Mathematical physicists are mathematicians who cannot do first class
math. Theoretical physicists are physicists who cannot do experimental
physics. John Baez is a good example of the former, I am a good example
of the latter.

Mathematical physicists are mathematicians who cannot do first class
math. Theoretical physicists are physicists who cannot do experimental
physics. John Baez is a good example of the former, I am a good example
of the latter.

Mathematical physicists are [sic] mathematicians who cannot do first
class math.

Theoretical physicists are [sic] physicists who cannot
do experimental physics.

John Baez is a good example of the former,
I am [sic] a good example of the latter.

Mathematical physicists are mathematicians who cannot do first class
math. Theoretical physicists are physicists who cannot do experimental
physics. John Baez is a good example of the former, I am a good example
of the latter.


On May 22, 2004, at 10:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"Elegance is for tailors." I. Rabi - The Groucho Marx of Physics

Is the string-loop membrane bubble about to burst like Internet
vaporware stocks in 2000, like Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, Martha
Stewart, WMD in Iraq et-al? Have we all been had? Dumb dee dumb
dumb! Listen to this as you read on:
http://www.tv-timewarp.co.uk/midi_files/Dragnet.mid

My new book "Super Cosmos" explains the observational mystery of dark
energy that Brian Greene's & Co M string theory and John Baez's & Co
spin-weave loop theory are powerless to deal with. Both strings and
loops are fine conceptual art but have little to do with the real
physics problems of the day. Strings and loops are dangerously close to
W. Pauli's "not even wrong." They have too many leaps of faith, too many
epicyclic fudge factors that I. Rabi would say "Who ordered that?" and
too little contact with the amazing observations of dark energy and dark
matter as well as unsolved problems of high energy particle physics. Ed
Witten has already seen the handwriting on the wall.
How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
"I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical
observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's
definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most
troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that
is." Ed Witten
http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html

"Super Cosmos" will be on Amazon et-al by Fall 2004
Free online copy 5 megs at
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc
This is 3rd book in Space-Time and Beyond Series
The 4th book "Hidden Variable" now in production.

The Russian skeptics should turn their attention to strings and loops.
They can start with
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0405107
and then compare with Richard Feynman's
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

On May 21, 2004, at 10:13 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

FYI good non-technical story reviews mainstream position re: dark
energy/matter
for your non-physicist list

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040522/bob9.asp


Dark Doings

Searching for signs of a force that may be everywhere . . . or nowhere

Ron Cowen

Ever since 1998, Robert Caldwell has been obsessed with something dark
and repulsive. He spends nearly every waking moment trying to comprehend
a mysterious entity that may be undermining gravity and pulling
everything apart, making the universe expand at a faster and faster
rate. This presumed force, sometimes called dark energy, might
ultimately rip apart every object in the cosmos, from the tiniest of
atoms to gargantuan clusters of galaxies
(SN: 2/28/04, p. 132: Available to subscribers at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040228/fob3.asp). "It's both
fascinating and terrifying," says Caldwell, a cosmologist at Dartmouth
College in Hanover, N.H.

RADIO PROBES. This group of radio telescopes, known as the
Sunyaev-Zeldovich Array, is one of several new efforts designed to
figure out what's revving up the expansion of the universe.
E. Leitch

Caldwell has partners in his obsession, among them other theorists and
the astronomers who dropped the bombshell about cosmic acceleration onto
the scientific community 6 years ago. That's when two studies of distant
exploding stars first revealed that the universe is accelerating its
rate of expansion-exactly the opposite of what had been expected. The
mutual gravity of all the matter in the cosmos ought to be slowing down
the expansion that began with the Big Bang. The new observations led the
teams to propose that there was something previously unimagined pushing
everything away from
everything else. "It's kind of amazing that it's only been 6 years"
since those findings, says observer John Tonry of the University of
Hawaii in Honolulu, "because it now seems so much a part of the
canonical lore that we believe about the universe." Now, several teams
of researchers are conducting experiments and planning ambitious new
ones to investigate this suspected force. On the cosmic scale,
astronomers are developing new sky surveys in search of supernovas while
also studying the shapes of galaxies and the evolution of galaxy
clusters. On a small scale, particle physicists are turning to
atom-smashing experiments that may reveal whether the mystery lies in
hidden spatial dimensions or in as-yet-undiscovered fundamental particles.

