| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 01:47:55 PM |
| Object: |
The Fallacy of a Classical World |
George Chapline Jr (long time protege of Ed Teller) and I have, quite
independently from somewhat different POVs, come to the same general
conclusion (key theme of my http://qedcorp.com/APS/cover.jpg ) on one
key issue. George wrote:
"The validity of the classical equations of motion for macroscopic
length scales is a consequence of having a vacuum state with a 'stiff'
order parameter."
"Transition from quantum to classical information in a superfluid"
Physics Lett A310 p252 (2003).
Chapline says the whole Zurek school of "decoherence" is wrong.
The "stiff order parameter" is what P.W. Anderson calls "generalized
phase rigidity".
Macroscopic space-time physics is local with small entropy only because
of this macro-quantum vacuum coherence. Hal Puthoff & Co do not have the
slightest concept of this in any of their published papers dealing with
metric engineering. I have now elegantly derived Einstein's 1915 theory
of general relativity in a single line, the Ansatz
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Phase of Vacuum Coherence)
http://qedcorp.com/APS/zpf2005.pdf for details.
Therefore there is no "classical world" where h -> 0. If h -> 0 there is
no gravity or inertia. Similarly if c -> infinity, there is no gravity
or inertia even when G =/= 0. This is a very important insight. This
also solves the Schrodinger Cat Paradox.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Also the key new idea which only I and George Chapline, Jr have gotten
(quite independently and with key differences of detail) is that Gravity
and Inertia are EMERGENT from the COHERENT PHASE of the charge-neutral
VACUUM ODLRO field. Probably the same one that in the standard model
SU(2)hypercharge that gives the small inertia ~ Mev of the leptons and
the quarks via the Yukawa coupling before the quarks confine where their
kinetic energy gives most of the hadronic mass ~ Gev. That is the key to
metric engineering that neither Woodward not Puthoff & Co are yet even
able to conceive of. Once you realize, which they do not, that the
vacuum has a coherent phase that determines the shape of the space-time
fabric, then the next step is obvious, MODULATE THE PHASE (Josephson
effect). Woodward, Puthoff et-al simply ASSUME gravity equations. I
actually derive Einstein's GR from a deeper substratum i.e.
B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(Vacuum ODLRO Phase)
for the non-trivial piece of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad field, that
Rovelli in "Quantum Gravity" calls the fundamental gravity field.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Aug 30, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
We agree on that.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 1:00 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Very good; the existence of ODLRO has nothing to do with the problem of
wave-function collapse, which can and usually occurs in systems without
ODLRO. On the other hand, I do believe that the existence of ODLRO in
the vacuum state explains why the ordinary macroscopic world looks
classical. In this respect everything Zurek has said is wrong.
george"
First of all the Forward gedankenexperiment (that he copied from Hermann
Bondi - I was at Bondi's Cornell Lectures on this BTW on top floor of
Newman Nuclear Labs when I was working for Hans Bethe & Tommy Gold) is
simply a primitive version of Alcubierre's warp drive i.e. it is a
timelike geodesic drive. Zero g-force ( G. Trimble's "G-Engine" & P.
Hill's "acceleration field") zero time-dilation globally
faster-than-light without ANY LOCAL MOVEMENT as in Jacques Vallee's
"Fastwalker" etc. See my book Super Cosmos for the details.
On Aug 30, 2005, at 12:17 AM, james f woodward wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:16:13 -0700 Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:
As I've said all along, your bec fudge may turn out to be right. And
certainly there's no harm in trying to square GRT and the Standard
Model. But I don't think that that's the key to solving the transport
problems explicitly. It seems to me that finding something overlooked in
the area of inertia -- the real problem in this business -- is the best
way to
proceed. Hence, Mach's principle. And, ironically as it turns out, just
SRT. :-) And there's now even some experimental evidence. . . .
It's quite obvious in my theory how warp drive works - it's essentially
the negative matter propulsion in Robert Forward's paper. Negative
pressure positive zero point energy density = "negative matter", when
combines with positive pressure negative zero point energy density in
the right configuration (e.g. Alcubierre's metric) does it all. Inertia
plays no role at all. The mass cancels out of the geodesic. The whole
point is to control the timelike geodesic on which the craft free floats.
Well, as I see it, there are two problems with the physics of what you
say. First, you give absolutely no math from which simple
electrical/electronic circuits can be designed to implement the creation
with claimed EM induction fields of the exotic matter (negative mass)
needed to make a Forward type of device or generate an Alcubierre metric.
