On Fashion, Faith and Fantasy (Roger Penrose)
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: Cristian Tota: "Re: Surface Parametrization"
- Previous message: David Halitsky: ""All or None" DAGs and DAGs whose TranClos's are dim2 posets"
- Next in thread: Enory Nolan: "Re: On Fashion, Faith and Fantasy (Roger Penrose)"
- Reply: Enory Nolan: "Re: On Fashion, Faith and Fantasy (Roger Penrose)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 15:09:32 GMT
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=
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 r0
determines the spatial curvature of the universe; for a flat universe, it
must be equal to the critical energy density. In cosmology talk, W0 = 1,
where W0 is the ratio of the mean energy density in any and all forms to the
critical energy density. In 1980, astronomers' measurements of W0 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 W0 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, WM = 1/3.
Several of us sheepishly made a suggestion1 to save inflation: Add a
cosmological constant, L, for the missing two-thirds of the critical
density, WL = 2/3. Thus W0 = WM + WL = 1. The inflationary prediction is a
flat universe, not necessarily WM = 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 L 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: LCDM (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 r + 3p acting as the
source of gravity. Something that is very elastic (that is, negative
pressure p < -r / 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. To see this,
compute the pdV work done by an expanding piston that encloses quantum
vacuum; you will find that pvac = - rvac where rvac is the quantum vacuum's
energy density (see the figure). Thus, quantum vacuum energy is very
repulsive because r + 3p = -2 rvac. 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 L. 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, WL = 1055. 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/r. 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: r µ
1/R3(1+w), where R is the cosmic scale factor. Negative pressure (w < 0)
leads to an energy density that decreases more slowly than matter ( rM µ
1/R3). 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
To: vlad_zpe <vlad@zpenergy.com>, Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
<Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
CC: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
<SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, ItalianPhysicsCenter
<ItalianPhysicsCenter@YahooGroups.com>
Subject: [Starfleet Command] Fwd: Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb
more powerful than thermonuke!
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:36:15 -0700
Begin forwarded message:
From: Doc Savage <adastra1@mac.com>
Date: September 1, 2004 9:08:58 AM PDT
To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)
Subject: Re: Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb more powerful than
thermonuke!
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
- Next message: Cristian Tota: "Re: Surface Parametrization"
- Previous message: David Halitsky: ""All or None" DAGs and DAGs whose TranClos's are dim2 posets"
- Next in thread: Enory Nolan: "Re: On Fashion, Faith and Fantasy (Roger Penrose)"
- Reply: Enory Nolan: "Re: On Fashion, Faith and Fantasy (Roger Penrose)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
