Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Das Hauptfeld

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    References: Content-Type: text/plain;
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      References: <MABBKCFMKBNBAIINHDIHGEAECCAA.ibison@...> <3C7E85E6.3020100@...> <3C7EC309.10501@...>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

      What we have here is a master field, the mother, not of all fields since
      the gauge force and source fields are there independently, but certainly
      of the classical gravity field. It is a tachyon field even though the
      small Higgs fluctuations in the broken symmetry Mexican Sombrero
      Potential have positive rest mass that gets "eaten" to give mass the the
      weak bosons in SU(2) flavor, for example. The classical gravity field is
      from noncommuting anholonomic mixed second order and higher to fourth
      order partial derivatives of the phase field of the vacuum expectation
      value of the Goldstone-Higgs quantum field operator in gauge invariant
      combinations with the U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) fiber connection fields.

      The "God" or "Goldstone-Higgs" field has M^2 < 0. This is swept under
      the rug as a formality, but it really has physical meaning. The mass
      shell for a tachyon is

      E^2 = (pc)^2 - (Mc^2)^2 pole of the spin 0 Goldstone-Higgs propagator

      E = 0 when p = Mc^2

      i.e. a long wave (infrared) momentum gap for p < Mc^2.

      However, virtual quanta are not so constrained.

      We have seen that coherent NONRANDOM quantum fields of virtual quanta,
      whether gauge boson, or electroquark particle-antiparticle pairs, or
      spin 0 Goldstone-Higgs M^2 < 0 tachyons, all have positive active
      gravitational mass-energy density (Too + 3p) > 0. Consequently, they
      gravitate. In contrast, the incoherent RANDOM zero point fluctuations of
      all quantum fields all have negative active gravitational mass-energy
      density (Too + 3p) < 0. Consequently, they antigravitate.

      The quantum vacuum net energy density from virtual quanta is simply

      too(virtual quanta) ~ (hc/Lp^2)/\(virtual quanta)

      Where

      /\(virtual quanta) = /\(random zero point virtual quanta) - /\(nonrandom
      Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual quanta)

      The limit of Einstein's 1915 GMD is

      /\(virtual quanta) = 0

      i.e.

      Guv(classical curved spacetime) = -(G/c^4)[Tuv(real quanta) +
      Tuv(coherent states of virtual photons forming EM nonradiating near
      magnetic and electric induction fields)]

      "real quanta" include all ordinary matter, i.e. leptoquark
      conglomerations on mass shell, and electromagnetic radiation.

      Coherent states (Bose-Einstein condensates) of virtual photons forming
      EM near "induction" fields are set = 0 in the definition of the
      "physical vacuum".

      They all obey (Too + 3p) > 0. They all gravitate.

      The only gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates that are "internal" to
      the physical quantum vacuum is the Goldstone-Higgs spin 0 neutral
      condensate whose role is to cancel the anti-gravitating negative active
      gravitational mass density

      [tuv(random zero point) + 3p(random zero point)] < 0

      If this delicate balance is upset such that locally at event x

      /\(virtual quanta) > 0 we have quintessent antigravity.

      If, on the other hand

      /\(virtual quanta) < 0 we have gravitating "dark energy" i.e. missing
      mass of the universe.


      Jack Sarfatti wrote:

