| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2004 07:08:22 PM |
| Object: |
Warp, Wormhole & WMD |
They do not directly reference Ray Chiao, Modanese, Podkletnov, nor Ning
Li, so it seems independent work overlapping them. I have not digested
it yet. Burp! ... :-)
On Oct 10, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408001.pdf
Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors due to Fractal Space-Time
C. J. de Matos *
ESA-HQ, European Space Agency, 8-10 rue Mario Nikis, 75015 Paris, France
M. Tajmar †
ARC Seibersdorf research GmbH, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria
Abstract
The gravitomagnetic London moment conjectured from the Cooper pair mass
anomaly reported by Tate, is explained and removed by the fractal
properties of
space-time at quantum scale and the consequences of a maximum cosmic
length as
discussed in scale relativity. According to our analysis, this anomaly
can be
expressed in terms of the fine structure constant by 3 ... and fits to the
second digit Tate’s measurement, which is remarkable.
PACS: 04.25.Nx, 04.50.+h, 04.60.-m, 04.80.Cc, 05.45.Df, 74.70.-b
Keywords: gravitomagnetism, London moment, fractal space-time, coupling
between
electromagnetism and gravitation, Cooper pair mass anomaly,
superconductivity
* General Studies Officer, ESA-HQ, DG-X, F-75015 Paris, France, e-mail:
clovis.de.matos@esa.int † Principal Scientist, Space Propulsion, ARC
Seibersdorf research, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria, e-mail:
martin.tajmar@arcs.ac.at
2nd draft
On Oct 11, 2004, at 10:17 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Unfortunately the physics in this blurb below by Nick Cook is not
accurate. I explain this in detail in my book Super Cosmos. Nick got his
physics information here mainly from Hal Puthoff and it is incorrect in
some fundamental ways.
Google "Ian Peterson, University of Coventry, UK" Professor Peterson
shows that the Casimir force cannot correctly be considered a zero point
force at all from virtual photons. What it really is, is a subtle
electrostatic force between mutually induced separated charges in
neutral atoms on both plates. This means that any energy from any
Casimir force nano-device comes strictly from the weak electrostatic
energy not from the zero point virtual photon energy. Therefore, in no
sense, can one think that the Casimir force can tap vacuum energy. Top
physicists like Matt Visser, Cliff Will and Bill Unruh have told me in a
face to face meetings at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland last July 2004 that
they do not agree with Hal Puthoff's proposals in this field that are
echoed in Nick Cook's statements below and also in the Aviation Week
article "To The Stars" and in the now defunct NASA BPP program.
Hal Puthoff's association of the Casimir force as a zero point force
from virtual photons of the free radiation field ignoring the
electron-photon coupling is a common misconception found even in
textbooks like Peter Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum." Milonni gives three
separate derivations of the parallel plates Casimir force, which from
simple dimensional analysis and symmetry, without any specific dynamical
physics at all, must be of the form
Casimir force ~ hcA/d^4
A = area of the pair of parallel neutral conducting plates
d = separation between the plates
You need a specific dynamical model to compute the pure number
coefficient of course.
Milonni's first model is the one cited by Hal and is even in Scientific
American. It depends on boundary conditions excluding free radiation
oscillators of wavelengths longer than 2d along the direction
perpendicular to the parallel plates. One also assumes f = kc that is
not true for virtual photons and then simply counts the number of
oscillators between the plates and compares them to the number of
oscillators outside the plates assuming kc/2 ground state energy per
oscillator. To be more precise, Milonni actually computes
ZPE(d) - ZPE(infinity)
The attractive, in this case not in all cases, "Casimir force" is then
of the above form from taking the negative gradient of the above difference.
The idea here being that the only physically important observable is the
effect of the boundary conditions. Indeed if there is no short-wave
cutoff "a", each term in the above difference is infinite and you want
to get a finite cut-off independent result from subtracting two
infinities. Of course, one does put in a finite cutoff "a" and then
takes the limit a -> 0 at the end of the calculation. Invoking various
tricks this model does come up with a dimensionless coefficient that is
alleged to agree with experiment.
However, this gives the right answer for the wrong reasons. Ptolemy's
epicycles did the same BTW. It's not enough to get the right empirical
answer if the reasoning contradicts other parts of battle-tested
physics, in this case general relativity.
If one were to ignore general relativity one can get away with the above
bogus argument accepted by people who have not thought deeply about the
problem. The problem here is the cosmological constant problem on how to
reconcile the theory of gravity with micro-quantum theory. The answer is
that you cannot! You need a more general theory called macro-quantum
theory to include Einstein's gravity. The bonus is that you also get
both dark energy and dark matter popping out in a natural way along with
Einstein's 1915 gravity theory in a way that explains why orthodox
quantum gravity is not renormalizable.
Milonni's second argument is using Einstein's 1905 picture of photons
carrying momentum hk. Again the problem is that although one gets the
correct empirical answer the reasons contradict general relativity! Of
course, Milonni's book has no general relativity in it. This second
model requires that virtual photons have w = +1/3
when in fact general relativity requires that they have w = -1 where w =
pressure/(energy density).
