Begin forwarded
message:
<excerpt><bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>From: </color></bold>Jack
Sarfatti
<<sarfatti@pacbell.net>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Date:
</color></bold>August 27, 2004 4:14:55 PM
PDT
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>To: </color></bold>ItalianPhysicsCenter <<ItalianPhysicsCenter@YahooGroups.com>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Cc: </color></bold>SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.
com <<SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Subject:
</color>re: A good thing about Puthoff's latest
paper
</bold>
Begin forwarded
message:
<excerpt><bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>From: </color></bold>Jack
Sarfatti
<<Sarfatti@PacBell.net>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Date:
</color></bold>August 27, 2004 3:53:40 PM
PDT
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>To:
</color></bold>James Woodward
<<jfwoodward@juno.com>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Cc:
</color></bold>Ian Peterson
<<i.peterson@coventry.ac.uk>, Ken
Shoulders <<krscfs@svn.net>, Hal P
<<Puthoff@aol.com>,
Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <<Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>Subject: </color>[Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars]
A good thing about Puthoff's latest
paper
<color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>ReplyTo: </color></bold>Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
PS
I should make it clear that this latest paper by Hal 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:
<excerpt>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:
<excerpt>
On
Aug 27, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti
wrote:
<excerpt>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?
</excerpt>
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://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/arXiv.org/abs/physics/0408114
is
probably wrong.
The repulsive Coulomb barrier potential
selfenergy 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
</excerpt>
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 Nscaling
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
polyelectron 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.
<excerpt>
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 + nB/r^(n+1) =
0
The critical point must be a stable minimum,
therefore
d^2V(total)/dr^2 >
0
i.e.
+2A/r^3 (n+1)nB/r^(n+2) >
0
Therefore,
+2A/r^3 >
(n+1)nB/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
</excerpt>
Note in my memo to Ken Shoulders
written before Hal sent his latest I
wrote Hal's
conclusion
<excerpt>N(h/mc)^2 ~ r*^2 for close
packing
</excerpt>
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
<excerpt>
</excerpt>
<excerpt>N^2e^2/mc^2r*^2
 2/\zpfr* = 0
</excerpt>
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:
<excerpt>Memorandum for the Record on
EVOs
"EVO" = Exotic Vacuum Object"
Ken
Shoulders seems to be making them on the mesoscopic
scale.
All leptoquarks are also spatiallyextended EVOs
on the fermi scale
10^13 cm in their rest frames, that
shrink from spatial warping to ~
10^16 cm when probed with
highenergy 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 "GEngines" (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:
<excerpt>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.
</excerpt>
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 selfenergy
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 antigravity 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:
<excerpt>PS Let me for the record explicitly
address Hal's
<excerpt><excerpt>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!
</excerpt></excerpt>
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
electronpositron
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:
<excerpt>1.1 Do a comparative
analysis of the CERN
document
<excerpt><excerpt>http://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=789638&ln=en
</excerpt></excerpt>
and
the NIDS documents
<excerpt><excerpt>http://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/www.nidsci.org/pdf/vallee_davis.pdf
http://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/www.nidsci.org/pdf/vallee_davis_ppt.pdf
</excerpt></excerpt>
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:
<excerpt>
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 etal have
not the slightest inkling of what this
is.
</excerpt>
<excerpt>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
</excerpt>
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 antigravitates
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 antigravitating "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
electronpositron pair condensate
whose phase gives
Einstein's metric field
guv.
</excerpt>
</excerpt>
</excerpt>
<excerpt>
</excerpt>
</excerpt>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~>
Make a
clean sweep of popup ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with
PopUp Blocker. Get it for free!
http://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSwxlB/TM
~>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<<*> To
visit your group on the web, go
to:
http://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/groups.yahoo.com/group/Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars/
<<*>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
Sarfatti_Physics_Seminarsunsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<<*>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject
to:
http://correo.hispavista.com/Redirect/docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
</excerpt></excerpt>
