A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rotating Superconductor Warp Drive?

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 15th 07, 03:23 AM posted to sci.math,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.particle,sci.astro,sci.space
Jack Sarfatti
external usenet poster
Posts: 113
Default 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:


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
High-Tc 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

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
gr-qc/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 Higgs-Goldstone vacuum order parameter. This
is a core of pre-inflation 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 non-exact LINE 1-forms, but
here we have quantized period integrals of closed non-exact AREA 2-forms
- 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 resolution-dependent 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 ~
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.

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 f-gravity.

Remember in my theory

e^a = I^a(zero gravity) + (1/N)^1/3A^a(gravity)

e^a = Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form

A^a is the spin 1 "Yang-Mills" 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 Einstein-Maxwell-Proca Equations
decoupled, and then only couple them through the assumption of an
ill-defined graviphoton-Cooper Pair coupling."

JS 10-4

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 Li-Torr 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
graviphoton-Cooper Pair binding until they show up again in the
so-called gravitational canonical momentum."

JS: Here is how I get "graviphotons".

A^a above is spin 1 Yang-Mills "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 M-Matrix

A^a = M^a^a = spin 1 Yang-Mills gravity tetrad field 1-form from local
gauging of rigid T4

S^a^b = - S^b^a = M^[a,b] = torsion field spin-connection 1-form from
local gauging rigid SO(1,3).

M^a^b is a matrix of non-closed 1-forms from the Goldstone coherent
world hologram vacuum ODLRO condensate phases whose closed non-exact
2-forms give the quantized Bekenstein BIT de Rham integrals for
non-trivial 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

Even though the numbers roughly work out, the assumption that an
undefined acceleration of the SC will break the graviphoton-Cooper 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,


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 self-gravity 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)

Self-coupling of tetrad field is 1/N^1/3

this part of gravity coupling increases in UV limit down to Planck

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:



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.