You are garbling theoretical physics with engineering applied physics.
Also you have sidestepped the key error in your general conception
shared, oddly enough, by Hal Puthoff.
First, one's theoretical ideas must be clear and consistent, though
never complete (Godel). No engineering implementation will work if the
theory is no good.
The key error you and Hal make, independent of any machine
implementation, is that you want to change the inertia for flight
purposes. Suppose you did it - best possible scenario, then you will
change the e/m ratios of the leptons and hadrons with disastrous
effects. BTW this is in my book Super Cosmos, though only Hal is
mentioned not you I recall?
http://qedcorp.com/APS/cover.jpg
Metric engineering is the control of the timelike geodesic of the
Unconventional Flying Machine. For you to ask me to provide a detailed
blueprint all on my own in less than 3 years of getting the main idea is
silly. It's like asking Einstein for a blueprint of a nuclear reactor in
1906.
I gave you the basic equation for one kind of design I have in mind (in
early stages)
/\zpf ~ (Length Scale)^-1(Surface Density of Anyon ODLRO)^1/2Cos(Phase
Difference)
e.g. Phase Difference = 2pi(Magnetic Flux/Magnetic Flux Quantum)
through a non-simply connected inductive nano-loop of anyon condensate
in the thin film "painted" on the fuselage. The core enclosed by the
nano-loop is normal material.
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
is the basic equation for the (anti) gravity influence of the nano-loop
on its immediate space that it occupies. So this is the beginning of a
gendankenexperiment. It's not the only possibility.
Obviously, that's the most important problem. Everyone's known at least
since the mid-'90s about the Forward system and Alcubierre metric you
cite. Figuring out how to produce them with the technical means
available to us is the problem.
So you think you have solved it? Do you think anyone in Puthoff's group
has solved it? I say I am the closest of anyone so far - and, of course,
I could be wrong.
The second problem relates to your claim that inertia has nothing to do
with the issue. Yes, it is true that the total mass of a Forward type
device is zero. And it is also true that one mass attracts the other,
while the other mass repells the first -- leading to the system
accelerating off in a direction along their line of centers. And there
is no violation of energy or momentum conservation because the total mass
of the system is zero.
Yes, we agree on that.
However, consider the question: What is the rate of the acceleration of
the system as it motors off? I think that inertia still does play an
important roll in the process you claim to be the embodiment of
revolutionary transport. And since you're relying on the force of
gravitational attraction/repulsion between the two components of the
Forward type system, the accelerations involved are hardly going to be
head turning, even if you could build it. :-)
No, INERTIA PLAYS NO ROLE! Also you simply do not understand the
equations I wrote down. The zero point energy density bending of
space-time is INCREDIBLY STRONG! The problem is not how weak it is, but
how strong it is - and one must be careful not to make a WMD! I think
you are very confused here. You do not seem to understand the
equivalence principle and neither BTW does Hal Puthoff, Eric Davis or
anyone in his group. Of course, I know you can all mouth the words but
you have not really understood it intuitively and how it applies to the
problem. You keep thinking gravity force. You are thinking Newtonian.
There is NO GRAVITY FORCE in Einstein's General Relativity. You are not
thinking GEOMETRODYNAMICALLY!
Even in Newton's theory
mg = -GMm/r^2
m the mass of the craft cancels out of the problem!
The effective GM in my theory is
GM = c^2/\zpf4pir^2&r
where I approximate the saucer fuselage by a thin shell of radius r and
thickness &r tiled with tiny anyon nano-loop local oscillators threaded
by controllable magnetic flux.
The whole idea is to vary the Phase Difference around the spherical
shell in accord with the Alcubierre "exotic matter" distribution. Note
that Phase between -pi/2 and pi/2 gives repulsive dark energy and Phase
outside that interval gives attractive dark matter.
.
|
|
| User: "Quantum Mirror" |
|
| Title: Re: The Fallacy of a Classical World |
31 Aug 2005 03:29:00 PM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
<snip>
where I approximate the saucer fuselage by a thin shell of radius r and
thickness &r tiled with tiny anyon nano-loop local oscillators threaded
by controllable magnetic flux.
The whole idea is to vary the Phase Difference around the spherical
shell in accord with the Alcubierre "exotic matter" distribution. Note
that Phase between -pi/2 and pi/2 gives repulsive dark energy and Phase
outside that interval gives attractive dark matter.
LOL!
If ***** could make a pickup fly, you would be 4 wheeling on the far
side of the universe in a microsecond.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
