| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2003 03:52:18 PM |
| Object: |
Exotic WMD Debate with Hal Puthoff |
Hal Puthoff has held very high national security clearances and his main
interest for 30 + years now is figuring out the advanced military WMD
implications of the "alien" flying saucers. Hal and I are competitors in
this exotic weaponry field of legendary "black ops".
PS Addressing some of Hal's technical specifics below:
From:
Subject: Re: Deconstructing Hal Puthoff's Metric Engineering II
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:47 EST
In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, writes:
JS: What is wrong with Puthoff's paradigm is that he has no idea of
"Vacuum Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
mathematics.
HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a
change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks
degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
coherence. You've missed the whole point!
Hal
JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I
am talking about?
HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum
when we use the word "stiffness." You use it to characterize how
difficult it is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime.
JS: True. I mean G/c^4 = (String Tension)^-1
Space-Time gets more "stiff" as the "String Tension" increases.
Guv(Space-Time Curvature) = (String Tension)^-1Tuv(Mass-Energy Sources)
for non-exotic vacuum with /\zpf = 0.
It is only this definition of "stiffness" that is relevant to the
practical achievement of metric engineering. That's my key point here
that IMHO you and Eric Davis et-al do not yet get.
HP: I'm using it to characterize how difficult it is to polarize
virtual vacuum
electron-positron pairs with an electric field.
JS: This is not a good use of the term since Feynman's QED shows you can
never make a large enough vacuum polarization for practical metric
engineering using external EM fields. If you have a theoretical
argument to the contrary I would like to see it. I am confident that the
"saucers" you and I are both keenly interested in, if The Truth be known
;-), fly by the approach you take here. I doubt you have any
experimental evidence either. Please refute me if you can?
HP: When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a mass, it means
that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an
electric field to separate charge.
JS: Prove that. I mean you have
K = e^2GM/c^2
I forget your formula off-hand for K in presence of an electric field.
This requires that your M source in K also have a net charge Q I
presume. Is that correct? Oh yes you have that in your Mitre paper but
the numbers do not work and support what I say above. Also since when do
saucers carry large amounts of net electric charge?
Also, what is your relation of K to the physical speed of light?
Looking only at radial null geodesic
ds^2 = K^-1(cdt)^2 - Kdr^2
ds^2 = 0
Therefore
dr/dt = c/K
And you mistakenly interpret K as an index of refraction n.
In fact physically, as any standard text on GR shows
dT = goo^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
Therefore, when ds^2 = 0 in radial direction in SSS case
Physically measured radial speed of light = dR/dT = (grr/goo)^1/2(dr/dt)
In your model
goo = K^-1
grr = K
Therefore,
grr/goo = K^2
Therefore
dR/dT = c
so that n = 1 ALWAYS in this situation!
So what are you talking about?
You then go into a vague over-intepretation, seemingly motivated by
Yilmaz's "bi-metric" confusion as seen in your Tables I & II, to try to
give a physical meaning to dr/dt = c/K, which is completely confused
IMHO and which has no relevance at all to real metric engineering. Your
argument here is Medieval like counting Angels on a head of a pin to my
mind at least.
HP: It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects in the charge
distribution are induced.
JS: You have never given an explicit definition of "vacuum coherence"
the way I have. My definition is in accord with mainstream physics. What
is your definition and how does it appear in your mathematical model. I
do not think that Feynman's QED has "vacuum coherence". That was later
added in Green's function formalisms for BCS superconductors by Gorkov
et-al in Moscow in 60's or 70's based on Oliver Penrose's ODLRO for
reduced quantum density matrices of fermions. Where in your papers do
you even write "vacuum coherence"?
HP: There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat
when
you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do
not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special
"electrical" relationship with spacetime effects.
JS: False. My "vacuum coherence" is explicitly, using standard
second-quantization notation and the Gorkov formalism e.g. P.W. Anderson
in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" World Scientific
Vacuum Coherence = <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0>
where e+(x) destroys a virtual off mass shell positron at x
e-(x) destroys a virtual off mass shell electron at x
|0> is the physical vacuum with ODLRO that admits CURVED space-time
whose LNIF local metric is the "strain tensor"
guv(Curved Space-Time) = Global Flat Minkowski Metric + du(x),v + dv(x),u
, means partial derivative and
du(x) = Lp^2(arg <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0>),u
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
String Tension = Vacuum Stiffness = hc/Lp^2
Now that's what I mean mathematically by "vacuum coherence" and "the
vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special 'electrical'
relationship with spacetime effects". What, in contrast, do you mean
mathematically by your words in terms of your model? I am just trying to
understand the real meaning behind your smooth honeyed words. ;-)
Whether either of us are right or wrong is another issue. Right now I do
not understand what your words in ordinary language really mean until I
see some kind of a math model to go with them.
HP: It is this latter interpretation that
distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.
BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute
replacement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me.
JS: That's good. Some of your PR people have given a very different
impression. With friends like them you do not need enemies. :-)
HP: (For example, in PV analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate
only 2/3rds of the radiation power calculated from standard GR and
inferred from observation of PSR 1913 + 16.) My interest is PV has to
do with exploring certain geometries and consequences from an
engineering standpoint. A corollary of this is that I also do not
approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force"
stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me.
JS; That's all your papers show "brute force" like your Mitre paper. Are
you hiding something? Let's see what you got to justify what you just wrote.
HP: Rather, I am interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of
spacetime that undergird the PV (but not usual GR) approach.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