      > Expanded and corrected THIRD draft. "dt" to "dr" (a typo in 2nd draft)
      >
      > Note lines on Too should have been Too4pir^2dr for field energy inside
      > a thin spherical shell.
      >
      > Main message:
      >
      > The quantum vacuum has a macroscopic electrically neutral spin 0, M^2
      > < 0 "God" (AKA "Goldstone-Higgs") field
      >
      > psi(x) = vacuum expectation value of "Goldstone-Higgs" quantum field.
      > The physical vacuum then contains a "superfluid" of ZERO ENERGY
      > finite 3-momentum virtual tachyons in Glauber coherent (maybe squeezed
      > as well) macroscopic quantum states. The active gravitational
      > mass-energy density of this coherent tachyonic superfluid is
      > "positive", i.e gravitating "dark energy" that cancels the
      > anti-gravitating random zero point fluctuations of all the gauge
      > bosons and lepto-quark virtual pairs.
      >
      > If this balance is upset in one direction above /\ = 0 we have
      > antigravity source density /\ > 0. If the balance is upset the other
      > way we have dark matter source density /\ < 0.
      >
      > All classical electromagnetic near fields from macro coherent quantum
      > states of virtual photons also gravitate obeying positive energy
      > theorems of Penrose and Hawking and are set to zero in the vacuum.
      >
      > To avoid previous ambiguity: the gravitating contribution to /\ from
      > coherent virtual quanta are these tachyon M^2 < 0 ZERO ENERGY finite
      > 3-momentum "Goldstone-Higgs bosons". They are what cancel the random
      > virtual zero point photons, the random virtual electron-positron zero
      > point pairs et-al that, if left to their own devices, would
      > ANTIGRAVITATE with /\ ~ 1/Lp^2 > 0.
      >
      > Whether the Goldstone-Higgs zero energy finite momenta virtual (and
      > possibly real) quanta are composites of virtual gauge bosons and
      > virtual lepto-quark pairs is a separate problem.
      >
      > Since the Goldstone-Higgs quantum has M^2 < 0 in spontaneous broken
      > vacuum symmetry, they can be "real", i.e. on their mass shell as well
      > as virtual.
      >
      > That is I should say "coherent virtual quanta + real tachyonic
      > Goldstone-Higgs quanta of zero energy in the Hubble flow"
      >
      >
      >
      > js:
      > The problem here is how can WF explain perfectly measurable huge near
      > energy densities stored in space around motors, generators, coils and
      > transformers if what you say is true?
      >
      > mibison:
      > Traditionally there are 2 components to that energy.
      > Given energy_density = E*E+H*H let E = sum_over_i E_i, likewise for H.
      > Now split the energy_density into two pieces:
      >
      > sum_over_i E_i*E_i + H_i*H_i
      >
      > and
      >
      > sum_over_i,j; i=/=j E_i*E_j + H_i*H_j
      >
      >
      > The first piece is the electromagnetic self-energy, traditionally
      > absorbed
      > into the mass of the sources. The second is the mutual energy.
      > WF denies the first, keeps only the second, and absorbs nothing into the
      > mass. The result is the same: the observed EM energy density is the
      > same in both
      > cases.
      >
      > js: First your notation, by i,j you mean particle labels not tensor
      > components.
      >
      > So Ei is total electric field produced by the ith charge.
      >
      > Now when you say "WF denies the first" you mean no self-field Ei at
      > the position of the source charge i.
      >
      > That is not what I am talking about and you have not. What I mean is
      > this.
      >
      > Given a source charge i, Ei(r,t) is, in traditional language, the
      > electric field at field point 3-vector r made by source i at the
      > origin of 3-vector r at time t in some frame of reference. You are
      > saying that Ei(0,t) = 0 in WF. I am alluding to
      > Ei(r) = Ei(r)nonradiating near field + Ei(r) radiating far field
      >
      > WF clearly have to eliminate both. But how is that possible for the
      > near field? One cannot assume total absorber boundary condition for
      > the near field! So I think there is a deep conceptual inconsistency is
      > WF 1940 since it appears that their idea only works for the
      > propagating far radiation field.
      >
      > It is obvious from test particles that there are macroscopic amounts
      > of nonpropagating near field energy density stored in the classically
      > empty space surrounding electric motors, electric generators, magnetic
      > coils and transformers etc.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Jack Sarfatti wrote:
      >
      >> This whole issue of EM near and far fields is important I think. In
      >> this note I review some of the classical physics before going to the
      >> ambiguities in the quantization of the electromagnetic field where
      >> the near fields are swept under the rug leading I think to a lot of
      >> confusion on what the quantum vacuum really is.
      >>
      >> I follow an old text book by a former Chief Scientist of USAF in 1954
      >> Chalmers W. Sherwin, who would have known the true flying saucer
      >> story at that time. I wonder if he knew Paul Hill?
      >>
      >> He talks of "four fields of dynamic electricity"
      >>
      >> First assume the source currents flow in closed electrically neutral
      >> loops.
      >
      >
      > Let 2 pieces of loop point toward the field point test charge and the
      > other two pieces approximately normal to approximate r 3-vector from
      > source loop to field point. As r gets bigger this detail of
      > convenience gets less important.
      >
      >>
      >>
      >> a) Near magnetic induction fields in electrical motors and
      >> generators. These happen for steady source electric currents at
      >> uniform speed v(source) with a magnitude of force
      >>
      >> ~ v(source)v(test charge)/(distance between source and test charge)^3
      >>
      >> This magnetic induction near field force is at right angles to the
      >> velocity of the test charge and is roughly speaking pointing toward
      >> the source closed current loop along the "radial" direction from
      >> source to field point where test charge is.
      >>
      >> for now, in our first sweep, we do not worry about explicit time
      >> delays of finite propagation speeds - a subtle issue that we will go
      >> to Arnold Sommefeld with later on. Also for now we think in Galilean
      >> relativity terms very tentatively - Einstein changed all that in 1905.
      >
      >
      >
      > There is also and electric field produced by a source charge in
      > uniform motion, but for a closed source current loop AT REST the
      > 3-vector sum of all of these electric fields will be zero. Not so for
      > a uniformly moving closed current loop which will make a net electric
      > field at the test charge.
      >
      > The force on the test charge at the field point is, of course, the
      > Lorentz force:
      >
      > F(Lorentz) = (test charge)[E + (v(test charge)/c)x B(magnetic
      > induction near field)]
      >
      > The near field magnetic induction force (test charge)(v(test
      > charge)/c)x B(magnetic induction near field) is partially analogous to
      > the inertial Coriolis force on a particle seen in a noninertial
      > rotating coordinate system. Einstein's principle of equivalence that
      > explains gravity by locally eliminating it, says that locally the
      > acceleration of the coordinate frame is indistinguishable from a
      > gravity field. However, in the problem of a rotating cylinder, try to
      > find a Tuv that will make that kind of gravity field globally. See
      > also Wheeler and Ciuofolini on "gravimagnetism" frame-dragging,
      > Lens-Thirring effect. See also Sagnac effect & Thomas precession.
      >
      >>
      >> b) Near electric induction field in coils and transformers (double
      >> coils) from uniform magnitude accelerations of the source currents in
      >> closed loops. These exert a force on distant test electric charges at
      >> rest relative to the lab whose magnitude is
      >>
      >> ~ (acceleration of source charge)/(distance between source and test
      >> charge)^2
      >>
      >> This near electric induction field force is roughly speaking
      >> perpendicular to the "radial direction" from source to field point
      >> where test charge is.
      >>
      >> Note that the magnetic induction force fields from motors and
      >> generators falls off faster than do the electrical induction force
      >> fields from coils and transformers.
      >
      >
      >>
      >>
      >> c) Far field electrical radiation fields from the "jerk" of the
      >> source currents i.e. "acceleration of the acceleration" in which the
      >> magnitude of the 3-vector force on even a resting test charge
      >>
      >> ~ (jerk of source)/(distance between source and test charge)
      >>
      >> This radiative electric force is also roughly opposite to the
      >> velocity vector of the source test charge.
      >>
      >> d) Far field magnetic radiation fields from the "jerk" of the source
      >> currents in which the magnitude of the 3-vector force on even a test
      >> charge in motion
      >>
      >> ~ (jerk of source)(speed of test charge)/(distance between source
      >> and test charge)
      >>
      >> The EM field energy density ~ (square of the field), i.e. Too in
      >> Einstein's local geometrodynamic field equation.
      >>
      >> The energy density stored in the near magnetic induction field from
      >> electrical motors and electrical power generators ~ 1/r^6. This
      >> energy density is there independent of the presence or absence of a
      >> test charge, because it also has a gravitational effect! Consider a
      >> spherical shell of radius r and thickness dr surrounding the motor or
      >> generator whose size is small compared to r. The field energy in
      >> these thin spherical shells surrounding the source decays as
      >>
      >> Too(near field magnetic induction from motors, generator)4pir^2dr ~
      >> dr/r^4 Similarly
      >>
