Discussion 1 with Becker
bcc to Invisible College

On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:04 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

Jack,

I agree with you that the mere non-discovery (yet) of the Higgs boson does not invalidate Higgs-based theories such as yours. While I am not a big proponent of them, unless the most serious tests for the existence of such a particle fail in the future, it is premature to rule them out now.

I am trying to integrate the standard model's Higgs mechanism with the emergence of gravity in accord with the equivalence of gravity with inertia. The standard Higgs field is the cohering of the completely random vacuum fluctuations of the pre-inflationary false vacuum that loosely I call the generalized "Dirac Sea" with zero mass gaps. This must apply to ALL quantum fields whose stress-energy density tensors couple universally to the emergent vacuum ODLRO c-number geometrodynamical field in the post-inflationary era. That is, the equivalence principle is the key idea here.

Therefore, I propose for the non-trivial curved part of the tetrad Cartan 1-form for 1915 GR (torsion later for simplicity of explanation) in local frame-invariant intrinsic form independent of Diff(4) & O(1,3) gauge freedom

B(x) = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field (x))

In this theory NO GRAVITY if c ---> infinity & h ----> 0 even if G =/= 0.

This is a nice result. The Newtonian-Galilean approximation is misleading without this deeper substratum picture.

All the physics is in the singularity structure of the Goldstone phase field, e.g. branch cuts with 2piN phase jumps with N as winding number, geometrodynamical flux integral quantizations ... more on that later. Look at Abrikosov vortex lattice phase singularities to get the idea for Type II superconductivity.

In effect the closed loop integrals of the 1-form B(x) around a line topological defect do not vanish and are quantized in the stationary states (Bohr-Sommerfeld). The "vortex core" is actually the false vacuum (pre-inflation) of the gapless "Dirac Sea" if the Higgs Ocean vacuum coherence of the random ZPF of ALL quantum fields literally drops to zero on the line of Goldstone phase singularity.

These closed loops outside the vortex, generally at a distance >> vacuum coherence length, are all that we can locally measure. They are non-bounding cycles without boundary. Therefore the closed loop integral of

B(x) = Lp'd'(Goldstone Phase) --> 2piN

The notation 'd' means d'd' LOCALLY but d'd' =/= 0 GLOBALLY in loop integrals around a topological defect (can generalize this to p-branes, here p = 1).

N = +-1, +-2 ...

From single-valuedness of the Higgs field coherence far outside the false vacuum core.

This defines Bohm-Aharonov "Flux without flux" i.e.

I set that non-vanishing closed loop integral equal to the 2-form area integral of d'd'(Goldstone Phase) giving quantized geometrodynamical fluxes in the stationary states. This includes the Goldstone phase singularity. If you exclude it you get zero of course from the real Stokes theorem as Kiehn points out. However, the inner compensating loop of opposite sense is NOT DIRECTLY MEASURABLE, it is physically inaccessible since we shrink it down as close to the singularity as possible. Of course if we did traverse the compensating loop far away from the core near our first loop and sum the two we will get zero, but this is trivially geometrical of no physical interest. So what we have here is a Bohm-Aharonov effect.

Indeed, a Bohm-Aharonov type experiment here on free-float geodesic pairs of test particles will simply give the components of the curvature tensor (Anandan & Wheeler).

OK back to standard model where the simplest Higgs mechanism spontaneously breaks electro-weak symmetry

U(1)hyperchargeSU(2)weak with 4 generators, i.e. the Pauli matrices ta that generate the 3D Clifford Algebra.



http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Dienes1/default.htm

The generalized phase in the unitary shift operators on the quantum waves is ta@^a with 4 phase parameters @^a. The timelike phase @^0 is for U(1)hypercharge. The Higgs field Vacuum ODLRO local order parameter PSI(Higgs)c then has 2 internal components, c = 0,1 in the fundamental 2x2 representation and transforms as

PSIc' = e^i(ta@^a)c'cPSIc

The @^a are 4 Goldstone phases.

Note that Trace{ta@^a} = @^0 from U(1)hypercharge since t1, t2, t3 are traceless.

I postulate

B(x) = (hG/c^3)'d'@^0

Since t0 is the identity matrix

e^it0@^0 does not mix together the 2 components PSI0 & PSI1. In the usual simplest model of the Higgs mechanism, the VEV charged PSI1 is set equal to zero and only the CHARGE NEUTRAL PSI0 survives.

