On Jan 3, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
"On Jan 3, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:
Good morning, folks!
This morning I feel I am finally beginning to make REAL sense of some of the
real fundamental issues suggested by the subject line here.
Some of you may wonder why it too me so long. But physics has become such a huge
and tangled subject that being too quick to draw conclusions won't work so well
any more. Sorting out the tangle, while maintaining high standards of understanding
things, is not so easy. Clearly there are many basic themes which no one earth fully understands as yet.
So let me start with zero point.
I was cheered greatly when Jack started to emphasize the distinction between two KINDS
of "energy from vacuum":
(1) the more classical notion of zero point energy (ZPE) based effectively on the "(1/2)hw" terms which emerge in some formulations of quantum field theory (QFT) as H0- ::H0::, the raw free Hamiltonian versus the normal form of that Hamiltonian. (The exact same ZPE noise is assumed in texts on semiclassical models of quantum optics.)
(2) more sophisticated but less definite ideas, such as vacuum breakdown or forces
linked to dark energy or negative energy.
.... I think he is basically right that the first seems very unlikely, while the second has a very real chance of
working out somehow, someday, if we can figure out what is going on more precisely and more completely."
Jack Sarfatti writes: Let me clarify this.
(1) Ian Peterson of University of Coventry has shown that there is energy available from the Casimir force
F(Casimir) = hc(A/d^4) for flat neutral plates area A separated by d
but it is VERY WEAK limited to the electrostatic potential energy of the mutually induced dipoles in each plate. In no sense does the Casimir force tap the zero point energy density whose naive estimate is ~ hc/Lp^4, Lp = 10^-33 cm. Nanotechnology using Casimir force? Yes. Warp drive using Casimir force? No.
Note that [hc] = [e^2] dimensionally so really
F(Casimir) ~ e^2(A/d^4)
is the less misleading way to write the formula, which is the same physics as in F(Coulomb) ~ e^2/r^2.
That one can get a result close to experiment from counting the difference in (1/2)hf modes inside vs outside the plates seems to be a fluke. See Milonni "The Quantum Vacuum"
Paul is being too mystical in (2) the gravitational effects of zero point energy density are now completely understood. A good reference is Mike Turner's Op Ed in April 2003 Physics Today.
The basic equation is Einstein's
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
Where the stress-energy density tensor of the zpf is
tuv(zpf) = (hc/8piLp^2)/\zpfguv
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
In the weak curvature slow speed (neglect gravimagnetism) limit we get the Poisson equation
Grad^2V(zpf) ~ c^2/\zpf
V(zpf) = effective gravity energy per unit test particle mass of any NET zero point energy density from all quantum fields of all spins and species.
The Question is why is /\zpf so small, especially in large-scale cosmology limit where it is the Einstein cosmological constant that I compute to be for the FRW limit of homogeneous isotropy
/\(Einstein) = (LpR(t))^-2
R(t) is the dimensionless FRW scale factor
R(today) = 10^61
R(Big Bang) = "0" i.e. 1 if you quantize space time in areas ~ Lp^2
The t'Hooft-Susskind World Hologram Entropy of the Inflationary Universe S is
S(Universe)/kB ~ R(t)^2
This explains the Arrow of Time automatically.
The corresponding zero point energy density is then
giving /\ = (LpR(t))^-2
It is the vacuum coherence of the random ZPF that allows the cosmological constant to be small and which is the origin of the Holographic Universe.
R(t)^2 = [1 - Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2]^-1
R(Big Bang) = 1 BIT
because Vacuum Coherence = 0 pre-inflation False Vacuum
Vacuum Coherence = (Higgs Amplitude)e^i(Goldstone Phase)
Paul Werbos writes: "NEVERTHELESS -- even though I do not believe that the (1/2)hw noise is really there,
the first major theme of my cond-mat 2004 paper is description of a chip that should
be able to prove that it is there and exploit its energy **IF** it should be there."
Jack: Yes, nanotech applications are feasible, but they will not be "free energy devices" solving the energy crisis.
On Jan 2, 2005, at 9:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:
Jack, you ask a lot of questions about what has Paula Zizzi done.
I will not try to speak for her on all of them,
your first question is
"... Does she explicitly write Entropy(Universe)/kB ~ R(t)^2 =
Number of World Hologram BITS? ...".
I think that she does do that. For example in her paper at
"... quantum information must play a relevant role in Quantum Gravity
(the "It from qubit" proposal).
The conjecture is that Quantum Gravity, the theory which will reconcile
Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, can be formulated in terms of
quantum bits of information (qubits) stored in space at the Planck scale.
... entropy ... turns out to be a quarter of the area of the horizon,
(in units of Planck area), in accordance with the holographic principle. ..."
That's not good enough Tony. Does she write the EXACT formula I wrote? The quote above is obvious qualitatively given the Hologram Anzatz,
Does she write
S(Universe)/kB ~ R(t)^2
S(Universe)/kB ~ (c/H(t)Lp)^2
H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt
My formula solves Penrose's Arrow of Time problem for Inflationary Universe using c/H does not. There is a very big difference here.
"You will have to read her work for yourself to get a proper
understanding of it. For me (or anyone else) to presume to
describe her work to you would in my opinion be a disservice
to both her and you. I have done my part by calling her work
to your attention. Whether or not you read her work is up to you."
I sent her this so if she thinks she should be cited she will respond. My precise equations were not at all influenced by her papers that I never read except for a very fast skim of a few seconds on the computer screen. I basically read very few papers by other people. I am a Lazy Dog Rogue Scholar.
"If you read her work, I think that you will find that she
has for some years had some of the ideas you are now using.
If you don't read her work, then you won't know what she has done,
and will not be able to give her proper historical credit."
I have been thinking about this independently long before she did. However, if she has written my precise formulae before me I will of course cite her. I will cite her even if she wrote it after me. The currency is the equations not the words. This stuff is in the air.
The important original idea I have is
R(t)^2 = [1 - Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2]^-1
which EXPLAINS the t'Hooft-Susskind hologram and also DERIVES Einstein's GR in Sakharov's sense from the rigid "More is Different" (PW Anderson) Goldstone phase information in the Vacuum Coherence that damps out the random zero point energy. That's THE REALLY BIG IDEA. I don't think Zizzi has that?