      >> Too(near field electric induction from magnetic coils and
      >> transformers)4pir^2dr ~ dr/r^2
      >> Too(far field electric and magnetic radiation)4pir^2dr ~ dr
      >>
      >> Note the r- dependence cancels out in the far field!
      >>
      >> This means "propagation of radiation energy" to infinity.
      >>
      >> In quantum electrodynamics, this far field is from real photons only
      >> with transverse polarizations, if the photon has zero rest mass. Real
      >> photons are "on the mass shell" or "on the light cone" using
      >> Feynman's quantum propagators from perturbation theory.
      >>
      >> In contrast, the above near fields are from virtual photons off the
      >> mass shell, both inside and outside the light cone as sub and
      >> superluminal speeds respectively, with all three independent
      >> polarizations 2 transverse and one longitudinal. Gauge invariance,
      >> i.e. conservation of electric charge means that the 4th scalar
      >> (timelike) polarization and the longitudinal polarization are
      >> constrained by an equation.
      >>
      >> Note that the active gravitational mass-energy density (Too + 3 EM
      >> Field Pressure) of all of these classical EM fields is positive, i.e.
      >> they "gravitate" unlike the random component of the zero point
      >> virtual photon fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which
      >> anti-gravitate causing an enormous cosmological constant anomaly.
      >
      >
      >
      > The quantum vacuum has a macroscopic electrically neutral spin 0, M^2
      > < 0 "God" (AKA "Goldstone-Higgs") field
      >
      > psi(x) = vacuum expectation value of "Goldstone-Higgs" quantum field.
      > The physical vacuum then contains a "superfluid" of zero energy
      > finite 3-momentum virtual tachyons in Glauber coherent (maybe squeezed
      > as well) macroscopic quantum states. The active gravitational
      > mass-energy density of this coherent tachyonic superfluid is
      > gravitating "dark energy" that cancels the anti-gravitating random
      > zero point fluctuations of all the gauge bosons and lepto-quark
      > virtual pairs.
      >
      > If this balance is upset in one direction above /\ = 0 we have
      > antigravity source density /\ >0. If the balance is upset the other
      > way we have dark matter source density /\ < 0.
      >
      > All electromagnetic near fields from macro coherent quantum states of
      > virtual photons also gravitate obeying positive energy theorems of
      > Penrose and Hawking and are set to zero in the vacuum.
      >
      > To avoid previous ambiguity: the gravitating contribution to /\ from
      > coherent virtual quanta are these tachyon M^2 < 0 ZERO ENERGY finite
      > 3-momentum "Goldstone-Higgs bosons". They are what cancel the random
      > virtual zero point photons, the random virtual electron-positron zero
      > point pairs et-al that, if left to their own devices, would
      > ANTIGRAVITATE with /\ ~ 1/Lp^2 > 0.
      >
      >>
      >>
      >> The classical near fields above that store net positive field energy
      >> and can be used for signal propagation are in fact coherent
      >> macroscopic quantum states of virtual photons off the mass shell.
      >>
      >> To be continued.
      >>
      >>
      >> michael ibison wrote:
      >>
      >>> js:
      >>> Now as for Ibison's idea based on 1940 Wheeler-Feynman.
      >>>
      >>> I like general idea of advanced influences + retarded influences = what
      >>> happens here-now.
      >>>
      >>> However, relying too much on real photons is a deeply wrong idea.
      >>> Therefore, I think Mike Ibison's whole idea will fail for the latter
      >>> reason not for the former.
      >>>
      >>> mi:
      >>> Jack: thanks for taking a bit of time to notice the idea. However,
      >>> it is not
      >>> based on real photons. In fact, I know of no way it could be,
      >>> because EM
      >>> Wheeler-Feynman fields to not contribute to the (vacuum) EM
      >>> Hamiltonian. In
      >>> my case, of no independent vacuum fields, there IS no vacuum EM
      >>> Hamiltonian
      >>> at all.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>> Reply-To: <ibison@...>
      >>>> From: "michael ibison" <ibison@...>
      >>>> To: <sarfatti@...>
      >>>> Subject: RE: Jack's assignment & Ibison's Idea
      >>>> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:27:42 -0600
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> js:
      >>>> Now as for Ibison's idea based on 1940 Wheeler-Feynman.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> I like general idea of advanced influences + retarded influences =
      >>>> what
      >>>> happens here-now.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> e.g. work of Libet, Radin, Bierman, R D Nelson et-al which strongly to
      >>>> my mind suggest both retro PK and precognition in mind-brain
      >>>> post-quantum physics with signal nonlocality from direct feedback or
      >>>> "back-action" of matter to mind which is absent in orthodox quantum
      >>>> theory. In orthodox quantum theory mind pilots matter without direct
      >>>> feedback of matter on mind. Then, and only then, do you have local
      >>>> quantum randomness in nonlocally entangled many-particle quantum
      >>>> states
      >>>> with "no cloning" and signal-locality in spite of quantum nonlocality
      >>>> i.e. "passion at a distance" (Shimony) - a really detestable state of
      >>>> affairs! ;-)
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> However, relying too much on real photons is a deeply wrong idea.
      >>>> Therefore, I think Mike Ibison's whole idea will fail for the latter
      >>>> reason not for the former.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> mi:
      >>>> Jack: thanks for taking a bit of time to notice the idea. However,
      >>>> it is not
      >>>> based on real photons. In fact, I know of no way it could be,
      >>>> because EM
      >>>> Wheeler-Feynman fields to not contribute to the (vacuum) EM
      >>>> Hamiltonian. In
      >>>> my case, of no independent vacuum fields, there IS no vacuum EM
      >>>> Hamiltonian
      >>>> at all.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> js:
      >>>> Yes you are right, it is true that Wheeler and Feynman eliminate
      >>>> the EM
      >>>> dynamical degrees of freedom in their direct two-way action at a
      >>>> distance along the null light cones. I should have said the
      >>>> "equivalent
      >>>> of real photons" propagating energy between emitters and absorbers in
      >>>> the equivalent of the far field. The direct two way (advanced and
      >>>> retarded)
      >>>> light cone action at a distance, i.e. ZERO spacetime "contact" so
      >>>> actually
      >>>> "local" in 4-dim, is AS IF real photons connecting widely separated
      >>>> (in
      >>>> 3-space) exchanging energy and momentum. That's what I meant, but
      >>>> should
      >>>> have spelled it out in detail.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> mi:
      >>>> If you strike out vacuum energy in the full spirit of WF, then, at
      >>>> best, it
      >>>> is misleading to speak of propagation of energy from emitter to
      >>>> absorber in
      >>>> the 'normal' manner of traditional exclusively retarded radiation.
      >>>> EM energy
      >>>> is now always mutual (between sources) having no intermediate (i.e.
      >>>> vacuum)
      >>>> independent (i.e. unary) existance.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> js:
      >>>> Your point above is well taken. I wish I could say that about Hal
      >>>> Puthoff's
      >>>> and Eric Davis's, but, alas! I cannot! ;-)
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> Do you remember if Wheeler and Feynman eliminate the near field
      >>>> also, I
      >>>> mean like the Coulomb static field?
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> mi:
      >>>> The property of the Coulomb field that gives rise to infinite
      >>>> self-energy of
      >>>> a charge source is eliminated along with 'diagonal' (=>
      >>>> vacuum)terms in the
      >>>> EM Hamiltonian. The Coulomb field itself obviously persists. The
      >>>> end result
      >>>> is that the Coulomb field is now always a *mutual* interaction.
      >>>> Even if you
      >>>> don't know the 'target' of the field lines from a source, there
      >>>> must be a
      >>>> 'sink' else the field-line would not emanate in the first place.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> js:
      >>>> I have to go back and check, but you are more current on their model
      >>>> than I am. Do they only eliminate the transverse modes on mass shell?
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> mi:
      >>>> If I understand the question correctly: the traditional modes that are
      >>>> quantized are completely eliminated.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >> Those are only the transverse modes in some older methods of
      >> quantization. Then you have negative probablities when you also
      >> quantize all four polarizations as I recall? It becomes a mess
      >> conceptually.
      >>
      >>
      >>>> Their existence as independent degrees
      >>>> of freedom is denied.
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> js:
      >>>> When you say "there IS no vacuum EM Hamiltonian at all"
      >>>> What about the static Coulomb field between electrons, protons etc?
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>> mi:
      >>>> That energy is mutual, not ascribable to a bunch of oscillators in the
      >>>> vacuum.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>
      >>>> The whole process of quantization of the Coulomb field into virtual
      >>>> and
      >>>> near-field photons (=> degrees of freedom of the vacuum) necessarily
      >>>> followed by mass-renormalization has no counterpart in WF theory.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >> The problem here is how can WF explain perfectly measurable huge near
      >> energy densities stored in space around motors, generators, coils and
      >> transformers if what you say is true?
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >

