Yes, I did not mean it was a bad paper and at least they are being motivated by experiments and observations and are not dazzled by pure math - Circe for theorists.
On Jul 14, 2007, at 3:53 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote:

"Jack,

I tend to agree with your conclusion. I read the referenced Paper and the two experimental Papers it references. On the positive side, the math appears to be correct, and they do get quantitative results in rough agreement with the experimental Papers. And, though I am not an experimentalist, I can not find anything obviously wrong with their experiment procedures either, though the results are not in precise agreement with their theory. The convergence of their theoretical results to a standard vacuum result as temperature rises into the High-Tc SC regime is also intriguing, though it contradicts any possible Podkletnov Effect observation (if that is at all valid). But there appears to be some problems here."

...

JS: On the reference issue. I completely rewrote the paper and left out all discussion of nonlocally correlated zero point energy - partly for length reasons and mostly because I lost the original word documents for that archive paper in a hard drive crash. However, all that stuff is in my book Super Cosmos with reference to your work on that and it is in the earlier versions on the archive. Actually I don't recall mentioning that in the archive paper at all. What version?

RB: "The theoretical model de Matos and Beck use appears to be highly ad hoc."

JS: Yes, I did not read the paper carefully, but I got that impression from an admittedly superficial scan as my attention is focused on my own new to me (at least) insights that I will put into my archive paper
gr-qc/0602022 i.e. from Jack Ng

andl ~ (Lp^2l)^1/3 Wigner

l ~ N^1/2(Surrounding area A of interior "volume without volume")

N = # Bekenstein BITs of surrounding area A ~ geometric area/Lp^2

Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = 10^-66 cm^2

This is general not only for event horizons of black holes and dark energy de Sitter horizons

This is the t'Hooft "world hologram" idea also advocated by Lenny Susskind.

Therefore, deltal ~ N^1/6Lp

Therefore l/deltal ~ N^1/3

Therefore, volume without volume V ~ l^3 ~ Nadeltal^3

i.e. N area BITs on surrounding surface each of Lp^2 (forget factors of 4) enclose N quantum gravity cells of volume deltal^3 ~ N^1/2Lp^3 = Lp^2l.

The center of each such quantum gravity cell of Hagen Kleinert's "world lattice", itself a hologram, is a hedgehog geometrodynamic field monopole point node of the Higgs-Goldstone vacuum order parameter. This is a core of pre-inflation false vacuum analogous to vortex cores in superfluids, but for second homotopy group not first i.e. wrapping area integers not winding loop integers. That is for vortices we have quantized de Rham period integrals of closed non-exact LINE 1-forms, but here we have quantized period integrals of closed non-exact AREA 2-forms - this is the meaning of the Bekenstein BIT that he stumbled into sleep walking with Wheeler in the 1960s.

The amazing thing is that the size of the monopole cores of false vacuum are resolution-dependent getting larger with scale increasing to a fermi at the Hubble scale of 10^28 cm.

Note for nuclear physics, Area ~ 10^-26 cm N(nuclear) ~ 10^-26 10^66 ~ 10^40
andl(nuclear) ~ 10^40/6 Lp ~ 10^7Lp ~ 10^-26 cm on a scale of 10^-13 cm i.e. we have a close packed honeycomb lattice of gravity monopoles each 10^-26 cm across like the phase space cells of QM stat mech - but this all changes as we change scale like a "wavelet transform" of emergent orders within orders like the artichoke and the onion. This is an amazingly new quantum geometrodynamics. Loop quantum gravity is worthless. It has no results like what I am talking about. String theory not much better.

Plus the dark energy density (hc/Lp^2)/\zpf = (hc/Lp^2)(1/(surrounding area) = (1/N)hc/Lp^4

what could be sweeter than that result? It's universal for all quantum matter fields from the equivalence principle!

I got the whole thing. The whole shmear. It's simple. Any kid can grok it. No need for fancy math.

RB: "They propose two different types of photons, or more precisely, two regimes for photons, one "gravitationally active" graviphotons and one "inactive" sector (photons, presumably)."

JS: I don't understand that at all.

RB: "This seems remarkably ad hoc."

JS: Indeed.

RB: " As discussed below, photons gaining mass in the SC state may be a correct interpretation, but a transition into a graviphoton state caused by the SC state seems again highly ad hoc."

JS: Again I don't understand their meaning there. I did not think enough about it as yet.

RB: "You yourself have several times pointed out that the Meissner Effect can be attributed to acquisition of an effective mass of a photon in the SC state."

JS: Yes, that's well known. It's simply the U(1) Higgs mechanism. (P.W. Anderson)

RB: "That is fairly well established, though I prefer to attribute the London Moment to a quantization effect. They extend the idea to a massive graviton in the SC state, which is reasonable."

JS: "Yeah, that may be OK - it's plausible - like Abdus Salam's f-gravity.

Remember in my theory

e^a = I^a(zero gravity) + (1/N)^1/3A^a(gravity)

e^a = Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form

A^a is the spin 1 "Yang-Mills" field from localizing T4 translations

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea

RB: "But they also seem to claim credit for results obtained previously by others (including me), for instance, a GM term in the canonical momentum for the SC. Another is the gravitational condensate itself as related to dark energy, which at least qualitatively, you and I had earlier proposed (and we go unreferenced).

