Interesting! Can you post the whole article in pdf ?
From: Funland (Funland_at_seed.net)
Date: 08/29/04
- Next message: Edward Green: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Previous message: Edward Green: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- In reply to: Jack Sarfatti: "Progress in Tapping Zero Point Energy for Space Exploration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:08:45 +0800
"Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@pacbell.net> ??? news:412FBC83.4070602@pacbell.net
???...
>
> On Aug 27, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> PS I should make it clear that this latest paper by Hal Puthoff is a
> GOOD paper! It is very useful. Good references and it shows WHY Hal's
> approach here is wrong. It is wrong because it is incomplete not because
> it is fundamentally misconceived like Hal's PV theory and origin of
> inertia theory! It is missing a few IDEAS from a different part of
> physics that is not within Hal's current landscape of concepts i.e. not
> in his toolbox.
>
> Hal's paper here is not like his PV paper. The two papers are totally
> independent. Also it is not like his paper with Bernie Haisch on "origin
> of inertia".
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> See partial list of errors in Hal's paper below. Who is the other author
> in Bay Area at Adelphi Technologies in San Carlos?
>
> On Aug 27, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> Quick comment
>
> I seem to recall that the Casimir force can also go repulsive and indeed
> that is the case for a charge cluster shell with the topology of a sphere?
>
>
> Here is an elementary quick and dirty back of the envelope calculation
> on why Hal Puthoff's latest paper H. E. Puthoff and M. A. Piestrup,
>
> "Charge confinement by Casimir forces,"
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0408114
>
> is probably wrong.
>
> The repulsive Coulomb barrier potential self-energy per unit electron
> mass on a spherical shell of N electrons at radius r is of the form
>
> V(Coulomb) ~ N^2e^2/mr
>
> Notice that this is an inverse power law and it must be positive.
> Therefore if you plot V(Coulomb) vs r* you have a monotonic decreasing
> function. What basically kills Hal's argument is that the Casimir force
> is also an inverse power law! For example look at Hal's first equation
> for the Casimir pressure
>
> F/A ~ hc/r^4
>
> Puthoff's Error #1
>
> F(Casimir) ~ hcA/r^4
>
> V(Casimir) ~ hc/mr
>
> Since A ~ r^2 in the spherical shell model.
>
> Therefore, in general, without my general relativity correction term,
> the total potential energy per unit electron mass is, with N-scaling
> made explicit
>
> V(Coulomb) + V(Casimir) = C1N^2e^2/mr + C2Nhc/mr
>
> Where C1 and C2 are dimensionless coefficients.
>
> Note that hc ~ 137 e^2
>
> Note that the Casimir term must scale as N not N^2 because the area A
> scales as N.
>
> Therefore when N ~ 10^11 - a typical case, there is no way that the QED
> Casimir force can balance the Coulomb repulsive self force for
> poly-electron clusters even if the Casimir force is attractive, which it
> generally isn't!
>
> V(Coulomb) + V(Casimir) = (hc/mrN)[NC1 + C2]
>
> Where NC1 >> C2 for N large enough.
>
>
> OK, consider a model with an attractive Casimir force (which may not
> always be the case since the actual sign of the QED Casimir force seems
> to be very sensitive to the topology and perhaps actual shape of the
> "boundary".
>
> V(total) = V(Coulomb) - V(Casimir)
>
> = |A(N)|/r - |B(N)|/r^n
>
> n ~ 3 but, in fact, the precise value of n does not matter as long as n
> > 1.
>
> First we need a critical point for the dynamical equilibrium of the
> charge cluster.
>
> dV(total)/dr* = 0
>
> i.e.
>
> -|A|/r^2 + n|B|/r^(n+1) = 0
>
> The critical point must be a stable minimum, therefore
>
> d^2V(total)/dr^2 > 0
>
> i.e.
>
> +2|A|/r^3 -(n+1)n|B|/r^(n+2) > 0
>
> Therefore,
>
> +2|A|/r^3 > (n+1)n|B|/r^(n+2)
>
> This cannot be automatically assumed in Hal's model. It needs to be
> computed with QED.
>
> So we need to check whether these conditions can even be obeyed in Hal's
> model for a realistic number for r* at the equilibrium that can be
> checked against the actual data by Ken Shoulders.
>
> In contrast my model is of the form
>
> V(total) = V(Coulomb) + V(Casimir) + V(Exotic Vacuum Core)
>
> = A(N)/r + B(N)/r^n + /\*r^2
>
> The third term from Einstein's general relativity for the direct warping
> of spacetime from zero point energy is a power law with a positive
> exponent, i.e. 2 where /\* is a dynamical field that adjusts to make the
> dynamical equilibrium stable. Note if the charge cluster is rotating
> with orbital angular momentum L and if it is vibrating there will be
> additional terms. There will also be velocity dependent forces if there
> is an external magnetic field and the problem gets quite complicated.
