As Above, So Below?

Susskind's world hologram suggests something like

Lp* = Lp^2/3(c/H)^1/3

H = R^-1dR/dt in FRW metric with Einstein cosmological constant

/\ ~ (H/c)^2 = Einstein's Cosmological Constant

Lp* sets the scale for elementary particle strong force

alpha' ~ Lp*^2 in Witten's string theory

i.e. (h = c =1 convention)

alpha' ~ Lp*^2 ~ Lp^4/3//\^1/3

In terms of ADS the world Hubble horizon is ~ /\^-1 in area where the sign is for dark energy repulsion

Each Bekenstein Bit has quantum of area Lp*^2

The Entropy of the expanding accelerating universe is then

~ (Lp*^2/\)^-1 --> (Lp^4/3/\^2/3)^-1 ~ [(c/H)/Lp]^4/3

So is this plausible? It solves the Arrow of Time problem trivially by hooking it to the area of the Hubble horizon. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is explained as well as the origin of gravity and inertia and dark energy/matter in terms of Sakharov's Vision and P.W. Anderson's Battle Tested tried and true "More is different."

We don't need no damn G-string vibrators in hyperspace, loops and weaves to explain the facts both in cosmology and elementary particles.

Of course those ideas may play a useful role anyway.

More with less.

No excess metaphysical baggage and no excess mathematical baggage.

The Question is: What is The Question?" ;-)

I got news for Brian in my book Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ under construction

"Battle of the Books"

I am Ralph Nader to Brian's beating about the Bush. :-)

The Higgs ocean is my Vacuum Coherence Field calming the turbulent ZPF. It explains;

1. Einstein's GR

2. Dark energy and dark matter as virtual exotic vacuum stuff. Dark matter detectors will not click with right stuff.

3. Stabililty of spatially extended leptons and quarks and why they look increasingly point like in high energy scattering (partons).

4. Universal slope of Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances. alpha' ~ (1 Gev)^-2

5. Hierarchy problem - Quantum Gravity Planck area is actually ~ (1 fermi)^2 The weave is, perhaps, not as fine as previously thought, at least in the current cosmic epoch.

6. Not to mention the unmentionable you know what.

For I never use the Big Big "U" ...
Chorus: What never?
Well hardly ever ..
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/captain.mp3
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/html/index.html

On Feb 22, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Bought Brian Greene's book this morning - nice chapter on the Higgs fields called "vaporizing the vacuum"...
 
Brian Greene:  "If the Higgs ocean is not found, it will require a major rethinking of a theoretical framework that has  been in place for more than thirty years"
 

II. However, Kiehn's note is more general based on a kind of pre-metrical action principle.

One can start with the conjecture that the Action of Super Cosmos has Pfaff topological dimension 4

i.e. turbulent system (chaotic inflation?)

But sooner or later one has to add Heisenberg uncertainty and equivalence principle to flesh out that skeleton.


On Feb 22, 2004, at 9:36 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Feb 22, 2004, at 9:10 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:


All classical considerations of pressure from the kinetic theory of gases of the collisions of real particles are completely irrelevant to the issue of dark energy and dark matter in cosmology, which are purely quantum effects together with the equivalence principle beyond the scope of classical nonrelativistic physics.

w = pressure/energy density

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle + equivalence principle imply w = -1 for all zero point vacuum fluctuations for all dynamical fields.

Proof is on p. 26 of John Peacock's "Cosmological Physics."

In Peter Milonni's book "Quantum Vacuum" is proof that

QED virtual electron-positron pairs have negative energy density hence equal and opposite positive pressure (attractive gravity)

and virtual photons have positive energy density hence equal and opposite negative pressure (repulsive gravity - not possible in classical physics)

Einstein's theory demands for any stuff

Guv ~ (energy density)(1 + 3w) (weak field limit)

In particular for zero point energies w = -1.

The only issue then is what is the value of the total zero point energy density in each space-time region and on what scale?

I have a theory of "vacuum coherence" on how that works - another topic.

We do not seem to need extra dimensions and supersymmetry to understand the observations?

More with less.

The problem appears to be much simpler than the Pundits all imagine?

See Russell Targ's contribution to the book below.

On Feb 19, 2004, at ~ 6:50 AM PST, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

to appear in the book Super Cosmos on Amazon et-al ~ Summer 2004
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
under construction

The key physics idea behind remote viewing is “signal nonlocality” which allows messages to be locally decoded at the IT nodes of an entangled nonlocally connected network with a shared BIT thought pattern. This is not possible if micro-quantum theory is the final story of physical reality. Micro-quantum theory is only a limiting “equilibrium” case of the more general “post-quantum” or “macro-quantum” theory which allows “sub-quantum non-equilibrium” in which the usual Born probability interpretation breaks down as does the notion of unitary evolution of the thought BIT pattern of the network. The remote-viewing data that Russell talks about below in addition to the “presponse” experimental data of Dick Bierman and others strongly suggests that all life is macro-quantum with signal-nonlocality. This is in violation of the micro-quantum limiting case, which only works in simple structures like particle beams in scattering experiments or in other simple systems, generally in thermodynamic equilibrium, like radiating gas in a star, where emergent collective phenomena are either not present or not detected in the measurements. Just as special relativity is a limiting case of general relativity, so, also, is micro-quantum theory with signal locality a limiting case of macro-quantum theory with signal nonlocality. In both of these examples, the key principle is the generalized action-reaction principle. Both micro-quantum theory and special relativity violate the generalized action-reaction principle also known as “background independence”. General relativity and macro-quantum theory are both “background independent” restoring the generalized action-reaction principle. This means that they are “relational” in Rovelli’s sense. Now, in this book, I show that Einstein’s seemingly classical curved space-time of gravity is also really a macro-quantum phenomenon with inherent signal nonlocality essential for the generation of inner conscious experience of within a BIT thought field. Now Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford as intuited that quantum gravity and consciousness are linked. One stumbling bloc to that has been the assumption that the energy scale of quantum gravity is huge at 1019 Gev or 10-33 cm, however this is probably a very wrong idea because gravity is enormously strong at the scale of 1 fermi (10-13 cm) in order to keep electrons and quarks stable. Otherwise they would spontaneously explode under the self-repulsion of their spatially extended electric charge distributions. They are not really point particles, certainly not in string theory. They only look like point particles because of the small-scale enormous space warping in high energy scattering momentum transfers between probe and target since the effective micro-gravity coupling is 40 powers of ten stronger than Newton’s large-scale gravity coupling on the scale of a Fermi as Abdus Salam first suggested in the early seventies. This allows Wheeler’s Geometrodynamics of “Mass without mass” etc. to actually work as a Bohmian model of elementary particles as “extra variables” in the sense of “Einstein’s Vision” where the electrons et-al are solitons in the geometrodynamic field. You will see below in Russell’s essay that Schrodinger believes in the universal cosmic consciousness. Hawking mentions “The Mind of God.” In this book you will see what that really means. You will also see in Cabalist’s Carlo Suares’s “Eight Propositions” the same idea and you see it again in Jacques Vallee’s “Fastwalker” on the “consciousness of space.” Since curved space-time with gravity is emergent in the sense of Andrei Sakharov as the phase wiggles in a local macro-quantum field, it is not surprising that curved space-time is endowed with a cosmic consciousness, or “Mind of God” because of signal nonlocality. It is counter-intuitive that nonlocal micro-quantum theory has signal locality or “passion at a distance” whilst local macro-quantum theory has signal nonlocality essential for inner consciousness in the physical BIT thought fields. The cosmic BIT thought field spits out IT curved space-time in the wiggles of its coherent holographic phase. We most likely live in an “Intelligent Universe” in Sir Fred Hoyle’s sense with a conscious cosmic mind in Schrodinger’s sense below.

“However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.” (p.193)
Stephen Hawking, “A Brief History of Time” (1996)

The Unknowable End of Science
By Russell Targ
Reprinted with permission from the author
From his book
Limitless Mind

“Most people have the ability to describe and experience events and locations that are blocked from ordinary perception. This book, devoted to experiments in remote viewing or remote perception of events, illustrates this perceptual ability, which has now been demonstrated and documented in numerous U.S. and international laboratories, including the laboratory of Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in California, where a program of investigation began thirty years ago. In spite of all this evidence for the existence of our natural capacity for such psychic abilities, they have not by any means been accepted as real by mainstream science. How can this be?
As one of the scientists who conducted the research at SRI, I do not have to believe in ESP. For decades I have seen it occur in the laboratory on a day-to-day basis. As a physicist, I don’t have to believe in this phenomena any more than I have to believe in the existence of lasers — with which I have also worked extensively. Psychic abilities exist, just as lasers do, and both have been repeatedly demonstrated by hundreds of experimental research studies. What I believe in is good scientific data and replicative experiments, and those are what I describe in this book.
There is a skeptical community that works tirelessly to “save” science from the depredations of frauds and charlatans. I applaud them, and think they fulfill a valuable function. In science, however, it is just as serious an error to ignore true, but unpredictable data, as it is to accept as true, data that are in fact false.
Naturally, none of us want to appear gullible, silly or insane. We would often prefer to be wrong with the support of a group, rather than to be correct all by ourselves. Even now, after many hundreds of years, those who offer scientific opinions contrary to the prevailing paradigm can expect to meet reactions similar to those experienced by such respected men as Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei, who suffered in the extreme for offering correct scientific opinions about the earth's motion that were against the prevailing science of their day. Commenting on this hazard, Voltaire wrote,

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

Similarly, there is great cognitive dissonance today over psychic abilities even though a recent (June, 2001) Gallup poll reports that more than half of the U.S. population believes that they have had psychic experiences. These believers include two-thirds of all college graduates and university professors queried. Such experiences, however, are strongly repressed in this society. Mainstream science usually declares them to be impossible, and many organized religions declare them to be bad, or even evil.
For millennia, philosophers have invited us to try and discover who we really are, and what abilities we might have, but we often feel afraid to do so because such exploration can be dangerous. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo were persecuted or murdered because they showed overwhelming evidence that we were not, in fact, special beings at the center of the universe, as everyone had been taught. Instead, we were (and are) inhabitants of what can be seen as one of several large rocks a hundred million miles from the sun, at the edge of the galaxy. People have always hated this idea. It was an attack on their egos — on who they thought they were. And, in the nineteenth century, when Charles Darwin demonstrated that we are also first cousins to monkeys and chimpanzees — it was a further assault on our pride!
Another blow to our egos came not much later, when Sigmund Freud showed that much of what we believe and experience is governed by our subconscious, of which we are entirely unaware. Awareness of psychic abilities further erodes the boundaries of the self by indicating that the psychic shell separating us from one another is really quite porous. In actuality, modern physics shows that our consciousness connects us, one to another, quite intimately. Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger described our profound interconnectedness this way:

Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown. There is only one thing, and that which seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception, the Indian maya, as in a gallery of mirrors.