      --
      "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
      http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
      http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
      http://stardrive.org/
    • Jack Sarfatti
      Some obvious typos corrected i.e. c^2 should have been c in some statements fixed below. Also new comment from Ibison below. Summary of basic ideas however.
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Some obvious typos corrected i.e. c^2 should have been c in some
        statements fixed below.

        Also new comment from Ibison below.

        Summary of basic ideas however.

        psi(x) = (1/Lp^3/2)[1 - Lp^2/\(x)]^1/2 e^itheta(x)

        Is "Das Hauptfeld"!

        Einstein's classical 1915 general relativity requires psi(x) =/= 0 with
        /\(x) = 0 such that

        Guv(x) = -(G/c^4)Tuv

        I claim to have essentially solved the following experimental mysteries.

        1. Andre Sakharov's problem of 1967/

        How classical curved spacetime?

        That is, how does classical curved spacetime in the sense of Einstein's
        1915 "geometrodynamics" come into being from the quantum randomness
        associated with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

        Ray Chiao calls this the unresolved tension between Einstein's local
        principle of equivalence and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with
        "nonlocality" needed to sustain it, even though there is "signal
        locality" ("passion at a distance" - Shimony) enforced by this seeminly
        uncontrollable local quantum randomness, or "subquantal heat death" -
        Tony Valentini.

        Einstein explained classical gravity by locally eliminating it in
        weightless free float frames! The tidal (inhomogeneous) gravity force is
        from the local curvature of spacetime. This tidal force is not locally
        eliminated (except perhaps for Kleinert's "super tetrads"?).

        The real problem here is seldom stated clearly even by the Pundits. The
        real problem is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle demands that the
        zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations of all quantum fields are
        "exotic" (in Kip Thorne's sense). They antigravitate with an active
        negative gravity mass energy density, i.e.

        (zero point quantum vacuum energy density + 3 zero point quantum vacuum
        pressure) < 0

        So the real problem is: what is there to subtract from these exotic zero
        point quantum vacuum fluctuations of the spin 1 electroweak-strong gauge
        boson forces and their spin 1/2 leptoquark sources?

        So, I say I have solved this mystery!

        How?

        Simple, piece of cake!

        The quantum vacuum has a local coherent ODLRO parameter

        psi(x) = vacuum expectation value of electroweak-strong charge neutral
        spin 0 Goldstone-Higgs quantum field operator.

        The "pregeometry" to classical curved spacetime is a global special
        relativistic flat spacetime with U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) gauge boson spin 1
        force fields, with the corresponding leptoquark spin 1/2 source fields,
        and with the spin 0 neutral Goldstone-Higgs field of bare mass M^2 of
        the standard model.

        This is a conservative mainstream picture. Do not yet need strings,
        hyperspace, or supersymmetry.

        The Josephson-de Broglie-Bohm "phase lock equation" is

        Xu(x) = Lp^2 Du[theta(x)]

        where

        Xu(x) is the local "world crystal" distortion field explained in detail
        by Hagen Kleinert of Free University of Berlin on his website. It is
        essentially the local Diff(4) symmetry transformation.

        Lp^2 - hG/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2 = 1 Bekenstein quantum gravity bit of
        information.

        psi(x) = |psi(x)|e^itheta(x)

        Du[theta(x)] = theta(x),u - (e/hc)Au(x)

        Au(x) is local U(1)xSU(2)xU(3) electroweak-strong gauge spin 1 boson
        force connection 4-potential. "e" symbolizes set of 12 charges
        generating the Lie algebra of standard model.

        Einstein's classical curved geometrodynamic GMD local field guv(x) is
        then the strain tensor of this elastic-plastic 4-dim world crystal with
        string cracks causing curvature and even torsion beyond Einstein's 1915 GMD.

        guv(x) = (1/2)Lp^2[DuDv + DvDu]theta(x)

        The local quinstessent field is

        /\(x) = (1/Lp^2)[1 - Lp^3|psi(x)|^2]

        Therefore,

        Lp^2/\(x) = 1 - Lp^3|psi(x)|^2

        Lp^3|psi(x)|^2 = 1 - Lp^2/\(x)

        |psi(x)|^2 = (1/Lp)^3[1 - Lp^2/\(x)] > 0

        /\(x) can be positive such than

        Lp^2/\(x) < 1

        Since Lp^2 is so small, this is not a serious restriction.

        Therefore

        psi(x) = (1/Lp^3/2)[1 - Lp^2/\(x)]^1/2 e^itheta(x)

        Is "Das Hauptfeld"!

        2. Why is /\ ~ 0 cosmologically to first approximation?

        3. Why is our expanding universe's rate of expansion speeding up rather
        than slowing down?

        Ans. /\(x) > 0 on large scale > 10 megaparsecs.

        4. What is the "missing mass" i.e. gravitating "dark energy"?

        Ans. /\(x) < 0 in clumpy regions ~ 10 megaparsecs and less.

        And other things!


        Jack Sarfatti wrote:

