Memorandum for the Record

Metric Engineering of Weightless Warp Drive and Wormhole Time Travel for USG NDI MASINT Star Gate Contact Mission (J-Rod, Charlene, Charlie "Core Story")

On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:05 AM, A. P. US Naval Intelligence "RET" (High Rank Officer) wrote:

Tony Smith said: "IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION EXPERIMENTS IS NOT DEVELOPED BY THE USA, THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD SUPERPOWER." Anyone familiar with Tony's work understands that this is not just another North Georgia lawyer speaking but also a very highly trained theorist. Are the right experiments or group of experiments already proposed with enough detail to test this model?

My theory explains the anomalies of dark energy and dark matter as well as the phenomenology of the UFOs as given in the NIDS papers of Eric Davis and Jacques Vallee. This is all in my book Super Cosmos that everyone should get for reference. My theory is very close to the observations, much closer than string theory, or PV or HRP SED ZPF or anything else even close to metric engineering in the NASA BPP & STAIF/MITRE meetings.

I also solve the old problem of the stability of the electron - a spin-off of my discussions with Ken Shoulders on the charge clusters. My theory for the emergence of gravity with virtual ZPE dark energy/matter is very mainstream and consistent with the Higgs mechanism for the generation of the small rest masses of leptons and quarks before the quarks get confined to give the hadrons much larger mass.

You all need to put this in perspective. This is a monumental task on the scale of the Manhattan Project. It's like asking Einstein to develop a detailed blueprint of a nuclear reactor in 1908 3 years after he writes "E = Mc^2". I am ONE GUY working ALONE. So far what I have done is BIG BANG for small buck relative to what everyone else is doing with much larger resources. You get what you pay for IF YOU ARE LUCKY and USG has a poor track record in this regard.

The engineering problem for warp drive is nano-technology, anyons, and probably soft solid state stuff I am not aware of. This requires more people to do it in a short enough time. I have a steep learning curve in that regard.

Again for the record:

I. Stability of the single electron & Ken Shoulder's charge clusters including Hal Puthoff's beloved Casimir force. Improved calculation.

The effective Newtonian limit potential energy per unit mass of a rotating thin shell of charge of radius r with a uniform core of zero point dark energy /\zpf is

V = ahc/mr + be^2/mr + (J/mr)^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2

Note the SU(3) symmetric 3D harmonic oscillator potential /\zpfr^2 that has "confinement" built in automatically.

Hal's Casimir force F = -dU/dL for parallel conducting uncharged plates has the potential energy U

UCasimir = (number)hcA/L^3

A is area of plates separated by L and (number) is computed from QED. Side issue is the use of w = +1/3 rather than the correct w = -1 in the QED calculation Hal does, but that is irrelevant to the key physics here that Hal completely misses).

Since L^2 = A in the thin shell, in my model

VCasimir = ahc/mr

a is a pure number from QED. I don't really care what it's precise value is. The parameter b is another pure number depending on details of the charge distribution as in the old books by Becker, Lorentz 100 years ago.

Use the dimensionless effective self-potential for the micro-geon (Bohm hidden variable) extended rotating thin shell of charge

V/c^2 = ahc/Mr + bQ^2/Mc^2r + (J/Mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

For a charge cluster EVO (Ken Shoulders)

J = L (orbital) + S(total spin)

Q = Ne

M = Nm

For the single electron N = 1, J = h/2, Q = e, M = m ~ 10^-27 gm

h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

V/c^2 = (h/mcr)(a + b@) + (h/2mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

@ = e^2/hc ~ 1/137

Note that /\zpf is tiny outside the shell of charge compared to what it is inside. This is consistent with the number for dark energy density from Type 1a supernovae observations.

Equilibrium is obviously stable, i.e. d^2V/dr^2 > 0, from the SU(3) confinement 3D oscillator potential provided by the dark energy core /\zpfr^2 with w = -1 inside the shell of charge. Note that "cold fusion" EXPLOSION passage through Coulomb barrier would have /\zpf < 0 (AKA "dark matter") rather than /\zpf > 0 (aka "dark energy") as in this case of confinement.

dV/dr = 0 critical point

is the quartic polynomial

- (h/mc)(1/r^2)(a + b@) - 2(h/2mc)^2(1/r)^3 + 2/\zpfr = 0

i.e.

2/\zpfr^4 - (h/mc)(a + b@)r - 2(h/2mc)^2 = 0

Graphical analysis shows a negative unphysical root (it may be physical in GR where this is similar to a Kerr-Newman metric with G* >> G) one positive root, and a pair of complex conjugate roots (unstable particles?).

The real positive root is clearly from the physics either

r* = e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm

or

r* ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

However since, we already have quantum effects in there in a kind of semi-classical way, I will take the latter that is consistent with

N(h/mc)^2 ~ 4pir*^2

for an EVO charge cluster. Both Hal Puthoff & I agree on this formula.

