| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Military Forum » Warps, Wormholes & WMD
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jack Sarfatti |
 Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 1:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Update with math typo correction:
On Hal Puthoff and Jack Sarfatti Debate on Dark Energy and Casimir Zero
Point Energy Force
On Sep 3, 2004, at 9:31 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Metric Engineering the Fabric of Space-Time for Warps,
Wormholes and WMD Warning.
On Sept 3, 2004 Hal Puthoff wrote
[Hal previous] "When I point out that Casimir, Milonni, I, et al. use
the quantum vacuum fluctuation Casimir-type model to advantage (and,
BTW, get the right answer for Casimir attraction between parallel
plates!) you point out that it is a false model in a flat space that
does not take into account the recent GR cosmology concepts and
therefore is flawed ("Casimir's greatest blunder," you call it!)."
[Jack previous] What you say here is false. You have done a "bait and
switch". Casimir does not use your Model II to get the parallel plates
result!
[Hal] "No bait and switch. I'm talking about Casimir Model I for
parallel plates. Reread above."
[Jack] I have adequately answered this below. The ordinary Casimir Force
Model I as WEAK Van Der Waals force between UNCHARGED finite edge
parallel plates works fine because there is no dark energy, i.e. /\zpf ~
0 everywhere in that problem. Your parallel plate objection is a Red
Herring. It is completely different from the Ken Shoulders Ne CHARGED
closed thin electron shell "dark energy bottle" EVO of radius a ~
N^1/2(h/mc). You have objected to my bushel of apples with your bushel
of oranges. The two phenomena are qualitatively inequivalent.
TYPO-CORRECTED 2nd DRAFT
On Sep 3, 2004, at 8:58 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hal Puthoff wrote on Sept 2, 2004:
"Jack,
In several of your recent postings you say that the flat-space, quantum
physics Casimir model that we quantum physicists use (that does not take
into account w = -1 implications of dark energy on the microscopic
scale) has been overtaken by the discovery of dark energy."
[Jack] Exactly. I am saying that Einstein's local field equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
definitely applies down at scale h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm. Of course the FRW
cosmological metric solution does not apply there. That is a different
story. In other words the effects of the equivalence principle and
general coordinate covariance GCT play an essential role in this problem
of zero point energy. In particular, /\zpf ~ 0 in the non-exotic
ordinary vacuum where we live. This is because almost all of the random
micro-quantum vacuum fluctuation zero point energy density is absorbed
into the vacuum coherence field.
Note that the zero point energy density (from all sources) is
too(zpf) = (c^4/8piG*)/\zpfgoo
Where guv is the curved spacetime metric tensor
guv(curved) = nuv(globally flat) + (1/2)d[u,v]
du = (short wave cutoff)^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u
The POST-INFLATIONARY elastic strain tensor (1/2)d[u,v] has all the
gravity curvature information. This is not a small perturbation. It is a
large non-perturbative term similar to the nonanalytic energy gap in the
BCS superconductor theory. The resulting guv curved space-time local
field is DYNAMICAL, i.e. "background independent" the way the loop "spin
foam" guys like John Baez and Ashktekar mean it. That is, the guv field
has same status as the EM Fuv field and objective local events at P are
relations between the guv and Fuv local fields and are not the formal
points in a manifold that have no direct physical meaning, i.e. active
Diff(4) symmetry as explained by Rovelli in his new book on Quantum
Gravity. You can then do perturbation theory adding a spin 2 tensor
"graviton" quantum field in the smooth curved DYNAMICAL guv metric.
There is no "quantum foam" in this theory. When the vacuum coherence ->
0 you simply get back globally flat space-time, i.e. the
PRE-INFLATIONARY FALSE VACUUM. You do not directly quantize guv! Doing
so is non-renormalizable for a very good reason. The pre-inflationary
globally flat sub-stratum is renormalizable of course. There is a good
reason why John Baez is not able to derive
Guv = 0
from Penrose combinatoric spin foams and will not be able to do so ever.
The GCT group derives from the U(1) local gauge transformations on the
Vacuum Coherence phase.