        >
        >
        >What we have here is a master field, the mother, not of all fields since
        >the gauge force and source fields are there independently, but certainly
        >of the classical gravity field. It is a tachyon field even though the
        >small Higgs fluctuations in the broken symmetry Mexican Sombrero
        >Potential have positive rest mass that gets "eaten" to give mass the the
        >weak bosons in SU(2) flavor, for example. The classical gravity field is
        >from noncommuting anholonomic mixed second order and higher to fourth
        >order partial derivatives of the phase field of the vacuum expectation
        >value of the Goldstone-Higgs quantum field operator in gauge invariant
        >combinations with the U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) fiber connection fields.
        >
        >The "God" or "Goldstone-Higgs" field has M^2 < 0. This is swept under
        >the rug as a formality, but it really has physical meaning. The mass
        >shell for a tachyon is
        >
        >E^2 = (pc)^2 - (Mc^2)^2 pole of the spin 0 Goldstone-Higgs propagator
        >
        >E = 0 when p = Mc
        >
        >i.e. a long wave (infrared) momentum gap for p < Mc.
        >
        >However, virtual quanta are not so constrained.
        >
        >We have seen that coherent NONRANDOM quantum fields of virtual quanta,
        >whether gauge boson, or electroquark particle-antiparticle pairs, or
        >spin 0 Goldstone-Higgs M^2 < 0 tachyons, all have positive active
        >gravitational mass-energy density (Too + 3p) > 0. Consequently, they
        >gravitate. In contrast, the incoherent RANDOM zero point fluctuations of
        >all quantum fields all have negative active gravitational mass-energy
        >density (Too + 3p) < 0. Consequently, they antigravitate.
        >
        >The quantum vacuum net energy density from virtual quanta is simply
        >
        >too(virtual quanta) ~ (hc/Lp^2)/\(virtual quanta)
        >
        >Where
        >
        >/\(virtual quanta) = /\(random zero point virtual quanta) - /\(nonrandom
        >Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual quanta)
        >
        >The limit of Einstein's 1915 GMD is
        >
        >/\(virtual quanta) = 0
        >
        >i.e.
        >
        >Guv(classical curved spacetime) = -(G/c^4)[Tuv(real quanta) +
        >Tuv(coherent states of virtual photons forming EM nonradiating near
        >magnetic and electric induction fields)]
        >
        >"real quanta" include all ordinary matter, i.e. leptoquark
        >conglomerations on mass shell, and electromagnetic radiation.
        >
        >Coherent states (Bose-Einstein condensates) of virtual photons forming
        >EM near "induction" fields are set = 0 in the definition of the
        >"physical vacuum".
        >
        >They all obey (Too + 3p) > 0. They all gravitate.
        >
        >The only gravitating Bose-Einstein condensates that are "internal" to
        >the physical quantum vacuum is the Goldstone-Higgs spin 0 neutral
        >condensate whose role is to cancel the anti-gravitating negative active
        >gravitational mass density
        >
        >[tuv(random zero point) + 3p(random zero point)] < 0
        >
        >If this delicate balance is upset such that locally at event x
        >
        >/\(virtual quanta) > 0 we have quintessent antigravity.
        >
        >If, on the other hand
        >
        >/\(virtual quanta) < 0 we have gravitating "dark energy" i.e. missing
        >mass of the universe.
        >

        michael ibison wrote:


        >>js:
        >>The problem here is how can WF explain perfectly measurable huge near
        >>energy densities stored in space around motors, generators, coils and
        >>transformers if what you say is true?
        >>
        >>mi:
        >>Traditionally there are 2 components to that energy.
        >>Given energy_density = E*E+H*H let E = sum_over_i Ei, likewise for H.
        >>Now split the energy_density into two pieces:
        >>
        >>sum_over_i Ei*Ei + Hi*Hi
        >>
        >>and
        >>
        >>sum_over_i,j; i=/=j Ei*Ej + Hi*Hj
        >>
        >>
        >>The first piece is the electromagnetic self-energy, traditionally absorbed
        >>into the mass of the sources. The second is the mutual energy.
        >>WF denies the first, keeps only the second, and absorbs nothing into the
        >>mass. The result is the same: the observed EM energy density is the same in
        >>both
        >>cases.
        >>
        >>js:
        >>First your notation, by i,j you mean particle labels not tensor components.
        >>So Ei is total electric field produced by the ith charge.
        >>Now when you say "WF denies the first" you mean no self-field Ei at the
        >>position of the source charge i.
        >>
        >>mi:
        >>No, I don't mean that. I mean that Too does not contain Ei*Ei nor Hi*Hi.
        >>
        >

        js:
        I don't know what you mean by "i" in that case. Please carefully define
        your notation is words in detail.

        mi:
        Ei is the total field (near and far) due to the ith source.

        js: I realize that WF and later Hoyle & Narlikar remove field degrees of freedom as redundant, but which ones? Only the transverse radiating far field degrees of freedom? You say also near field, but then there seems to be a paradox. I have to go back and read Hoyle's two books on this that I have. The confusion may be mine. The earlier book "Action at a distance in physics and cosmology" is more complete and also has some general relativity in it. So I will wait till I do some homework on Hoyle's version of WF 1940.

        I think two way advanced-retarded info coupling along classical light cones is a good idea. The problem is the final absorber boundary condition which does not hold even for "far fields" (I mean the AAD analog of) in most expanding universe cosmological models, and certainly cannot hold for nonradiating near magnetic and electric induction fields which warp spacetime into gravity with positive active gravity mass-energy density (too + 3 pressure) > 0 even in the regions where they are ~ zero.

        mi.


        Ei,Hi are retained in toto by WF.
        Concerning the contribution to Too from the near fields:

        The traditional Too is

        sum_over_i Ei*Ei + Hi*Hi + sum_over_i,j; i=/=j Ei*Ej + Hi*Hj

        The volume integral of the first term diverges,

        js: You mean from the self-energy at the point particle locations. Since it's action at a distance only along null geodesics of vanishing spacetime separation, EiEj means what exactly? It means the influence of j at i and the influence of i at j without any self-influence of i on i and j on j? But how is that done formally? I need to look at Hoyle's equations again more carefully.


        mi.
        the integral of the second
        does not. Mass-renormalization absorbs the first volume integral. This
        implies that the bare mechanical mass is negative infinite by the same
        quantity, plus the observed mass, so that the sum of mechanical and
        electromangentic masses is the observed. WF do not deny Ei or Hi near, they
        deny that particular quadratic combination in the first term: their action
        and thence their energy density contains no self-self products of fields.

        js. In Faraday field view, take a spherical shell, radius r, outside of, but surrounding a huge coil with a steady current.

        The magnetic induction near field from this coil ~ 1/r^3 (suppress source and test charge velocity dependence for now).

        Therefore, near magnetic induction field energy density too scales as 1/r^6. The total magnetic induction energy from that coil in the thin spherical shell surrounding it then scales as dr/r^4. So the magnetic induction field energy is confined to a limited space region around the coil. This is in contrast to the propagating pulse of radiation from the coil that we may trigger in which the corresponding property is ~ dr independent of r.

        If, in field picture, we integrate all this near magnetic field energy density over all space, smoothing at the coil with a uniform current density, we get a finite number. Ignore microscopic point electrons, which in Bohm picture may have finite space extension anyway! How do WF explain this finite number? Is all the near field energy distributed in space in Faraday field picture in the kinetic energy of the electric current? This would seem to contradict the general relativity field equation for a smooth Tuv(near field) distribution in spacetime?

        mi.
        Your query is related to an interesting question that Hal and I have
        discussed here: Electro-mechanically, there is no difference in the near
        field between the two programs ('traditional' and WF).

        js.