"VEV" means "Vacuum Expectation Value"

There are more complicated Higgs models but something like what I sketch out here can be done with them I suspect.

All rest mass gaps a proportional to some coupling constant multiplying the VEV PSI0, but the Higgs particle coupling can give a VERY LARGE TYPE II VIRTUAL SUPERCONDUCTING Higgs mass gap compared to those for the W-Bosons and the unconfined quarks & the leptons. Therefore, not yet observing a real Higgs does not at all have any direct implication on the emergence of the masses of the unconfined quarks and the leptons. Both James Woodward and Eric Davis have raised this Red Herring in favor of their different non-mainstream models (Mach's Principle & SED HRP respectively.

My point here is that the Higgs mechanism for the emergence of rest mass comes from the Higgs modulus of the neutral complex order parameter PSI0 when multiplied by a set of independent coupling parameter. Gravity comes from the modulation of the surviving Goldstone phase. The Higgs modulus and the Goldstone phase are not independent of each other because the Landau-Ginzburg type of equation of motion for

PSI0 = |Higgs|e^iGoldstone

is NONLINEAR, NONUNITARY (hence signal nonlocality) & LOCAL.

The micro-quantum Born probability calculus does not apply to the macro-quantum VEV PSI0. It only applies to the residual random zero point "dark energy/matter" "normal fluid component. That is in Fock space 2nd quantization

Creation/Destruction Operator --> ODLRO C-number(SuperSolid) + Quantum Operator

In this way I obey the spirit of the equivalence principle that inertia and gravity are seamlessly linked together. You cannot have one without the other.

Gravity and Inertia, like Love and Marriage, go together like a Horse and Carriage ... :-)

Gravity and Inertia are like The Two Faces of Janus - two sides of the same coin.




But I do have some questions on the physics (putting aside the math for the moment):

1. If the Higgs field and bosons form a condensate,

The Higgs field IS the condensate.

The "bosons" are VIRTUAL bound states of virtual fermion pairs as well as virtual gauge bosons all of zero rest mass in the pre-inflationary false vacuum.

I would expect that perhaps the experimental particle physicists are looking for the Higgs boson in the wrong way. Would not a Higgs condensate, as opposed to a single Higgs boson, produce phenomena somewhat different from the typical scattering or resonance in decay cascades from the accelerator scattering experiments that have been conducted and are planned over the next decade?

This I don't know off hand. The point however is that the lepton, quark & W boson real particle rest masses are all proportional to the magnitude of the charge-neutral VEV c-number field. So is the Higgs real particle rest masses.
All the particles on mass-shell that are only Omega(matter-radiation) ~ 0.04 with Omega(hadrons, leptons) ~ .01 or less
are quasi-particle excited states out of the post-inflation physical curved vacuum.


http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb2/default.htm


What should experimental particle physicists be looking for?

2. If the ZPF(s) is a Higgs condensate, what (if anything) is the dark energy lambda term? Is this also a condensate (Higgs or otherwise) in your theory?

This is all explained in my book Super Cosmos & http://qedcorp.com/zpf2005.pdf

The effective low-energy physical vacuum is a two-fluid, more precisely, a 2-component elastic-plastic Super Solid in 4D with ODLRO as I first predicted for 3D in my 1969 Physics Letter paper for helium film.

The Higgs field is the non-random c-number coherent part inside the vacuum itself out of which smooth curved space-time emerges post-inflation. The residual w = -1 isotropic random "normal" fluctuations are universally repulsive dark energy when the pressure is negative with positive zero point energy density. When the pressure is positive for negative zero point energy density we have "dark matter" compact sources seen from the outside, e.g. Galactic Halo.

This is scale-dependent, i.e. a phase space WAVELET transform ZOOMING IN & OUT to different scales. The pressure is different at different scales - (generalized power spectrum).

/\(Dark Energy/Matter) = (Quantum of Area)^-1[1 - (Quantum of Area)|Higgs Field|^2]

if we use the World Hologram idea and normalize the Higgs field as a SURFACE DENSITY of condensed boson number on the 2D World Hologram itself.

/\ > 0 is Dark Energy

/\ < 0 is Dark Matter

Dark Matter detectors will never click with the Right Stuff to explain

Omega(Dark Matter) ~ 0.23

if my theory here is essentially correct.

