/\zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) for electron stability

From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:20:04 GMT

On Jun 13, 2004, at 9:52 AM, main_engineering wrote:

So a static Electric field has negative pressure but real photons in
transverse EM waves have positive pressure? Interesting. Why is that?

No, that does not follow. Virtual photons of all three independent
polarizations do have positive energy density hence negative pressure
since w = -1 for them. Since the gravity influence of the pressure is
three times larger than that of the energy density, these virtual
photons do anti-gravitate.

The virtual photons in a static Coulomb electric field, or even in time
changing non radiating near induction fields like in electrical
equipment are in macro-quantum coherent states as shown, for example by
Roy Glauber at Harvard in the early 1960s. These virtual photons are NOT
part of the vacuum zero point fluctuations. They are part of the
ordinary stress-energy density tensor Tuv on the RHS of Einstein's field eq

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

i.e. macroscopic near EM fields only appear in the Tuv term, not in the
/\zpfguv term!

Since, G/c^4 = 10^-33 cm per 10^19Gev at least at macro lab scales, we
can IGNORE the direct effect of such classical EM near field on the
metric engineering i.e. shaping of Guv which comes ENTIRELY from the
/\zpfguv term. That's the key idea!

main_engineering

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:Sarfatti@PacBell.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 10:22 AM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] w

Typo correction

Real on mass shell photons (i.e. far field radiation) has w = +1/2 .
This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens"
prediction.

I meant to write w = +1/3 i.e. 1 + 3w = 2

Corrected 2nd draft - also expanded.

I get a 4th order polynomial equation

2c^2/\zpfr^4 - e^2r/m - 2J^2/m^2 = 0

In dimensionless form the EVO stability condition is:

2/\zpfr^2 - (e^2/mc^2)(1/r) - 2(J/mc)^2 (1/r)^2 = 0

2(Zero Point Exotic Vacuum Core Induced Curvature)r^2 - (Classical
Particle Electron Radius)/r - 2(Compton Quantum Wave Length)^2/r^2 = 0

However, physically the real on-mass-shell BARE electron sans its
ionized plasma cloud of virtual electron-positron pairs, virtual
photons, virtual W bosons etc has r = e^2/mc^2, therefore, our stability
polynomial is

2/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^2 - 1 - 2/(alpha)^2 = 0

Where alpha is the fine structure constant ~ 1/137

Therefore, the single electron is stabilized in this toy model when

/\zpf = (mc^2/e^2)^2(1 + (2/alpha)^2) ~ (274)^2(10^-13 cm)^-2

Homework problem - check my algebra for errors WYSIWYG - this is on the
fly computing this now for first time ever.

On Jun 12, 2004, at 7:03 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Below I correct some errors in my initial modeling in the current
version of my paper with Ken Shoulders on "charge clusters" as "Exotic
Vacuum" stabilized objects or "EVOs."
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

On Jun 12, 2004, at 2:10 PM, David Mathes wrote:

Somewhere beyond the frauds of antigravity and the voices of pure theory
may be an experimentalist who discovers, either through careful skill or by
unexpected result, an effect that will allow the theorist to gain a little
more ground. I see the theorists and the experimentalist as symbiotic in
further results, but neither has a monopoly on breakthroughs.

The good saucer observations, and there are good ones, show the fact of
antigravity machines, except they are not ours and our military is in a
state of denial, well not all of them, because the implications are
shattering. Second of all, antigravity dark energy on the cosmological
scale is now an indisputable fact as solidly anchored as many "facts" of
high energy physics in the standard model that no one would question.

Conspiracy folks invoke the energy companies and the governments as a
cover. Perhaps there is a fusion reactor operational somewhere that we are
not aware of. Perhaps the economy would be grossly disrupted if a really
cheap energy source were found. Perhaps the earth sucks and the sky is
falling as a result. Perhaps God is a theorist (see Genisis) and an
experimentalist (see evolution).

With the possible exception of Eugene Mallove's recent unsolved murder,
there is no real evidence for the paranoid conspiratorial view.

These are neither the times of Einstein nor Galileo.String theory may be
fine.

You are opening a can of worms there on the issue of Popper
falsifiability of string theory.

  But we are accumulating theories to the point where one physicist
finally added another mathematical dimension to show a group of them were
simply facets of a diamond of a much larger theory.
In spite of all the King's theorists and all the King's experimentalists,
we can't put together a unified theory. In fact, we seem to be hanging on
by a very thin string.