        This is what I dispute. I mean I do not at the moment understand how that can be. But I need to refresh my memory of WF via Hoyle. From what I recall, the radiation reaction at electron i is from the advanced influence of the response of final absorber j of that retarded action at a distance of i on j. This is a closed "time loop" of sorts connecting i with j along zero spacetime separation. This is OK for transverse polarization far field, but I do not see how it can work for the near fields. I do not see how AAD along zero 4-D separation explains localized nonradiating near fields.

        mi.
        But gravitationally
        there is a difference: in the traditional case, neglecting the 'cross-terms'
        the energy density of the matter has an infinite 1/r4 EM part,

        js.

        Magnetic induction near field from a stationary current loop at rest in the lab frame ~ 1/r^3 with local energy density ~ 1/r^6 .

        The corresponding electric induction field from stationary current loop at rest also ~ 1/r^3 cancels out by coherent superposition around the closed loop. It will not cancel if the closed loop moves uniformly in the lab frame. One does detect an electric induction field ~ 1/r^3 from a uniformly moving closed stationary current loop.

        Electric induction near field from uniformly accelerating source current in a closed loop ~ 1/r^2 with local near field energy density ~ 1/r^4.

        mi.
        a negative
        infinite delta(r) part and a finite positive bare mechanical delta(r) part.
        By contrast, in the WF program, the near-field energy density, again
        neglecting cross-terms, is just the bare mass times delta(r). Therefore the
        form, but not the integral, of Too is different in the two programs, and
        could in principle be distinguished by probing the gravitational field
        presumably with a neutral mass. It would be rather difficult of course: the
        difference is lost when there is no net E-field, and therefore a few
        angstroms away from a neutral body of matter.

        js.

        Well we mean right now gedankenexperiments. The situation is most murky to my mind.