Such realizations of one consciousness can give rise to a fear of uncontrolled, telepathic intimacy, and a possibly troubling loss of privacy. As our personal egos are diminished by advances in scientific knowledge, however, our concept of who we are is greatly enhanced. As we learn to surrender more and more of our attachment to our egos, we can participate in the most profound intimacy without fear of losing ourselves. We can share the energetic flow of loving awareness with others and expand our knowledge of who we really are. Intimacy is not to be feared; it is to be celebrated. What we discover from the data of psi, or psychical research, is that we are capable of expanded awareness far beyond our physical bodies.
In fact, the principle finding of this research demonstrates that there is not yet any known spatial or temporal limit to our awareness. That is to say, in consciousness, there is only one of us here. Or, as the Buddhists and quantum physicists continuously remind us, “separation is an illusion.”

No End to Science in Sight
We often hear that the end of physics is just a few years away — to be described, as Michio Kaku recently said, “with an equation less than one inch long.” Similarly, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg recently wrote a long essay in The New York Review of Books describing his “search for the fundamental principles that underlie everything.” He added, however, that “science in the future may take a turn that we cannot now imagine. But, I see not the slightest advance sign of such a change” [my emphasis].
Scientists have been saying this sort of thing for more than a century. For example, in the late 1800s, Lord Kelvin made the now famous statement that physics was complete, except that “only two small clouds remain on the horizon of the knowledge of physics.” The two clouds were: first, the interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, (which did not detect any effects of the widely hypothesized aether); and second, the failure of then current electromagnetic theory to predict spectral distribution of black body radiation. These little clouds led respectively to the discovery of special relativity, quantum mechanics, and furthermore, what we think of today as modern physics.
In 1975, at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the same Steven Weinberg declared, “What we want to know is the set of simple principles from which the properties of particles, and hence everything else, can be deduced." Then, at Cambridge University, in 1980, revered astrophysicist Stephen Hawking told his audience, “I want to discuss the possibility that the goal of theoretical physics might be achieved in the not too distant future, say, by the end of the twentieth century. By this I mean that we might have a complete, consistent, and unified theory of physical interactions that would describe all possible observations.” I posit that not only did this not happen; it is not very likely to happen. As I write this, physicists are still struggling to explain newly discovered dark matter, dark energy, and the very surprising accelerating expansion of the universe (or, is it a change in the supposedly constant velocity of light?).
To my mind, the most shocking example of a brilliant man saying something truly silly is a quote from A. A. Michelson, in God in the Equation, after he showed that there was no aether, but before the discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics. Expressing the spirit of his time, he said, ”The most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplemented in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.”
I believe that these “end of physics” statements are not only untrue, but misleading, and logically impossible. The hubris of brilliant and famous scientists is still with us today. The issue is very important because it shows what terrible trouble we can get into if we are totally lacking in awe, wonder, or spiritual questioning.
Great visionary scientists such as Einstein, Newton, and John Archibald Wheeler had no such lack. At ninety, Wheeler is still asking, “How come the universe?” In his writing, Einstein said that we “use our intellect to solve difficult problems, but the problems themselves come from another source.”
We may well ask: Will there be an end to mathematics? To biology? To history? Will the human mind withdraw from science? Does curiosity ever achieve completion? I think not! A thousand years from now, our current views of physics will seem as primitive as the phlogiston theory seems to us today. (The phlogiston was an element, or fluid, thought in the eighteenth century to cause combustion, or be given off by anything burning, and has long since been discarded.)
Ancient spiritual and philosophical teachings with their roots in India and Tibet assert that awareness, or consciousness, has existed since the beginning of time. But, it has been unrecognized because of our ignorance of our own true nature. This seemingly radical idea is finding increasing acceptability in the data of modern physics — of all places. Thus, it seems appropriate to begin Chapter 1 by discussing the ways in which contemporary physics shows that there is a nonlocal connection in consciousness, that is, an instantaneous spanning of space and time. I am comfortable calling this interconnected aspect of life nonlocality. I relate these data to the very similar ideas from Buddhism and other ancient mystic teachings which all claim that “separation is an illusion.”
Remote viewing is such a nonlocal ability. It has been repeatedly shown to allow us to describe, draw and experience objects and activities anywhere on the planet, contemporaneously or in the near future. Although we do not yet know how it works, there should no longer be any doubt that most of us have the ability to experience places and events that appear to be separated from our physical bodies by space and time. In Chapter 2, I present the evidence from my colleagues’, and my own, remote viewing experiments, showing the reality of these psychic abilities. And, in Chapter 3, I describe how you can discover these abilities and incorporate them into your life. I present detailed exercises from our remote viewing workshops that we have found to be helpful in experiencing the abilities and states of awareness that we describe in the chapter. The practice of remote viewing may reveal more to you than simply what’s in a paper bag in the other room; it may reveal the nature of your limitless mind — who you really are.
Precognition is explored in Chapter 4, and it contains what I consider to be the most important scientific fact from psychical research: It is no more difficult to describe an event that is to occur in the future, than it is to describe an event occurring at the present moment.
Whereas Chapters 2, 3, and 4 talk about the inflow of information from the world, Chapters 5 and 6 examine the outflow of information available through remote viewing. Chapter 5 describes the data and techniques that people use to intuitively diagnose illness. Psychic diagnosis goes beyond the doctor who can make a correct “snap” decision as soon as she sees the patient; here we describe the ability to diagnose illnesses of a patient who has never been seen by the one offering the diagnosis! In Chapter 6, I present the most recent research data for the efficacy of distant prayer and distant healing (categorized as “Distant Mental Influence of Living Systems,” or DMILS).
Finally, in Chapter 7, I talk about the relationship between remote viewing and spirituality, and how such understanding can bring us peaceful lives, filled with love and free of fear. I describe the practice of self-inquiry as a way to move beyond our thoughts, out of conditioned awareness, and into a more spacious, peaceful way of life. Our program at SRI provided valuable information to almost every branch of the U.S. intelligence community during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. I have said that in my work I was a psychic spy for the CIA, and found God — just one of those so-called unintended consequences. In this last chapter, I share my experience of how this research led me to philosophical and spiritual teachings that have transformed my consciousness and changed my life in unexpected and rewarding ways.

For further reading see Russell Targ’s book “Limitless Mind” and Jim Schnabel’s “Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America’s Psychic Spies” especially Chapter 11 for the story of the “one-armed man” and the cold metallic UFO voice on the tapes. CIA Chief of Station, Harold Chipman corroborated Russell’s claims that the RV project provided valuable intelligence to him and others in extensive private conversations I had with him in the mid-eighties. Of course “Chip” could have been lying to me. I merely report the fact of his testimony to me. We must live with uncertain knowledge. As Einstein said, to the extent that the knowledge is certain, it is not scientific. This excludes mathematical theorems that live in a Platonic Realm all their own that Max Tegmark calls “Level IV.”

This is expanded version
New 269 page
Super Cosmos
now at
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SuperCosmos.pdf

The Hunt for the Zero Point Farce
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2002/08/05/zero_gravity/

“May The Farce be not with you.”

On Feb 17, 2004, at 3:47 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

“FYI draft in progress with more re: ISSO/Sarfatti etc.”

DARK MATTERS SURROUND DARK ENERGY

“Two big stories from the world of physics may portend the arrival of new weapons of mass destruction far more powerful and compact than atomic bombs. In recent years it has been discovered that our universe is being blown apart by a mysterious anti-gravity effect called "dark energy". Mainstream physicists are scrambling to explain this mysterious acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Some physicists even believe that the expansion will lead to "The Big Rip" when all of the matter in the universe is torn asunder - from clusters of galaxies in deep space down to the tiniest atomic particles. The universe now appears to be made of two unknowns - roughly 23% is "dark matter", an invisible source of gravity, and roughly 73% is "dark energy", an invisible anti-gravity force. Ordinary matter constitutes perhaps 4 percent of the universe. Recently the British science news journal "New Scientist" revealed that the American military is pursuing new types of exotic bombs - including a new class of isomeric gamma ray weapons.”

That was an original idea of mine in 1963 at Cornell and I discussed it with Hans Bethe. That is one of the reasons Ron Bullough invited me to Harwell in 1966. No doubt others thought of it but probably later. I thought of it while at Tech/Ops in Lexington, Mass working for George Parrant Jr.

“Unlike conventional atomic and hydrogen bombs, the new weapons would trigger the release energy by absorbing radiation, and respond by re-emitting a far more powerful radiation. In this new category of gamma-ray weapons, a nuclear isomer absorbs x-rays and re-emits higher frequency gamma rays. The emitted gamma radiation has been reported to release 60 times the energy of the x-rays that trigger the effect.”

Gamma-ray weapons could trigger next arms race 19:00 13 August 03
“Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race. The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives. The technology has already been included in the Department of Defense's Militarily Critical Technologies List, which says: "Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare." Scientists have known for many years that the nuclei of some elements, such as hafnium, can exist in a high-energy state, or nuclear isomer, that slowly decays to a low-energy state by emitting gamma rays. For example, hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178, has a half-life of 31 years. The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.”
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

I was thinking in 1963 of a gamma ray laser pumping a nuclear isomeric transition. Bethe at the time said it wouldn't work and basically discouraged me working on it.

Bekkum continued:

“In the summer of 2000 I contacted Nick Cook, the former aviation editor and aerospace consultant to Jane's Defence Weekly, the international military affairs journal. Cook had been investigating black budget super-secret research into exotic physics for advanced propulsion technologies.”

Uh Oh :)

“I had been monitoring electronic discussions between various American and Russian scientists theorizing about rectifying the quantum vacuum for advanced space drive. Several groups of scientists, partitioned into various research organizations, were exploring what NASA calls "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" - exotic technologies for advanced space travel to traverse the vast distances between stars. Partly inspired by the pulp science fiction stories of their youth, and partly by recent reports of multiple radar tracking tapes of unidentified objects performing impossible maneuvers in the sky, these scientists were on a quest to uncover the most likely new physics for star travel. The NASA program was run by Marc Millis, under the Advanced Space Transportation Program Office (ASTP). Joe Firmage, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, who at age 28 had found risen to CEO of a three billion dollar internet firm, began to fund research in parallel with NASA. He hired a NASA Ames nanotechnology scientist, Creon Levit, to run the "International Space Sciences Organization,"

Joe did that because I suggested it. I introduced Creon to Joe.

“Cook was intrigued by the apparent connections between various private investors, defense contractors, NASA, INSCOM (American military intelligence), and the CIA. While researching exotic propulsion technologies Cook had heard rumors of a new kind of weapon, a "sub-quantum atomic bomb", being whispered about in the dark halls of defense research.”