You are hanging by some very thin polemics in that one. ;-)

Over 100 years ago the ether was predicted by theory. Modern science
rejected that idea until QED came along with experimental verification.
Dark matter, dark energy and gravitational repulsion seem to have move the
theorists to begin thinking again and writing papers instead of history
books. I applaud Sarfatti for thinking through the theory side.

Do not put an "and" between "dark energy" and "gravitational repulsion".
The latter is a property of the former and is not separate from it.
Dark energy is zero point vacuum energy of negative quantum pressure.
Dark matter is zero point vacuum energy of positive quantum pressure.
The amount and sign of the zero point quantum pressure depends on the
vacuum coherence at a given place and time and scale relative to the
Hubble flow where we measure "time" by the absolute temperature of the
cosmic black body radiation. We measure velocity of the detector by the
Doppler asymmetry in this cosmic black body radiation.

Since dark matter is simply an exotic vacuum phase of positive pressure,
dark matter detectors will never, in principle "click" with The Right
Stuff only with false positives as recently shown. So far, so good.
Hunting for real on mass shell dark matter particles whizzing through
space is like hunting for the motion of the Earth through the aether
(subtracting motion relative to Hubble flow effects from general
relativity).

Einstein's general relativity (GR) in the simplest "Newtonian limit" says

Laplacian of gravity potential energy per unit test mass of any stuff ~
G(effective mass density of stuff)(1 + 3w)

Note that w = 0 in Newton's 17th century theory.

w = pressure/(energy density)

Einstein's principle of equivalence + covariance + Heisenberg
uncertainty imply w = -1 for all types of zero point vacuum fluctuations
ZPF. The proof is on p. 25-6 of John Pea***'s text "Cosmological Physics"

Phantom energy with a "Big Rip" destroying the Universe needs w < -1.

Quintessence needs -1 < w < -1/3

Real on mass shell photons (i.e. far field radiation) has w = +1/3 .
This gives the famous factor of 2 in Einstein's "gravity lens" prediction.

Consider a spatially extended model of an electron as a thin shell of
electric charge at radius r = e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi (10^-13 cm). Ignore
rotation (or spin) for now. Think classically, which is OK for the IT
"hidden variable" in Bohm's pilot BIT wave model of NRQM. Relativistic
Bohm QM requires teleology to explain EPR nonlocality in a covariant way
as the Feynman zig-zag of Costa de Beauregard and later John Cramer
taken from Wheeler and Feynman in its first historical incarnation of
classical electrodynamics - action at a distance along BOTH light cones
advanced from the future and retarded from the past.

The self-Coulomb repulsive barrier potential energy is

U(electric self-energy) ~ +e^2/r

Note the + sign. The gradient is -e^2/r^2, but the force is the
negative gradient, hence the force points radially outward.

The GR rule for the w = -1 ZPF quantum pressure, is to replace

G(effective mass density of stuff)(1 + 3w) by c^2/\zpf

Where [/\zpf] = (Area)^-1 = Lp*^-2[Lp*^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 -1]

guv(Einstein) =(1/2)( du,v + dv,u)

du = Lp*^2(arg Vacuum Coherence),u

,u = ordinary partial derivative that in general may be a spin 1 gauge
covariant partial derivative for any internal symmetry Lie group G.

Einstein's general coordinate transformations correspond to phase
transformations on arg Vacuum Coherence,

Note how "Area" is the key dimension consistent with Lenny Susskind's
World Hologram, which I derive in a fundamental way as simply Bohm's
guidance constraint for the "More is different" Sakharov-Anderson
emergence of smooth coherent macro-quantum gravity from the random
incoherent micro-quantum substratum in a false -> true vacuum phase
transition to a more coherent state of lower energy density and smaller
phase space volume.

Back to our thin spherical shell electron model. I neglect factors of pi
etc.

Assume a uniform zero point energy density ~ /\zpf "core" inside the
electron charge thin spherical shell.

The effective zero point induced self-gravity potential energy per unit
test mass is then

V(ZPF) ~ c^2/\zpfr^2

Note that potential energy per unit test mass has dimensions
(velocity)^2. The simple harmonic oscillator r^2 dependence is same as
drilling a hole through the center of the Earth and dropping a bowling
ball down through it. The electrical potential energy per unit test mass is

V(electric self-energy) = U(electric self-energy)/m ~ +e^2/mr

The total potential energy per unit test mass is then

V(total) = V(ZPF) + V(electric self-energy) = + c^2/\zpfr^2 + e^2/mr

Note that /\zpf can be zero, positive or negative.

