Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / August 2004

On Aug 27, 2004, at 3:53 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS I should make it clear that this latest paper by Hal Puthoff 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:

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:

On Aug 27, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

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?

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://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0408114

is probably wrong.

The repulsive Coulomb barrier potential self-energy 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

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 N-scaling
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
poly-electron 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.

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

First we need a critical point for the dynamical equilibrium of the
charge cluster.

dV(total)/dr* = 0

i.e.

-|A|/r^2 + n|B|/r^(n+1) = 0

The critical point must be a stable minimum, therefore

d^2V(total)/dr^2 > 0

i.e.

+2|A|/r^3 -(n+1)n|B|/r^(n+2) > 0

Therefore,

+2|A|/r^3 > (n+1)n|B|/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

Note in my memo to Ken Shoulders written before Hal sent his latest I
wrote Hal's conclusion

N(h/mc)^2 ~ r*^2  for close packing

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

N^2e^2/mc^2r*^2 - 2/\zpfr* = 0

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:

Memorandum for the Record on EVOs

"EVO" = Exotic Vacuum Object"

Ken Shoulders seems to be making them on the mesoscopic scale.

All lepto-quarks are also spatially-extended EVOs on the fermi scale
10^-13 cm in their rest frames, that shrink from spatial warping to ~
10^-16 cm when probed with high-energy 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 "G-Engines" (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:

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.

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 self-energy 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 anti-gravity 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:

PS Let me for the record explicitly address Hal's

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!

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 electron-positron 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:

1.1 Do a comparative analysis of the CERN document

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=789638&ln=en

and the NIDS documents

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/vallee_davis.pdf

http://www.nidsci.org/pdf/vallee_davis_ppt.pdf

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:

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 et-al have not the slightest inkling of what this is.

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

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 anti-gravitates 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 anti-gravitating "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 electron-positron pair condensate whose phase
gives Einstein's metric field guv.