I think that must have come from me regarding J. P. Vigier's "tight atomic states" with experiments in Beograd, Serbia by Z. Maric (same name as Einsteins wife, Mileva Maric) and G. Dragic. But how did Cook hear about that? We brought Vigier to ISSO in San Francisco several times along with physicist Gennady Shipov from Moscow. That story with photographs of Vigier and the group is in my autobiography “Destiny Matrix.” Dragic A, Maric Z, Vigier JP; Phys. Lett. A 265 (2000) 163. "New quantum mechanical tight bound states and 'cold fusion'." Creon Levit and Vigier met with Maric in Budapest, Hungary in 2000.

Bekkum who is one of my ISEP “on line virtual students” continued:

“Sub-quantum physics is a controversial re-interpretation of quantum theory, based on so-called pilot wave theories, where an information field controls quantum particles. The late Professor David Bohm showed that the predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics could be recast into a pilot wave information theory. Recently Anthony Valentini of the Perimeter Institute has suggested that ordinary quantum theory may be a special case of pilot wave theories, leaving open the possibility of new and exotic post-quantum technologies. Even thought rumors of a sub-quantum bomb may be purely fantasy …”

It's not fantasy. It might not work, Maric and Dragic in Beograd, while not ostensibly trying to make a weapon by any means, were trying to test Vigier's basic theory of the spatially extended electron, which I think is basically a correct idea and fits my own ideas including why the electron appears to shrink to less than 10-16 cm under high resolution imaging (i.e. scattering) and how the electric charge distribution is contained by the strongly attractive short-range zero point stress-energy density w = -1 exotic vacuum "tiny dark matter core" only roughly one Fermi (10-13 cm) across. This solves the Abraham-Becker-Lorentz-Poincare compensating stress problem of 100 years ago. My new explanation of this long-standing mystery that stumped even Richard Feynman, only works in the Bohm "hidden" or "extra" variable interpretation. That is, a classical spatially extended electric charge distribution is unstable. It explodes under its own self-repulsion. This is why physicists had to postulate a point electron because they did not understand that the strong short-range gravity attraction of the positive zero point pressure in the “dark matter phase” of exotic vacuum would hold the charge together. As Herbert Frohlich told me at UCSD in La Jolla in 1966 “the basic thing wrong with physics is the idea of the point electron.” The bad idea of the point electron gives the infinite energy in quantum electrodynamics. Richard Feynman told me in his office at Cal Tech in 1968 that “infinite renormalization is a bait-and-switch shell game like shoddy used car salesmen use, and like the lame WMD excuse to liberate Iraq, and it is a scandal in physics that no one could do better” than what he had done. No wonder all our top theoretical physicists did not balk at sharing Werner Erhard’s fine Cuban cigars and liquour in his attic at “The Brown House” on Franklin Street in San Francisco. (Grin) Physicists did not know 100 years ago that 1/3 or so of the universe was this kind of exotic vacuum. For example, there is a huge sphere (AKA “galactic halo”) of exotic vacuum of w = -1 positive pressure that holds our galaxy together preventing our solar system from going off into space on its own. This sphere looks like w = 0 “cold dark matter” from our vantage point. What works on this large scale also works on the small scale of the single electron (and all the charged lepto-quarks). A neutrino has some mass and is simply a micro-geon of “Mass without mass” pure zero point energy with positive pressure. One can plausibly metric engineer exotic vacua into artificial black holes and traversable wormhole star gates as well as weightless warp drives as we allegedly see in the seemingly impossible maneuvers of the flying saucers. A real particle-antiparticle pair is a Wheeler wormhole with at least two mouths (like 2D spherical surfaces in 3D space) and quantized electro-weak-strong Faraday lines of gauge force forming closed loops with no free ends threading the mouths. The fact that there is very little naturally occurring anti-matter in our universe is direct evidence for at least one parallel universe next door where all the twin wormhole mouths are attached to. This is consistent with Jacques Vallee’s “Fastwalker.” Furthermore, none of the dark matter detector experiments now planned or underway will ever click with the right stuff if my ideas here are correct. This is a matter of fundamental principle.

“… there is no question that physicists seriously contemplate a phase transition in the quantum vacuum as a real possibility. The quantum vacuum defies common sense, because empty space in quantum field theory is actually filled with virtual particles. These virtual particles appear and disappear far too quickly to be detected directly, but their existence has been confirmed by experiments that demonstrate their influence on ordinary matter.”

A major component of the physical quantum vacuum consists of virtual electrons frothing and bubbling, like The Brew of the Three Witches in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” at the foamy Fermi surface edge of the Dirac negative energy sea. This is because of the Pauli exclusion principle that only none or one electron per quantum state. A virtual electron pops out of the vacuum’s Fermi surface leaving a hole behind. The hole is the virtual positron. The result is a “virtual electron-positron pair.” However, the virtual electron and the virtual positron attract because they have opposite charges and they are exchanging virtual photons. Therefore, some of them form a more stable bound state. An enormous number of these virtual pairs Bose-Einstein condense into the same center of mass quantum wave packet of the single pair forming the “Vacuum Coherence Field” (AKA “Inflation Field”). This is a dynamic steady state non-equilibrium “dissipative structure” of detailed balance in which there is a continual inflow and outflow of virtual pairs into and out of this giant quantum or “macro-quantum” “superfluid.” That is, virtual pair bound states are continually created and destroyed from and into the electrically neutral “ionized plasma” of broken virtual pairs which is the zero point dark energy/matter “normal fluid” component of the exotic vacuum that sustains the robust “generalized phase rigidity” of the macro-quantum vacuum coherence field. This P.W. Anderson “phase rigidity” explains Andrei Sakharov’s “metric elasticity” or “space-time stiffness” or “string tension.” Essentially this is a vacuum phase transition, similar to the BCS phase transition from a normal metal to an electrical superconductor, from the globally flat micro-quantum electrodynamic vacuum without any gravity at all to the curved macro-quantum electrodynamic vacuum with emergent gravity. Einstein’s field equation of general relativity can be derived from the phase wiggles and ripples in the robust stable macroscopically occupied center of mass quantum wave packet of the bound state of the virtual electron-positron pair. The exotic vacuum dark energy and dark matter are simply the amplitude wiggles and ripples of this same virtual pair quantum wave packet. The wave packet spreads over the entire 3D space of the post-inflationary bubble on which our Hubble-horizoned universe is located along with an infinity of parallel universes next door as Max Tegmark explains in May 2003 Scientific American. If Lenny Susskind’s world hologram idea is correct, take the surface area of the expanding Hubble sphere that is the causal retarded boundary of 3D space of our past light cone at Earth and divide it by the quantum of area. That gives us the number of Bekenstein-Shannon c-bits and explains the irreversible “arrow of time” (AKA Second Law of Thermodynamics) of increasing thermodynamic entropy in terms of the dynamical expansion of the 3D space of the universe. Lenny Susskind calls this kind of idea “DeSitter Space”, which is a large-scale homogeneous isotropic limiting case of what I am pointing to on all scales.

As Above So Below

"Such research should be forbidden!"
Sakharov to Lev Okun

Tiger Tiger

It’s already too late. Pandora’s Box is open. Schrodinger’s Cat has jumped out of it. This Kitty has grown up to William Blake’s “Tyger, Tyger shining bright in the darkness of the night” and I am holding it by the tail. Hold on to your hats for a bumpy ride until we switch on zero g-force weightless warp drive!

“Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And, when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water`d heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger, tiger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?”

“In the early 1970's Soviet physicists were concerned that the vacuum of our universe was in fact only one possible state of empty space. The fundamental state of empty space is called the "true vacuum". Our universe was considered to reside in a "false vacuum", protected from the true vacuum by "the wall of our world". A change from one vacuum state to another is known as a phase transition. This is analogous to the transition between frozen and liquid water. Lev Okun, a Russian physicist and historian recalls Andrei Sakharov, the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, expressing his concern about research into the phase transitions of the vacuum. If the wall between the vacuum states was to be breached, calculations showed that an unstoppable expanding vacuum bubble would continue to grow until it destroyed our entire universe! Sakharov declared "Such research should be forbidden!" since there was always the possibility that an experiment might accidentally trigger a vacuum phase transition.”

British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, Master of Trinity College, and Director of the Cambridge University Institute of Theoretical Astronomy on Madingley Road where Stephen Hawking works discusses all this in Chapter 9 of his important book “Our Final Hour.”

“Could the wall of our universe be breached from within? The amount of energy required to punch a hole through the wall appeared to be enormous, and no known natural physical phenomena, even the most energetic, had punched through either. A recent report commissioned to examine potential dangers at the Large Hadron Collider, one of the next generations of particle accelerators, concluded that we were safe, to the best of our existing knowledge. Others are not so certain, however. At least one of the Russian physicists I had corresponded with was said to have been a former associate of Andrei Sakharov. He strongly hinted at new theories the Russians had developed which allow for the manipulation of the fundamental constants of nature, but he never revealed more than a sketch of his ideas. He claimed that a breakthrough was within reach, perhaps within five years …”

Who was that? Not George Ryazanov?

“Recent theoretical explorations may suggest another approach to the physics of the vacuum. The invisible gravitating dark matter could be the other side of the invisible dark energy coin, and that suggests the possibility of manipulating the vacuum for energy release.”

Now this is my original idea that you got from our communications over the past few years. I am the only physicist in the world today, as far as I know who has suggested this and has already published it in my two books of 2002 so it’s in the official record at the Library of Congress.

“If a controllable parameter could be found to mediate the balance between the invisible dark forces, the result would unleash the vacuum energy of creation in all of its awful power and majesty. If it were possible to control the dark sides of the force then spacetime, the arena where everything we know takes place, could be bent and twisted with infinitely greater ease than was ever suspected. This would open Pandora's box to everything from vacuum energy weapons of mass destruction (capable of destroying the universe!) to spacetime warp drives and time machines.”

Exactly, the above is the thesis of all my books since 2002 at least.

“A quick survey of the international electronic archive of physics papers at www.arXiv.org shows that research into the vacuum of spacetime for energy production is alive and well.”

I do not think that is true. You need to cite specifics here. There are lots of flaky new age papers on “free energy” on the Web written by people without any real credentials but they are not on www.arXiv.org which is not even allowing competent “fringe” papers in controversial topics like “cold fusion.” So what exactly are you thinking of here? Indeed, Paul Ginsparg, who controls the archive, does not even allow Carlos Castro to publish conservative competent papers on “Clifford Algebras” which are not “fringe” at all!