That is, the curvature of 4D space-time is the non-Abelian local
compensating gauge force field from breaking the symmetry of the
4-parameter translation group infinitesimally generated by total
Energy-Momentum 4-vector. The compensating field du elastic world
distortion field restores the broken translational symmetry. As Kibble
showed 40 years ago you really need to locally gauge the entire 10
parameter Poincare group. The spin connection from the 6-parameter
Lorentz group also plays a significant role and there is a torsion field
in the completely self-consistent theory, although it usually plays no
role in the vacuum problem only coupling to the spins of on-mass-shell
particles in the Tuv source term. However, this assumption may not be
correct - a matter for future research.
Where
/\zpf = (short wave cutoff)^-2[(short wave cutoff)^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2
- 1]
G* may be larger than Newton's G at these small scales, i.e. it is a
running coupling constant of an emergent effective field theory, which
in this case is a local smooth c-number field from the ODLRO in the
physical vacuum.
The ODLRO Vacuum Coherence Local Field characterizes the
pre-inflationary to post-inflationary false to true vacuum phase
transition and it explains why the Arrow of Time points in the direction
of the expanding universe.
Globally flat quantum field theory is intrinsically an unstable theory
because global special relativity does not permit the emergence of gravity.
[Hal] "Indeed, you use this claim to (a) criticize the Casimir model and
(b) come up with a "dark energy" model for Shoulders' charge cluster
phenomenon ("dark energy in a bottle," you call it).
[Jack} Correct. There are two very serious errors in the Casimir Type II
model you use. Casimir simply did not know the correct physics, neither
did Milonni. No one knew at the time they published their stuff. This
only became clear post-1999 - actually 2002.
The serious errors are, as Mike Turner and everyone else working in dark
energy at GR 17 will tell you
1. w = (pressure)/(energy density) = -1 for ALL ZPF not +1/3
2. You cannot have an exterior /\zpf = (mc/h)^-2 outside the EVO. The
universe could not exist if that were the case. This is a very
fundamental objection against the Casimir Type II Model!
[Hal] "When I point out that Casimir, Milonni, I, et al. use the quantum
vacuum fluctuation Casimir-type model to advantage (and, BTW, get the
right answer for Casimir attraction between parallel plates!) you point
out that it is a false model in a flat space that does not take into
account the recent GR cosmology concepts and therefore is flawed
("Casimir's greatest blunder," you call it!)."
[Hal] What you say here is false. You have done a "bait and switch".
Casimir does not use your Model II to get the parallel plates result!
That is, Casimir does not assume /\zpf ~ (mc/h)^-2 outside the plates
with /\zpf ~ 0 inside the plates!
In fact what we have in the parallel plates is that /\zpf ~ 0 both
inside and outside the plates so that you can use the ordinary QED
boundary effect to a good approximation in that case. The EVO is a
completely different phenomenon and you cannot work by analogy. The open
finite edges of the plates ensure /\zpf ~ 0 everywhere!
"0" here means ~ 10^-56 cm^-2.
So, you have misrepresented what I say for the open finite parallel
plates. I say, since /\zpf ~ 0 both inside and outside the plates, you
can use Casimir's Type I QED model for that problem. You blurred the
distinction between Type I and Type II in your remark above.
[Hal] Specifically, you argue that the ZPE radiation pressure modeling
that uses w = 1/3 vacuum radiation pressure forces (as in the 1988 Phys.
Rev A paper by Milonni et al., "Radiation pressure from the vacuum:
Physical interpretation of the Casimir force") must be set aside in
favor of the use of the w = -1 repulsion vacuum forces.
[Jack] Yes, I certainly say that! Milonni has made a serious error in
fundamental physics. His paper is wrong period. w = +1/3 only works for
REAL PHOTONS on the classical light cone.
[Hal] Here is my challenge to your line of logic. Forget the Shoulders'
model for the moment, and simply show how your line of logic involving
the w = -1 repulsion vacuum force leads to the known attractive Casimir
force between parallel plates, which has been precisely measured and
accounted for on the basis of the quantum physicists' use of the w = 1/3
vacuum forces. It would seem that you insist that instead the w = -1
repulsive force is the important force on this level, previously
neglected, so please show how to derive the attractive Casimir force by
your counter-claim with its opposite-sign vacuum force.