Therefore,

2/\zpf(h/mc)^4 - (h/mc)^2(a + b@) - (1/2)(h/mc)^2 = 0

/\zpf(h/mc)^2 - (1/2)(a + b@ + 1) = 0

/\zpf = (mc/h)^2(1/2)(a + b/137 + 1)

Explains why the electron is not a point particle at low energy, and why its shell of charge does not explode.

On the other hand, when you probe the extended electron at high energy, it appears to shrink to a point particle because of the extreme spatial curvature warping as shown in a picture in Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps". The effective short-scale G* here induced by the dark energy core is ~ 10^40G(Newton).

Unified Field Theory for c-number boson fields in macro-quantum coherent states.

1. Maxwell EM theory

Given an electron Dirac field with global U(1) locally gauge it to get the 1-form connection

(e/c)A = h'd'(Phase of Electron Field)

This is "Flux without flux", e.g. Dirac string phase singularity

'd' means not "globally exact" (see R. Kiehn) also see H. Kleinert ("multi-valued phase transformations")

Note d^2 = 0 in simply connected manifolds when forms are integrated over cycles that bound i.e. dual &^2 = 0 AKA J.A. Wheeler's "Boundary of a boundary vanishes."

But d'd' =/= 0 and &'&' =/= 0 from non-trivial cohomology where deRham period integrals of Cartan forms over co-form manifolds do not vanish and are quantized when they come from a single-valued order parameter.

Maxwell's field equations are

F = dA 2-form

dF = 0 (Faraday's law + No magnetic monopoles) 3-form

The * operator requires a space-time metric and constitutive relations for a matter source.

d*F = *J (Ampere's law + Gauss's law) 3-form source equations

d*J = 0 is local conservation of electric current density 4-form

2. Yang-Mills theory of SU(2)weak and SU(3)strong

Locally gauge SU(2) and SU(3) for lepton & quark Dirac fields to get A'

Define the gauge covariant exterior derivative with Meissner effect

D' = d + A'/

/\ is exterior multiplication

F' = D'A'

D'F' = 0 (Bianchi identities)

D'*F' = *J' source equations

D*J'= 0 local conservation of strong and weak source currents.

3. Einstein's 1915 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field

Locally gauge T4 to Diff(4) for all matter source fields universally, therefore get the B Cartan tetrad curvature field. The full Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

e = 1 + B (e.g. Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online)

B = 0 is 1905 Special Relativity

The Einstein Equivalence Principle is the symmetric bi-linear map

g(curved spacetime) = (1 + B)(flat spacetime)(1 + B)

This is local frame invariant under all locally gauged physical symmetry groups and all global symmetry groups trivially.

e.g.

g(curved spacetime) = guvdx^udx^v is a scalar 0-form.

W is the spin-connection that works for spinor source on curved space-time and which gives the Levi-Civita connection for boson fields.

D = d + W/

Zero torsion 2-form is

T = De = 0

i.e.

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Therefore W and B are not independent.

The curvature 2-form is

R = DW

Einstein's field equations with the Cosmological Constant /\zpf are

DR + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0

D*R = *J(Matter)

D*J(Matter) = 0 (local conservation of stress-energy current density of matter)

Note that D/\zpf = d/\zpf = 0 i.e. /\zpf is a real constant in this 1915 GR.

Also obviously from before T = De = 0

The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density L is

L = R/\e/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e/\e

where remember

e = 1 + B

The action principle (Dan Smith's BPW) is

&L/&e = 0

&/&e is the functional derivative relative to the tetrad field.

See Sean Carroll's text to see how to translate this into the old cumbersome tensor notation that Einstein used.

BTW to my knowledge no one has really done this as simply as I - Rovelli comes close.

Next my original contribution of "More is different" emergent gravity

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum Field)

No gravity when h = 0, no gravity when c -> infinity. This is NEW!

Higgs field comes from spontaneous breakdown of SU(2)weak in standard model.

The SU(2)weak phase is the 2x2 matrix Ta@^a, where {Ta} is the Lie algebra of SU(2) and I use the fundamental real 2x2 representation.

Goldstone Phase = Trace[Ta@^a]

Therefore the standard model of leptons & quarks is made consistent with the equivalence principle of general relativity because the small rest masses of leptons and unconfined free quarks emerges from the same Higgs field that gives gravity. This is all virtual in the coherent vacuum condensate and does not require exciting real Higgs quanta. The Higgs mass does not appear in the Yukawa couplings for the lepton and unconfined quarks masses. The Higgs particle corresponds to far-field propagating amplitude vibrations in the Higgs vacuum field. Gravity of large masses comes from the non-propagating near field Goldstone phase modulation of the total Higgs coherent field. Gravity waves come from far field phase modulations. Puthoff's HRP SED ZPF origin of inertia is completely wrongly-posed. James Woodward's Mach Principle is completely superfluous. Also we do not want to change rest masses m because that destabilizes the entire universe if e/m changes too much. In any case changing mass, say with Mach's principle, is not a weightless, i.e. timelike geodesic warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre.