“Most authors are independent researchers struggling with limited funding and resources, yet their theoretical results suggest that somewhere in Nick Cook's black world, a major breakthrough has already taken place. Most likely Israel, UK, the United States and Russia are in the lead, but China, France, Serbia, Ukraine, Iran, India and Saudi Arabia all have scientists actively pursuing the fundamental physics that determine the fabric of our reality, and are seeking the theory and the means to access the enormous energies locked inside of the vacuum since the creation of the universe. Even if the black budget world has yet to unleash the enormous potential of vacuum energy, there are signs that those in power may have begun to take notice. Dr. Harold Puthoff, a scientist with strong government connections, who has previously worked on classified projects for the CIA, is a major proponent of vacuum energy physics. Nick Cook's book, "The Hunt for Zero Point", and his recent stories on zero point energy in "Jane's Defence Weekly" have also brought attention to the dangers and military potential of exotic vacuum research. The American intelligence community financed so-called psychic spies for over twenty years and through four presidential administrations. It is highly unlikely that they would ignore the potential of the quantum vacuum. Dr. George Chapline, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Dr. Jack Sarfatti in San Francisco, knew each other in the sixties in La Jolla, have independently proposed that the quantum vacuum may unstable to the formation of coherent virtual processes. Sarfatti suggests that gravity is an emergent property determined by the physics of the vacuum. His idea is to find a means of directly interacting with the physics of the vacuum that controls the shape of spacetime. Such a possibility would be consistent with the reported success of Evgeny Podkletnov, the Russian scientist who is experimenting with spinning superconducting disks. Podkletnov's most recent papers report the appearance of a mysterious coherent beam of "gravity like radiation" with a measured force of 1000 G. In an interview on BBC radio, Nick Cook pointed out one immediate application of the Podkletnov beam - the destruction of missiles and satellites in flight or in orbit around the earth. Cook showed the BBC internal documents from Boeing, the American aerospace contractor, proving their interest in Podkletnov's research.”

This beam stuff I am suspicious of. Of course if the experiment is good, I have to think more about it. I am not so sure if Podkletnov’s experiment is any good and has been replicated.

“The connections between Podkletnov's results, and the kind of vacuum research explored by Sarfatti, beginning in 1999 at the International Space Sciences Organization are the latest threads in a trail that most likely originates in cold war disinformation, a game played by East and West against each other. Glasnost has shifted the balance of partnerships and the positions of the players, but not the stakes of an outcome that would leave the world with even more prolific and powerful weapons of mass destruction.”

That is true, as shown in “Destiny Matrix,” however you leave out the most important evidence -UFOs!

“When I first contacted Nick Cook, he wrote "What intrigues me in this whole business are the connections." Although Nick Cook never revealed the identity of his "deep throat" contact called "Dr. Dan Marckus" in the book "The Hunt for Zero Point", there was no question that the Podkletnov results had played a major part in fitting together the pieces of the puzzle. The amount of interest was in Podkletnov's reports by NASA, Boeing, and others in the international arena of aerospace and military research communities was evidence that there was more here to explore than the latest musings of the intellectual elite. The truth is that a fundamental theory of gravity at the scales of subatomic nuclear physics does not exist. The fact is that no one understands the nature of the gravitational field at very small scales. In fact gravity has barely been probed much below one millimeter. Every attempt to unify the physical theories of gravity with the well-known standard model physics of electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, has failed. More importantly there has been recent progress in the exotic areas of mainstream research, such as superstring theory, which suggest new kinds of physics, which might support explanations for Podkletnov's "impulse gravity" effect. One of the current fads in theoretical physics involves large extra dimensions of space that allow a much stronger version of gravity to leak off the membrane world of our ordinary three dimensions. The large dimensional picture allows for the well known forces of electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, to be confined to a three dimensional "brane-world" floating in a higher dimensional hyperspace. Gravitons, the quanta of the gravitational force, are viewed as closed strings, and are able to slip off of our "brane-world", which explains why the gravitational force is so much weaker than the other forces that hold matter together. Gravitons could be exchanged between our brane-world and another brane floating nearby in the same higher dimensions.

The Sarfatti picture offers a more direct interaction with the new physics than the brane world ideas. Sarfatti's vision is to find a means of using electromagnetic fields in the Josephson effect to couple to the virtual electron-positron pair giant coherent condensate inflation field inside the vacuum that controls the shape of spacetime to the real electron pair giant coherent condensate of a control high temperature superconductor. UCB’s Ray Chiao has a similar idea using a superconductor to transduce electromagnetic far field waves to gravity waves with high efficiency conversion. Sarfatti wants to do the same thing with non-propagating electromagnetic and gravity near fields. One wonders if the black budget world may have already produced some of the technology needed to explore and test these new realms.”

Not a chance. They are clueless about the theory. They are still stuck in Hal's PV model and Bernie Haisch's zero point ideas, which will never, in my opinion fly. They are not asking the right questions and do not have the right idea in their minds. It is my belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, that I am the only physicist on the planet today who is doing real theoretical work directly relevant to the achievement of practical metric engineering anchored in the now observed reality of "dark energy." All my work is public. I would love to be proved wrong on this especially by Hal Puthoff, but I am not holding my breath.;-) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Everything else I have seen is either on the wrong track asking the wrong questions like the work of Puthoff, Haisch, Ibison & Rueda for example, which at least is real physics that has proved itself wrong in Ibison's PV cosmology paper, or else the claims are patently obvious nonsense that Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science." There is also the Russian torsion work of Akimov and Shipov and I am not prepared to make a definitive statement on that, as the issue is not simple because of several factors some political. One must be careful there to separate Shipov's theoretical work from claims made about practical devices including weapons applications. I do, however, agree with you that there is a real issue here as defined in Ch. 9 of Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour."

Hal Puthoff coined the term "metric engineering" for flying saucer technology. Hal has been working on this problem for many decades and has held high USG security clearances and has been privy to reliable information that the saucers are real and are "alien". Otherwise he would not be working on the problem. However, Hal's theories, both of the zero point energy and of the gravity field will not solve the problem because they are too naively based and do not ask the right questions. The basic physics required for this task is way beyond the depth of Puthoff’s self-described “engineering” approach and can be found in Rovelli's new book on quantum gravity.

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf

to appear in the book Super Cosmos on Amazon et-al ~ Summer 2004
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
under construction


Gary Bekkum wrote

DARK MATTERS SURROUND DARK ENERGY

with my comments, additions and physics corrections

“Two big stories from the world of physics may portend the arrival of new weapons of mass destruction far more powerful and compact than atomic bombs. In recent years it has been discovered that our universe is being blown apart by a mysterious anti-gravity effect called "dark energy". Mainstream physicists are scrambling to explain this mysterious acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Some physicists even believe that the expansion will lead to "The Big Rip" when all of the matter in the universe is torn asunder - from clusters of galaxies in deep space down to the tiniest atomic particles. The universe now appears to be made of two unknowns - roughly 23% is "dark matter", an invisible source of gravity, and roughly 73% is "dark energy", an invisible anti-gravity force. Ordinary matter constitutes perhaps 4 percent of the universe. Recently the British science news journal "New Scientist" revealed that the American military is pursuing new types of exotic bombs - including a new class of isomeric gamma ray weapons.”

That was an original idea of mine in 1963 at Cornell and I discussed it with Hans Bethe. That is one of the reasons Ron Bullough invited me to Harwell in 1966. No doubt others thought of it but probably later. I thought of it while at Tech/Ops in Lexington, Mass working for George Parrant Jr.

“Unlike conventional atomic and hydrogen bombs, the new weapons would trigger the release energy by absorbing radiation, and respond by re-emitting a far more powerful radiation. In this new category of gamma-ray weapons, a nuclear isomer absorbs x-rays and re-emits higher frequency gamma rays. The emitted gamma radiation has been reported to release 60 times the energy of the x-rays that trigger the effect.”

Gamma-ray weapons could trigger next arms race 19:00 13 August 03
“Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

An exotic kind of nuclear explosive being developed by the US Department of Defense could blur the critical distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The work has also raised fears that weapons based on this technology could trigger the next arms race. The explosive works by stimulating the release of energy from the nuclei of certain elements but does not involve nuclear fission or fusion. The energy, emitted as gamma radiation, is thousands of times greater than that from conventional chemical explosives.
The technology has already been included in the Department of Defense's Militarily Critical Technologies List, which says: "Such extraordinary energy density has the potential to revolutionise all aspects of warfare." Scientists have known for many years that the nuclei of some elements, such as hafnium, can exist in a high-energy state, or nuclear isomer, that slowly decays to a low-energy state by emitting gamma rays. For example, hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178, has a half-life of 31 years. The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.”
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049

I was thinking in 1963 of a gamma ray laser pumping a nuclear isomeric transition. Bethe at the time said it wouldn't work and basically discouraged me working on it.

Bekkum continued:

“In the summer of 2000 I contacted Nick Cook, the former aviation editor and aerospace consultant to Jane's Defence Weekly, the international military affairs journal. Cook had been investigating black budget super-secret research into exotic physics for advanced propulsion technologies.”

Uh Oh :)

“I had been monitoring electronic discussions between various American and Russian scientists theorizing about rectifying the quantum vacuum for advanced space drive. Several groups of scientists, partitioned into various research organizations, were exploring what NASA calls "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" - exotic technologies for advanced space travel to traverse the vast distances between stars. Partly inspired by the pulp science fiction stories of their youth, and partly by recent reports of multiple radar tracking tapes of unidentified objects performing impossible maneuvers in the sky, these scientists were on a quest to uncover the most likely new physics for star travel. The NASA program was run by Marc Millis, under the Advanced Space Transportation Program Office (ASTP). Joe Firmage, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, who at age 28 had found risen to CEO of a three billion dollar internet firm, began to fund research in parallel with NASA. He hired a NASA Ames nano-technology scientist, Creon Levit, to run the "International Space Sciences Organization,"

Joe did that because I suggested it. I introduced Creon to Joe.

“Cook was intrigued by the apparent connections between various private investors, defense contractors, NASA, INSCOM (American military intelligence), and the CIA. While researching exotic propulsion technologies Cook had heard rumors of a new kind of weapon, a "sub-quantum atomic bomb", being whispered about in the dark halls of defense research.”

I think that must have come from me regarding J. P. Vigier's "tight atomic states" with experiments in Beograd by Z. Maric and G. Dragic. But how did Cook hear about that? We brought Vigier to ISSO in San Francisco several times along with physicist Gennady Shipov from Moscow. That story with photographs of Vigier and the group is in my autobiography “Destiny Matrix.” Dragic A, Maric Z, Vigier JP; Phys. Lett. A 265 (2000) 163. "New quantum mechanical tight bound states and 'cold fusion'." Creon Levit and Vigier met with Maric in Budapest in 2000.