Here, of course, the test mass = source mass, i.e. self-energy.

Suppose the electron is rotating with angular momentum J, the
centrifugal potential energy per unit test mass in the rotating frame is
then

V(rotation) ~ J^2/m^2r^2

Therefore

V(total) = + c^2/\zpfr^2 + e^2/mr + J^2/m^2r^2

A necessary condition for stability is that the total force per unit
test mass vanish!

i.e. critical point

dV(total)/dr = 0

2c^2/\zpfr - e^2/mr^2 - 2J^2/m^2r^3 = 0

Notice that /\zpf > 0 is required in this particular model! This means a
dark energy core not a dark matter core! This counter-intuitive result
is because we assume a uniform volume core of zero point energy density
and a thin shell of charge at the periphery. Also we made an
approximation in the V(rotation) term. The sign of /\zpf is highly
model-dependent.

If V(total) is plotted we can see that there is a minimum "well of
stability" only when all the potential energy terms are positive because
the positive electric and centrifugal energies decrease as r increases,
whilst the zero point energy induced strong gravity energy increases as
r increases from the assumption of its uniform distribution in space.

And yet, I keep out a watchful eye for the experimentalist who somehow
orients a force in one direction, amplifies a minor force or dampens
gravity. Li, formerly of NASA, may have one solution. Then again, Brown et
al have another intriguing solution.

If you mean Townsend Brown, a definite NO. Marc Millis is right to
reject it. You do not understand Alcubierre's paper for the minimal
requirements for a warp drive. It must have zero g-force and negligible
time dilation. All metric engineered devices must conform to those two
basic criteria - unless you want time travel. Hal Puthoff has never in
all his papers given a clear and relatively complete definition of
"metric engineering." Neither have any of the Pundits at NASA BPP,
STAIF, or Greenglow for that matter. As for Ning Li, I do not know.
Curiously Marc Millis makes no explicit mention of Ning Li in the main
text of the 2004 NASA BPP paper? Is that true? Perhaps I mis-remember?

These may be different effects given that as we approach molecular
dimensions we already know that effects like Van der Waals forces increase
dramatically. In fact, 1/(r^n) for r=2 to 10 are commonly taken into
account in graduate chemistry courses on biochemistry and physical
chemistry. At the subatomic level there may be nucleonics forces or
effects that can be manipulated to allow us to create large fields.

Nonsense, you are way off the mark about to smash into a huge iceberg of
Titanic proportions. Metric engineering is strictly "virtual" without
"forces" in the above sense. The idea of metric engineering is for the
ship's crew http://stardrive.org/cartoon/USSKron.html to control their
own timelike free float geodesic with small tidal stretch-squeeze
distortions and using SMALL amounts of onboard power!

Yet, we keep coming back to the ether. Field theory is still not
understood. Perhaps some individual in a garage lab with the skills to
match their belief in Tesla,

Forget Tesla. Fool's Gold.

Brown

Forget Brown. Fool's Gold.

All that glitters is not Gold.

Forget "believing." Only amateurs "believe." If you are stuck in belief
you are out of The Game. Not even a contender.

and Sarfatti will discover a EM method
to control gravity by shielding (passive) or opposing (active) that
neutralizes gravity or even more narrowly inertia.

NO! You completely profoundly misunderstand everything I have been saying!
You are getting this "shielding of inertia" nonsense from Marc Millis of
NASA BPP, from Nick Cook, who all get it from Hal Puthoff & Co, which
shows a complete forgetting of Einstein's principle of equivalence. The
inertia of the flying saucer ship and crew DO NOT MATTER! They cancel
completely out of the problem! You do not understand what Paul Hill is
saying about the "acceleration field" in his excellent empirical text
book "Unconventional Flying Objects, " which is required reading at Star
Fleet Academy in San Francisco's Presidio BTW.

Physics 101

W = mg

W = weight

m = inertia

g = g-force

In warp drive

W = 0

because g = 0 on the self-controlled time-like geodesic!

You do not want to change m even if you could!

If you change m you destroy the ship and maybe a large part of the solar
system in a WMD!

Do not try to fiddle with m, i.e. do not change e/m ratios for
individual electrons and nucleons, or h/mc ratios!