[Jack] Trivial. I already showed you above. The parallel plates
phenomenon happens in ORDINARY non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf ~ 0 so you
can use the Type I Casimir QED model! The ordinary open finite parallel
plates experiment does not have any dark energy exotic vacuum effect at
all because the vacuum coherence has adjusted to keep /\zpf ~ 0 every
where in the relevant regions. That is the total ZPF pressure and energy
density is zero in the ordinary non-exotic vacuum! Notice that the
virtual photon ZPF pressure and energy density is not the total. All
quantum fields contribute to /\zpf not only the virtual photons.
*Note also that the induced gravity larger (i.e. more negative) virtual
photon "negative pressure" outside the plates will repel more strongly
than the weaker negative pressure between the plates. Therefore, this
will also give a net attractive force between the plates. However, I am
not suggesting that this attraction is identical to the QED Casimir Van
Der Waals force between the UNCHARGED PLATES (qualitatively different
from the CHARGED EVOs).
* However, the plates SLIGHTLY perturb this. So, in the open plates case
you will have a slightly higher virtual photon energy density outside
the plates than you have inside because there are the additional
long-wave modes. Therefore you have more negative virtual photon
pressure outside the UNCHARGED plates than inside the plates. However,
the positive virtual electron-positron pressure will compensate the
virtual photon negative pressure to keep /\zpf ~ 0 everywhere and the
resulting attractive Casimir force between the plates is simply the VERY
WEAK induced Van Der Waals force as shown by Ian Peterson and others.
There is no /\zpf exotic vacuum effect in this case at all! You have
compared apples to oranges. You have confused two incompatible "total
experimental arrangements" in Niels Bohr's sense. There is no good
analogy between the EVO phenomenon with a CHARGED N-electron "shell"
"dark energy bottle" and the tiny attractive force between two finite
UNCHARGED very clean flat plates.
[Hal] "In summary, we see how Casimir's positive-radiation-pressure
"blunder" model leads to agreement with experiment; we don't see how
your opposite-sign dark-energy w = -1 repulsion force model would lead
to the observed attraction. Please show this. If you can show this for
the standard parallel plate Casimir Effect, then consideration of its
use for more exotic geometries (e.g., Shoulders' charge cluster
phenomenon) would be warranted. If not ....."
[Jack] I have answered your misplaced objection.
Collegially,
On Sep 2, 2004, at 8:08 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
As reading Mike Turner's article below shows, zero point energy density
and its equal and opposite pressure, together directly warp space-time.
This is different from QED based on globally flat spacetime without any
gravity at all in which to a rough approximation you can ignore energy
scales and simply subtract off the virtual photon zero point energy
density with "normal ordering" of the photon creation and destruction
non-Hermitian operators. See Milonni's book "The Quantum Vacuum" for
these details, which ignore gravity effects.
Hal needs vanishing zero point energy density inside the EVO shell with
an enormous zero point energy density outside the shell. This
immediately falsifies his model, apart from the other issue that he
needs a positive external pressure to hold in the Coulomb repulsion of
the N electrons making the EVO thin shell. Casimir was not aware of the
general relativity constraints on the problem. Casimir's Type II model
would require that we live in an exotic vacuum where /\zpf ~ (mc/h)^2 ~
10^22 cm^-2. In fact the vacuum we live in has /\zpf ~ 10^-56 cm^-2.
Indeed the Casimir-Puthoff external /\zpf would not permit our universe
to exist! It would warp space-time too much! In fact the EVO needs a
negative pressure inside its shell with /\zpf ~ 10^-56 cm^-2 outside it
where we exist. How come the non-exotic vacuum has such a small /\zpf?
Simple, the vacuum coherence ABSORBS the random ZPF into the VACUUM
CONDENSATE as a kind of zero entropy superfluid reservoir. The random
ZPF is analogous to the "normal fluid" excitations. This also solves
Penrose's problem in "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy" explaining why the
early SPATIALLY-FLAT (on large-scale only) inflationary universe has low
initial thermodynamic entropy setting the direction of the Arrow of Time
of irreversibility of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to point the same
way as the expansion of the universe.