Bekkum who is one of my “on line students” continued:

“Sub-quantum physics is a controversial re-interpretation of quantum theory, based on so-called pilot wave theories, where an information field controls quantum particles. The late Professor David Bohm showed that the predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics could be recast into a pilot wave information theory. Recently Anthony Valentini of the Perimeter Institute has suggested that ordinary quantum theory may be a special case of pilot wave theories, leaving open the possibility of new and exotic non-quantum technologies. Even thought rumors of a sub-quantum bomb may be purely fantasy …”

It's not fantasy. It might not work, Maric and Dragic in Beograd, while not ostensibly trying to make a weapon by any means, were trying to test Vigier's basic theory of the spatially extended electron, which I think is basically a correct idea and fits my own ideas including why the electron appears to shrink to less than 10-16 cm under high resolution imaging (i.e. scattering) and how the electric charge distribution is contained by the strongly attractive zero point energy exotic vacuum "dark matter core" (Abraham-Becker-Lorentz-Poincare stress problem of 100 years ago). This only works in the Bohm "hidden" or "extra" variable interpretation. That is, a classical spatially extended electric charge distribution is unstable. It explodes under its own self-repulsion. This is why physicists had to postulate a point electron because they did not understand that the strong gravity attraction of the positive zero point pressure in a possible state of exotic vacuum would hold the charge together. As Herbert Frohlich told me at UCSD in La Jolla in 1966 “the basic thing wrong with physics is the idea of the point electron.” The bad idea of the point electron gives the infinite energy in quantum electrodynamics. Richard Feynman told me in his office at Cal Tech in 1968 that “infinite renormalization is a shell game, and it is a scandal in physics that no one could do better” than what he had done. They did not know 100 years ago that 1/3 or so of the universe was this kind of exotic vacuum. For example, there is a huge sphere of exotic vacuum of w = -1 positive pressure that holds our galaxy together preventing our solar system from going off into space on its own. This sphere looks like w = 0 “cold dark matter” from our vantage point. What works on this large scale also works on the small scale of the single electron (and all the charged lepto-quarks). A neutrino has some mass and is simply a micro-geon of pure zero point energy with positive pressure.

“… there is no question that physicists seriously contemplate a phase transition in the quantum vacuum as a real possibility. The quantum vacuum defies common sense, because empty space in quantum field theory is actually filled with virtual particles. These virtual particles appear and disappear far too quickly to be detected directly, but their existence has been confirmed by experiments that demonstrate their influence on ordinary matter.”

A major component of the physical quantum vacuum consists of virtual electrons frothing and bubbling at the Fermi surface edge of the Dirac negative energy sea. This is because of the Pauli exclusion principle that only none or one electron per quantum state. A virtual electron pops out of the vacuum’s Fermi surface leaving a hole behind. The hole is the virtual positron. The result is a “virtual electron-positron pair.” However, the virtual electron and the virtual positron attract because they have opposite charges and they are exchanging virtual photons. Therefore, some of them form a more stable bound state. An enormous number of these virtual pairs Bose-Einstein condense into the same center of mass quantum wave packet forming the “Vacuum Coherence Field” (AKA “Inflation Field”). This is a dynamic steady state of detailed balance in which there is a continual inflow and outflow of virtual pairs into and out of this giant quantum or “macro-quantum” “superfluid.” Essentially this is a vacuum phase transition, similar to the BCS transition from a normal metal to an electrical superconductor, from the globally flat micro-quantum electrodynamic vacuum without any gravity at all to the curved macro-quantum electrodynamic vacuum with emergent gravity. Einstein’s field equation of general relativity can be derived from the phase wiggles and ripples in the robust stable macroscopically occupied center of mass quantum wave packet of the bound state of the virtual electron-positron pair. The exotic vacuum dark energy and dark matter are simply the amplitude wiggles and ripples of this same virtual pair quantum wave packet. The wave packet spreads over the entire 3D space of the post-inflationary bubble on which our Hubble-horizoned universe is located along with an infinity of parallel universes next door as Max Tegmark explains in May 2003 Scientific American. If the world hologram idea is correct, take the surface area of the expanding Hubble sphere that is the causal retarded boundary of 3D space of our past light cone at Earth and divide it by the quantum of area. That gives us the number of Bekenstein-Shannon c-bits and explains the “arrow of time” (AKA Second Law of Thermodynamics) of increasing thermodynamic entropy in terms of the dynamical expansion of the 3D space of the universe. Lenny Susskind calls this “DeSitter Space.”

"Such research should be forbidden!"

Too late. Pandora’s Box is open. Schrodinger’s Cat has jumped out of it.

“In the early 1970's Soviet physicists were concerned that the vacuum of our universe was in fact only one possible state of empty space. The fundamental state of empty space is called the "true vacuum". Our universe was considered to reside in a "false vacuum", protected from the true vacuum by "the wall of our world". A change from one vacuum state to another is known as a phase transition. This is analogous to the transition between frozen and liquid water. Lev Okun, a Russian physicist and historian recalls Andrei Sakharov, the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, expressing his concern about research into the phase transitions of the vacuum. If the wall between the vacuum states was to be breached, calculations showed that an unstoppable expanding bubble would continue to grow until it destroyed our entire universe! Sakharov declared "Such research should be forbidden!" since there was always the possibility that an experiment might accidentally trigger a vacuum phase transition.”

British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, Master of Trinity College, and Director of the Cambridge University Institute of Theoretical Astronomy on Madingley Road where Stephen Hawking works discusses all this in Chapter 9 of his important book “Our Final Hour.”

“Could the wall of our universe be breached from within? The amount of energy required to punch a hole through the wall appeared to be enormous, and no known natural physical phenomena, even the most energetic, had punched through either. A recent report commissioned to examine potential dangers at the Large Hadron Collider, one of the next generations of particle accelerators, concluded that we were safe, to the best of our existing knowledge. Others are not so certain, however. At least one of the Russian physicists I had corresponded with was said to have been a former associate of Andrei Sakharov. He strongly hinted at new theories the Russians had developed which allow for the manipulation of the fundamental constants of nature, but he never revealed more than a sketch of his ideas. He claimed that a breakthrough was within reach, perhaps within five years …”

Who was that? Not George Ryazanov?

“Recent theoretical explorations may suggest another approach to the physics of the vacuum. The invisible gravitating dark matter could be the other side of the invisible dark energy coin, and that suggests the possibility of manipulating the vacuum for energy release.”

Now this is my original idea that you got from our communications over the past few years. I am the only physicist in the world today, as far as I know who has suggested this and has already published it in my two books of 2002 so it’s in the official record at the Library of Congress.

“If a controllable parameter could be found to mediate the balance between the invisible dark forces, the result would unleash the vacuum energy of creation in all of its awful power and majesty. If it were possible to control the dark sides of the force then spacetime, the arena where everything we know takes place, could be bent and twisted with infinitely greater ease than was ever suspected. This would open Pandora's box to everything from vacuum energy weapons of mass destruction (capable of destroying the universe!) to spacetime warp drives and time machines.”

Exactly, the above is the thesis of all my books since 2002 at least.

“A quick survey of the international electronic archive of physics papers at www.arXiv.org shows that research into the vacuum of spacetime for energy production is alive and well.”

I do not think that is true. You need to cite specifics here. There are lots of flakey new age papers on “free energy” on the Web written by people without any real credentials but they are not on www.arXiv.org which is not even allowing competent “fringe” papers in controversial topics like “cold fusion.” So what exactly are you thinking of here? Indeed, Paul Ginsparg, who controls the archive, does not even allow Carlos Castro to publish conservative competent papers on “Clifford Algebras” which are not “fringe” at all!

“Most authors are independent researchers struggling with limited funding and resources, yet their theoretical results suggest that somewhere in Nick Cook's black world, a major breakthrough has already taken place. Most likely the United States and Russia are in the lead, but China, France, Ukraine, Iran, India and Saudi Arabia all have scientists actively pursuing the fundamental physics that determine the fabric of our reality, and are seeking the theory and the means to access the enormous energies locked inside of the vacuum since the creation of the universe. Even if the black budget world has yet to unleash the enormous potential of vacuum energy, there are signs that those in power may have begun to take notice. Dr. Harold Puthoff, a scientist with strong government connections, who has previously worked on classified projects for the CIA, is a major proponent of vacuum energy physics. Nick Cook's book, "The Hunt for Zero Point", and his recent stories on zero point energy in "Jane's Defence Weekly" have also brought attention to the dangers and military potential of vacuum research. The American intelligence community financed so-called psychic spies for over twenty years and through four presidential administrations. It is highly unlikely that they would ignore the potential of the quantum vacuum. Dr. George Chapline, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Dr. Jack Sarfatti in San Francisco, knew each other in the sixties in La Jolla, have independently proposed that the quantum vacuum may unstable to the formation of coherent virtual processes. Sarfatti suggests that gravity is an emergent property determined by the physics of the vacuum. His idea is to find a means of directly interacting with the physics of the vacuum that controls the shape of spacetime. Such a possibility would be consistent with the reported success of Evgeny
Podkletnov, the Russian scientist who is experimenting with spinning superconducting disks. Podkletnov's most recent papers report the appearance of a mysterious coherent beam of "gravity like radiation" with a measured force of 1000 G. In an interview on BBC radio, Nick Cook pointed out one immediate application of the Podkletnov beam - the destruction of missiles and satellites in flight or in orbit around the earth. Cook showed the BBC internal documents from Boeing, the American aerospace contractor, proving their interest in Podkletnov's research.”

This beam stuff I am suspicious of. Of course if the experiment is good, I have to think more about it. I am not so sure if Podkletnov’s experiment is any good and has been replicated.

“The connections between Podkletnov's results, and the kind of vacuum research explored by Sarfatti, beginning in 1999 at the International Space Sciences Organization are the latest threads in a trail that most likely originates in cold war disinformation, a game played by East and West against each other. Glasnost has shifted the balance of partnerships and the positions of the players, but not the stakes of an outcome that would leave the world with even more prolific and powerful weapons of mass destruction.”

That is true, as shown in “Destiny Matrix,” however you leave out the most important evidence -UFOs!

“When I first contacted Nick Cook, he wrote "What intrigues me in this whole business are the connections." Although Nick Cook never revealed the identity of his "deep throat" contact called "Dr. Dan Marckus" in the book "The Hunt for Zero Point", there was no question that the Podkletnov results had played a major part in fitting together the pieces of the puzzle. The amount of interest was in Podkletnov's reports by NASA, Boeing, and others in the international arena of aerospace and military research communities was evidence that there was more here to explore than the latest musings of the intellectual elite. The truth is that a fundamental theory of gravity at the scales of subatomic nuclear physics does not exist. The fact is that no one understands the nature of the gravitational field at very small scales. In fact gravity has barely been probed much below one millimeter. Every attempt to unify the physical theories of gravity with the well-known standard model physics of electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, has failed. More importantly there has been recent progress in the exotic areas of mainstream research, such as superstring theory, which suggest new kinds of physics, which might support explanations for Podkletnov's "impulse gravity" effect. One of the current fads in theoretical physics involves large extra dimensions of space that allow a much stronger version of gravity to leak off the membrane world of our ordinary three dimensions. The large dimensional picture allows for the well known forces of electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, to be confined to a three dimensional "brane-world" floating in a higher dimensional space. Gravitons, the particles of the gravitational force, are viewed as closed strings, and are able to slip off of our "brane-world", which explains why the gravitational force is so much weaker than the other forces that hold matter together. Gravitons could be exchanged between our brane-world and another brane floating nearby in the same higher dimensions.

