf still under construction. Note that Ken worked with Hal on this same problem for many years and has now obviously voted with his feet! The point here is that Hal has never written down the correct zero point energy/gravity relationship, which in the simplest Newtonian limit of Einstein's GR is the static Poisson equation, sans factors of pi
Laplacian of Gravity Potential Energy Per Unit Test Mass of Exotic Vacuum ~ c^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Vacuum Coherence obeys a generally covariant Landau-Ginzburg equation with a Mexican Hat Potential.
On Jun 15, 2004, at 8:44 AM, michael ibison wrote using the changed subject line:
Re: Physics Today conclusively laughable in light of May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter
On Jun 15, 2004, at 10:32 AM, michael ibison wrote:
....
Michael, if you read carefully you will see it was the Brazilian guy
who initially used CAPS "REAL SCIENTIFIC" not me. I simply copied his
usage. Here again a double standard. Put the blame, if blame there be,
where the blame belongs. ;-)
The criticism of unnecessary adjectives doesn't apply to Domingos' usage,
wherein it is not being used to buttress a weak noun, since his argument is
the reverse of yours. Your usage however is susceptible to that criticism.
Even so, let us not continue with wasting time on semantics.
I agree but you raised the issue not me. ;-)
I haven't read the Freedman paper http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418
If Domingos has, perhaps he would be good enough to offer comments on it.
Michael
The point here is that there is a preponderance of evidence from independent sources for the basic picture that essentially all the stuff of the universe is, at its core, exotic vacuum zero point energy density including Omega (atoms, radiation etc) ~ 0.04. Mundane explanations for anomalous dimming of Type 1a supernovae have been clearly eliminated observationally by the evidence. There will be more evidence. The ideas in the May 22, 2004 are not contenders to the objective mind without an ax to grind or a hobby horse to ride - assuming one can find such a mind? ;-)
Not only that, but this large scale picture solves unsolved basic problems of the particle physics,
I. Is the electron (lepto-quark) a point particle? NO.
Hence no more need for infinite renormalizations and no more need perhaps for using distributions and the need for regularization that plays such a big role in say Ashtekar's program of spin foams and weaves to make smooth space-time.
II. What stabilizes the spatially extended electron (perhaps with "tight atomic states" J.P. Vigier)?
Zero point energy pressure. These are the Lorentz-Abraham-Becker stresses.
III. Why does the electron (and the quark) appear to shrink from 10^-11 cm at low energy imaging to ~ 10^-17 cm at high energy imaging? Strong space-warp from the exotic vacuum zero point energy core.
IV. Why Regge universal slope for hadronic resonances? Kerr-Newman "micro-geon" (e.g. A. Burinskii) solution in strong short-range gravity induced in the zero point exotic vacuum core.
Which interpretation of quantum theory is needed? Bohm's.
Does the quantum wave describe individual particles or only statistical ensembles? Individual particles.
Why does our solar system not escape into inter-galactic space? For the same reason that the electric charge on a single electron does not explode! i.e. the pressure from w = -1 zero point energy cores.
Note that the present "best fit" for dark energy is not w = -1, however, I say that more data will show w = -1. I also say that dark matter detectors will never "click" with The Right Stuff. These are two crucial tests that will falsify my theory.
Finally, look to the skies. Heads up. What do you see "Out There" Michael? How do they fly? Dark energy that's how.
Therefore, I have a clear story to tell that most people can understand compared to the alternatives. Also my story is clearly falsifiable in Karl Popper's sense.
....
Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter of dark matter, but if
you feel there is 'REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE', perhaps you could share what
you think that is - i.e. what specific data do you find so persuasive?
Michael
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418 Here is the evidence. It is more than satisfactory to my mind. Not only that, it explains what Hal Puthoff has been attempting to explain for at least 30 years.
BTW you need to distinguish "dark energy" from "dark matter" though I think they are essentially the same, i.e. net zero point energy density of negative and positive pressure respectively modulated by variable partial vacuum coherence, I am alone in that opinion. All of The Pundits think dark matter consists of real on-mass-shell particles whizzing around in space. I say that is a mistake. Dark matter, like dark energy, is a form of exotic quantum vacuum that is essentially 100% of all the stuff of the Universe. Even ordinary matter made from spatially-extended lepto-quarks (Bohm's hidden variables) is exotic vacuum quantum pressure gluing together shells of charge as I show in a recent paper with Ken Shoulders on "charge clusters" http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf still under construction. Note that Ken worked with Hal on this same problem for many years and has now obviously voted with his feet! The point here is that Hal has never written down the correct zero point energy/gravity relationship, which in the simplest Newtonian limit of Einstein's GR is the static Poisson equation, sans factors of pi
Laplacian of Gravity Potential Energy Per Unit Test Mass of Exotic Vacuum ~ c^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
Vacuum Coherence obeys a generally covariant Landau-Ginzburg equation with a Mexican Hat Potential.