On Sep 1, 2004, at 11:28 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, thanks Joel. Mike Turner's remark below, in his otherwise very
excellent Op/Ed, may well prove to be his "greatest blunder". :-)
On Sep 1, 2004, at 10:03 AM, Joel Isaacson wrote:
Public service: Mike Turner's Physics Today article on Dark Energy ===>>
[Note: the contrarian statement therein is: "Even though repulsive
gravity sounds like fun, dark energy--as far as we know--can't be
bottled up to create an object with antigravity." =jdi=
TYPO-CORRECTED! Also a new error by Turner detected below?
Dark Energy: Just What Theorists Ordered
Michael S. Turner
In the article on page 53, Saul Perlmutter describes how his team, and
one led by Brian Schmidt, used distant supernovae to discover that the
expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down. At puzzling
times like these, theorists are called upon to provide understanding
and, in the process, to convince their audience that they actually
anticipated the puzzling discovery (maybe even predicted it).
The discovery of cosmic speedup, perhaps one of the most important in
all of science over the past 25 years, saved a beautiful
theory--inflation--and presented theorists with a wonderful
puzzle--"dark energy," the stuff causing cosmic speedup. What more could
we ask for?
Since 1980, Alan Guth's cosmic inflation has been the driving idea in
cosmology. Central to inflation is a very early, tremendous burst of
expansion, powered by the potential energy associated with a
hypothetical scalar field called the inflaton. In a tiny fraction of a
second, a small bit of the universe is blown up to a size that
encompasses all that we can see today and much, much more. Any spatial
curvature becomes flattened, and quantum fluctuations in the inflaton
field are stretched from subatomic to astrophysical size. The decay of
the inflaton produces the heat of the Big Bang, and the quantum
fluctuations in it lead to the matter inhomogeneity that provides the
seeds for all the structure in the universe, from galaxies to clusters
of galaxies and beyond.
Inflation not only explains, it also predicts. Its predictions include:
a spatially flat universe, a pattern of anisotropy in the cosmic
microwave background (CMB) that arises from the quantum-produced density
perturbations, and a sea of gravitational waves. Inflation was the
inspiration for the very successful cold dark matter (CDM) scenario for
how structure formed. CDM theory is based on a flat universe, dark
matter made of slowly moving elementary particles, and density
perturbations arising from quantum fluctuations.
From the beginning, inflation's signature prediction--a flat
universe--was in trouble. According to Einstein's theory, the mean
energy density c^2rho0 determines the spatial curvature of the universe;
for a flat universe, it must be equal to the critical energy density. In
cosmology talk, Omega0 = 1, where Omega0 is the ratio of the mean energy
density in any and all forms to the critical energy density. In 1980,
astronomers' measurements of Omega0 indicated its value was something
around 0.1.
Inflationists (like me) pinned our hopes on growing evidence for
enormous amounts of dark matter that hold galaxies and clusters of
galaxies together. This dark matter is distributed more diffusely than
stars, making it harder to inventory. Estimates for Omega0 rose, and for
a while it appeared that enough dark matter would be found to meet the
inflationary prediction.
Cosmic troubles By 1990, the problems for a flat universe were piling
up. Estimates of the amount of dark matter were getting better and still
falling short, and observations of large-scale structure suggested a CDM
universe with a matter density that was one-third of the critical
density, that is, Omega(M) = 1/3. Several of us sheepishly made a
suggestion to save inflation: Add a cosmological constant, /\, for the
missing two-thirds of the critical density, Omega(/\) = 2/3. Thus Omega0
= Omega(M) + Omega(/\) = 1. The inflationary prediction is a flat
universe, not necessarily Omega(M) = 1.
To save a beautiful theory, theorists are willing to consider the
implausible, although not the impossible. With its checkered history in
cosmology, the cosmological constant was certainly implausible. Albert
Einstein used it to create a static model of the universe; Hermann
Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle used the cosmological constant to
address the fact that the time back to the Big Bang appeared to be less
than the age of Earth, and now it is invoked to save inflation.
By the mid-1990s, the observational evidence for the /\ version of CDM,
including the first hints from CMB anisotropy measurements that the
universe is flat, was becoming compelling, at least for theorists.1
However, there was a problem: /\CDM (CDM with a cosmological constant)
also predicts accelerated expansion, and the first supernova results did
not yet show acceleration.