>
> The stability condition is
>
> +2A/r^3 +(n+1)nB/r^(n+2) + /\* > 0
>
> Note in my memo to Ken Shoulders written before Hal sent his latest I
> wrote Hal's conclusion
>
> N(h/mc)^2 ~ r*^2 for close packing
>
> from a simple geometry argument without any Casimir force. However, the
> actual dynamics is more complex. Without the Casimir force I got a cubic
> polynomial
>
>
> N^2e^2/mc^2r*^2 - 2/\zpfr* = 0
>
> I simply assumed the close packing relation
>
> r* ~ N^1/2(h/mc)
>
> that Hal "derives" in order to determine /\zpf a new QM/GR parameter
> absent completely in Hal's model.
>
> On Aug 25, 2004, at 11:30 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote to Ken Shoulders:
>
> Memorandum for the Record on EVOs
>
> "EVO" = Exotic Vacuum Object"
>
> Ken Shoulders seems to be making them on the mesoscopic scale.
>
> All lepto-quarks are also spatially-extended EVOs on the fermi scale
> 10^-13 cm in their rest frames, that shrink from spatial warping to ~
> 10^-16 cm when probed with high-energy impact parameters, are Bohm
> hidden variables, i.e. Wheeler's "IT".
>
> The Galactic Halo holding the stars together in our galaxy is a large EVO.
>
> Flying saucers weightless warp drive is EVO advanced super technology.
>
> That is, UFO "G-Engines" (George Trimble in Nick Cook's "The Hunt for
> Zero Point") making Paul Hill's "acceleration fields" are EVO engines.
>
> On possibly "cold fusion" application of EVOs see p. 77 of August 2004
> "Popular Mechanics".
>
> On Aug 24, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
>
> Jack
> I have put some thoughts on the web and enclosed a copy for your
> inspection. Please let me know if I am way off or have said something
> already well known. In addition, see if you can find any of your dark
> stuff sticking to electrons that might cause the short range attraction
> without harming the long range repulsion so revered by all.
>
>
> That's exactly what my equations show! :-)
>
> I will get back to your write up in a few days. :-)
>
> Briefly the argument goes like this:
>
> The Coulomb electric repulsive self energy per electron for an N
> electron EVO charge cluster of radius r* is
>
> ~ N^2e^2/mr*
>
> Imagine all N electrons distributed uniformly in a thin spherical shell,
> Think of each electron Bohm hidden variable as a sphere of radius ~
> h/mc. Therefore, N spheres close packed have an area A ~ N(h/mc)^2. The
> Schwarzschild curvature radius r* is defined as
>
> A = 4pir*^2
>
> Therefore, ignoring rotation of the sphere and IGNORING the QED Casimir
> force (stick them in later), keeping only the zero point energy induced
> effective gravity from Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation
>
> Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
>
> in this crude toy model (BTW Hal Puthoff does not understand this last
> equation. You will never find it in any of his papers related to "metric
> engineering" yet it is the fundamental equation for metric engineering!)
> ignoring small rational fractions of pi for this back of the envelope
> estimate:
>
> N(h/mc)^2 ~ r*^2 for close packing
>
> For a uniform spherical core of exotic vacuum /\zpf holding the N
> electrons together in the spherical shell, the gravity self-energy per
> unit electron is simply
>
> ~ c^2/\zpfr*^2
>
> Note that this is a 3D harmonic oscillator potential! It has a natural
> symmetry group SU(3) as I recall? Also like the quark potential the
> energy increases with separation!
>
> Why is it a 3D harmonic oscillator potential? Simple, drill a hole
> through the center of the Earth and drop a ball. I am using Newton's law
> of gravity that the mass beyond the position of the ball does not
> influence its motion. With rotation there will be frame drag
> gravimagnetism of course that is missing in Hal's PV model.
>
> For dynamical equilibrium you need to have the negative gradients of all
> the potential energies add up to zero. Worry about stability later.
>
> Therefore the equilibrium is
>
> N^2e^2/mc^2r*^2 - 2/\zpfr* = 0
>
> or
>
> N(e^2/mc^2)(mc/h)^2 = 2/\zpfN^1/2(h/mc)
>
> /\zpf ~ N^1/2(e^2/mc^2)(mc/h)^2 ~ N^1/2(137)(mc/h)^2
>
> Note that if N ~ 10^11
>
> r* ~ 10^5 10^-11 ~ 10^-6 cm ~ 10 nanometers
>
> on this model that ignores rotation and Casimir force as a first
> approximation.
>
> Note that /\zpf scales only as the square root of the total number N of
> electrons in the charge cluster EVO ignoring rotation of the EVO about
> its center of mass and also ignoring the QED Casimir force.
>
> Note that you need an anti-gravity repulsive core /\zpf of positive zero
> point energy density with negative quantum pressure to hold your EVO
> together because the electric repulsion energy is positive but decreases
> with increasing distance. The zero point energy induced strong gravity
> of the exotic vacuum core needs to be positive because it then increases
> with separation to make a minimum well of stability in the total
> potential energy! So that this is actually a "dark energy core" of the
> EVO! Just what the doctor ordered for cold fusion BTW! :-)
>
> Note further that dark energy makes Hal Puthoff PV parameter K < 1 in
> his simplest SSS model. Not that I think Puthoff's PV model is any good
> of course, but at least it is testable and has that feature that Hal was
> looking for.