        >
        >
        >
        >Jack Sarfatti wrote:
        >
        >>Expanded and corrected THIRD draft. "dt" to "dr" (a typo in 2nd draft)
        >>
        >>Note lines on Too should have been Too4pir^2dr for field energy inside
        >>a thin spherical shell.
        >>
        >>Main message:
        >>
        >>The quantum vacuum has a macroscopic electrically neutral spin 0, M^2
        >>< 0 "God" (AKA "Goldstone-Higgs") field
        >>
        >>psi(x) = vacuum expectation value of "Goldstone-Higgs" quantum field.
        >>The physical vacuum then contains a "superfluid" of ZERO ENERGY
        >>finite 3-momentum virtual tachyons in Glauber coherent (maybe squeezed
        >>as well) macroscopic quantum states. The active gravitational
        >>mass-energy density of this coherent tachyonic superfluid is
        >>"positive", i.e gravitating "dark energy" that cancels the
        >>anti-gravitating random zero point fluctuations of all the gauge
        >>bosons and lepto-quark virtual pairs.
        >>
        >>If this balance is upset in one direction above /\ = 0 we have
        >>antigravity source density /\ > 0. If the balance is upset the other
        >>way we have dark matter source density /\ < 0.
        >>
        >>All classical electromagnetic near fields from macro coherent quantum
        >>states of virtual photons also gravitate obeying positive energy
        >>theorems of Penrose and Hawking and are set to zero in the vacuum.
        >>
        >>To avoid previous ambiguity: the gravitating contribution to /\ from
        >>coherent virtual quanta are these tachyon M^2 < 0 ZERO ENERGY finite
        >>3-momentum "Goldstone-Higgs bosons". They are what cancel the random
        >>virtual zero point photons, the random virtual electron-positron zero
        >>point pairs et-al that, if left to their own devices, would
        >>ANTIGRAVITATE with /\ ~ 1/Lp^2 > 0.
        >>
        >>Whether the Goldstone-Higgs zero energy finite momenta virtual (and
        >>possibly real) quanta are composites of virtual gauge bosons and
        >>virtual lepto-quark pairs is a separate problem.
        >>
        >>Since the Goldstone-Higgs quantum has M^2 < 0 in spontaneous broken
        >>vacuum symmetry, they can be "real", i.e. on their mass shell as well
        >>as virtual.
        >>
        >>That is I should say "coherent virtual quanta + real tachyonic
        >>Goldstone-Higgs quanta of zero energy in the Hubble flow"
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>js:
        >>The problem here is how can WF explain perfectly measurable huge near
        >>energy densities stored in space around motors, generators, coils and
        >>transformers if what you say is true?
        >>
        >>mibison:
        >>Traditionally there are 2 components to that energy.
        >>Given energy_density = E*E+H*H let E = sum_over_i E_i, likewise for H.
        >>Now split the energy_density into two pieces:
        >>
        >>sum_over_i E_i*E_i + H_i*H_i
        >>
        >>and
        >>
        >>sum_over_i,j; i=/=j E_i*E_j + H_i*H_j
        >>
        >>
        >>The first piece is the electromagnetic self-energy, traditionally
        >>absorbed
        >>into the mass of the sources. The second is the mutual energy.
        >>WF denies the first, keeps only the second, and absorbs nothing into the
        >>mass. The result is the same: the observed EM energy density is the
        >>same in both
        >>cases.
        >>
        >>js: First your notation, by i,j you mean particle labels not tensor
        >>components.
        >>
        >>So Ei is total electric field produced by the ith charge.
        >>
        >>Now when you say "WF denies the first" you mean no self-field Ei at
        >>the position of the source charge i.
        >>
        >>That is not what I am talking about and you have not. What I mean is
        >>this.
        >>
        >>Given a source charge i, Ei(r,t) is, in traditional language, the
        >>electric field at field point 3-vector r made by source i at the
        >>origin of 3-vector r at time t in some frame of reference. You are
        >>saying that Ei(0,t) = 0 in WF. I am alluding to
        >>Ei(r) = Ei(r)nonradiating near field + Ei(r) radiating far field
        >>
        >>WF clearly have to eliminate both. But how is that possible for the
        >>near field? One cannot assume total absorber boundary condition for
        >>the near field! So I think there is a deep conceptual inconsistency is
        >>WF 1940 since it appears that their idea only works for the
        >>propagating far radiation field.
        >>
        >>It is obvious from test particles that there are macroscopic amounts
        >>of nonpropagating near field energy density stored in the classically
        >>empty space surrounding electric motors, electric generators, magnetic
        >>coils and transformers etc.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>Jack Sarfatti wrote:
        >>
        >>>This whole issue of EM near and far fields is important I think. In
        >>>this note I review some of the classical physics before going to the
        >>>ambiguities in the quantization of the electromagnetic field where
        >>>the near fields are swept under the rug leading I think to a lot of
        >>>confusion on what the quantum vacuum really is.
        >>>
        >>>I follow an old text book by a former Chief Scientist of USAF in 1954
        >>>Chalmers W. Sherwin, who would have known the true flying saucer
        >>>story at that time. I wonder if he knew Paul Hill?
        >>>
        >>>He talks of "four fields of dynamic electricity"
        >>>
        >>>First assume the source currents flow in closed electrically neutral
        >>>loops.
        >>>
        >>
        >>Let 2 pieces of loop point toward the field point test charge and the
        >>other two pieces approximately normal to approximate r 3-vector from
        >>source loop to field point. As r gets bigger this detail of
        >>convenience gets less important.
        >>
        >>>
        >>>a) Near magnetic induction fields in electrical motors and
        >>>generators. These happen for steady source electric currents at
        >>>uniform speed v(source) with a magnitude of force
        >>>
        >>>~ v(source)v(test charge)/(distance between source and test charge)^3
        >>>
        >>>This magnetic induction near field force is at right angles to the
        >>>velocity of the test charge and is roughly speaking pointing toward
        >>>the source closed current loop along the "radial" direction from
        >>>source to field point where test charge is.
        >>>
        >>>for now, in our first sweep, we do not worry about explicit time
        >>>delays of finite propagation speeds - a subtle issue that we will go
        >>>to Arnold Sommefeld with later on. Also for now we think in Galilean
        >>>relativity terms very tentatively - Einstein changed all that in 1905.
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>There is also and electric field produced by a source charge in
        >>uniform motion, but for a closed source current loop AT REST the
        >>3-vector sum of all of these electric fields will be zero. Not so for
        >>a uniformly moving closed current loop which will make a net electric
        >>field at the test charge.
        >>
        >>The force on the test charge at the field point is, of course, the
        >>Lorentz force:
        >>
        >>F(Lorentz) = (test charge)[E + (v(test charge)/c)x B(magnetic
        >>induction near field)]
        >>
        >>The near field magnetic induction force (test charge)(v(test
        >>charge)/c)x B(magnetic induction near field) is partially analogous to
        >>the inertial Coriolis force on a particle seen in a noninertial
        >>rotating coordinate system. Einstein's principle of equivalence that
        >>explains gravity by locally eliminating it, says that locally the
        >>acceleration of the coordinate frame is indistinguishable from a
        >>gravity field. However, in the problem of a rotating cylinder, try to
        >>find a Tuv that will make that kind of gravity field globally. See
        >>also Wheeler and Ciuofolini on "gravimagnetism" frame-dragging,
        >>Lens-Thirring effect. See also Sagnac effect & Thomas precession.
        >>
        >>>b) Near electric induction field in coils and transformers (double
        >>>coils) from uniform magnitude accelerations of the source currents in
        >>>closed loops. These exert a force on distant test electric charges at
        >>>rest relative to the lab whose magnitude is
        >>>
        >>>~ (acceleration of source charge)/(distance between source and test
        >>>charge)^2
        >>>
        >>>This near electric induction field force is roughly speaking
        >>>perpendicular to the "radial direction" from source to field point
        >>>where test charge is.
        >>>
        >>>Note that the magnetic induction force fields from motors and
        >>>generators falls off faster than do the electrical induction force
        >>>fields from coils and transformers.
        >>>
        >>
        >>>
        >>>c) Far field electrical radiation fields from the "jerk" of the
        >>>source currents i.e. "acceleration of the acceleration" in which the
        >>>magnitude of the 3-vector force on even a resting test charge
        >>>
        >>>~ (jerk of source)/(distance between source and test charge)
        >>>
        >>>This radiative electric force is also roughly opposite to the
        >>>velocity vector of the source test charge.
        >>>
        >>>d) Far field magnetic radiation fields from the "jerk" of the source
        >>>currents in which the magnitude of the 3-vector force on even a test
        >>>charge in motion
        >>>
        >>>~ (jerk of source)(speed of test charge)/(distance between source
        >>>and test charge)
        >>>
        >>>The EM field energy density ~ (square of the field), i.e. Too in
        >>>Einstein's local geometrodynamic field equation.
        >>>
        >>>The energy density stored in the near magnetic induction field from
        >>>electrical motors and electrical power generators ~ 1/r^6. This
        >>>energy density is there independent of the presence or absence of a
        >>>test charge, because it also has a gravitational effect! Consider a
        >>>spherical shell of radius r and thickness dr surrounding the motor or
        >>>generator whose size is small compared to r. The field energy in
        >>>these thin spherical shells surrounding the source decays as
        >>>
        >>>Too(near field magnetic induction from motors, generator)4pir^2dr ~
        >>>dr/r^4 Similarly
        >>>
        >>>Too(near field electric induction from magnetic coils and
        >>>transformers)4pir^2dr ~ dr/r^2