"When you have a big problem, you throw everything you can at it," says
Joseph Lykken of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill.

Cosmic acceleration is "not just another mystery," says Lykken. "It's
getting at something fundamental in our understanding of gravity,
energy, and quantum theory. It may take us 20 years to [figure it out],
but it will open a whole new chapter in physics, a revolution in our
understanding of the world."

Seeking supernovas

In trying to identify the origin of this cosmic push, researchers are
simultaneously considering two divergent and equally bizarre scenarios.
In one approach, researchers embrace the concept of dark energy and look
for the fingerprints of this unseen entity, which may spread uniformly
through the cosmos and be an intrinsic property of empty space. The
other strategy denies dark energy's existence and instead seeks to
explain cosmic acceleration by modifying the laws of gravity. According
to this perspective, the wildly successful theory of gravity developed
by Albert Einstein needs revision, especially as it describes gravity
over large distances."

This second alternative is wrong. The proof will be in bottling dark
energy http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf Heads up!
look to the skies. The Truth really is Out There.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

"If dark energy is real, a special type of supernova may shine a light
on its properties. Known as type 1a supernovas, these stellar explosions
all have about the same intrinsic brightness, like light bulbs of
similar wattage. A comparison of that fixed brightness to the brightness
with which each supernova appears on the sky enables astronomers to
measure the distance to each of these stellar explosions. By recording
the spectrum of light emitted by a type 1a supernova, astronomers learn
how fast its host galaxy was
receding at the time the supernova erupted. With the information on the
distance and recession velocities from many supernovas, astronomers can
reconstruct how fast the universe was expanding at different times
during its history.

From the 200 or so type 1a supernovas that astronomers have now
studied, they've deduced that galaxies today are flying apart faster
than they did 5 billion years ago-prima facie evidence for runaway
expansion. Now, researchers want to learn whether the presumed dark
energy has had the same density throughout cosmic history.
If its density is constant, then dark energy may resemble what Einstein
called the cosmological constant-an unchanging property of empty space
that imbues the universe with a constant acceleration. If dark energy's
density varies, it could either increase in strength and rip the
universe apart, or it could fade away. In the latter case, the
gravitational tug of all the matter in the universe would eventually
cause the cosmos to collapse."

This is a scale-dependent phenomenon in the sense of wavelet-transforms.
What is true for the scales of these cosmology observations greater than
100 megaparsecs may not be true on scale of flying saucers ~ 1 - 10,000
meters using dark energy powered weightless zero g-force warp drive
showing a "reverse Doppler effect."

SUPER TELESCOPE. A proposed design for the Supernova Acceleration Probe.

R. Lafever, LBNL

By the end of the decade, astronomers hope to have a telescope that will
find thousands of type 1a supernovas and produce enough data to reveal
whether or not dark energy has varied. For example, the Supernova
Acceleration Probe, an orbiting satellite bearing a 1.8-meter telescope
and the largest solid-state camera ever constructed, would image and
take spectra of some 6,000 supernovas. If it gets funded by NASA and the
Department of Energy, the 3-year mission could be launched by 2010.
However, the project's funding has been delayed by NASA's recent
presidential mandate to focus on human exploration of the moon and Mars.

Cluster connection

In addition to studying explosions inside individual galaxies,
astronomers are also trying to glimpse dark energy's effects by
determining when and how clusters of galaxies coalesced.

The evolution of clusters-or any massive cosmic structure whose
formation depends on gravitational attraction-is closely tied to the
strength of dark energy. Early in the universe, when the density of
matter was high, gravitational attraction would have handily won the
tug-of-war with dark energy's repulsive force. Later, as the universe
expanded more and more, matter became more dilute, permitting dark
energy's push to overpower it. So, in a universe brimming with dark
energy, clusters must form early or they won't form at all.

The earlier the galaxy clusters formed, the stronger dark energy must
be. To determine how far back in time most clusters coalesced,
astronomers must find the most distant ones. One technique is to look
for signs of the hot, X-ray-emitting gas that bathes clusters. The
proposed Dark Universe Observatory, a suite of seven Earth-orbiting
telescopes, would scan a large chunk of the sky in search of the X rays.
Astronomers will then combine the X-ray data with information already in
hand from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has recorded the distances
to several hundred thousand galaxies. The results are expected to
indicate when galaxy clusters formed.