Monday, June 14, 2004
First put your headphones on and CLICK HERE!
http://www.chud.com/ST2_2.mov
On Jun 13, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:
Jack --
This is an excellent point that none of the huggy-bear ET-loving types wearing quartz around their necks have addressed:
Regardless of ET politics, while they're here on Earth they'd damned well better obey our laws or risk getting shot in the process. I can understand them not understanding some of the cultural issues, but in terms of kidnapping and implants, these should be obvious no-no's to any advanced race.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 1:32 PM
To: Victor Martinez
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com; ItalianPhysicsCenter
Subject: Re: Jack knows how, but does he know why?
On Jun 13, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Alexander Konkretny wrote from Moscow, Russia:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Of course. That is politics not physics! Knowing how they get here
will allow us to fight back! That's the point Dan! This is a military
matter of national security. You know that. Some of The VIsitors have
allegedly committed serious crimes of kidnapping and humiliations like
we saw our guys do in the Baghdad prison and no one is above The Law!
Alex: When we kill flies and cockroaches, do we care about their laws?
When we perform experiments on mice, do we care about their laws?
But that is indeed politics, not physics.
Jack: Precisely, and there is evidence that SOME of The Visitors view us that way!
"Be prepared as in life you march along ...." Tom Lehrer
On Jun 13, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 13, 2004, at 7:50 AM, Dan Smith wrote: Dan
http://home.comcast.net/~dantsmith
'best possible world'
Dan: Jack is supremely confident that he understands how the ETs got here.
Jack: Yes!
Dan: What he is much less confident about is why they are here.
Jack: Of course. That is politics not physics! Knowing how they get here will allow us to fight back! That's the point Dan! This is a military matter of national security. You know that. Some of The Visitors have allegedly committed serious crimes of kidnapping and humiliations like we saw our guys do in the Baghdad prison and no one is above The Law!
Dan: But whatever
their intentions, they cannot be good. We may surmise their lack of good
will toward us, by their lack openness with us. Do they not steal into our
world like thieves in the night? Do they not abduct our citizens?
Jack: OK so we seem to agree on that. Remember the films "War of the Worlds," "Independence Day" and "Star Troopers" - not "Close Encounters" and "ET" - we need to be prepared for both scenarios.
Dan: Obviously, then, they are not here to further our agenda, so they must have
their own. If the ETs are our adversaries, should we not be attempting to
ascertain their intentions?
Jack: Not my job. I am doing my job.
Dan; Is that not the primary function of any
military intelligence: know thine enemy?
Jack: I have a full plate. I am not a one-man Army! Remember I was recruited in 1953 if not before! This has been a 50 year mission! You got drafted in 1975. You're in The Army Now!
Dan: Here we start running into contradictions, not just on the part of Jack, but
across the board of UFO commentators.
Jack: Are you really naive or simply pretending. BTW Read "Battle Ready" by Tony Zinni & Tom Clancy. Zinni is VERY SHARP! He should run CIA! Life is full of contradictions. It's not like a theorem from Euclid's geometry.
Dan: It would seem that humanity has experienced unprecedented advances on the
technological front in approximately the same time frame that the ET
presence has become generally known. In fact it is our advanced sensing and
communications technology that has made us more aware of their presence than
ever before.
Jack: In fact some factions of ET are assisting us http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html, others are making war on us. It's a BIG MULTIVERSE Out There Dan! This is like Cornell USAF ROTC and Civil Air Patrol - we are making war game plans for every possible CONTACT scenario.
Dan: The ETs ought to be concerned. Our growing knowledge of their presence is
rapidly turning us into a tribe of wannabe Prometheans. They steal our DNA,
we steal their fire. Jack is our very own Prometheus incarnate.
Jack: You got that part exactly right Bhubba. You ain't as dumb as you pretend.