4. Gennady Shipov's torsion field comes from locally gauging O(1,3) in addition to T4 as shown by Kibble in the 1960's.

We have the torsion 1-form S. The torsion 2-form is then

T" = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)

In my theory

T" = (hG/c^3)d'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum Field) =/ = 0

where, same as in 1915 GR

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Note that T' = 0 when S = 0. Also note the direct torsion-curvature couplings

W/\S and S/\B terms.

D" = d + W/\ + S/

The torsion field equations are

D"T" = 0

D"*T" = *J"(spinning sources)

D"*J(spinning sources) = 0

The generalized curvature field equations are

R" = D"(W + S)

D"R" = 0

D"*R" = *J(matter)

D"*J"(matter) = 0

Note, that when S =/= 0 /\zpf becomes a local quintessent variable scalar field because now, obviously

DR =/= 0 in the larger theory with the S =/= 0 action density

L" = R"(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S) + /\zpf(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)

DR =/= 0

DR + d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B) = 0

where d/\zpf comes from the S-dependent terms in D"R" = 0 separating out the DR terms and calling the remainder d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B)

From: Jack Sarfatti

On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, when John Brandenburg asked

"... does ...[Jack's model]... suggest EM technology

that can create gravity modifcations? ..."

you replied

"... Of course it does and in a lot more detail

than anything Hal & Co have suggested. ...".

and

when John Brandenburg said

"... I bet you these theories [Jack's and Hal's] will converge

on the same recipe. ..."

you replied

"... No sign of that at all. ...".

---------------------------------------------

Jack, I have been following your work and your discussion

about Hal's work for years, and the following (which I will

try to put in simple English without equations) is clear to me.

1 - Your replies quoted above are correct.

2 - You understand the importance of quantum coherence

and Hal (as far as I understand his stuff) does not.

Your quantum coherent stuff means that you have

correlated connections among MANY particles,

as opposed to gaussian noise fluctuations in which

the individual particles are NOT correleted.

Exactly! That's one reason the SED approach of HRP is no good at all.

For example, in cond-mat/0007185, Philip W. Anderson says:

"... the many-body correlations are so strong that the dynamics

can no longer be described in terms of individual particles ...".

When the correlations are taken into account, you see that

stuff does NOT merely scale linearly, but scales up MUCH faster.

In short:

YOUR MODEL HAS QUANTUM COHERENCE, AND HENCE CORRELATION STRENGTH,

WHILE HAL'S MODEL (as far as I understand it) DOES NOT.

Yes.

3 - Your dark energy stuff may be experimentally accessible

by using arrays of nano-scale high-frequency Josephson junctions,

as you have mentioned. THIS IS NOT IDLE SPECULATION. THERE ARE

EXPERIMENTAL LINES OF WORK THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED IF YOUR WORK

WERE TO BE PURSUED BY THOSE THAT THE AVIARY CLAIMS TO REPRESENT.

For example,

Beck and Mackey paper at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0406504

say: "... If ... the measured spectrum in Josephson junction experiments

...[does not]... exhibit a cutoff at the critical frequency ...

the corresponding vacuum energy density would exceed the currently

measured dark energy density of the universe. ...".

(I know that some have made theoretical objections to Beck and Mackey,

but what counts is experiment, and no experiments have ruled out

the Beck and Mackey idea.)

Yes. The Aviary "experts" are not asking the right questions, I mean Puthoff, Davis, who got into Nick Cook's book and even Aviation Week with The Wrong Stuff. More importantly, they got into The Pentagon's DIA and the CIA at Langley.

Further,

A paper at http://www.physics.gatech.edu/mbennett/dist2003.pdf

by Matthew Bennett and Kurt Wiesenfeld describes

Josephson Junction Arrays, saying: "... The resonant case ... leads

to significant physical insight into achieving attracting synchronized

dynamics. ... There are ... hints that distributed arrays exhibit

fundamentally different phenomena than their lumped counterparts.

In one case, experiments on distributed Josephson arrays

reported evidence of super-radiance ...".

4 - The reason that I understand your model is (as we have discussed

by e-mail earlier) that when you

"... Locally gauge T4xO(1,3) to get

Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory. ..."

what you are doing is closely related to

the generalized MacDowell-Mansouri procedure that I use in my model.

If you say so. I have not read those papers. Better that I don't. You can be "Dyson"! :-) Did Feynman read Schwinger & Tomonaga? I doubt it. Would be an interesting history of physics project.

5 - IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION EXPERIMENTS IS NOT

DEVELOPED BY THE USA,

THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS

TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD SUPERPOWER.

Obviously.

Tony

## No comments:

Post a Comment