Sarfatti-Puthoff Debate on Zero Point Energy Electron Model 1

Memorandum for the Record

On Jun 23, 2007, at 1:48 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Jack

I have not looked at Hal's latest model, but it is painful seeing this
exchange. I note that you have a habit of quoting things that people
never said.

- Michael

On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No Michael what I have said about Hal's model is completely accurate.
You are fooling yourself on this. People on this list who know the
physics cannot be fooled.

Here for the record is the true state of affairs with regard to his
important issue of principle.

typo-corrected 2nd draft below

On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jun 23, 2007, at 11:42 AM, wrote:

In a message dated 6/23/2007 1:25:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

"I have clearly explained what is wrong with Hal's basic idea. His
ambient zero point energy density outside the electron is 78 powers of
ten larger than is possible for our universe to exist."

Hal: The 78 powers of ten you cite is simply the difference between the
vacuum energy of empty space applicable to cosmology problems, and the
regularized vacuum that applies to vacuum fluctuation problems with
topology (boundary conditions). Different vacuua. Your "clear"
explanation is "not even wrong." (Pauli) :-)

Jack: No Hal you are using a spurious polemic here. I addressed this in
last message. You need a huge positive zero point energy density with w
= +1/3 outside your shell of charge. You must show why that w = +1/3
does not extend out to the entire universe. BTW if it did you would
still have a problem because that universe could not exist either!

OK, let T00(ZPE, s) be the total stress-energy tensor of the physical
vacuum for all quantum fields at scale s. This is something like a
wavelet transform. Your statement is that for s ~ 10^-11 cm in
neighborhood of the outside of the electron shells that T00(ZPE, 10^-11
cm) ~ 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc is positive with w = 1/3 and that T00(ZPE, s
~ 10^26 cm - 10^28 cm) has w = -1 at level of 10^-29 gm/cc.

i.e think of a resolution power spectrum of T00(ZPE,s) that is roughly a
smeared out Dirac delta function at s/s(IR) ~ 0, i.e. 10^-11/10^26.

Maybe, but you must give some kind of justification for that. Also you
only consider virtual photons and ignore virtual electron-positron pairs
- why? Also you ignore all the other quantum fields without any discussion.

Hal does not accept Einstein's GR that even a uniform zero point energy
"bends" spacetime.

Hal: Ridiculous statement, of course. If there were "a uniform zero
point energy" it would indeed "bend" spacetime. But there isn't.

Jack: First of all there is a uniform zero point energy and it does bend
spacetime. It's the dark energy density ~ 10^-29 gm/cc accelerating the
expansion of 3D space.
I am glad to see that you have finally retracted your earlier position
(I think in "Aviation Week" for example) and you definitely only a few
years ago told me that in your theory uniform zero point energy does not
bend spacetime that only differences in the zero point energy density
bend spacetime. I did not make that story up. That WAS your position in
2002 for sure. I am glad to see you have changed it with the new facts
from cosmology. Note all statements about the enormous ZPE energy locked
inside the vacuum are WRONG at least at large scales. These were common
beliefs prior to 1999. I made the same error myself until 2002! I know
if I Google I will find such statements by you.


Hal: The EM ZPE effects arise in interactions between EM boundary
conditions and the vacuum, perhaps best captured by E. T. Jaynes (who
did not believe in "a uniform zero point energy") in Jaynes Axiom: "The
complete interchangeability of source-field effects and
vacuum-fluctuations effects shows that source-field effects are the same
as if vacuum fluctuations were present." Topology and boundary
conditions (involved in vacuum regularization procedures) matter. This
may be "subtle, but it's not malicious!" (Einstein) :-)

Jack: This is word salad out of context. Look I know who Ed Jaynes is.
He was the PhD advisor to Fred W Cummings who was my PhD advisor. Jaynes
is talking about the well-known equivalence of Van Der Waals forces and
the Casimir virtual photons - this is discussed in detail in Peter
Milonni's book "Quantum Vacuum" that has no GR in it of course. Look
Hal, take parallel plates Casimir, the topology shift in w = -1, if any
in that case, would apply BETWEEN the plates not outside them for
Ibison's AFOs far from the open sides of the plates. Similarly for a
spherical shell of charge the w = +1/3 is for modes inside the shell not
outside. Or, if outside, the effect must decay and you must show how
that works. I do not have DeWitt's paper in front of me. Did you send
it? It may be on my computer, but I have his book with this stuff in my
office and will look later to see if his curved space example even
applies to your model - I think not.

Hal does not believe in the equivalence principle,


Hal: of course I do

Jack: You pay lip service to it, but your PV violates it, and your
electron shell model violates it (as above). With regard to PV you do
not have tensors, hence you cannot obey EEP, i.e. you have no LIFs &
LNIFS in local coincidence without tensor quantities.

nor does he accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating,

Hal: of course I do

Jack: Then you are being inconsistent until you show the limiting
relationship between your w = +1/3 virtual photons outside the shell and
the w = - 1 virtual photons at the large cosmological scale.

OR, he is inconsistent since his model violates the latter two
mainstream views.

Hal: Only your misrepresentation of my model violates the latter two
mainstream views. I think we should coin a new axiom: Sarfatti's "Straw
Man." Oh, oh, just googled, and found that "Straw Man" has already been
thought of. Pity. :-)

Jack: Hal you are evading the real issues here and are in denial. You
are not being logical here. Again to recapitulate:

1. Why in your model are there no virtual photons inside the charged
shell, but only outside? "Who ordered that?" (I. Rabi)

2. What happened to the virtual electron-positron pairs? You pretend
they do not exist.

3. How far out from the surface of your spherical shell do your alleged
w = +1/3 virtual photons at density 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc extend before
they damp down 78 powers of 10 to w = -1 dark energy?

Note, my model for the same electron shell is much better than yours. My
model is simpler and prettier - much less Rube Goldberg than your model.

In my model there is also a spherical shell of charge at ~ 10^-13 cm
classical electron radius in its rest frame. There is w = -1 dark ZPE
energy ~ 10^-29 gm/cc outside the shell up to the shell itself or maybe
only up to the virtual plasma ball ~ 10^-11 cm Compton radius. However
INSIDE the shell I have DeWitt's w = +1/3 virtual photons! That's INSIDE
Hal as DeWitt says! They say X doesn't know up from down. Well Hal you
don't know inside from outside! :-) I am using DeWitt correctly here.
And indeed the virtual photon energy density INSIDE the shell of charge
is 10^78 x 10^-29 gm/cc - SAME NUMBER YOU GET Hal but it's INSIDE the
shell not OUTSIDE. That is a topological difference Hal that you seem to
ignore - another "inconvenient truth." ;-) Also I have virtual
electron-positron pairs inside the shell of charge - that also attract
sucking in the charge preventing it from exploding.

OK, so look Hal your theory is literally an EMPTY SHELL. ;-) Your SHELL
GAME here is obvious! The Emperor has no clothes - no virtual dressing!
;-) I have a dark matter core inside the shell. The interior of my
charged shell is full of your DeWitt w = +1/3 virtual photons and the
virtual electron-positron pairs at huge energy density. Both have
positive pressure and suck in the electric charge! Outside it's simply
the observed weak positive dark energy density 10^-29 gm/cc of negative
pressure from w = -1.

Also my dynamical equilibrium equation is pretty - oh so pretty ...
(West Side Story)

/\zpfr^4 + (Classical Electron Radius)r + (Compton Quantum Radius)^2 = 0

That's a pretty cool equation (some dimensionless coefficients omitted
dependent on charge configuration) I got there Hal. You must admit and
you must also quit. ;-)