Dan: It would seem that we are forcing a showdown, and sooner rather that later:
shades of Independence Day and War of the Worlds!
Jack: Hey Dan, you know I did not scroll down to this when I wrote the above!
Dan: In both of these Hollywood extravaganzas, our victory over the Aliens was as
low tech as it was improbable. Step aside Jeff Goldblum, we now have Jack Sarfatti at the helm. With Jack
we are going to beat the Aliens at their own game.
Jack: That's exactly right! Now you are talking. That's The Story, That's The Script!
Dan: We will out fly them and
out shoot them. Doesn't it make you want to feel sorry for them? Poor
little Grays, they barely stand a chance, not against our Patriotic Hero cum
Laude. Wait 'til Hollywood gets hold of the Real Stuff! Am I being sarcastic here? Certainly Jack would not think so. He is deadly serious. If not he is putting on a good show of it.
Jack: I am serious and also not serious. Like Reagan, I keep my sense of humor.
Dan: Look, Hollywood just wants to make a buck, and, for that matter, so does
Jack, the last time I checked. Neither one is being paid to do counter
intelligence.
Jack: Huh? Your Intelligence is faulty, e.g. Hal Puthoff says he is not being funded by Paul Murad at DIA.
Dan:But maybe there is something serious going on here. And maybe it is not
just warm and fuzzy either. If the ETs came here to facilitate our
spiritual advancement, it would seem that they are doing a rather poor job
of it. There are many channeled communications to tells us that we must
save our Planet. They are long on warnings, but short on solutions.
Jack: Your Eschaton is The Final Solution! :-)
Dan: The New Age movement seems to have lost its steam, giving way to soccer moms in
SUVs. We are closer to the brink of an all out religious war than we have
been in the last 800 years.
Jack: Correct. GWB is Godfroi De Boulloin and this is a replay of The First Crusade - this time to Baghdad.
Dan: Yes, Jack is way ahead of the curve on understanding how they got here, just
ask him. He is very curious about their means. He is curiously incurious
about their ends.
Jack: I am curious yellow about that. However, I do not waste my time on idle pursuits. I do my job and I eat me spinich.
Dan: He seems to know all about the teleology, but does he give a hoot about the
Telos? Am I the only one sensing a blind spot here? Am I the only one who wants to
do something about it?
Jack: I want to build saucers and star gates not worry how many ET Invaders can jump out of a star gate on Bob Bigelow's Ranch in Utah in one second. Let Bigelow's Boys worry about that one.
http://www.chud.com/ST2_2.mov
On Jun 13, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:
Jack --
This is an excellent point that none of the huggy-bear ET-loving types wearing quartz around their necks have addressed:
Regardless of ET politics, while they're here on Earth they'd damned well better obey our laws or risk getting shot in the process. I can understand them not understanding some of the cultural issues, but in terms of kidnapping and implants, these should be obvious no-no's to any advanced race.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 1:32 PM
To: Victor Martinez
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com; ItalianPhysicsCenter
Subject: Re: Jack knows how, but does he know why?
On Jun 13, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Alexander Konkretny wrote from Moscow, Russia:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Of course. That is politics not physics! Knowing how they get here
will allow us to fight back! That's the point Dan! This is a military
matter of national security. You know that. Some of The VIsitors have
allegedly committed serious crimes of kidnapping and humiliations like
we saw our guys do in the Baghdad prison and no one is above The Law!
Alex: When we kill flies and cockroaches, do we care about their laws?
When we perform experiments on mice, do we care about their laws?
But that is indeed politics, not physics.
Jack: Precisely, and there is evidence that SOME of The Visitors view us that way!
"Be prepared as in life you march along ...." Tom Lehrer
On Jun 13, 2004, at 9:13 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Jun 13, 2004, at 7:50 AM, Dan Smith wrote: Dan
http://home.comcast.net/~dantsmith
'best possible world'
Dan: Jack is supremely confident that he understands how the ETs got here.
Jack: Yes!
Dan: What he is much less confident about is why they are here.
Jack: Of course. That is politics not physics! Knowing how they get here will allow us to fight back! That's the point Dan! This is a military matter of national security. You know that. Some of The Visitors have allegedly committed serious crimes of kidnapping and humiliations like we saw our guys do in the Baghdad prison and no one is above The Law!