Guv + /\guv = kTuv(Matter)

/\ must be a local variable field and this needs a torsion field at least as a sufficient condition to violate the 1915 Bianchi identity.


My own concept of ZPF as a condensate (albeit not Higgs) goes back to the early 90s and was put forth in 1994. But after the dark energy phenomenon was discovered, I wondered if that might also be a condensate, or at least have coherent characteristics. As put forth in the Mitre Paper, that might be related to EPR effects.

ZPF must be the micro-quantum incoherent random stochastic. It is the "normal fluid component". It is not the coherent non-random superfluid MACRO-quantum ODLRO condensate. Particles move BETWEEN these two co-existing vacuum phases like Higgsian Condensate Icebergs floating in the Dirac Sea of Dark Energy/Matter. This particle-exchange causes the "phase rigidity" (PW Anderson "More is different") of the condensate Higgs Ocean i.e.

(Boson Number Uncertainty in Higgs Ocean)(Vacuum Phase Incoherence) ~ 1/2

Actually it's < 1/2 inside the vacuum as a virtual process.


Stimulated to speculate on that a little further after reading some of your material: If the duality of the holographic conjecture is valid, and goes in both directions (i.e. the theorem is iff on the interior-surface duality), then perhaps widely separated entangled particles in the interior might be mapped to a localized, but (collective) condensate at the surface that has the characteristics of dark energy (since particle collections at the surface are mapped to individual particles in the interior and dark energy is pervasive and should exist at any position in the interior, or equivalently, the surface). What appears to be action at a great distance than imight be mapped into action at a much smaller distance, and therefore such entanglement would no longer appear so mysterious or action-at-a-far-distance.

You lost me. :-) I need to see it in formal language first. I actually think the algebra first and then I form the English Word Pictures. For me "/\", "PSI", "h", "G", "c" et-al ARE ALIVE! :-)


It's ALIVE!



Take care,

REB

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note there have been two Red Herrings in this regard:

I. Red Herring #1 from James Woodward and Eric Davis that the standard
particle model Higgs-Goldstone mechanism for the origin of inertia
(rest mass) of leptons and quarks is wrong because the Higgs particle
has not been seen. In fact the coupling constant for the excitation of
the Higgs particle is independent of the coupling constants for the
excitation of the leptons and quarks. Therefore, the objection of
Woodward and Davis is simply wrong.

In order to obey the Einstein equivalence principle gravity and inertia
are inseparable. Indeed, deriving gravity from the same SU(2)weak Higgs
mechanism for inertia is consistent with the equivalence principle.
Indeed in

B(x) = Lp'd'Theta(x)

Theta(x) = Trace{QaTheta^a}

a = 1,2,3.4

{Qa} is the Lie algebra of U(1)hyperchargexSU(2)weak

in the fundamental 2x2 representation. Since the Pauli spin matrices
are traceless, only the U(1)hypercharge local phase is important in
generating Einstein's field equations. That is, we use the U(1) phase
of the hypercharge internal symmetry group, i.e.

B(x) = kLp*'d'(Theta(x))hypercharge

k = dimensionless hypercharge coupling constant.

Lp* = effective Planck length

II. Hal Puthoff's citing the DeWitt calculation i.e. w = +1/3 vs w = -1
for the boundary effect on virtual photons in the Casimir potential
ah/mcr. What is at issue there is the precise dimensionless number for
"a". This issue is completely irrelevant to the GR prediction of the
absolute gravity of zero point energy density given in the conceptually
independent term /\zpfr^2 in the effective Newtonian limit potential
toy model for the EVO that is nowhere in the DeWitt calculation.