Puthoff has just published a wrong Casimir force model of Ken Shoulders
EVOs that uses this second model with w = +1/3. Ken Shoulders EVOs
appear to be hollow charged shells of N electrons held together by a
mysterious glue. These EVOs typically are 10^-5 cm to 10^-3 cm across.
Naive estimates are unbalanced charges of N ~ 10^13 to 10^17 e from
N(h/mc)^2 ~ 4pi(Radius of EVO)^2 assuming flat space geometry. For example,
1. N10^-22 ~ 10^-9
N ~ 10^13
2. N10^-22 ~ 10^-5
N ~ 10^17
1 Coulomb is N ~ 10^19
Two 1 Coulomb charges separated by a meter produce an electrostatic
force ~ 1 MILLION TONS!
One problem with these EVOs is where is the positive charge left behind?
Of course they are stuck on nucleons ~ thousands of times more massive
than the electrons.
Of course, if the space of the EVOs is warped from zero point energy
density inside the charged shells then N can be a lot smaller and the
unbalanced charge problem is not as serious. Indeed, this is what I
propose because it also solves the old problem of the stability of the
electron as a spatially extended object Bohm hidden variable that
appears to shrink down to a point as the resolution of its imaging
(scattering) increases at least down to 10^-16 cm.
Puthoff's Casimir force as a ZPF force solution to this EVO problem is
entirely Rube Goldberg and contradicts general relativity from his w =
+1/3 assumption as well as other assumptions.
* Puthoff misunderstood me. I am not trying to explain the Casimir force
as a zero point energy induced strong short-range gravity effect from
I. Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 (Exotic vacuum local field equation)
II. Guv^;v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0 (Local conservation of geometrodynamic
current densities)
III. /\zpf = a^-2(Overlap Volume)|Higgs Ocean||Control Order
Parameter|Cos(Phase difference between Higgs Ocean & Control)
(Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson-Berry phase modulation control for practical
metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon)
I am saying, in agreement with Ian Peterson, that the observed Casimir
force has a mundane explanation as an integrated retarded electrostatic
Casimir-Polder force and, therefore, is of no interest to the practical
metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon. I have never claimed
that the force
~ hcA/d^4 is from zero point energy at all! Indeed, I claim the opposite
of what Puthoff understood me to claim. I claim that under conditions
where this Casimir force is measured the zero point virtual photon
energy density (and pressure) is ZERO on both sides of each plate! That
is no exotic vacuum in the experiments! Any direct gravity effect from
exotic vacuum zero point pressure would swamp this weak Casimir force!
Note that hc ~ e^2 so that hcA/d^4 hides the underlying electrostatic
e^2 origin of this force only seen in non-exotic vacuum conditions.
Finally Milonni has the correct model from integrating the retarded r^-7
force between mutually induced electric dipoles in neutral atoms over
the plates.
Note that the electrostatic force comes from virtual photons in
macro-quantum coherent states as shown by Roy Glauber at Harvard in the
early 1960's and they are different from the random virtual photons one
per oscillator in the oscillator ground state.
The distinction between real photons with w = +1/3 and virtual zero
point photons with w = -1 comes from the structure of Feynman
propagators in quantum electrodynamics, which is strictly a special
relativity theory that does not permit gravity.
Without gravity, you can sweep the large zero point energies under the
rug and pretend that they are not there. With gravity you cannot. This
is the cosmological constant paradox that I think only I have correctly
solved. We shall see. You need to use the coherent Higgs Ocean in a
novel way to solve the problem. The point for the Casimir force, is that
in conditions where it is measured, the actual ZPF virtual photon
pressure is zero on both sides of each plate because of the
macro-quantun vacuum coherence out of which Einstein's gravity emerges.
Therefore, the observed Casimir force must come from Milonni's 3rd
model, which is the one Ian Peterson uses.
Finally Nick's appeal to Feynman in
“This phenomenon is general. Every particle in Nature has an amplitude
to move backwards in time, and therefore has an anti-particle.”
- Richard Feynman, “QED”
Is a completely false clue as I explain in detail in my 3 books. The
point is that the w = -1 ZPF does have a direct strong gravity influence
that can either be attractive or repulsive depending on THREE factors
I. The sign of the quantum ZPF pressure
II The power law distribution of the ZPF.
III The local intensity of the post-inflationary Higgs Ocean field
Indeed, these three conditions in different environments explain
1. The acceleration of the universe seen in Type 1a supernovae anomalous
redshifts
2. Ken Shoulders EVOs
3. Galactic halo stabilizing the stars in our galaxy
4. Other dark matter gravity lensing.
5. Some gamma ray bursts
6. Deep inelastic electron scattering off protons and neutrons.
8. Universal Regge slopes of hadronic resonances.
Last but not least - to raise the hackles of Mainstream Physics Pundits
and Pro Skeptics:
9. Warp, wormhole and weapons seen in the UFO data collected on the NIDS
website.
http://www.nidsci.org/
On Oct 11, 2004, at 7:23 AM, frank chille wrote:
FYI!
From: "art wagner" <>
To: frankchille@hotmail.com,
Subject: Nick Cook, Antigravity @ MetroCon 2004
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:00:37 -0400
See (http://www.metrocon.org/keynote.htm)
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