The Sarfatti picture offers a more direct interaction with the new physics than the brane world ideas. Sarfatti's vision is to find a means of using electromagnetic fields in the Josephson effect to couple to the virtual electron-positron pair giant coherent condensate inflation field inside the vacuum that controls the shape of spacetime to the real electron pair giant coherent condensate of a control high temperature superconductor. UCB’s Ray Chiao has a similar idea using a superconductor to transduce electromagnetic far field waves to gravity waves with high efficiency conversion. Sarfatti wants to do the same thing with non-propagating electromagnetic and gravity near fields. One wonders if the black budget world may have already produced some of the technology needed to explore and test these new realms.”

Not a chance. They are clueless about the theory. They are still stuck in Hal's PV model and Bernie Haisch's zero point ideas, which will never, in my opinion fly. They are not asking the right questions and do not have the right idea in their minds. It is my belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, that I am the only physicist on the planet today who is doing real theoretical work directly relevant to the achievement of practical metric engineering anchored in the now observed reality of "dark energy." All my work is public. I would love to be proved wrong on this especially by Hal Puthoff, but I am not holding my breath.;-) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Everything else I have seen is either on the wrong track asking the wrong questions like the work of Puthoff, Haisch, Ibison & Rueda for example, which at least is real physics that has proved itself wrong in Ibison's PV cosmology paper, or else the claims are patently obvious nonsense that Feynman called "Cargo Cult Science." There is also the Russian torsion work of Akimov and Shipov and I am not prepared to make a definitive statement on that, as the issue is not simple because of several factors some political. One must be careful there to separate Shipov's theoretical work from claims made about practical devices including weapons applications. I do, however, agree with you that there is a real issue here as defined in Ch. 9 of Martin Rees's "Our Final Hour."

Hal Puthoff coined the term "metric engineering" for flying saucer technology. Hal has been working on this problem for many decades and has held high USG security clearances and has been privy to reliable information that the saucers are real and are "alien". Otherwise he would not be working on the problem. However, Hal's theories, both of the zero point energy and of the gravity field will not solve the problem because they are too naively based and do not ask the right questions. The basic physics required for this task is way beyond the depth of Puthoff’s self-described “engineering” approach and can be found in Rovelli's new book on quantum gravity.

re: http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SuperCosmos.pdf

Yes I know. Did you print whole article? If so send it so I will save some time.
Thanks.
This will definitely be cited at the beginning of Super Cosmos.
Perfect timing. Your name is in the book BTW.

Metric engineering is the control of dark energy.

Hal Puthoff has never even mentioned the word in any of his "metric engineering" publications.
Maybe he will start now at last? Of course he has no way to describe it inside his PV model.

On Feb 17, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

From NY Times Feb 17, 2004 by Dennis Overbye:

"While the density of the energy in Einstein's cosmological constant stays
the same as the universe expands, the density of phantom energy would go up
and up, eventually becoming infinite. Such would be the case if the
parameter w turned out to be less than minus 1, say physicists, who admit
they are stunned by the possibility and until recently simply refused to
consider it.

"It crosses a boundary of good taste," Dr. Caldwell said, calling phantom
energy "bad news stuff." Phantom energy violates physicists' intuitions
about how the universe should behave. A chunk of it could be used to prop
open wormholes in space and time - and thus create time machines, for
example.

I have been saying this for awhile now. It is in my two books "Destiny Matrix" and" Space-Time and Beyond II" published in late 2002 and in the Library of Congress for the record. Of course, I am the only physicist with real academic credentials from two good Universities to connect dark energy with flying saucer propulsion. Hal Puthoff never did even though I gave him plenty of opportunity to do so. There is no mention of this in Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 article. I dare go where no respectable mainstream physicist has dared to go because of the fear they will be censored out of the LNL/Cornell archive by Paul Ginsparg. ;-) Look what happened to Henry Stapp in Physics Today when he slipped a retro PK article into Phys Rev A some time ago.

"It could lead to such bizarre effects as negative kinetic energy," Dr.
Krauss said. As a result, objects like atoms would be able to lose energy by
speeding up.

Nevertheless, a recent analysis by Dr. Caldwell and his Dartmouth colleague
Dr. Michael Doran of the supernova measurements to date, combined with other
cosmological data, suggest that w could lie anywhere from minus 0.8 to minus
1.25, leaving open the possibility of phantom energy.


My falsifiable prediction for BOTH dark energy and dark matter is w = -1 ON THE NOSE

Of course globs of w = -1 zero point stress-energy tensor fields of positive pressure will look like w = 0 CDM to the distant observer.
What All The Kings Men trying to put Humpty Dumpty (Cosmological Constant) together again are missing is "The Right Stuff" i.e. the right idea of "Vacuum Coherence" (inflation field really) whose phase patterns give Einstein's theory of general relativity and whose intensity patterns give the dark energy/matter dynamic "background-independent" zero point stress-energy density tensor fields all over the universe at all scales including the microscopic as well as the macroscopic. As my Techgnostic Qabalist alleged ancestors would say

"As Above, So Below"

The cosmological
constant would give a value of minus 1.0, and anything higher would be a
sign of quintessence.

Dr. Kirshner said phantom energy had been dismissed as "too strange" when
his group was doing calculations of dark energy back in 1998. In retrospect,
he said, that was not the right thing to do."

"It sounds wacky," he said, referring to phantom energy, "but I think we're
in a situation where we're going to need a really new idea. We're in
trouble; the way out is going to be new imaginative things. It might be our
ideas are not wild enough, they don't question fundamentals enough."

Yeah, well wake up and smell the coffee

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SuperCosmos.pdf

Prediction #2 No dark matter detector will ever click with The Right Stuff - only false positives in the long run. Mark my words.
Popper falsifiable for sure.

It's all w = -1.

“Dr. Sarfatti, first I want to inform you that I am a Qabalist.” (with a mischievous wink of his eyebrow … brief pause, clearing his throat assuming a more somber pose) “Dr Sarfatti, it is my duty to inform you of a psychic war raging across the continents between the Soviet Union and your country and you are to be in the thick of it.”


Homework problem. Why did Bardens first tell me he was a "Qabalist" with arching of his eyebrow? Yes, I suppose it was more of an arching of the brow than a wink.

Why me? See "Destiny Matrix" for some relevant background. We are talking major historical events here like the destruction of the Soviet Union. Bardens is obviously no small fry if you look at his life. He just died a few days ago. I had no idea who he really was back then in 1974. I was a real Parsifal for sure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3477271.stm

Now what about Terletskii? Oddly I had been reading his Paradoxes in Relativity book at San Diego State that got me all started on the faster than light stuff. Little did I know however that he was also into the Bondi negative matter propulsion idea.

"I met with Terletskii in 1993 just before he died. He recalled that first Bohr was nervous and his hands trembled, but he soon controlled his emotions ... Bohr pointed to a place on a graph Terletskii showed him and said 'That's the trouble spot.' This meeting was essential to starting the Soviet reactor, and we accomplished that feat in December, 1946." pp. 206 - 207 Ch. 7 "Atomic Spies" Pavel Sudoplatov among other things allegedly organized Trotsky's murder in Mexico City. See the film Frida.

"Diego was a supporter of Leon Trotsky, who Stalin had ousted from the Soviet Union, a few years after the death of Lenin, and Diego helped Trotsky move to Mexico early in 1937.  There Leon and his wife Natalia got to stay in Frida's house in Coyoacan, the Casa Azul.  Frida was very fond of Trotsky, and they had a very brief affair.  For Leon's birthday November 7th, Frida painted the Between the Curtains portrait for him"
http://www.fbuch.com/fridaby.htm

In the thick of it!

“The documents on Terletskii’s meetings with Niels Bohr in November, 1945 – consisting of Beria’s cover letter to Stalin, twenty-two questions” [Not Wheeler’s “Twenty Questions” of the Quantum Observer-Participator bringing itself and the Multiverse into being and becoming as a “self-excited circuit.”] “posed by Soviet intelligence officer Yakov Terletskii and answered by Bohr … Jack Sarfatti, a theoretical physicist who was a student of Hans Bethe and who worked with several scientists of that generation reviewed the documents … Sarfatti found that …” Report on the Bohr-Terletskii Meetings, Documents from the Russian State Archive, “Special Tasks” with “Updated Edition” paperback with “New Foreword” by Robert Conquest of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, p. 483

“Dr. Sarfatti, first I want to inform you that I am a Qabalist.” (with mischievous wink of his eyebrow … brief pause, clearing his through assuming a more somber pose) “Dr Sarfatti, it is my duty to inform you of a psychic war raging across the continents between the Soviet Union and your country and you are to be in the thick of it.”

Dennis Bardens to me in the Blue Boar Inn, Cambridge University after Ted Bastin’s ANPA/Psychical Research Society Meeting attended by Brian Josephson, Bernard Carr and other very smart people. Bardens, a London journalist wrote many books, one a biography of Winston Churchill.


“LONDON Freelance Branch presented a bottle of champagne to Denni Bardens, probably our oldest member, on the occasion of his 92n birthday on 19 July. The crowd testified to a colourful and productive life including as it did the King of Burma, assorted ghost-hunter contacts from his books and perhaps the odd actual spook from his time attached to the Foreign Office" at the end of the Second World War.

He went on to be founding editor of Panorama. As he told a Branch meeting in 2001, ‘the BBC often forgets this, and when they do I sue.’ By one account he coined the name of the programme as he stared out of an upper-storey office window at the, er, vista of London in search of inspiration. The list of apologies was dominated by the entire roster of Fleetwood Mac - the band got started with his offer of rehearsal space.

…... Although Dennis is very ill he did manage a smile or two and just before we drove him back to hospital he sang, in a fading voice, 'Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries':

Why are we here?
Where are we going?
It's time that we found out.
We're not here to stay;
We're on a short holiday.
Life is just a bowl of cherries.
Don't take it serious;
it's too mysterious...

The picture of all his friends at the back of the ambulance waving and cheering and him singing will stay with me forever. I'm glad I've shared a couple of hours with this lovely man."

“Dennis Bardens (19th July 1911 - 7th February 2004) was a London journalist who worked as reporter and feature writer on leading British newspapers, including the Sunday Express and Daily Mirror. For over a decade he contributed a column to the US-based British Digest and contributed to newspapers and magazines world-wide, including the New York Times.”
http://media.gn.apc.org/fl/0309db.html?i=flindex&d=2003_09


“For many years he was Editor of the BBC radio programme Focus and was the co-founder and first Editor of the BBC’s longest-lasting and internationally famous programme, Panorama.

Dennis Bardens is the author of fifteen books, including biographies of Sir Anthony Eden ('Portrait of a Statesman'; Frederick Muller, 1955); Sir Winston Churchill ('Churchill in Parliament'; Hale, 1962/63); 'Elizabeth Fry' (True Books; Muller, 1961); 'Famous Cases on Norman Birkett'; K.G. (Hale, 1963); 'Princess Margaret' (Hale, 1964); Henri Landru (The Lady Killer; Peter Davies, 1972).