On Oct 22, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

> Memorandum for the Record
>
> http://stardrive.org Discussion forum
>
> Books on all this
>
> Super Cosmos (2005)
>
> Space-Time & Beyond II (Dark Energy)
>
> Destiny Matrix (autobiography)
>
> on http://amazon.com
>
> On The Right Stuff
>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2005, at 10:10 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:
>>>
>>> "In reading over some of this material, I would agree that if it can
>>> be shown that the ZPFs or cosmological constant field is a
>>> condensate, then it should be, in theory, possible to modulate it
>>> and perhaps control it via interference effects like an analog to
>>> the Josephson Effect. (Actually, one does not even need a condensate
>>> for that per se; coherence alone will suffice.)"
>
> Doc Savage wrote:
>>
>> Sarfatti has shown it mathematically with his curved tetrad equation
>>
>> B(x) = Lp'd'Theta(x)
>>
>> Einstein-Cartan tetrad is e(x) = 1 + B(x)
>>
>> Roughly speaking this is the "square root" of Einstein invariant
>> local interval ds^2(x) = guv(x)dx^udx^v
>>
>> Theta(x) is the Goldstone phase of the vacuum condensate. Lp is the
>> Planck scale. The "physics" is all in the phase singularities like in
>> a Type II superconductor for example.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I was not aware of the Sarfatti work at the time I wrote the Mitre
>>> Paper.
>>
>> It's quite recent in more mature form using the Cartan differential
>> forms. His work in his 2002 books is more clumsy still grasping on
>> how to best say his intuitive idea you give above in the best
>> mathematical form.
>>
>>> In turn, my concept of ZPF/ZPM as its own condensate goes back to my
>>> work for my Thesis in 1994 where it first appeared (though there are
>>> independent antecedents by others before that). That, of course, was
>>> pre-supernova, universe acceleration discovery, and was put forth
>>> for a completely different purpose. The use the cosmological
>>> constant condensate concept in the Mitre Paper was also for yet
>>> another completely different purpose more closely related to the
>>> foundations of quantum mechanics. But it is very interesting to see
>>> the concept used for such a "engineering" purpose.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>>
>>> Robert E. Becker
>>>
>>> Doc Savage wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 19, 20! 05, at 3:33 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Doc,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for letting me know about this. I don't believe I know
>>>>> either Drs. Sarfatti or Wagner. I don't recall if they were at the
>>>>> Mitre Meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am glad my Mitre Paper was of use to someone , though in
>>>>> truth, I was not attempting to cover alternate theories of known
>>>>> phenomenon (a track I tend to avoid), but rather generalizations
>>>>> of extant theories along with new theoretical developments of
>>>>> phenomena that are known, but not yet explained, or for potential
>>>>> new phenomena.
>>>>
>>>> What Sarfatti is doing is not at all "alternate theory". He is
>>>> applying mainstream battle-tested Einstein 1915 GR with
>>>> semi-classical quantum corrections to the problem of EVOs &
>>>> geodesic propulsion of Alcubierre type (no g-forces at all).
>>>> Sarfatti is also able to derive Einstein's 1915 GR equations from
>>>> the standard particle model Higgs mechanism using the
>>>> Einstein-Cartan formalism. The curved part of the tetrad 1-form e
>>>> is of the form
>>>>
>>>> e = 1 + B
>>>>
>>>> where Sarfatti writes the 1-form
>>>>
>>>> B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Vacuum Condensate
>>>> Field)
>>>>
>>>> 'd' indicates singularities in the Goldstone phase field so that
>>>>
>>>> d'd' =/= 0 even though d^2 = 0
>>>>
>>>> i.e. integrals of the 1-form B about non-bounding 1-cycles are
>>>> quantized and not zero.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein's metric field
>>>>
>>>> g = guvdx^udx^v is the symmetric bilinear form = (1^a + B^a)nab(1^b
>>>> + B^b)
>>>>
>>>> nab = constant Minkowski metric
>>>>
>>>> Here T = De = 0 (vanishing torsion 2-form)
>>>>
>>>> D = d + W/>>>>
>>>> W = spin connection 1-form
>>>>
>>>> R = DW is curvature 2-form.
>>>>
>>>> To get geodesic propellantless propulsion (weightless warp drive)
>>>> does require a torsion field S
>>>>
>>>> e' = 1 + B + S
>>>>
>>>> T' = De' = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S) =/= 0
>>>>
>>>> more details elsewhere
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But Dr. Sarfatti is certainly correct that I was unaware of that B
>>>>> equation (and much other work in the alterrnate theory area).
>>>>
>>>> This is a new development.
>>>>