Other cluster watchers examine the cosmic microwave background, the
radiation left over from the Big Bang. When photons from that background
strike the hot gas surrounding a cluster, they gain energy. It's this
shift in photon energy, known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, that John
E. Carlstrom of the University of Chicago and his colleagues will be
examining in unprecedented detail beginning late this summer.

Using their new Sunyaev-Zeldovich Array of six 3.5-m radio receivers at
the Owens Valley Radio Observatory near Big Pine, Calif.(pictured on
this week's cover, above), Carlstrom and his collaborators expect to
find thousands of new clusters. Several other teams are building similar
radio telescopes. And in 2007, Carlstrom expects to have finished
building an even more sensitive detector of clusters, a radio telescope
at the South Pole.

Another search strategy for signs of dark energy takes advantage of a
cosmic distortion known as gravitational lensing. Because any massive
object causes space-time to curve, it can bend the path of a light ray
emitted by a body, such as a galaxy, that lies behind it. The shape of
that body appears distorted, as if the light had passed through a thick
glass lens. In so-called weak lensing, light emitted by the outer parts
of distant galaxies is distorted by the gravity of all the individual
galaxies that lie in front of it.

Weak lensing relates to dark energy because the expansion rate of the
universe determines how much volume lies between distant galaxies and
Earth. Dark energy's push would increase the volume of space, making it
more likely that light traveling to Earth from a distant galaxy would
pass near other bodies and exhibit weak lensing. Dark energy would also
require clumps of matter to begin coalescing into galaxies earlier in
the history of the universe, also increasing the chances for lensing to
occur. To perceive the small effect of weak lensing, astronomers will
have to study millions of galaxies distributed across the sky. The
proposed Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, an 8-m ground-based
instrument, could open for business in 2011. The orbiting Supernova
Acceleration Probe could also lend a hand in
weak-lensing studies.

Getting particular

Dark energy may also reveal itself on the subatomic scale. Particle
physicists at Fermilab and other high-energy physics laboratories are
paying close attention to the neutrino, an elementary particle known to
come in three flavors-tau, muon, and electron. A decade ago, scientists
discovered that each type of neutrino could transform into the others.
These so-called oscillations indicate that neutrinos, which for decades
were thought to be massless, actually have some weight.
Theorists have homed in on what may be a deep connection between dark
energy and particle physics. Mass and energy are equivalent, according
to Einstein, and scientists have noticed that the energy scale
associated with dark energy, about one-thousandth of an electronvolt, is
approximately the same as the masses associated with the three known
types of neutrinos. Assuming that this isn't a coincidence, scientists
have been trying to identify a single quantum mechanical description
that applies to both dark energy and neutrinos."

How to compute the dark energy scale: Energy density scales as E^4 in
natural units h = c = G = 1. The random ZPE theory-observational
discrepancy in dark energy density is ~ 10^122. 120/4 ~ 31. Planck
energy scale is ~ 10^28 ev, 28 - 31 = -3, hence dark energy scale is ~
10^-31x10^28 ev ~ 10^-3 ev ~ 10^12 Hertz, i.e. 1 gigahertz.
Note that random ZPE theory has zero vacuum coherence. That's the
problem Ed Witten et-al does not understand in his M-Theory which is an
answer without a question!
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0405107

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler

"They've found that neutrino oscillations can be described by a
time-varying field that resembles the time-varying dark energy described
in some models. However, these models also predict a fourth type of
neutrino for which there is yet no experimental evidence.

In a series of ongoing experiments at Fermilab, scientists are searching
for that missing neutrino. In these studies, a beam of muon neutrinos
crosses a 30-foot tank of mineral oil. Some 520 light detectors lining
the tank record the flashes that occur when neutrinos strike carbon
nuclei in the tank. An analysis of those flashes has yet to reveal
evidence of a fourth neutrino, but the experiment is set to continue for
another 2 years.

Gravity on the fly

Despite the interest in time-varying dark energy, an unchanging energy
density akin to the cosmological constant now appears to be the more
accurate model for the brand of dark energy that might exist in our
universe, says cosmologist Sean Carroll of the University of Chicago.
Yet for Carroll and other theorists, the notion of a cosmological
constant is downright distasteful."

