Memorandum for the Record

On Jun 23, 2007, at 1:48 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Jack

I have not looked at Hal's latest model, but it is painful seeing this exchange. I note that you have a habit of quoting things that people never said.

- Michael

On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No Michael what I have said about Hal's model is completely accurate. You are fooling yourself on this. People on this list who know the physics cannot be fooled.

Here for the record is the true state of affairs with regard to his important issue of principle.

typo-corrected 2nd draft below

On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jun 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 6/23/2007 1:25:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

"I have clearly explained what is wrong with Hal's basic idea. His ambient zero point energy density outside the electron is 78 powers of ten larger than is possible for our universe to exist."

Hal: The 78 powers of ten you cite is simply the difference between the vacuum energy of empty space applicable to cosmology problems, and the regularized vacuum that applies to vacuum fluctuation problems with topology (boundary conditions). Different vacuua. Your "clear" explanation is "not even wrong." (Pauli) :-)

Jack: No Hal you are using a spurious polemic here. I addressed this in last message. You need a huge positive zero point energy density with w = +1/3 outside your shell of charge. You must show why that w = +1/3 does not extend out to the entire universe. BTW if it did you would still have a problem because that universe could not exist either!

OK, let T00(ZPE, s) be the total stress-energy tensor of the physical vacuum for all quantum fields at scale s. This is something like a wavelet transform. Your statement is that for s ~ 10^-11 cm in neighborhood of the outside of the electron shells that T00(ZPE, 10^-11 cm) ~ 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc is positive with w = 1/3 and that T00(ZPE, s ~ > 10^26 cm - 10^28 cm) has w = -1 at level of 10^-29 gm/cc.

i.e think of a resolution power spectrum of T00(ZPE,s) that is roughly a smeared out Dirac delta function at s/s(IR) ~ 0, i.e. 10^-11/10^26.

Maybe, but you must give some kind of justification for that. Also you only consider virtual photons and ignore virtual electron-positron pairs - why? Also you ignore all the other quantum fields without any discussion.

Hal does not accept Einstein's GR that even a uniform zero point energy "bends" spacetime.

Hal: Ridiculous statement, of course. If there were "a uniform zero point energy" it would indeed "bend" spacetime. But there isn't.

Jack: First of all there is a uniform zero point energy and it does bend spacetime. It's the dark energy density ~ 10^-29 gm/cc accelerating the expansion of 3D space.
I am glad to see that you have finally retracted your earlier position (I think in "Aviation Week" for example) and you definitely only a few years ago told me that in your theory uniform zero point energy does not bend spacetime that only differences in the zero point energy density bend spacetime. I did not make that story up. That WAS your position in 2002 for sure. I am glad to see you have changed it with the new facts from cosmology. Note all statements about the enormous ZPE energy locked inside the vacuum are WRONG at least at large scales. These were common beliefs prior to 1999. I made the same error myself until 2002! I know if I Google I will find such statements by you.


Hal: The EM ZPE effects arise in interactions between EM boundary conditions and the vacuum, perhaps best captured by E. T. Jaynes (who did not believe in "a uniform zero point energy") in Jaynes Axiom: "The complete interchangeability of source-field effects and vacuum-fluctuations effects shows that source-field effects are the same as if vacuum fluctuations were present." Topology and boundary conditions (involved in vacuum regularization procedures) matter. This may be "subtle, but it's not malicious!" (Einstein) :-)

Jack: This is word salad out of context. Look I know who Ed Jaynes is. He was the PhD advisor to Fred W Cummings who was my PhD advisor. Jaynes is talking about the well-known equivalence of Van Der Waals forces and the Casimir virtual photons - this is discussed in detail in Peter Milonni's book "Quantum Vacuum" that has no GR in it of course. Look Hal, take parallel plates Casimir, the topology shift in w = -1, if any in that case, would apply BETWEEN the plates not outside them for Ibison's AFOs far from the open sides of the plates. Similarly for a spherical shell of charge the w = +1/3 is for modes inside the shell not outside. Or, if outside, the effect must decay and you must show how that works. I do not have DeWitt's paper in front of me. Did you send it? It may be on my computer, but I have his book with this stuff in my office and will look later to see if his curved space example even applies to your model - I think not.

Hal does not believe in the equivalence principle,


Hal: of course I do

Jack: You pay lip service to it, but your PV violates it, and your electron shell model violates it (as above). With regard to PV you do not have tensors, hence you cannot obey EEP, i.e. you have no LIFs & LNIFS in local coincidence without tensor quantities.

nor does he accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating,

Hal: of course I do

Jack: Then you are being inconsistent until you show the limiting relationship between your w = +1/3 virtual photons outside the shell and the w = - 1 virtual photons at the large cosmological scale.

OR, he is inconsistent since his model violates the latter two mainstream views.

Hal: Only your misrepresentation of my model violates the latter two mainstream views. I think we should coin a new axiom: Sarfatti's "Straw Man." Oh, oh, just googled, and found that "Straw Man" has already been thought of. Pity. :-)

Jack: Hal you are evading the real issues here and are in denial. You are not being logical here. Again to recapitulate:

1. Why in your model are there no virtual photons inside the charged shell, but only outside? "Who ordered that?" (I. Rabi)

2. What happened to the virtual electron-positron pairs? You pretend they do not exist.

3. How far out from the surface of your spherical shell do your alleged w = +1/3 virtual photons at density 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc extend before they damp down 78 powers of 10 to w = -1 dark energy?

Note, my model for the same electron shell is much better than yours. My model is simpler and prettier - much less Rube Goldberg than your model.

In my model there is also a spherical shell of charge at ~ 10^-13 cm classical electron radius in its rest frame. There is w = -1 dark ZPE energy ~ 10^-29 gm/cc outside the shell up to the shell itself or maybe only up to the virtual plasma ball ~ 10^-11 cm Compton radius. However INSIDE the shell I have DeWitt's w = +1/3 virtual photons! That's INSIDE Hal as DeWitt says! They say X doesn't know up from down. Well Hal you don't know inside from outside! :-) I am using DeWitt correctly here. And indeed the virtual photon energy density INSIDE the shell of charge is 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc - SAME NUMBER YOU GET Hal but it's INSIDE the shell not OUTSIDE. That is a topological difference Hal that you seem to ignore - another "inconvenient truth." ;-) Also I have virtual electron-positron pairs inside the shell of charge - that also attract sucking in the charge preventing it from exploding.

OK, so look Hal your theory is literally an EMPTY SHELL. ;-) Your SHELL GAME here is obvious! The Emperor has no clothes - no virtual dressing! ;-) I have a dark matter core inside the shell. The interior of my charged shell is full of your DeWitt w = +1/3 virtual photons and the virtual electron-positron pairs at huge energy density. Both have positive pressure and suck in the electric charge! Outside it's simply the observed weak positive dark energy density 10^-29 gm/cc of negative pressure from w = -1.

Also my dynamical equilibrium equation is pretty - oh so pretty ... (West Side Story)

/\zpfr^4 + (Classical Electron Radius)r + (Compton Quantum Radius)^2 = 0

That's a pretty cool equation (some dimensionless coefficients omitted dependent on charge configuration) I got there Hal. You must admit and you must also quit. ;-)