They initially keep the EM and GM Einstein-Maxwell-Proca Equations decoupled, and then only couple them through the assumption of an ill-defined graviphoton-Cooper Pair coupling."

JS 10-4

RB "Just because the graviphotons are suposedly coupled to the coherent Cooper Pairs I do not believe necessitates that the graviphotons must themselves be a condensate as they appear to claim. Furthermore, I believe the Li-Torr treatment which fully couples the EM and GM effects of the Cooper Pairs themselves is more complete and likely more correct and less ad hoc."

JS: I actually never read their papers as yet.

RB: "The only role of the Cooper Pairs appears to be the graviphoton-Cooper Pair binding until they show up again in the so-called gravitational canonical momentum."

JS: Here is how I get "graviphotons".

A^a above is spin 1 Yang-Mills "renormalizable" (t'Hooft)

ds^2 = I^aI^a +N^-1/3( I^aAa + A^aIa) + N^-2/3A^aAa

I^aAa + A^aIa is pure spin 1 graviphoton

A^aAa is spin 0, spin 1 and spin 2 (ordinary graviton)

i.e. in QM

1 + 1 = 0, 1, 2

i.e. the matrix irreps

3x3 = 1x1 + 3x3 +5x5

RB: "But this seems highly artificial. There should be one canonical momentum for the whole combined EM and GM system, not arbitrary demarcations thereof. This leads to strange looking terms in which the graviphoton effective mass couples to the GM potential, while the dark energy condensate (which seemingly originates with the graviphotons) is the only contribution to the mechanical term in the canonical momentum."

JS: My vacuum ODLRO condensate has the M-Matrix

A^a = M^a^a = spin 1 Yang-Mills gravity tetrad field 1-form from local gauging of rigid T4

S^a^b = - S^b^a = M^[a,b] = torsion field spin-connection 1-form from local gauging rigid SO(1,3).

M^a^b is a matrix of non-closed 1-forms from the Goldstone coherent world hologram vacuum ODLRO condensate phases whose closed non-exact 2-forms give the quantized Bekenstein BIT de Rham integrals for non-trivial second homotopy group of wrapping number integers that I call "N" above.

RB: "It is hard to tell where the graviphotons and massive ordinary photons and other elements of the system are being conflated and being distinguished.

Even though the numbers roughly work out, the assumption that an undefined acceleration of the SC will break the graviphoton-Cooper Pair binding also seems highly ad hoc. They see discontinuities in the experimental data in traversals of Tc, but this should be true in any reasonable model of a SC state. (My own GM Flux Quantization would also show a similar discontinuity.)

The experiments appear to be very serious, and there is rough quantitative agreement with this theory, which is intriguing, but...

Take care,

Robert"

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I do not see any coherent organizing idea in this paper. They seem to
be grasping at straws and inventing a Rube Goldberg explanation.
However I did not spend a lot of time trying to understand what they
are claiming since at the moment I think my explanation of the dark
energy problem is the correct one since it's simple, universal and
based on some deep insights of some very smart physicists like Eugene
Wigner and Gerard t' Hooft. However, if the authors make a model that
agree with experiment then I will look again later.

Some of what they say reminds me of Ray Chiao's "gravity radio"?

On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

By the numbers.

The strongest dimensionless self-gravity tetrad coupling is at
Planck scale where N = 1 and the universal zero point energy
density is +- hc/Lp^4 for bosons and fermions respectively in the
3D volumes without volumes. Anyons with fractional statistics on
the surrounding closed surfaces that are not boundaries of the
interior volumes without volumes.

electroweak unification scale is ~ 10^-16 cm

N(10^-16 cm) ~ 10^-32/10^-66 ~ 10^34 BITS

N^-1/3 ~ 10^-11

by the time we get to cosmology 10^28 cm N^-1/3 ~ 10^-41


On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hal won't like this one. He says dark energy density not relevant
on small scales. At this point I think I have solved the dark
energy problem.

Because of IT FROM BIT world hologram it scales as 1/N - very
simple indeed.

N = number of Bekenstein BITs on any surrounding surface S of an
interior "volume without volume" V projected from S, which is not
a boundary because it encloses exactly N point nodes of the vacuum
ODLRO order parameter.

N ~ Area/Lp^2

length scale is (Area)^1/2

Quantum Gravity Fluctuation in (Area)^1/2 is (Lp^2(Area)^1/2)^1/3
e.g. Jack Ng's papers.

(Area)^1/2/QGF = N^1/2/N^1/6 = N^1/3

ZPF energy density is (hc/Lp^2)(1/Area) = (1/N)hc/Lp^4

for enclosed "volume without volume" = holographic projection of
the surrounding surface

this is for all quantum matter fields (equivalence principle)

Self-coupling of tetrad field is 1/N^1/3

this part of gravity coupling increases in UV limit down to Planck
scale.

N = 10^122 future de Sitter horizon

Everything seems to work perfectly! Very simple.

Wheeler said it would be simple. He was right.

Does anyone have a better idea? World Hologram makes definite
prediction here that any smart high school kid can understand.
Simply take t'Hooft's idea seriously. Why hasn't he noticed this
simple consequence of his idea?