Only because they do not understand "vacuum coherence." This is what
"Super Cosmos" is about.

"For starters, the only source that scientists have come up with for an
unvarying dark-energy density is the energy associated with the vacuum
of space. As described by quantum theory, the vacuum seethes with the
relentless creation and annihilation of subatomic particles and their
antiparticles. But calculations show that the density of this vacuum
energy is a whopping 10120 times as big as that of dark energy. Such a
glaring discrepancy makes it hard for Carroll and others to fully
embrace the cosmological-constant model."

Sean needs to read "Super Cosmos."

"Then there's the cosmic-coincidence scandal. The density of matter in
the universe has steadily declined since the Big Bang, and measurements
show that today it's about the same as the density of dark energy
predicted by the cosmological-constant models. There's only a 1 percent
chance, Carroll calculates, that observers would be living at a time
when the density of dark energy and matter were comparable. For some
physicists, this match is too unlikely to be true.
Instead of accepting dark energy, these scientists would rather try to
account for the acceleration of the universe's expansion by tinkering
with Einstein's general theory of relativity."


"O Brane New Worlds!"


"OUTER LIMITS. Illustration of how gravity might leak out of our
four-dimensional world into hidden dimensions, thus explaining why the
cosmos is revving up its expansion.

Fermilab

Gia Dvali of New York University and his colleagues propose that gravity
parts company with Einstein's theory because some of it leaks away into
extra, hidden dimensions. They suggest that the universe as we know
it-galaxies, stars, and familiar elementary particles-is confined to a
four-dimensional space-time, called a brane, that's embedded in a
higher-dimensional world.

Because gravity is an intrinsic property of all of space-time, however, it
may be the only component of the cosmos that isn't trapped on this
four-dimensional brane, Dvali suggests. He compares the scenario to what
happens when a metal plate submerged in water is struck with a hammer.
As the plate-representing the brane-vibrates, some of the sound waves
escape into the surrounding water-representing higher dimensions.

When gravitons, the particles that mediate gravitation attraction,
escape the local brane, the gravitational force that remains within the
brane diminishes. The weakening of gravity shows up as an increase in
the rate of cosmic expansion. In this way, leaky gravity looks and
behaves much like dark energy.

Dvali and his collaborators are still fleshing out their model, but it
already has some concrete predictions measurable within our own solar
system. Leaky gravity, it turns out, should cause the moon to tilt ever
so slightly in its orbit about Earth. New measurements are looking for
such a precession by using ground-based lasers that bounce off mirrors
that the Apollo 11 astronauts left on the moon 3 decades ago."

I have nothing against extra dimensions, but it is not the only way to
have strong short-range gravity.

"Hidden dimensions and leaky gravity may also reveal themselves in
experiments at Fermilab (SN: 2/19/00, p. 122:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob9.asp). At extremely
high energies, collisions between two particles, such as a proton and an
antiproton, should produce a graviton, along with a spray of other
particles. Those other particles will remain trapped on a
four-dimensional brane, but the graviton can escape. If it does so, then
there ought to be a noticeable deficit in the amount of energy recorded.
Such missing energy would serve as a signpost of the universe's higher
dimensions and a gravitational theory that goes beyond that of Einstein."

A strong short-range Einstein gravity field in 4D is an off-mass-shell
vacuum sink and source of either "missing" or its inverse "anomalous"
energy for on-mass-shell quanta by tweaking the local vacuum coherence
field. On alleged actual measurements of anomalous energy of mesoscopic
EVOs by Ken Shoulders see
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

"No such missing energy has yet been detected,"

But anomalous energy production in mesoscopic EVO "charge clusters"
allegedly have.

"but physicists continue to search. "We had the capability to look for
this before, but people didn't' think [the notion of higher dimensions]
was a reasonable idea. Now, people have started to take this seriously,"
says Lykken.

Whether it's dark energy that rules the universe or a kind of gravity
that goes beyond what Einstein had imagined remains to be seen. Whatever
the answer is, Caldwell notes, it's bound "to answer some deep questions
about the universe."