>>>> Sarfatti was not at Mitre. The weapons potential of this is of
>>>> course of interest to MASINT.
>>>>
>>>> On the EVOs below basically
>>>>
>>>> V(Sarfatti)/c^2 = V(Puthoff)/c^2 + V(Dark Energy Core)/c^2
>>>>
>>>> V(Dark Energy Core)/c^2 = /\zpfr^2
>>>>
>>>> This solves the problem of the stability of the electron says
>>>> Sarfatti - in sense of old Lorentz theory and Wheeler's "geons"
>>>> with effective G* ~ 10^40G at short-range only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The concepts expressed in that Paper are at a less-detailed (and
>>>>> therefore less useful) level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert E. Becker
>>>>>
>>>>> Doc Savage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > From: Jack Sarfatti
>>>>>> > Date: October 19, 2005 12:24:31 PM PDT
>>>>>> > To: art wagner
>>>>>> > Subject: Re: Mitre Alt. Grav. Overview (2003)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > bcc
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Art
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I take that back. I thought it was something else. There seem
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> > some ideas in there that are primitive versions of mine. That
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> > zero point energy is a normal fluid fraction in a vacuum
>>>>>> condensate
>>>>>> > model is of course one of my original independent ideas in my
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> > books of 2002 on http://amazon.com and in 3 papers I gave 2 at
>>>>>> APS
>>>>>> > & 1 at GR 17 in Dublin and in "Wheeler's World" Developments in
>>>>>> > Quantum Physics, NOVA Scientific Publishers. OK will read
>>>>>> Becker's
>>>>>> > paper - thanks. :-)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Becker does not know
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > B = (hG/c3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Vacuum Condensate)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Oct 19, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> I know it. It's mostly useless for metric engineering warp and
>>>>>> >> wormhole.
>>>>>> >> On Oct 19, 2005, at 12:05 PM, art wagner wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> This is a great Overview paper on the alternative gravity
>>>>>> >>> theories/experiments discussed at the Mitre Corp. conference
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> >>> HFGW in 2003.....a nice Reference work:
>>>>>> >>> (http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/HFGW-2003/123-
>>>>>> >>> Becker-Prepub.pdf)
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Here is the real stuff (also my book Super Cosmos
>>>>>> http://amazon.com )
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> bcc
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Basically Hal's EVO model (and all Casimir models that ignore
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> absolute gravity of zero po! int energy density from Einstein's
>>>>>> >> equivalence principle) fails because it is conceptually
>>>>>> incomplete
>>>>>> >> in the following precise mathematical sense for a rotating EVO
>>>>>> >> shell of N electrons (in weak field slow speed semi-classical
>>>>>> >> limit of GR)
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> V(Puthoff)/c^2 = Casimir Energy + Coulomb Energy + Rotational
>>>>>> >> Energy (per unit mass)
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> V(Puthoff)/c^2 V/c^2 = ahc/Nmr + bN^2e^2/Nmc^2r + (Nh/2Nmcr)^2
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> = ahc/Nmr + bNe^2/mc^2r + [(h/2 + L)/mcr]^2
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> L is orbital angular momentum, h/2 is spin, this gives the
>>>>>> doublet
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> J = L +- h/2
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Also Hal assumes a positive zero point pressure using w = +1/3
>>>>>> >> with positive zero point energy density. This is an error
>>>>>> >> inconsistent with the direct gravity of zero point energy
>>>>>> density
>>>>>> >> that requires w = -1 (isotropic case). Hal makes an additional
>>>>>> >> error that only relative differences in zero point energy
>>>>>> density
>>>>>> >> gravitates. Hal and others do not realize the profound
>>>>>> difference
>>>>>> >> between QED & GR in this regard.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> In contrast
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> V(Sarfatti)/c^2 = Casimir Energy + Coulomb Energy + Rotational
>>>>>> >> Energy + Dark Energy
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> = V(Puthoff)/c^2 + V(Dark Energy)/c^2
= ahc/Nmr + bNe^2/mc^2r + [(h/2 + L)/mcr]^2 + /\zpfr^2
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hal misses the all important Dark Energy Core term (3D SU(3)