        >>>Too(far field electric and magnetic radiation)4pir^2dr ~ dr
        >>>
        >>>Note the r- dependence cancels out in the far field!
        >>>
        >>>This means "propagation of radiation energy" to infinity.
        >>>
        >>>In quantum electrodynamics, this far field is from real photons only
        >>>with transverse polarizations, if the photon has zero rest mass. Real
        >>>photons are "on the mass shell" or "on the light cone" using
        >>>Feynman's quantum propagators from perturbation theory.
        >>>
        >>>In contrast, the above near fields are from virtual photons off the
        >>>mass shell, both inside and outside the light cone as sub and
        >>>superluminal speeds respectively, with all three independent
        >>>polarizations 2 transverse and one longitudinal. Gauge invariance,
        >>>i.e. conservation of electric charge means that the 4th scalar
        >>>(timelike) polarization and the longitudinal polarization are
        >>>constrained by an equation.
        >>>
        >>>Note that the active gravitational mass-energy density (Too + 3 EM
        >>>Field Pressure) of all of these classical EM fields is positive, i.e.
        >>>they "gravitate" unlike the random component of the zero point
        >>>virtual photon fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which
        >>>anti-gravitate causing an enormous cosmological constant anomaly.
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>The quantum vacuum has a macroscopic electrically neutral spin 0, M^2
        >>< 0 "God" (AKA "Goldstone-Higgs") field
        >>
        >>psi(x) = vacuum expectation value of "Goldstone-Higgs" quantum field.
        >>The physical vacuum then contains a "superfluid" of zero energy
        >>finite 3-momentum virtual tachyons in Glauber coherent (maybe squeezed
        >>as well) macroscopic quantum states. The active gravitational
        >>mass-energy density of this coherent tachyonic superfluid is
        >>gravitating "dark energy" that cancels the anti-gravitating random
        >>zero point fluctuations of all the gauge bosons and lepto-quark
        >>virtual pairs.
        >>
        >>If this balance is upset in one direction above /\ = 0 we have
        >>antigravity source density /\ >0. If the balance is upset the other
        >>way we have dark matter source density /\ < 0.
        >>
        >>All electromagnetic near fields from macro coherent quantum states of
        >>virtual photons also gravitate obeying positive energy theorems of
        >>Penrose and Hawking and are set to zero in the vacuum.
        >>
        >>To avoid previous ambiguity: the gravitating contribution to /\ from
        >>coherent virtual quanta are these tachyon M^2 < 0 ZERO ENERGY finite
        >>3-momentum "Goldstone-Higgs bosons". They are what cancel the random
        >>virtual zero point photons, the random virtual electron-positron zero
        >>point pairs et-al that, if left to their own devices, would
        >>ANTIGRAVITATE with /\ ~ 1/Lp^2 > 0.
        >>
        >>>
        >>>The classical near fields above that store net positive field energy
        >>>and can be used for signal propagation are in fact coherent
        >>>macroscopic quantum states of virtual photons off the mass shell.
        >>>
        >>>To be continued.
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>michael ibison wrote:
        >>>
        >>>>js:
        >>>>Now as for Ibison's idea based on 1940 Wheeler-Feynman.
        >>>>
        >>>>I like general idea of advanced influences + retarded influences = what
        >>>>happens here-now.
        >>>>
        >>>>However, relying too much on real photons is a deeply wrong idea.
        >>>>Therefore, I think Mike Ibison's whole idea will fail for the latter
        >>>>reason not for the former.
        >>>>
        >>>>mi:
        >>>>Jack: thanks for taking a bit of time to notice the idea. However,
        >>>>it is not
        >>>>based on real photons. In fact, I know of no way it could be,
        >>>>because EM
        >>>>Wheeler-Feynman fields to not contribute to the (vacuum) EM
        >>>>Hamiltonian. In
        >>>>my case, of no independent vacuum fields, there IS no vacuum EM
        >>>>Hamiltonian
        >>>>at all.
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>>Reply-To: <ibison@...>
        >>>>>From: "michael ibison" <ibison@...>
        >>>>>To: <sarfatti@...>
        >>>>>Subject: RE: Jack's assignment & Ibison's Idea
        >>>>>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:27:42 -0600
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>js:
        >>>>>Now as for Ibison's idea based on 1940 Wheeler-Feynman.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>I like general idea of advanced influences + retarded influences =
        >>>>>what
        >>>>>happens here-now.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>e.g. work of Libet, Radin, Bierman, R D Nelson et-al which strongly to
        >>>>>my mind suggest both retro PK and precognition in mind-brain
        >>>>>post-quantum physics with signal nonlocality from direct feedback or
        >>>>>"back-action" of matter to mind which is absent in orthodox quantum
        >>>>>theory. In orthodox quantum theory mind pilots matter without direct
        >>>>>feedback of matter on mind. Then, and only then, do you have local
        >>>>>quantum randomness in nonlocally entangled many-particle quantum
        >>>>>states
        >>>>>with "no cloning" and signal-locality in spite of quantum nonlocality
        >>>>>i.e. "passion at a distance" (Shimony) - a really detestable state of
        >>>>>affairs! ;-)
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>However, relying too much on real photons is a deeply wrong idea.
        >>>>>Therefore, I think Mike Ibison's whole idea will fail for the latter
        >>>>>reason not for the former.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>mi:
        >>>>>Jack: thanks for taking a bit of time to notice the idea. However,
        >>>>>it is not
        >>>>>based on real photons. In fact, I know of no way it could be,
        >>>>>because EM
        >>>>>Wheeler-Feynman fields to not contribute to the (vacuum) EM
        >>>>>Hamiltonian. In
        >>>>>my case, of no independent vacuum fields, there IS no vacuum EM
        >>>>>Hamiltonian
        >>>>>at all.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>js:
        >>>>>Yes you are right, it is true that Wheeler and Feynman eliminate
        >>>>>the EM
        >>>>>dynamical degrees of freedom in their direct two-way action at a
        >>>>>distance along the null light cones. I should have said the
        >>>>>"equivalent
        >>>>>of real photons" propagating energy between emitters and absorbers in
        >>>>>the equivalent of the far field. The direct two way (advanced and
        >>>>>retarded)
        >>>>>light cone action at a distance, i.e. ZERO spacetime "contact" so
        >>>>>actually
        >>>>>"local" in 4-dim, is AS IF real photons connecting widely separated
        >>>>>(in
        >>>>>3-space) exchanging energy and momentum. That's what I meant, but
        >>>>>should
        >>>>>have spelled it out in detail.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>mi:
        >>>>>If you strike out vacuum energy in the full spirit of WF, then, at
        >>>>>best, it
        >>>>>is misleading to speak of propagation of energy from emitter to
        >>>>>absorber in
        >>>>>the 'normal' manner of traditional exclusively retarded radiation.
        >>>>>EM energy
        >>>>>is now always mutual (between sources) having no intermediate (i.e.
        >>>>>vacuum)
        >>>>>independent (i.e. unary) existance.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>js:
        >>>>>Your point above is well taken. I wish I could say that about Hal
        >>>>>Puthoff's
        >>>>>and Eric Davis's, but, alas! I cannot! ;-)
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>Do you remember if Wheeler and Feynman eliminate the near field
        >>>>>also, I
        >>>>>mean like the Coulomb static field?
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>mi:
        >>>>>The property of the Coulomb field that gives rise to infinite
        >>>>>self-energy of
        >>>>>a charge source is eliminated along with 'diagonal' (=>
        >>>>>vacuum)terms in the
        >>>>>EM Hamiltonian. The Coulomb field itself obviously persists. The
        >>>>>end result
        >>>>>is that the Coulomb field is now always a *mutual* interaction.
        >>>>>Even if you
        >>>>>don't know the 'target' of the field lines from a source, there
        >>>>>must be a
        >>>>>'sink' else the field-line would not emanate in the first place.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>js:
        >>>>>I have to go back and check, but you are more current on their model
        >>>>>than I am. Do they only eliminate the transverse modes on mass shell?
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>mi:
        >>>>>If I understand the question correctly: the traditional modes that are
        >>>>>quantized are completely eliminated.
        >>>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>
        >>>Those are only the transverse modes in some older methods of
        >>>quantization. Then you have negative probablities when you also
        >>>quantize all four polarizations as I recall? It becomes a mess
        >>>conceptually.
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>>>Their existence as independent degrees
        >>>>>of freedom is denied.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>js:
        >>>>>When you say "there IS no vacuum EM Hamiltonian at all"
        >>>>>What about the static Coulomb field between electrons, protons etc?
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>mi:
        >>>>>That energy is mutual, not ascribable to a bunch of oscillators in the
        >>>>>vacuum.
        >>>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>>The whole process of quantization of the Coulomb field into virtual
        >>>>>and
        >>>>>near-field photons (=> degrees of freedom of the vacuum) necessarily
        >>>>>followed by mass-renormalization has no counterpart in WF theory.
        >>>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>The problem here is how can WF explain perfectly measurable huge near
        >>>energy densities stored in space around motors, generators, coils and
        >>>transformers if what you say is true?
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >

        --
        "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
        http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
        http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf
        http://stardrive.org/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.