With the discovery of cosmic speedup in 1998, everything quickly fell
into place: The universe is flat, with one-third in matter and
two-thirds in something like a cosmological constant. Overnight,
skeptical astronomers became believers in inflation. Strange as it was,
cosmic speedup was the
missing piece in the puzzle. It saved inflation, but be careful what you
wish for!
According to Isaac Newton, gravity is always attractive, because the
strength of an object's gravity depends only on its mass. Einstein's theory,
however, allows for repulsive gravity and cosmic speedup because the
strength of gravity also depends on pressure, p, with c^2rho + 3p acting
as the
source of gravity. Something that is very elastic (that is, negative
pressure p < -c^2rho/3) has gravity that repels, rather than attracts.
Something with pressure comparable to its energy density is exotic. Matter,
even at the center of a sun, has a pressure that is orders of magnitude
smaller than its energy density. The ratio of pressure to energy density is
characterized by the square of the internal velocity divided by c2. Thus
dark energy is intrinsically relativistic and is more like energy than
matter. Even though repulsive gravity sounds like fun, dark energy--as far
as we know--can't be bottled up to create an object with antigravity.
Quantum mechanics provides a candidate for something that is very elastic:
The virtual pairs that fill the vacuum have negative pressure.
I think Mike made an error here. The virtual pairs have positive
pressure. The virtual photons have negative pressure. See Milonni's
Quantum Vacuum book where boson statistics require positive ZPF energy
density c^2rho and Fermi statistics require negative ZPF energy density,
and both have w = -1. Of course a virtual pair condensate will be like a
boson superfluid.
To see this,
compute the pdV work done by an expanding piston that encloses quantum
vacuum; you will find that pvac = - c^2rhovac where rvac is the quantum
vacuum's
energy density (see the figure). Thus, quantum vacuum energy is very
repulsive because c^2rho + 3p = -2 rho(vac). Mathematically, quantum
vacuum energy is
equivalent to Einstein's infamous cosmological constant /\.
Although Einstein dismissed the cosmological constant as a personal blunder,
quantum mechanics makes it obligatory. Unfortunately, even the best quantum
"mechanics" have failed to produce a sensible prediction for /\. The sum of
zero-point energies diverges due to short-wavelength modes. Truncating at an
energy scale beyond which we can appeal to physics ignorance illustrates the
enormity of the problem: For a 100-GeV cutoff, Omega(/\) = 10^55. This
disparity is
the greatest embarrassment in all of theoretical physics.
Many particle theorists believe that a correct calculation of L will yield
precisely zero because of the utter implausibility of obtaining a number 55
or more orders of magnitude smaller than its "natural value." If quantum
nothingness weighs nothing, what, then, is causing the universe to
accelerate? Dark energy!
Mystery deepens
What do we know about dark energy and how can we learn more? It accounts for
about two-thirds of the critical energy density and is much more smoothly
distributed than matter. If it clumped, we would see its effects when
studying clusters and other gravitationally bound objects, and we do not.
Dark energy is characterized by an "equation of state," which is the ratio w
(pronounced "dubya") of its pressure to its energy density w = p/c^2rho.
Although
w need not be constant, for simplicity I will assume that for now.
If dark energy is vacuum energy, w = -1 (for comparison, for nonrelativistic
matter w = 0, and for radiation, w = 1/3.) The ratio w determines how the
energy density of dark energy changes as the universe expands: rho ~
(1/R^3)(1+w), where R is the cosmic scale factor. Negative pressure (w < 0)
leads to an energy density that decreases more slowly than matter (rho(M) ~
1/R^3). Because of this fact, dark energy was less important in the past and
will become more important in the future. Why dark energy is just becoming
important today begs for explanation. I call this the Nancy Kerrigan
problem--why me, why now?
That dark energy was unimportant in the past is good: This fact means the
repulsive gravity of dark energy doesn't interfere with the attractive
gravity of dark matter that drives the formation of cosmic structure. The
lesser importance of dark energy in the past is also the root of an
independent argument for cosmic acceleration. The "missing energy" needed in
addition to matter to account for the flat universe determined from CMB
measurements (see the story on page 21) must have been unimportant in the
past; otherwise its smooth distribution would have interfered with the
formation of structure. To make the missing energy unimportant in the past
requires that w < -1/2, which implies that it must have repulsive gravity.
