

Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Rotating Superconductor Warp Drive?
Yes, I did not mean it was a bad paper and at least they are being
motivated by experiments and observations and are not dazzled by pure math  Circe for theorists. On Jul 14, 2007, at 3:53 PM, ROBERT BECKER wrote: "Jack, I tend to agree with your conclusion. I read the referenced Paper and the two experimental Papers it references. On the positive side, the math appears to be correct, and they do get quantitative results in rough agreement with the experimental Papers. And, though I am not an experimentalist, I can not find anything obviously wrong with their experiment procedures either, though the results are not in precise agreement with their theory. The convergence of their theoretical results to a standard vacuum result as temperature rises into the HighTc SC regime is also intriguing, though it contradicts any possible Podkletnov Effect observation (if that is at all valid). But there appears to be some problems here." .... JS: On the reference issue. I completely rewrote the paper and left out all discussion of nonlocally correlated zero point energy  partly for length reasons and mostly because I lost the original word documents for that archive paper in a hard drive crash. However, all that stuff is in my book Super Cosmos with reference to your work on that and it is in the earlier versions on the archive. Actually I don't recall mentioning that in the archive paper at all. What version? RB: "The theoretical model de Matos and Beck use appears to be highly ad hoc." JS: Yes, I did not read the paper carefully, but I got that impression from an admittedly superficial scan as my attention is focused on my own new to me (at least) insights that I will put into my archive paper grqc/0602022 i.e. from Jack Ng andl ~ (Lp^2l)^1/3 Wigner l ~ N^1/2(Surrounding area A of interior "volume without volume") N = # Bekenstein BITs of surrounding area A ~ geometric area/Lp^2 Lp^2 = hG(Newton)/c^3 = 10^66 cm^2 This is general not only for event horizons of black holes and dark energy de Sitter horizons This is the t'Hooft "world hologram" idea also advocated by Lenny Susskind. Therefore, andl ~ N^1/6Lp Therefore l/andl ~ N^1/3 Therefore, volume without volume V ~ l^3 ~ Nandl^3 i.e. N area BITs on surrounding surface each of Lp^2 (forget factors of 4) enclose N quantum gravity cells of volume andl^3 ~ N^1/2Lp^3 = Lp^2l. The center of each such quantum gravity cell of Hagen Kleinert's "world lattice", itself a hologram, is a hedgehog geometrodynamic field monopole point node of the HiggsGoldstone vacuum order parameter. This is a core of preinflation false vacuum analogous to vortex cores in superfluids, but for second homotopy group not first i.e. wrapping area integers not winding loop integers. That is for vortices we have quantized de Rham period integrals of closed nonexact LINE 1forms, but here we have quantized period integrals of closed nonexact AREA 2forms  this is the meaning of the Bekenstein BIT that he stumbled into sleep walking with Wheeler in the 1960s. The amazing thing is that the size of the monopole cores of false vacuum are resolutiondependent getting larger with scale increasing to a fermi at the Hubble scale of 10^28 cm. Note for nuclear physics, Area ~ 10^26 cm N(nuclear) ~ 10^26 10^66 ~ 10^40 andl(nuclear) ~ 10^40/6 Lp ~ 10^7Lp ~ 10^26 cm on a scale of 10^13 cm i.e. we have a lattice of gravity monopoles each 10^26 cm across separated by 10^13 cm  but this all changes as we change scale like a "wavelet transform" of emergent orders within orders like the artichoke and the onion. This is an amazingly new quantum geometrodynamics. Loop quantum gravity is worthless. It has no results like what I am talking about. String theory not much better. Plus the dark energy density (hc/Lp^2)/\zpf = (hc/Lp^2)(1/(surrounding area) = (1/N)hc/Lp^4 what could be sweeter than that result? It's universal for all quantum matter fields from the equivalence principle! I got the whole thing. The whole shmear. It's simple. Any kid can grok it. No need for fancy math. RB: "They propose two different types of photons, or more precisely, two regimes for photons, one "gravitationally active" graviphotons and one "inactive" sector (photons, presumably)." JS: I don't understand that at all. RB: "This seems remarkably ad hoc." JS: Indeed. RB: " As discussed below, photons gaining mass in the SC state may be a correct interpretation, but a transition into a graviphoton state caused by the SC state seems again highly ad hoc." JS: Again I don't understand their meaning there. I did not think enough about it as yet. RB: "You yourself have several times pointed out that the Meissner Effect can be attributed to acquisition of an effective mass of a photon in the SC state." JS: Yes, that's well known. It's simply the U(1) Higgs mechanism. (P.W. Anderson) RB: "That is fairly well established, though I prefer to attribute the London Moment to a quantization effect. They extend the idea to a massive graviton in the SC state, which is reasonable." JS: "Yeah, that may be OK  it's plausible  like Abdus Salam's fgravity. Remember in my theory e^a = I^a(zero gravity) + (1/N)^1/3A^a(gravity) e^a = EinsteinCartan tetrad 1form A^a is the spin 1 "YangMills" field from localizing T4 translations ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea RB: "But they also seem to claim credit for results obtained previously by others (including me), for instance, a GM term in the canonical momentum for the SC. Another is the gravitational condensate itself as related to dark energy, which at least qualitatively, you and I had earlier proposed (and we go unreferenced). They initially keep the EM and GM EinsteinMaxwellProca Equations decoupled, and then only couple