E = mc^2 from Einstein's special relativity of 1905 gave us the WMD of
nuclear fission and fusion bombs.

What makes you think that

Ruv ---> Grho(1 + 3w) in weak curvature Newtonian limit and

Ruv + /\zpfguv = 0

in exotic vacuum from Einstein's general relativity of 1916 and
Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle of 1925 with "More is
different" (P.W. Anderson 1967) "vacuum coherence" as the macro-quantum
origin of gravity and inertia (J.A. Wheeler 1956 & Andrei Sakharov 1967)
will not bring us new WMD as well as peaceful applications? Indeed we
already see them in the skies above our nuclear weapons bases. Heads up!
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html


"Dark Musings

A springboard to space?

The notion that gravity can be repulsive instead of attractive may sound
bizarre, but it has its roots in Einstein's general theory of
relativity. The theory states that mass isn't the only source of
gravity. Pressure also exerts a gravitational force. There's a further
complication because pressure can be positive or negative. And if
pressure happens to be negative, gravity pushes rather than pulls."

Say the Magick without magic word and win a trillion smackeroos.
"You bet your life" and everyone else's the day after tomorrow.
http://www.tvparty.com/moviemarx.html

"Positive pressure is the familiar type, like that exerted by an inflated
balloon. You have to expend energy in order to compress it. Something
with negative pressure acts like a spring-you have to expend energy to
stretch it. That's why theorists say that dark energy imbues space with
a springiness, notes David H. Weinberg of Ohio State University,

See Appendix 1 in http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
i.e., eq. 1.6 Uzpf(self energy) ~ r^5

Taking the spring analogy further, he says that the question of whether
the density of dark energy varies over time is equivalent to asking how
hard it is to compress the springiness of space. If the density of dark
energy is constant, as in the cosmological-constant model, then dark
energy is difficult to compress, as if you're dealing with an especially
stiff spring. Models in which dark energy varies with time are akin to
imbuing space with a more flexible spring. Observers are now trying to
determine the compressibility.

If you have a comment on this article that you would like considered for
publication in Science News, send it to editors@sciencenews.org. Please
include your name and location.

To subscribe to Science News (print), go to

subServices.asp.
To sign up for the free weekly e-LETTER from Science News, go to
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/subscribe_form.asp.
Further Readings:
Caldwell, R.R., M. Kamionkowski, and N.N. Weinberg. 2003. Phantom energy

cosmic doomsday. Physical Review Letters 91(Aug. 15):071301. Available at
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302506.pdf.
Carroll, S.M., and M.M. Guica. Preprint. Sidestepping the cosmological
constant with football-shaped extra dimensions. Available at
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0302/0302067.pdf.
Cowen, R. 2004. Wrenching findings: Homing in on dark energy. Science News
165(Feb. 28):132. Available to subscribers at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040228/fob3.asp.
______. 2000. Hunting for higher dimensions. Science News 157(Feb.
19):122-124. Available at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob9.asp.
Deffayet, C., G. Dvali, and G. Gabadadze. 2002. Accelerated universe from
gravity leaking to extra dimensions. Physical Review D 65(Feb. 15):044023.
Available at http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0105/0105068.pdf.
Sources:
Robert R. Caldwell
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Dartmouth College
6127 Wilder Laboratory
Hanover, NH 03755
Claude Carlstrom
University of Chicago
Department of Astrophysics
5640 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
Sean M. Carroll
Enrico Fermi Institute
Department of Physics
Center for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
5640 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
Gia Dvali
Department of Physics
New York University
New York, NY 10003
Joe Lykken
Fermilab
P.O. box 500
Mailstop 106
Batavia, IL 60510
John L. Tonry
University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Institute for Astronomy
2680 Woodlawn Drive
Honolulu, HI 96822
David H. Weinberg
Ohio State University
Department of Astronomy
140 West 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040522/bob9.asp
From Science News, Vol. 165, No. 21, May 22, 2004, p. 330.
Copyright (c) 2004 Science Service. All rights reserved.

Re: How to time travel to the stars and other worlds
On May 22, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

BTW New version of
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
online (with Hal Puthoff's old partner Ken Shoulders from Jupiter Tech)
also see
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf

On May 22, 2004, at 7:09 AM, main_engineering wrote:

The Josephson effect is a tunneling current that flows "Between two
Superconductors" separated by an insulating layer. The dc current depends

the phase difference between the two wave functions and the density of
electron pairs in each superconductor.