From childhood ghosts and mysteries of the paranormal have interested him, and 'Ghosts and Hauntings' has had many editions and been described as a classic of its kind. 'Psychic Animals' (Hale, etc. 1985) has been published in ten languages; while 'Mysterious Worlds' (Hale, 1970) covering a wide spectrum of mysteries, has received wide acclaim. He is a member of The Society for Psychical Research and The Ghost Club.
'Ahead of Time' (a study of precognition that included research conducted on behalf of the Parapsychology Foundation of New York) was published by Robert Hale in 1991.”
http://www.paranormal-discussion.co.uk/authors/dennis_bardens.html

"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler

Mitch et-al

a = 1/(1 +z)

a + az = 1

z = (1 - a)/a

so z = 0 for a(now).

Note that a < 1 for a retarded signal from the past if space is expanding.

a > 1 for advanced signal from future going back in time again if 3D space is expanding.

z < 0 is a blue shift from the future, which might be relevant to some phenomena in
gamma ray astronomy?


On Feb 16, 2004, at 12:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

It's basically simple.

Speed of signals inside expanding 3D space is completely decoupled from expansion rate dR(t)/dt of 3D space itself!

Space is assumed isotropic and homogeneous.

Motion is inside space. Scale factor R(t) is controlling the space itself.

You can think of 3D space imbedded in hyperspace if you like but you do not need to.

No speed of light limit in hyperspace beyond 3D space.

The Hubble parameter measured in redshifts z is

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

Define for FRW metric

a(t) = R(t)/R(now)

a(past) = [1 + z(now)]-1

For a light signal emitted at a past moment and received now, z(now) is the observed redshift from the expansion of space during the time it took for the light signal to leave the source and arrive at the detector from the POV of the detector of course.


On Feb 16, 2004, at 11:51 AM, M ... wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Feb 16, 2004, at 10:40 AM, Mitchell Timin wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

You are making a very elementary error.
Think about it.

Get a balloon. Mark two points A & B on it with ink.

Blow it up and see how the points separate.

Imagine a light signal starting at A and ending at B moving at finite
speed c as the balloon is expanding.

Yes, I can imagine all that clearly in my mind. I don't think it will
help to actually get a balloon. A & B have some speed of separation,
which is much less than c, right?

No not necessarily at all. That's the whole idea of inflation.
There is no contradiction with relativity which only works ON THE
SURFACE (3D space).
There's one error you make at the start.

What you have is the FRW metric with a scale factor R(t).

t is a cosmic parameter not the "t" you use below.

dR(t)/dt is not limited to c, it is not the "speed" of anything inside
the expanding space.

The cosmology solution is for R(t) and that's how it's all computed.

If t0 is some time instant not long
after the big bang, then at t0 the balloon is very small and A & B are
close together, call this distance d0. Let s be the separation rate,
light years per year. Then s << c. Let T be the time instant when the
light emitted from A at t0 reaches B. Let D be the separation distance
at that time. D = d0 + s *(T-t0)

s need not be constant


Now if T-t0 is 13 billion years, then D is of the order of 1 billion
light years, assuming d0 is very small and s is an order of magnitude
smaller than c. But light can travel this distance in only a billion
years, which contradicts the assumption that T-t0 is 13 billion years.

Call that a paradox or not, what is wrong with the above reasoning?

Everything. Look all these guys like Wheeler, Penrose and Hawking know
what they
are doing.

You need to look at the actual math. Metaphors don't really help.

OK, I give up.

--
"Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in
pursuit of the goal." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Yes, it looks like a good reference, but they do not have my great idea of the vacuum coherence field from virtual electron-positron condensate.

Guv + /\zpfguv = - 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

Curvature Part of Einstein gravity tetrad field = (Quantum of Area)(Spin 1 U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) Gauge Force Covariant Derivative of the Phase of the Vacuum Coherence Inflation Field)

On Feb 15, 2004, at 6:49 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Looks like a good accessible summary paper for non-technical readers on issues of vacuum structure, cosmological constant, ZPE, etc.
 
 
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000398/00/cosconstant.pdf

On Feb 14, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack,
you say "... interior w = -1 mimics w = 0
when observed at a distance with light signals or
gravity waves or neutrinos or anything
since gravity is universal. ...".

If the interior of your DM ball is w = -1,
but
your DM ball looks from the exterior like w = 0
then
is that saying that your DM ball looks like a black hole?

No obviously not necessarily. It looks like a dark cold mass M with w = 0 where

M ~ c^2|/\zpf|R^3/G

provided that

R > |/\zpf|R^3

Of course if /\zpf gets too strongly negative you get an event horizon and in fact there are black holes at the centers of some galaxies.

I got it all Bhubba. I got The Right Stuff and the problem is that the Ed Wittens and the Brian Greenes et-al are shining strong lights in the wrong part of the dark room. :-) Some of what they are doing is OK though. Indeed, I use it shamelessly. :-)


If so,
then is there any way to distinguish your model
from the many proposals that DM might be made up of black holes?

I just showed you. You can certainly make artificial black holes as a WMD, but I would rather make Star Gates.


Such proposals sometimes use primordial black holes that
were created in the early universe and are sometimes
either
sufficiently massive as not to have yet decayed
or
are taken to be Planck-mass with the idea that the
Planck mass is a minimum mass for a black hole, so that
it won't decay.

Sure, but I take the active view of the Observer-Participator, The Pisher-Paysher my Grandfather (who worked for the Army) called it. :-)
We are the Corps of Metric Engineers, the Masters of Hyperspace. That's what the UFOs are all about.
The Endless Frontier is opening up again. It's our Manifest Destiny Matrix.
And we won't come back till we're finished Over There.
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/speccol/exhibits/music/patriotic_overthere.html

Tea with Sarfatti at Kensington Palace Gardens

"As I recall, our discussion got around this difficulty in your model by making dark matter things to be like bon-bons, with a w = -1 interior and a surface coating of w = 0 stuff, so that your dark matter could act cosmologically like w = 0."

Yes, exactly what I just said. Was that not your idea originally, or was it mine?

"Therefore, it seems to me to be misleading for you to say that DM has w = -1 unless you go on to qualify the statement by saying that your DM lives as bon-bon bits with outer coatings of w = 0 stuff"

Aha! I see. No your bon bon analogy is not needed at all. So the idea was mine after all. I did not look closely enough at your wording! I don’t need no w = 0 layer at the surface of the w = -1 glob. I don’t need no damn bon bons! Who ordered that? Not me. Take it back, it ain’t kosher. There is a fly in that soup. The proper distinction is interior w = -1 mimics w = 0 when observed at a distance with light signals or gravity waves or neutrinos or anything since gravity is universal.

On Feb 14, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

"Jack,
you say:

'... dark energy and dark matter ... are both virtual
exotic vacuum states of w = -1
residual zero point energy density
of negative and positive quantum pressure respectively ...'.

That statement is oversimplistic, at least,
and wrong if taken literally.

We had an extensive e-mail discussion about that point
some time ago.

One of the distinguishing points between DE and DM in
astrophysical observations is that
for DE, w = -1
and
for DM, w = 0."

Yes, exactly, but perhaps I have given you credit for what I thought was your idea?
That idea is quite obvious physically. Imagine for example a huge sphere, i.e. the galactic halo
of attractive exotic vacuum whose interior has w = -1 with positive pressure. To the distant
outside observer it is indistinguishable from w = 0 CDM holding the galaxies in check.
I thought you had that idea? Please clarify for the record in my book since I don't want to
give you credit for a really good idea if I invented it and not you? :-)
The e-mail exchange was so fast that I was not sure who got the idea? It's like an entangled
state where the separate materia ITl particles do not have separate thought BIT pilot waves.
Of course, we also need signal nonlocality beyond micro-quantum theory.

"If w = -1 for both of them, the evolution curves for
our universe would NOT be consistent with observation,
as shown in Tegmark's paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0207199
and in particular a figure therein, attached to this message,
that clearly shows that all matter, ordinary or dark,
should obey the w = 0 equation of state in order to be
consistent with observation."

This not a relevant argument as I showed above. Of course a sphere of w = -1 in the interior looks like w = 0 CDM for the exterior observer in terms of its gravity effect on orbiting masses like galaxies. The math is very simple.

Suppose, in a toy model, the galactic halo is a uniform sphere of radius R with a constant /\zpf < 0 ~ zero point energy density of positive quantum pressure with interior w = -1. The effective w = 0 CDM equivalent mass seen by the distant observer using light signals is obviously

M(CDM w = 0) ~ c^2/\zpfR^3/G

"As I recall, our discussion got around this difficulty
in your model by making dark matter things to be like bon-bons,
with a w = -1 interior and a surface coating of w = 0 stuff,
so that your dark matter could act cosmologically like w = 0."

Yes, exactly what I just said. Was that not your idea originally or was it mine?

"Therefore,
it seems to me to be misleading for you to say that DM has w = -1
unless you go on to qualify the statement by saying that your
DM lives as bon-bon bits with outer coatings of w = 0 stuff"

Well, obviously that's what I mean. Let's not get too nit-picky legalistic here.
Your legal training is showing. :-)

"since
your bon-bon structure of DM will be needed to be taken into
account when you do DE/DM engineering."


Right, so tell me. Who got the idea first? Or was it truly collective which is the way I
am telling it in Super Cosmos. Please clarify what your memory is. We can always
go back to the e-mails I suppose. Let some graduate student do it 50 years from now. :-)

On Feb 14, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

"Jack,
you mention

'The whole idea of metric engineering is that as
Men Who Would Be Gods we can engineer any damn Universe we like ...'

and you have referred to Tegmark's Parallel Universes and
to Susskind's Landscapes."

Correct.

"To the extent that you mean that particle mass ratios and
force constant ratios can vary (other than by renormalization
with energy level), I disagree because I can calculate
such particle masses and force constants, and so far my
model is in reasonably good agreement with experimental observation."

You may be correct and I and the others may be wrong. We cannot decide that yet.
I do not understand what your input assumptions are and how you make those
calculations. Until you can communicate more clearly and effectively on what
the key ideas are there the issue is moot. I think Paul Steinhardt at Princeton
agrees at least with your philosophy on this.

As far as I can see, the 17 or is it 23 epicycle fudge factors in the standard particle
gauge force model are contingent. Until you can give me some compelling
heuristic "organizing idea" such as I have in my model,

i.e. vacuum coherence quenches the random zero point micro-quantum vacuum fluctuations etc.

Until you have a grand notion like that, easily expressed in ordinary language, like Einstein's
equivalence principle, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, like the principle of relativity,
like "More is different", like "The Question is: What is The Question?" like "Law without law",
"Mass without mass", "Charge without charge", "Spin without spin", "Universe as a self-excited circuit"
etc. until you have some compelling images like that which express a significant homomorphic compressed
faithful image of the original more detailed idea, like a jpeg of a tiff , until you have that + a toy model
back of the envelope calculation of a mass and a coupling, no one will be able to tell if you have the right stuff or not. Problem is every one is too busy with their own ideas and cannot take off a couple of years to read all the papers you have read.