them through the assumption of an illdefined graviphotonCooper Pair coupling." JS 104 RB "Just because the graviphotons are suposedly coupled to the coherent Cooper Pairs I do not believe necessitates that the graviphotons must themselves be a condensate as they appear to claim. Furthermore, I believe the LiTorr treatment which fully couples the EM and GM effects of the Cooper Pairs themselves is more complete and likely more correct and less ad hoc." JS: I actually never read their papers as yet. RB: "The only role of the Cooper Pairs appears to be the graviphotonCooper Pair binding until they show up again in the socalled gravitational canonical momentum." JS: Here is how I get "graviphotons". A^a above is spin 1 YangMills "renormalizable" (t'Hooft) ds^2 = I^aI^a + I^aAa + A^aIa + A^aAa I^aAa + A^aIa is pure spin 1 graviphoton A^aAa is spin 0, spin 1 and spin 2 (ordinary graviton) i.e. in QM 1 + 1 = 0, 1, 2 i.e. the matrix irreps 3x3 = 1x1 + 3x3 +5x5 RB: "But this seems highly artificial. There should be one canonical momentum for the whole combined EM and GM system, not arbitrary demarcations thereof. This leads to strange looking terms in which the graviphoton effective mass couples to the GM potential, while the dark energy condensate (which seemingly originates with the graviphotons) is the only contribution to the mechanical term in the canonical momentum." JS: My vacuum ODLRO condensate has the MMatrix A^a = M^a^a = spin 1 YangMills gravity tetrad field 1form from local gauging of rigid T4 S^a^b =  S^b^a = M^[a,b] = torsion field spinconnection 1form from local gauging rigid SO(1,3). M^a^b is a matrix of nonclosed 1forms from the Goldstone coherent world hologram vacuum ODLRO condensate phases whose closed nonexact 2forms give the quantized Bekenstein BIT de Rham integrals for nontrivial second homotopy group of wrapping number integers that I call "N" above. RB: "It is hard to tell where the graviphotons and massive ordinary photons and other elements of the system are being conflated and being distinguished. Even though the numbers roughly work out, the assumption that an undefined acceleration of the SC will break the graviphotonCooper Pair binding also seems highly ad hoc. They see discontinuities in the experimental data in traversals of Tc, but this should be true in any reasonable model of a SC state. (My own GM Flux Quantization would also show a similar discontinuity.) The experiments appear to be very serious, and there is rough quantitative agreement with this theory, which is intriguing, but... Take care, Robert" Jack Sarfatti wrote: I do not see any coherent organizing idea in this paper. They seem to be grasping at straws and inventing a Rube Goldberg explanation. However I did not spend a lot of time trying to understand what they are claiming since at the moment I think my explanation of the dark energy problem is the correct one since it's simple, universal and based on some deep insights of some very smart physicists like Eugene Wigner and Gerard t' Hooft. However, if the authors make a model that agree with experiment then I will look again later. Some of what they say reminds me of Ray Chiao's "gravity radio"? On Jul 13, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: By the numbers. The strongest dimensionless selfgravity tetrad coupling is at Planck scale where N = 1 and the universal zero point energy density is + hc/Lp^4 for bosons and fermions respectively in the 3D volumes without volumes. Anyons with fractional statistics on the surrounding closed surfaces that are not boundaries of the interior volumes without volumes. electroweak unification scale is ~ 10^16 cm N(10^16 cm) ~ 10^32/10^66 ~ 10^34 BITS N^1/3 ~ 10^11 by the time we get to cosmology 10^28 cm N^1/3 ~ 10^41 On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:24 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: Hal won't like this one. He says dark energy density not relevant on small scales. At this point I think I have solved the dark energy problem. Because of IT FROM BIT world hologram it scales as 1/N  very simple indeed. N = number of Bekenstein BITs on any surrounding surface S of an interior "volume without volume" V projected from S, which is not a boundary because it encloses exactly N point nodes of the vacuum ODLRO order parameter. N ~ Area/Lp^2 length scale is (Area)^1/2 Quantum Gravity Fluctuation in (Area)^1/2 is (Lp^2(Area)^1/2)^1/3 e.g. Jack Ng's papers. (Area)^1/2/QGF = N^1/2/N^1/6 = N^1/3 ZPF energy density is (hc/Lp^2)(1/Area) = (1/N)hc/Lp^4 for enclosed "volume without volume" = holographic projection of the surrounding surface this is for all quantum matter fields (equivalence principle) Selfcoupling of tetrad field is 1/N^1/3 this part of gravity coupling increases in UV limit down to Planck scale. N = 10^122 future de Sitter horizon Everything seems to work perfectly! Very simple. Wheeler said it would be simple. He was right. Does anyone have a better idea? World Hologram makes definite prediction here that any smart high school kid can understand. Simply take t'Hooft's idea seriously. Why hasn't he noticed this simple consequence of his idea? On Jul 13, 2007, at 11:36 AM, art wagner wrote: xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1797v1.pdf 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Flying Saucer Warp Drive  [email protected]  Astronomy Misc  2  September 4th 05 10:44 PM 
Sarfatti Lectures in Warp Drive Physics 1  Autymn D. C.  Astronomy Misc  0  July 27th 05 09:52 AM 
We have the basic elements for a "warp drive"  [email protected]  Astronomy Misc  18  June 25th 04 07:50 PM 
Wesley Clark Support Warp Drive, Time Travel  Mark R. Whittington  Policy  97  October 17th 03 03:10 AM 
UFO Warp Drive (corrections)  Chillyvek  Astronomy Misc  0  August 24th 03 08:34 PM 