Imaginative theorists have suggested an array of possibilities for dark
energy. Many involve the existence of a new, scalar field and the idea that
we are in a period of mild inflation while this field (called quintessence)
rolls toward its ground state. Because quintessence and inflation both
involve accelerated expansion and the underlying cause of each is poorly
understood, it has been speculated that they might be related. Thus far,
quintessence has raised new questions without shedding light on dark energy.
What we call dark energy could be the harbinger of exotic physics rather
than a new, etherlike substance. Cosmic acceleration could be signaling that
Einstein's theory requires modification, perhaps due to the influence of
unseen additional spatial dimensions. An interesting twist is that some
string theorists believe that cosmic speedup and string theory, which itself
predicts extra dimensions, are incompatible. This will come as a relief to
the less enthusiastic fans of string theory.
Destiny
One thing is clear: Dark energy leads to a revision in our view of cosmic
destiny. With matter alone, destiny and geometry are one: Closed universes
recollapse and open or flat universes expand forever. If dark energy is
vacuum energy, our flat universe will continue accelerating to a bleak
future--in 100 billion years all but a few hundred galaxies nearby will have
their light shifted too far into the red to be seen. If dark energy
eventually dissipates, the universe will begin to decelerate, possibly even
recollapse.
Because dark energy is so diffuse, cosmology offers the only known way of
getting at it, and w is the hook. The energy density of dark energy, which
depends on w, affects the expansion rate. Models for dark energy differ in
their predictions for w and thus in their predictions for the expansion
history of the universe. Distant supernovae, galaxy clusters, and
gravitational lensing can all be used to chart the past expansion rate and
determine w. And there is much interest in doing so: Two new centers--the
Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford
University and the NSF Center for Cosmological Physics at the University of
Chicago--list the study of dark energy as a primary science goal. The US
Department of Energy is planning a dedicated space telescope for supernovae,
the SuperNova/ Acceleration Probe (SNAP). NASA has targeted dark energy for
one of its new Einstein probes. NSF is considering an 8-m wide-field survey
telescope to study dark energy, the Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope
(LSST). Add in my nine-year-old son's theoretical work, and progress is
assured.
Dark energy is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in all of
science. It is likely that a crazy new idea is needed to explain cosmic
speedup and resolve the cosmological constant problem. (That does not mean
every crazy idea is a solution.) The payoff will be well worth the effort:
We will gain new insights into the nature of matter, space, and time, and
shed light on our cosmic destiny.
References
1. M. S. Turner, G. Steigman, L. Krauss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2090 (1984);
P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 52, 2090 (1984); L. Kofman, A. A.
Starobinskii, Sov. Astron. Lett. 11, 271 (1985); G. Efstathiou et al.,
Nature 348, 705 (1990); M. S. Turner, Phys. Scr. T36, 167 (1991).
2. L. Krauss, M. S. Turner, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 27, 1137 (1995); J.
Ostriker, P. Steinhardt, Nature 377, 600 (1996).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Turner is the Rauner Distinguished Service Professor at the
University of Chicago and a staff scientist at Fermilab.
From: Jack Sarfatti <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
Reply-To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb
more powerful than thermonuke?
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:36:15 -0700
Information on Ken Shoulders
1. Long-time associate of Hal Puthoff. Both worked in US Intelligence
Community for years.
2. Brilliant gadgeteer with small microwave devices holds several
important patents.
3. Ken's opinions are taken seriously in the USG Defense Intelligence
Community.
4. Pressure is mounting for Shoulders, Sarfatti and Puthoff to write a
joint paper together showing conflicting models of the phenomenon.
Puthoff uses a model of Casimir's "Type II" in which there is a positive
zero point energy pressure outside the thin shell of electrons and
vanishing zero point pressure inside it. Sarfatti says Casimir made an
error by assuming that the well known "dubya factor" (i.e. w =
(pressure)/(energy density)) is +1/3, which it is for real photons
propagating energy to infinity as electromagnetic radiation. Sarfatti
objects that w = -1 for the virtual photons of the zero point vacuum
fluctuations. That w = -1 for this case is well known to cosmologists
working on the "dark energy" (e.g. Mike Turner's Op/Ed in April 2003
Physics Today). "w = -1 follows from Einstein's equivalence principle
together with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Furthermore, boson
statistics require a positive virtual photon energy density, therefore an
equal and opposite negative virtual photon pressure. Virtual quanta are
directly observable in their warping of spacetime. You cannot subtract
them out. The pressure warps space-time three times more than the energy
density. The negative pressure makes repulsive anti-gravity that is the
'Right Stuff' for weightless warp drives, wide wormholes and,
unfortunately 'universe destroying' weird weapons." said Sarfatti.