The tunneling current interpretation is NOT FUNDAMENTAL. What is
fundamental is the wave interference of TWO macro-quantum coherent order
parameters. In the case of the Josephson junction with identical
superconductors on both sides of the weak link, yes you have an actual
supercurrent across the weak link. NOT so in the vacuum-superconductor
link. All you have is a real circulating supercurrent in each nano-ring
node of the phase coherent array mesh imbedded in the fuselage of the
"saucer". The local PHASE of that real circulating loop of supercurrent
INTERFERES with the local PHASE of the vacuum coherence to generate the
local value of Alcubierre's key control source parameter Tr(K)

Tr(K) ~ cosine[relative LOCAL phase of loop of real supercurrent minus
local phase of virtual electron-positron pairs inside vacuum occupying
same space-time region as the real supercurrent. The real electron
Cooper pairs are swimming in the virtual sea of coherent
electron-positron pairs! Their relative local coherent phases BEAT at a
single node of the nanomesh network to form Tr(K) at that node provided
the inherent phase noise in the real supercurrent closed loop can be
filtered out! You do not want to quiet the phase noise of the real
supercurrent nano-loops too much because the effect is intrinsically
huge, much larger than nuclear fusion energy density release. This phase
coherence is a cosmic trigger to the enormous energy density of the
vacuum. This is not a Casimir force effect - completely different laws
of physics!

You're saying that there is only 1 superconductor and "the
interpenetrating vacuum coherence in the common support" and that the
Josephson effect takes place between the superconductor and the vacuum.
To me, this is the most important point in your theory. It represents
your method of coupling to the vacuum to control space-time curvature.
Now I see that you are saying that
this all happens "inside" the superconductor.

YES! There is no actual tunneling current between real control
superconductor and the vacuum in this case. That is not fundamental
here. The virtual electron-positron pairs stay virtual. You do not want
to hit them with 2mc^2 energy transfers to make them real. That destroys
the delicate coherent local phase matching between COINCIDENT real
supercurrents and virtual supercurrents that together generate the
weightless warp drive.

You say "The vacuum is everywhere the superconductor is". My question is
if it happens inside, then why not at the surface? If not at the
surface, then why would it happen inside? If it is happening inside,
then why are currents persistent for eons inside a superconductor?

Again you are barking up the wrong tree. Wherever there is a real
electron-pair supercurrent there is also the virtual electron-positron
pair "aether" it is swimming through. Each real Cooper pair is immersed
inside the virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate. They each
have coherent macro-quantum phases that coherently interfere with each
other. What Hal Puthoff and everyone else miss is the coherent local
phase of the virtual electron-positron sea. They mistakenly believe the
"PV" virtual spin 1/2 electron-positron sea is completely 100%
incoherent and uncontrollably random! For example, in SED for EM field
it's uncontrollably random for the spin 1 virtual photons in that case.
Furthermore, you need smooth ODLRO coherence of the virtual
electron-positron pairs in order to generate Einstein's guv(x) field of
locally curved smooth space-time with gravity.

Read Ray Chiao's background paper
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0211078
and his more extensive 80 page paper linked from there.

Current cannot be flowing in or out of the
supercouductor, so therefore there is no Josephson effect.

Wrong as I explained above. The flow of actual particles is not
fundamental to the basic wave interference essence of the Josephson
effect. It is incidental. You have misperceived the physical essence of
the macro-quantum effect! You have only seen the shadow not the light.
Call this a generalized Josephson-Bohm-Aharonov effect.


I don't see anyone else challenging your ideas where I can learn from

experience, and I'm not saying that you're wrong.

That's obviously because no one else on this planet at this time has
thought of this precise idea-conceptual world picture. I am the first
one to have conceived it. It is uniquely original here and now. There is
only one Mona Lisa painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, there is only one
Ninth Symphony by Beethoven etc. None of the others, Volovik, Modanese
et-al have seen precisely what I have seen and am bringing down from the
Magick Mountain's Burning Bush. :-)

..these fifteen...Oy!!...these ten commandments!

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/world/hwimages.htm