>
> Appendix on Hal Puthoff's PV Model
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> PS Let me for the record explicitly address Hal's
>
> Wrong again. Proper control of K in the PV model IS control of vacuum
> coherence, just like ZPE mode suppression between Casimir plates IS
> control of interference patterns by boundary conditions. You've never
> gotten this, have you? (Others have.) Wake up and smell the chai!
>
> There Hal goes again dragging in the dead cat of the QED Casimir force,
> which has nothing to do with the direct gravity effect of zero point
> energy. Hal seems to equate
>
> "ZPE mode suppression" with "vacuum coherence".
>
> This is not what I mean by "vacuum coherence".
>
> First of all, Hal is only thinking of random virtual photons trapped
> between two plates. I am thinking of a "More is different" local complex
> order parameter from a vacuum condensate of virtual electron-positron
pairs.
>
> How does Hal propose to get warp drives and wormholes from the tiny
> Casimir force between two plates?
>
> The direct gravity effect of zero point energy has nothing at all to do
> with the Casimir force, nor do you need plates particularly. It has to
> do with the Einstein field equation for the exotic vacuum that is
>
> Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
>
> In any case I challenge Hal to make some simple mathematical models of
> what he means by
>
> "just like ZPE mode suppression between Casimir plates IS control of
> interference patterns by boundary conditions"
>
> And how that helps in the quest to metric engineer warp drives and
> traversable wormhole time travel star gates?
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2004, at 5:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
>
> 1.1 Do a comparative analysis of the CERN document
>
> http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=789638&ln=en
>
>
> and the NIDS documents
>
> http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/vallee_davis.pdf
>
> http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/vallee_davis_ppt.pdf
>
>
>
> Point out strengths and weaknesses in each.
>
> 1.2 What is wrong and or right with Hal Puthoff's statement:
>
> On Aug 24, 2004, at 3:38 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 8/24/2004 4:44:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
> sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
> Metric engineering is the control of the phase of the vacuum coherence.
> Puthoff, Davis, Haisch, Vallee and all the Boys at NIDS, NASA BPP,
> MITRE, BAE et-al have not the slightest inkling of what this is.
>
> Wrong again. Proper control of K in the PV model IS control of vacuum
> coherence, just like ZPE mode suppression between Casimir plates IS
> control of interference patterns by boundary conditions. You've never
> gotten this, have you? (Others have.) Wake up and smell the chai!
>
> You can continue to say the above as often as you like, but, unlike
> Picard, it does not make it so! :-)
>
> Hal
>
>
> What does Hal mean by "K"?
>
> In his simplest charge neutral SSS model
>
> K = e^2GM/c^2r
>
> Where does the "vacuum coherence" appear in Hal's formula?
>
> What is Hal Puthoff's definition of "vacuum coherence"?
>
> Hint: He has yet to publish one.
>
> Assuming Hal comes up with a definition of "vacuum coherence" precise
> enough to compare with his "K", are we talking about the same idea?
>
> Where does the term "vacuum coherence" appear in any of Hal's papers?
> Ditto for the recent paper by Vallee and Davis.
>
> Where does the term "dark energy"appear in any of Hal's papers? Ditto
> for the recent paper by Vallee and Davis.
>
> Where and when does Hal discuss the relationships among "dark energy",
> "K" and "vacuum coherence"?
>
> Where does Hal give a practical procedure, in principle as a
> gedankexperiment at least, for how to control K significantly and how to
> make K < 1?
>
> Jack Sarfatti's solution to problem 1.2 for the historical record.
>
> For the record. Here is my ORIGINAL formula for the above problem using
> Hal's PV model that is not found in any of his papers. For a uniform
> exotic vacuum distribution of positive zero point pressure, i.e. a
> uniform sphere of "dark matter" of radius r* like the Galactic Halo,
> assuming Hal's wrong PV model, then
>
> GM is replaced by -c^2/\zpfr*^3 neglecting small rational factors of pi
>
> In the conventions used exotic vacuum /\zpf < 0 gravitates as "dark
> matter" and /\zpf > 0 anti-gravitates as "dark energy".
>
> Therefore, at least for r > r*
>
> K = e^-2/\zpfr*^3/r
>
> Note that K > 1 for /\zpf < 0, i.e. for gravitating "dark matter"
> attractive phase of exotic vacuum.
>
> K < 1 for /\zpf > 0, i.e. for anti-gravitating "dark energy" repulsive
> phase of exotic vacuum.
>
> Furthermore
>
> /\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]
>
>
> Where "Vacuum Coherence" is a LOCAL complex scalar field that derives
> primarily from a virtual electron-positron pair condensate whose phase
> gives Einstein's metric field guv.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Next message: Edward Green: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Previous message: Edward Green: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- In reply to: Jack Sarfatti: "Progress in Tapping Zero Point Energy for Space Exploration"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
