So we need to imagine huge numbers of virtual spacelike photons outside the light cone with longitudinal polarization parallel to each K 3-vector. The relative distribution of the occupation numbers nK of each purely spatial mode (in rest frame of the source charge) ~ 1/K^2. These must be Glauber macroquantum coherent states with

While all random zero point photons are virtual, not all virtual photons are random zero point. The induction EM near fields inside the walls of our houses and appliances, are non-random macroscopic Bose-Einstein like condensations of jillions and jillions of virtual photons which directly influence phenomena and indeed are a large part of everyday phenomena.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 10:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

We need to distinguish the classical limit from the quantum electrodynamics with only a small number of photons.

In quantum electrodynamics the non-propagating EM fields are the off-mass-shell virtual photons. In terms of Feynman's path quantum theory, where second quantized creation and destruction operators are not used, the virtual photons responsible for micro near fields are the contributions that are not at the pole k = 0 of the photon propagator with the common factor ~ 1/k^2 in 4-momentum space for all 4 polarizations. The Lorentz gauge condition k^uAu = 0 is used. Note that k^2 = k^uku The Lorentz gauge condition constrains the longitudinal near field polarization of the 3-vector potential to the timelike polarization of the scalar potential.

Classical near fields only exist when there are a macroscopic number of virtual photons occupying the same wavepacket "mode" with longitudinal polarization of the 3-vector potential. This requires an extension of the Feynman formalism to include ODLRO in the electrodynamic vacuum. One analogy would be trying to do superfluid helium in the language of the Feynman path integrals.

If we use second-quantized canonical formalism of q-number creation and destruction operators then ODLRO formally is

ak = Ak + @k

Ak is a c-number

ak & @k are q numbers

where k here is only the longitudinal & timelike polarizations if we ignore radiation at first.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

According to standard physics

Fuv is the EM field tensor that obeys the Lorentz group

i.e. transforms as an antisymmetric 2nd rank tensor under the transformations of the 6-parameter Lorentz group, specifically the 3 boosts.

This Fuv includes the longitudinal near fields.

This is all a classical physics problem at this stage.

One must think of experiments that can test the transformations of the near fields.

The problem here is to measure from a moving frame S' whose speed v relative to lab frame S

is v ~ c.

On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

William (et-al)

typo eq 25 should be "-" not "+"

You have already confirmed part of your prediction for microwaves as I recall.

What you say may have practical importance in nanotechnology - especially computer hardware.

These effects have not shown up in the design of high energy accelerators.

They should be there in electrical power systems using near fields.

Clearly a careful analysis is warranted.

Your results do not impact on the experimental tests of either special or general relativity (Cliff Will) because those tests use only far fields for the EM signals. General relativity is a macroscopic theory. However, attempts to model the electron as an extended object, e.g. a kind of tiny Kerr blackhole (or even naked singularity) (A. Burinski) with strong short-range gravity (from extra space dimensions of string theory) and also possible torsion fields as a Bohm hidden variables would seem to be sensitive to the sorts of effects you are suggesting. Indeed an analog for gravity waves as well I would imagine?

Your effects should show up in off-mass-shell virtual quantum propagation in quantum gauge theory calculation of Feynman diagrams perhaps impinging on issues of regularization and renormalization?

On Apr 18, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks William

Since your results apply only to the non-radiating near field there is probably no real conflict because the light cone structure basis of relativity only applies to the radiating far-field transverse polarization for on-shell photons, not to the virtual off shell photons in coherent states forming the near induction fields. I will definitely read your paper soon with great interest. :-)

On Apr 18, 2007, at 2:46 AM, William D. Walker wrote:

Hi Jack,

This is William Walker. How are you doing? It has been a long time since we met at the Vigier IV conference in Paris. By the way, do you know of any other similar conferences coming up soon? It would be nice to meet up again.

Not at the moment. With regard to your question deleted here, American theoretical physics is in a depressing state in contrast to experimental physics, which is basically what you do. See the book "Not Even Wrong" by Peter Woit on the dominance of string theory in academic departments. It's controversial and I have not completely given up on certain aspects of string theory as I seem to get what is effectively 6 extra space dimensions in gravity as emergent from a 4D ODLRO "supersolid" version of Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" in a natural way consistent with the torsion theory of Gennady Shipov. The nodes of the lattice are point defects in the supersolid order parameter that has two Goldstone coherent "world hologram phases" when the theory is projected from 9 + 1 to 3 + 1.

http://qedcorp.com/APS/Shipov.jpg

Since we last met, I have continued my research on superluminal near-field EM and gravitational fields. I have written a new paper which I think you might find interesting:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

The paper shows that contrary to the Michelson-Morley results, the speed of light is dependent on the velocity of the source or observer, as well as being faster than c in the nearfield. Because Einstein's relativity theory is based on the assumption that the speed of light is both constant and independent of the source or observer velocity, based on these new findings, I have looked into the possible implications to relativity theory.

## No comments:

Post a Comment