## Saturday, October 22, 2005

Technical details emerging at moderated discussion forum at http://stardrive.org/title.shtml

Note, the key point Hal is not understanding is that whilst Quantum Electrodynamics does not have an absolute energy scale, General Relativity does. DeWitt in calculating the Casimir force subtracts off the space without plates from the space with plates in his "regularization" for the dimensionless number "a" to fit into the approximately spherically symmetric Casimir boundary potential energy a(h/mcr) per unit energy = a(Compton Wavelength)/r. Rotation will spoil the exact spherical symmetry of the thin shell of charge (ignored in the toy model) It is the dimensionless coefficient "a" that DeWitt "regularizes" and comes up with the fluke w = +1/3 for that fragment of the whole problem only. The uniform core of dark energy of negative pressure with dimensionless potential /\zpfr^2 is not even conceived of in DeWitt's calculation that Hal cites. It is a Red Herring. In simplest case of a non-rotating spherical shell of charge in the Newtonian approximation

V(Puthoff)/c^2 = ah/mcr + be^2/mc^2r = Casimir Boundary Zero-Point Self-Energy + Coulomb Self-Energy

This requires Hal to jump through hoops, i.e. he has vanishing positive zero point pressure inside the shell and strong enough positive pressure w = +1/3 outside the shell to prevent the explosion of the shell from the self-Coulomb repulsion. This, however contradicts the equivalence of gravity and inertia as well as actual data from Type 1a supernovae. Hal tries to hand wave this away by saying that only relative differences of zero point pressure gravitate - in stark direct contradiction to the corner stone of Einstein's theory of gravity, i.e. the local equivalence of g-force to inertial force.

In contrast, in my model the outside of the shell of charge has a very weak negative pressure w = -1 (for positive zero point energy density also assumed by Hal) consistent with the above observations from Type 1a supernovae of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It has a strong negative pressure core in the interior of the shell which acts as a CONFINEMENT "spring" against which the shell of charge must do work.

That is, most simply, from the interior of the thin shell of charge

V(Sarfatti)/c^2 = V(Puthoff)/c^2 + Dark Energy Core = V(Puthoff)/c^2 + /\zpfr^2

What makes the electron stable, for example is the positive power of r with a positive sign to the energy. This is a 3D harmonic oscillator with G = SU(3) symmetry (spherical polar coordinates). Rotation will break this down to H = SU(2) in the plane normal to the spin z-axis (cylindrical coordinates).

Note that for a single spin zero toy model "electron", the charged shell has thickness ~ e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm and radius ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm at low energy. It appears to shrink from an induced space-warp when hit with large momentum transfers in scattering - looking more and more like a point ~ 10^-16 cm in high-energy experiments.

In this problem, the SSS GR metric "MICRO-GEON" would appear to be, in the Schwarzschild radial coordinate

g00 = (1 + V(r)/c^2) = (1 + ah/mcr + be^2/mc^2r + /\zpfr^2) = 1/grr

WITHOUT ANY BLACK HOLE EVENT Horizon. This is heuristic and needs to be checked more carefully. There is only the singularity at r = 0. However, in the usual way use instead the cutoff

g00 = a(1 + (b/a)alpha)h/mc(r + Lp) + /\zpfr^2) = 1/grr

Lp^2 = hG/c^3

alpha = e^2/hc ~ 1/137

to remove the singularity.

This is not a vacuum solution because the source distribution will be /\zpf(r) that I approximated as a constant in the above Newtonian model approximation to this more accurate GR model.

What we have here is, I suspect, a BOOTSTRAP self-consistent emergent solution for a non-rotating charged micro-geon stabilized by positive dark zero point energy density with opposite w = -1 negative pressure.

On Oct 22, 2005, at 12:42 PM, 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, RB 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.)"

DS 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."

DS wrote:

On Oct 19, 2005, at 3:33 PM, RB wrote:

...
"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 alternate 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."
...

> 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:
>
...>>
>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> "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
>>> point 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> * 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
>>>
>>> * Moscow's Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/science/
>>> 19/94/379/12737_weapons.html American military is pursuing new
>>> types of exotic weapons
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>