Sarfatti cited Sir Martin Rees's book "Our Final Hour" on this subject.
Sarfatti's model is the mirror opposite of Puthoff's. "The zero point
pressure is negative inside the thin shell of typically a trillion to ten
thousand trillion electrons in the observed EVOs 10^-5 cm to 10^-5 meters
across and is zero outside. Negative zero point pressure makes the vacuum
like a spring and the electric repulsion does work against the vacuum to
create a metastable EVO. The electrons make a bottle or container for the
anti-gravity dark energy vacuum core of the EVO. Break the bottle to
release the Dark Energy Genie as 'Cold Fusion'. Mike Turner wrote that it
couldn't be done, apparently Ken Shoulders has done what was thought to
be an impossible dream." says Sarfatti.
For further reading see August 2004 Popular Mechanics p. 77
http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/2004/8/dangerous_science/
index5.phtml
The above article mentions the recent unsolved murder of Cold Fusion
advocate Gene Mallove.
And Moscow's PRAVDA
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379/12737_weapons.html
On Sep 1, 2004, at 7:53 AM, Victor Martinez wrote:
www.prweb.com/printer.php?prid=153747
WORLDWIDE MILTARY ORDNANCE EXCLUSIVE: DARK ENERGY BOMB MORE
POWERFUL THAN NUKES! –
"If done too fast with a large enough Exotic Vacuum Object this would be
a powerful bomb - more powerful than thermonuclear" – Dr. Jack
Sarfatti
(PRWEB) September 1, 2004 -- Experimentalist Ken Shoulders claims that
electrons are behaving in ways thought to be impossible. A new and
previously unknown force appears to be binding the electrons at short
range into clusters of electron charge. Shoulders calls these clusters
Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVO's.
Shoulders describes this as "a short-range force resembling a positive
charge negating the effect of repulsive electronic charge"
One of Ken Shoulder's latest papers suggests nefarious uses for charged
cluster technology based on EVO's:
"The author can easily imagine a scenario where instructions are
generated with enough clarity for about 1 person in 1,000 to perform the
necessary operations to refine and store a gallon jug of electrons in
the form of Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVO's) ... there is no doubt that
this jug would be light enough to carry and be highly sensitive to
destabilization of a catastrophic nature..."
Ken Shoulders has recently collaborated on several papers with
independent theoretical physicist Dr. Jack Sarfatti, in San Francisco.
Sarfatti suggests that his theory of exotic vacuum dark energy/dark
matter can explain Shoulders' experimental data.
Although Sarfatti hopes for carefully controlled release of energy from
the EVO's, both Sarfatti and Shoulders warn that rapid release of a
large EVO would be explosive, perhaps more powerful than a thermonuclear
device.
Contact Information:
Gary Bekkum
STARstream Research
952-909-3862
----------------------------------------
Disclaimer: If you have any questions regarding information in these
press releases please contact the company listed in the press release.
Please do not contact PR Web™. We will be unable to assist you with
your inquiry. PR Web™ disclaims any content contained in these
release. Our complete disclaimer appears here.
© Copyright 1997-2004, PR Web™. All Rights Reserved |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| boblpetersen |
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:27 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 55
|
Jack Sarfatti
Jack Sarfatti you must have looked up from fevered writings. Jack Sarfatti how did you find time with all the time you have spent on mathforum math-sci writing to even find your way over here. Do you Jack Sarfatti think someone will answer your posts here? I have been to San Francisco and there are no mohawks or hippies you most be a delightful change of pace there now. I SEE YOU HAVE NOW EVEN STARTED TO INCLUDE REAL TERMS FROM SCIENCE OF ALL PLACES.
ALL THAT I CAN GIVE YOU
Bob L. Petersen |
_________________
Bob L. Petersen |
|
| Back to top |
   
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:28 pm
|
|