>>>>>> >> harmonic oscillator "spring" potential with negative pressure
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> >> positive zero point energy density
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> /\zpf(Dark Energy)r^2
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> where /\zpf > 0.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> There is the issue of the exact identity of particles (Viki
>>>>>> >> Weisskopf "Knowled! ge and Wonder) not a problem here. These
>>>>>> micro-
>>>>>> >> geons need not be identic! al extended space structures. They
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> >> Bohm hidden variables and, therefore, the entangled quantum
>>>>>> >> permutation symmetry and spin-statistics connection is obeyed
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> >> the many-particle quantum potential in configuration space in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> usual way. This shows that the Copenhagen interpretation and
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> >> those derivative from it is wrong experimentally and that the
>>>>>> Bohm
>>>>>> >> pilot wave theory is the only interpretation consistent with
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> >> the facts to date.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Oct 19, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> Gentlemen
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> re:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0212119
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Your paper has come to my attention. Please no! te I have
>>>>>> published
>>>>>> >>> a very similar idea in my book Super Cosmos http://amazon.com
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> >>> which I explain the electron as a rotating shell of electric
>>>>>> >>> charge stabilized by a uniform core of dark zero point energy
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >>> negative pressure. I presented a Newtonian model with
>>>>>> effective
>>>>>> >>> potential energy per unit mass V where we have the
>>>>>> dimensionless
>>>>>> >>> quantity
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> V/c^2 = Casimir energy + Coulomb self-energy + rotational
>>>>>> energy
>>>>>> >>> + dark energy core
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> V/c^2 = ahc/mr + be^2/mc^2r + (h/2mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> where ahc/r is the Casimir energy from QED that provides the
>>>>>> >>> numerical value for a for a spherical cavity.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The equilibrium is at
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> dV/dr = 0
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>&! gt; Stability is assured from
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> d^2V/dr^2 > 0
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> This would correspond to the g00 Newtonian limit of your m!
>>>>>> ore
>>>>>> >>> general GR formulation.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> In my model at low energy the electron micro-geon is ~ 10^-11
>>>>>> cm.
>>>>>> >>> However, for small impact parameters in scattering your full
>>>>>> GR
>>>>>> >>> model will provide a strong space-warp so that the apparent
>>>>>> size
>>>>>> >>> of the electron shrinks down to ~ 10^-16 cm for the momentum
>>>>>> >>> transfers of the appropriate scattering experiments.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Note that the dark energy core /\zpfr^2 3D harmonic oscillator
>>>>>> >>> potential with SU(3) symmetry is equivalent to an effective
>>>>>> short
>>>>>> >>> range gravity G* ~ 10^40G is like a spring preventing the
>>>>>> >>> rotating shell of charge from exploding. This also suggests a
>>>>>> >>> simple way to understand the confinement of quarks inside the
>>>>>> >>> hadron.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> The zero point energy density outside the shell of charge is,
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> >>> course, consistent with the cosmological measurement
>>>>>> Omega(Dark
>>>>>> >>> Energy) ~ 0.73.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> This model came out of my consultations with experimentalist
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> >>> Shoulder observing "charge cluster" EVOS.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> fyi
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P11751_0_5_0_C
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Hey Joe, where going with that EVO in your hand?
>>>>>> >>> EVOs exotic weapons and the race to master dark energy
>>>>>> >>> [jch] [[ddff-ltd] | Global Broadband Strategies] | POSTED:
>>>>>> >>> 08.27.05 @15:31