"Although there have been some recent papers that advocate
a variable fine structure constant, a recent PRL paper
by Ashenfelter, Mathews, and Olive, at
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/e041102
says

'... We show that the synthesis of 25,26Mg at the base
of the convective envelope in low-metallicity asymptotic
giant branch stars can produce the isotopic ratios
needed to explain the low-z subset (with z<1.8) of the many-multiplet data
from quasar absorption systems without
invoking a time variation of the fine structure constant. ...' "

Fine, but that is not the idea. It's not that alpha is or is not constant in cosmic time, it's that alpha may be different in different universes next door. That's what the Susskind Landscape Idea is in sense of WAP and parallel Hubble sphere universes on a single post-inflation bubble in a cosmic champagne bubbly in hyperspace. No wonder Rashi de Troyes made Champagne 1000 years ago in the South of France Cathar Country of the Priory of Sion and the Grail Da Vinci Code. How fitting! :-)

"In other words, as far as experimental results go,
the fine structure constant is still OK to be constant,
which is in agreement with my model in which it is calculated."

You are using the ergodic theorem here unconsciously. The Landscape idea is that there is an ensemble of parallel universes with all the fudge factors randomly distributed and what we measure is because we are here to measure it in the sense of Darwinian natural selection as explained for example by Lee Smolin.

Now this is a clash of world pictures of monumental proportions I agree. But first we must never forget

"The Question is: What is The Question."

Wheeler must have gotten that idea from watching Abbott and Costello do the shtick

"Who's on first." :-)

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml

"Of course, since the Landscapes etc of Lenny and Max ..."

Maybe we should call it "Maxism"? :-)

Lenin and Marx? I'll be Trotsky? :-)

"do not make any predictions, other than to say anthropomorhically that whatever we observe we observe because we are here, which to me seems like meaningless sophistry, they are not falsifiable"

Not true. It is falsifiable I think. But that is a major discussion.

"and
you and they are as entitled to believe and publish about that,
just as creationists are entitled to believe and publish that
the universe was created by G-d in 4004 BC,
with fossils etc all being put in place then."

Definitely my variation on the Lenny-Maxist Doctrine is Popper-falsifiable in many ways.
Seriously I do not think your argument here is correct. A whole book will need to be written why.

On Feb 14, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

"Jack, you say, about the WMAP ratios,
that I need to say why I "... think they are static ...".

I do NOT think that they are static, and my paper at
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/WMAPpaper.pdf
clearly says that."

Yes, but the problem here is that I am not able to follow the argument of your paper here.
Do you know anyone who can and can help you explain it better?

"The whole point of the paper is that
there is a ratio 67% : 27%: 6% for 2 billion years ago
when the expansion curve of our universe
last intersected with a linear expansion line,
and that ratio has evolved to the present day."

Explain how you get this set of numbers and the other?
It's all a dense fog to me.

"My calculated WMAP ratio of 75.3% : 20.2% : 4.5%
comes from evolution of the 2 billion year ago ratio
through the past 2 billion years.

The WMAP ratio is NOT static. It evolves,
and that one of the things that my paper is about."

Glad to hear that, but you need to explain how exactly that comes about in
a clearer way.

On Feb 14, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack,
you say
"... dark energy and dark matter ... are both virtual
exotic vacuum states of w = -1
residual zero point energy density
of negative and positive quantum pressure respectively ...".

That statement is oversimplistic, at least,
and wrong if taken literally.

We had an extensive e-mail discussion about that point
some time ago.

One of the distinguishing points between DE and DM in
astrophysical observations is that
for DE, w = -1
and
for DM, w = 0.

Yes, exactly, but perhaps I have given you credit for what I thought was your idea?
That idea is quite obvious physically. Imagine for example a huge sphere, i.e. the galactic halo
of attractive exotic vacuum whose interior has w = -1 with positive pressure. To the distant
outside observer it is indistinguishable from w = 0 CDM holding the galaxies in check.
I thought you had that idea? Please clarify for the record in my book since I don't want to
give you credit for a really good idea if I invented it and not you? :-)
The e-mail exchange was so fast that I was not sure who got the idea? It's like an entangled
state where the separate materia ITl particles do not have separate thought BIT pilot waves.
Of course, we also need signal nonlocality beyond micro-quantum theory.

If w = -1 for both of them, the evolution curves for
our universe would NOT be consistent with observation,
as shown in Tegmark's paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/arXiv:astro-ph/0207199
and in particular a figure therein, attached to this message,
that clearly shows that all matter, ordinary or dark,
should obey the w = 0 equation of state in order to be
consistent with observation.

This not a relevant argument as I showed above. Of course a sphere of w = -1 in the interior looks like w = 0 CDM for the exterior observer in terms of its gravity effect on orbiting masses like galaxies. The math is very simple.

Suppose, in a toy model, the galactic halo is a uniform sphere of radius R with a constant /\zpf < 0 ~ zero point energy density of positive quantum pressure with interior w = -1. The effective w = 0 CDM equivalent mass seen by the distant observer using light signals is obviously

M(CDM w = 0) ~ c^2/\zpfR^3/G

As I recall, our discussion got around this difficulty
in your model by making dark matter things to be like bon-bons,
with a w = -1 interior and a surface coating of w = 0 stuff,
so that your dark matter could act cosmologically like w = 0.

Yes, exactly what I just said. Was that not your idea originally or was it mine?

Therefore,
it seems to me to be misleading for you to say that DM has w = -1
unless you go on to qualify the statement by saying that your
DM lives as bon-bon bits with outer coatings of w = 0 stuff,

Well, obviously that's what I mean. Let's not get too nit-picky legalistic here.
Your legal training is showing. :-)

since
your bon-bon structure of DM will be needed to be taken into
account when you do DE/DM engineering.

Tony

Right, so tell me. Who got the idea first? Or was it truly collective which is the way I
am telling it in Super Cosmos. Please clarify what your memory is. We can always
go back to the e-mails I suppose. Let some graduate student do it 50 years from now. :-)

On Feb 14, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack,
you mention

"The whole idea of metric engineering is that as
Men Who Would Be Gods we can engineer any damn Universe we like ..."

and you have referred to Tegmark's Parallel Universes and
to Susskind's Landscapes.

Correct.

To the extent that you mean that particle mass ratios and
force constant ratios can vary (other than by renormalization
with energy level), I disagree because I can calculate
such particle masses and force constants, and so far my
model is in reasonably good agreement with experimental observation.

You may be correct and I and the others may be wrong. We cannot decide that yet.
I do not understand what your input assumptions are and how you make those
calculations. Until you can communicate more clearly and effectively on what
the key ideas are there the issue is moot. I think Paul Steinhardt at Princeton
agrees at least with your philosophy on this.

As far as I can see, the 17 or is it 23 epicycle fudge factors in the standard particle
gauge force model are contingent. Until you can give me some compelling
heuristic "organizing idea" such as I have in my model,

i.e. vacuum coherence quenches the random zero point micro-quantum vacuum fluctuations etc.

Until you have a grand notion like that, easily expressed in ordinary language, like Einstein's
equivalence principle, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, like the principle of relativity,
like "More is different", like "The Question is: What is The Question?" like "Law without law",
"Mass without mass", "Charge without charge", "Spin without spin", "Universe as a self-excited circuit"
etc. until you have some compelling images like that which express a significant homomorphic compressed
faithful image of the original more detailed idea, like a jpeg of a tiff , until you have that + a toy model
back of the envelope calculation of a mass and a coupling, no one will be able to tell if you have the right stuff or not.
Problem is every one is too busy with their own ideas and cannot take off a couple of years to read all the papers
you have read.


Although there have been some recent papers that advocate
a variable fine structure constant, a recent PRL paper
by Ashenfelter, Mathews, and Olive, at
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v92/e041102
says

"... We show that the synthesis of 25,26Mg at the base
of the convective envelope in low-metallicity asymptotic
giant branch stars can produce the isotopic ratios
needed to explain
the low-z subset (with z<1.8) of the many-multiplet data
from quasar absorption systems
without
invoking a time variation of the fine structure constant. ...".

Fine, but that is not the idea. It's not that alpha is or is not constant in cosmic time, it's that alpha may be different in different universes next door.
That's what the Landscape Idea is in sense of WAP and parallel Hubble sphere universes on a single post-inflation bubble in a cosmic champagne bubbly in hyperspace. No wonder Rashi de Troyes made Champagne 1000 years ago in the South of France Cathar Country of the Priory of Sion and the Grail Da Vinci Code. How fitting! :-)



In other words, as far as experimental results go,
the fine structure constant is still OK to be constant,
which is in agreement with my model in which it is calculated.

You are using the ergodic theorem here unconsciously. The Landscape idea is that there is an ensemble of parallel universes with all the fudge factors randomly distributed and what we measure is because we are here to measure it in the sense of Darwinian natural selection as explained for example by Lee Smolin.

Now this is a clash of world pictures of monumental proportions I agree. But first we must never forget

"The Question is: What is The Question."

Wheeler must have gotten that idea from watching Abbott and Costello do the shtick

"Who's on first." :-)

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml

Of course,
since the Landscapes etc of Lenny and Max

Maybe we should call it "Maxism"? :-)

Lenin and Marx? I'll be Trotsky? :-)


do not make
any predictions, other than to say anthropomorhically that
whatever we observe we observe because we are here,
which to me seems like meaningless sophistry,
they are not falsifiable

Not true. It is falsifiable I think. But that is a major discussion.

and
you and they are as entitled to believe and publish about that,
just as creationists are entitled to believe and publish that
the universe was created by G-d in 4004 BC,
with fossils etc all being put in place then.

Definitely my variation on the Lenny-Maxist Doctrine is Popper-falsifiable in many ways.
Seriously I do not think your argument here is correct. A whole book will need to be written why.

On Feb 14, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you say, about the WMAP ratios,
that I need to say why I "... think they are static ...".

I do NOT think that they are static, and my paper at
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/WMAPpaper.pdf
clearly says that.

Yes, but the problem here is that I am not able to follow the argument of you paper here.
Do you know anyone who can and can help you explain it better?

The whole point of the paper is that
there is a ratio 67% : 27%: 6% for 2 billion years ago
when the expansion curve of our universe
last intersected with a linear expansion line,
and that ratio has evolved to the present day.

Explain how you get this set of numbers and the other?
It's all a dense fog to me.

My calculated WMAP ratio of 75.3% : 20.2% : 4.5%
comes from evolution of the 2 billion year ago ratio
through the past 2 billion years.

The WMAP ratio is NOT static. It evolves,
and that one of the things that my paper is about.

Glad to hear that, but you need to explain how exactly that comes about in
a clearer way.