Dan: But whatever
their intentions, they cannot be good. We may surmise their lack of good
will toward us, by their lack openness with us. Do they not steal into our
world like thieves in the night? Do they not abduct our citizens?
Jack: OK so we seem to agree on that. Remember the films "War of the Worlds," "Independence Day" and "Star Troopers" - not "Close Encounters" and "ET" - we need to be prepared for both scenarios.
Dan: Obviously, then, they are not here to further our agenda, so they must have
their own. If the ETs are our adversaries, should we not be attempting to
ascertain their intentions?
Jack: Not my job. I am doing my job.
Dan; Is that not the primary function of any
military intelligence: know thine enemy?
Jack: I have a full plate. I am not a one-man Army! Remember I was recruited in 1953 if not before! This has been a 50 year mission! You got drafted in 1975. You're in The Army Now!
Dan: Here we start running into contradictions, not just on the part of Jack, but
across the board of UFO commentators.
Jack: Are you really naive or simply pretending. BTW Read "Battle Ready" by Tony Zinni & Tom Clancy. Zinni is VERY SHARP! He should run CIA! Life is full of contradictions. It's not like a theorem from Euclid's geometry.
Dan: It would seem that humanity has experienced unprecedented advances on the
technological front in approximately the same time frame that the ET
presence has become generally known. In fact it is our advanced sensing and
communications technology that has made us more aware of their presence than
ever before.
Jack: In fact some factions of ET are assisting us http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html, others are making war on us. It's a BIG MULTIVERSE Out There Dan! This is like Cornell USAF ROTC and Civil Air Patrol - we are making war game plans for every possible CONTACT scenario.
Dan: The ETs ought to be concerned. Our growing knowledge of their presence is
rapidly turning us into a tribe of wannabe Prometheans. They steal our DNA,
we steal their fire. Jack is our very own Prometheus incarnate.
Jack: You got that part exactly right Bhubba. You ain't as dumb as you pretend.
Dan: It would seem that we are forcing a showdown, and sooner rather that later:
shades of Independence Day and War of the Worlds!
Jack: Hey Dan, you know I did not scroll down to this when I wrote the above!
Dan: In both of these Hollywood extravaganzas, our victory over the Aliens was as
low tech as it was improbable. Step aside Jeff Goldblum, we now have Jack Sarfatti at the helm. With Jack
we are going to beat the Aliens at their own game.
Jack: That's exactly right! Now you are talking. That's The Story, That's The Script!
Dan: We will out fly them and
out shoot them. Doesn't it make you want to feel sorry for them? Poor
little Grays, they barely stand a chance, not against our Patriotic Hero cum
Laude. Wait 'til Hollywood gets hold of the Real Stuff! Am I being sarcastic here? Certainly Jack would not think so. He is deadly serious. If not he is putting on a good show of it.
Jack: I am serious and also not serious. Like Reagan, I keep my sense of humor.
Dan: Look, Hollywood just wants to make a buck, and, for that matter, so does
Jack, the last time I checked. Neither one is being paid to do counter
intelligence.
Jack: Huh? Your Intelligence is faulty, e.g. Hal Puthoff says he is not being funded by Paul Murad at DIA.
Dan:But maybe there is something serious going on here. And maybe it is not
just warm and fuzzy either. If the ETs came here to facilitate our
spiritual advancement, it would seem that they are doing a rather poor job
of it. There are many channeled communications to tells us that we must
save our Planet. They are long on warnings, but short on solutions.
Jack: Your Eschaton is The Final Solution! :-)
Dan: The New Age movement seems to have lost its steam, giving way to soccer moms in
SUVs. We are closer to the brink of an all out religious war than we have
been in the last 800 years.
Jack: Correct. GWB is Godfroi De Boulloin and this is a replay of The First Crusade - this time to Baghdad.
Dan: Yes, Jack is way ahead of the curve on understanding how they got here, just
ask him. He is very curious about their means. He is curiously incurious
about their ends.
Jack: I am curious yellow about that. However, I do not waste my time on idle pursuits. I do my job and I eat me spinich.
Dan: He seems to know all about the teleology, but does he give a hoot about the
Telos? Am I the only one sensing a blind spot here? Am I the only one who wants to
do something about it?
Jack: I want to build saucers and star gates not worry how many ET Invaders can jump out of a star gate on Bob Bigelow's Ranch in Utah in one second. Let Bigelow's Boys worry about that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