This is dangerous folly as a reading of Barrow and Tipler's "The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle" shows.

Now in fact

m ~ Vacuum Coherence

So one must be very careful in my scheme as well not to change Vacuum
Coherence on scales that determine m.

We need continuous wavelet transforms to zoom in/out to required scales
not rigid Fourier transforms. Using Fourier transforms is like using a
digital camera without a zoom lens! All of quantum field theory today is
so limited - except for "renormalization group" - sort of.

Do do so is to create WMD!

Also the reason Haisch, Puthoff & Rueda are wrong is that they assume
that the origin of gravity and inertia is

m ~ Transverse Electromagnetic Vacuum Incoherence WRONG IDEA! Fool's
Gold at the end of this Rainbow.

Even then, they may not
know that if it was electronics, photonics, nucleonics or bosonics
manipulating the ether until a more knowledgeable theorist figures it out.

Idle armchair speculation. Too vague.

On Jun 11, 2004, at 3:40 PM, Alexander Konkretny wrote:

--- Forwarded message --
From: George Hathaway <ghathaway@sympatico.ca>
To: <torsionfraud@narod.ru>
Date: 25.05.04 01:49
Subject: Godin, Roschin, Podkletnov

Dear Prof. Kruglyakov,

             I applaud your work as detailed in your website concerning the
unmasking of various frauds in 'free energy', 'anti-gravity' and 'torsion'
amongst many others. I have been involved in following the "Free Energy"
charade since 1980 and have been trying to warn people about these frauds on
both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. I am a registered Professional Electrical
Engineer in Canada and even organized and hosted two international symposia
on the subject of "Non-Conventional Energy and Propulsion" in 1981 and 1983.
However, very few of the presentations amounted to anything concrete.

Not surprising. Dark energy had not been discovered. Kip Thorne had not
written his paper on star gates. Alcubierre had not written his paper.
All there was was Bondi's negative matter propulsion and Paul Hill's
empirical deduction of acceleration fields. Even today among the NASA
BPP Pundits there is little understanding on what The Question is.

"The Question is: What is The Question?"

             We have our share of "free energy" frauds - see the website of
Erik Krieg, for instance (see www.phact.org <http://www.phact.org/> which,
I believe you already know through the "Ring"). I'm particularly interested
in the Godin and Roschin fraud as I have a good friend, Mr. Tom Valone, of
the Integrity Research Institute (http://users.erols.com/iri/) who has
expended much time and money into G&R with the expectation that they would
reproduce another anti-gravity fraud of J.R. Searle of England (worked in
the 1960-70 timeframe). I also know the group in California who spent much
money on Shipov to demonstrate his device(s) based on the putative torsion
field - to no avail.

That was us at ISSO. However, we did not spend a lot of money on Shipov.
We spent much more money a million dollars on Jim Corum's idea at SARA,
and the Feds spent even more at ISR as described in Marc Millis's 2004
NASA BPP report. In fact Shipov's mechanical toy worked better than the
multi-million dollar Corum idea! (although it may be a friction effect)
(Including ISR in W. Va). Furthermore, the idea of torsion fields is
still very much in the game if only because of Richard Hammond's work in
Fargo, North Dakota. While I am not by any means endorsing the
particular claims of Akimov and Shipov in Moscow, the reports of the
demise of torsion field propulsion are somewhat premature. You will note
that Marc Millis in his NASA 2004 BPP report does not dismiss torsion
propulsion as an obvious fraud.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-213082.pdf

             What is of great interest to me is the possibility of
investigating whether Dr. Eugene Podkletnov ever had a laboratory in Moscow
(at the Moscow Chemical Scientific Research Center, 113452 Moscow, Russia)
see http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0108/0108005.pdf. You may
recall that Dr. Podkletnov published a paper in 1992 in Physica C claiming a
possible gravity shield using spinning superconductors in an RF field. We
reproduced that experiment and published the results also in Physica C
("Gravity Modification Experiment using a Rotating Superconducting Disk and
Radio Frequency Fields", Physica C 385 (2003) 488-500). The results were
negative. Is it possible to determine if there is such a Chemical Scientific
Research Center and if Podkletnov ever worked there, and if any
gravity-related work was ever conducted there?

             Many thanks and please do not hesitate to contact me about
North
American frauds.

                         George D. Hathaway, P.Eng.

                         Hathaway Consulting Services

                         Toronto, Canada

                         ghathaway@ieee.org