>>>>>> >>> 1. Ken Shoulders bottles some exotic vacuum energy.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> (PRWEB) September 1, 2004 -- Experimentalist Ken Shoulders
>>>>>> claims
>>>>>> >>> that electrons are behav! ing in ways thought to be
>>>>>> impossible. A
>>>>>> >>> new and previously unknown force appears to be binding the
>>>>>> >>> electrons at short range into clusters of electron charge.
>>>>>> >>> Shoulders calls these clusters Exotic Vacuum Objects, or
>>>>>> EVO's.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Shoulders describes this as "a short-range force resembling a
>>>>>> >>> positive charge negating the effect of repulsive electronic
>>>>>> charge"
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> One of Ken Shoulder's latest papers suggests nefarious uses
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> >>> charged cluster technology based on EVO's:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> "The author can easily imagine a scenario where instructions
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> >>> generated with enough clarity for about 1 person in 1,000 to
>>>>>> >>> perform the necessary operations to refine and store a gallon
>>>>>> jug
>>>>>> >>> of electrons in the form of Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVO's) ...
>>>>>> >>> there is no doubt that this jug would be light enough to carry
>>>>>> >>> and be highly sensitive to destabilization of a catastrophic
>>>>>> >>> nature..."
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Ken Shoulders has recently collaborated on several papers with
>>>>>> >>> independent theoretical physicist Dr. Jack Sarfatti, in San
>>>>>> >>> Francisco. Sarfatti suggests that his theory of exotic vacuum
>>>>>> >>> dark energy/dark matter can explain Shoulders' experimental
>>>>>> data.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Although Sarfatti hopes for carefully controlled release of
>>>>>> >>> energy from the EVO's, both Sarfatti and Shoulders warn that
>>>>>> >>> rapid release of a large EVO would be explosive, perhaps more
>>>>>> >>> powerful than a thermonuclear device.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 2. Who Is Ken Shoulders?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> a. Long-time associate of Hal Puthoff. Both worked in US
>>>>>> >>> Intelligence Community for years.
>>>>>> >>> b. Brilliant gadgeteer with small microwave devices, holds
>>>>>> >>> several important patents.
>>>>>> >>> c. Ken's opinions are taken seriously in the USG Defense
>>>>>> >>> Intelligence Community.
>>>>>> >>> d. Pressure is mounting for Shoulders, Sarfatti and Puthoff to
>>>>>> >>> write a joint paper together showing conflicting models of the
>>>>>> >>> phenomenon.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 3. Puthoff Model: Positive pressure outside, zero pressure
>>>>>> >>> inside, w = 1/3
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Puthoff uses a model of Casimir's "Type II" in which there is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> >>> positive zero point energy pressure outside the thin shell of
>>>>>> >>> electrons and vanishing zero point pressure inside it.
>>>>>> Sarfatti
>>>>>> >>> says Casimir made ! an error by assuming that the well known
>>>>>> "dubya
>>>>>> >>> factor" (i.e. w = (pressure)/(energy density)) is +1/3, which
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> >>> is for real photons propagating energy to infinity as
>>>>>> >>> electromagnetic radiation.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 4. Sarfatti Model: Zero pressure outside, negative pressure
>>>>>> >>> inside, w = -1
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Sarfatti objects that w = -1 for the virtual photons of the
>>>>>> zero
>>>>>> >>> point vacuum fluctuations. That w = -1 for this case is well
>>>>>> >>> known to cosmologists working on the "dark energy" (e.g. Mike
>>>>>> >>> Turner's Op/Ed in April 2003 Physics Today).
>>>>>&! gt; >>>
>>>>>> >>> "w = -1 follows from Einstein's equivalence principle together
>>>>>> >>> with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Furthermore, boson
>>>>>> >>> statistics require a positive virtual photon energy density,
>>>>>> >>> therefore an equal and opposite negative virt! ual photon
>>>>>> pressure.
>>>>>> >>> Virtual quanta are directly observable in their warping of
>>>>>> >>> spacetime. You cannot subtract them out. The pressure warps
>>>>>> space-
>>>>>> >>> time three times more than the energy density. The negative
>>>>>> >>> pressure makes repulsive anti-gravity that is the 'Right
>>>>>> Stuff'
>>>>>> >>> for weightless warp drives, wide wormholes and, unfortunately
>>>>>> >>> 'universe destroying' weird weapons." said Sarfatti. Sarfatti
>>>>>> >>> cited Sir Martin Rees's book Our Final Hour on this subject.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 5. Break the bottle to create Cold Fusion.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Sarfatti's model is the mirror opposite of Puthoff's. "The
>>>>>> zero
>>>>>> >>> point pressure is negative inside the thin shell of typically
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> >>> trillion to ten thousand trillion electrons in the observed
>>>>>> EVOs
>>>>>> >>> 10-5 cm to 10-5 meters across and is zero outside. Negative
>>>>>> zero
>>>>>> >>> po! int pressure makes the vacuum like a spring and the electric
>>>>>> >>> repulsion does work against the vacuum to create a metastable
>>>>>> >>> EVO. The electrons make a bottle or container for the anti-
>>>>>> >>> gravity dark energy vacuum core of the EVO. Break the bottle
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> >>> release the Dark Energy Genie as 'Cold Fusion'. Mike Turner
>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>> >>> that it couldn't be done, apparently Ken Shoulders has done
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> >>> was thought to be an impossible dream." says Sarfatti.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> 6. Further Reading
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> * August 2004 Popular Mechanics: http://popularmechanics.com/
>>>>>> >>> science/research/2004/8/dangerous_science/index5.phtml The
>>>>>> above
>>>>>> >>> article mentions the recent unsolved murder of Cold Fusion
>>>>>> >>> advocate Gene Mallove.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> * Moscow's Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/science/
>>>>>> >>> 19/94/379/12737_weapons.html American military is pursuing new
>>>>>> >>> types of exotic weapons
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>
>