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

Re: Lorentz invariance and alleged experimental lab ZPE cutoff

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    Thanks, but if you compare my http://qedcorp.com/destiny/warpdrive.pdf same as http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.doc You will see my model is more parsimonious,
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 1, 2004
      Thanks, but if you compare my
      http://qedcorp.com/destiny/warpdrive.pdf
      same as
      http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.doc
      You will see my model is more parsimonious, more direct, less Rube
      Goldberg and explains more like the stability of the electron as a
      spatially extended micro-geon.

      On Jul 1, 2004, at 7:55 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

      >
      > Public release date: 1-Jul-2004
      > [ Print This Article | Close This Window ]
      >
      > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-07/vu-dma063004.php
      >
      > Contact: David F. Salisbury
      > david.salisbury@...
      > 615-343-6803
      > Vanderbilt University
      >
      > Dark matter and dark energy may be different aspects of a single
      > unknown force
      >
      > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402316
      >
      >
      > In the last few decades, scientists have discovered that there is a
      > lot more to the universe than meets the eye: the cosmos appears to be
      > filled with not just one, but two invisible constituents –dark matter
      > and dark energy – whose existence has been proposed based solely on
      > their gravitational effects on ordinary matter and energy.
      >
      > Now, theoretical physicist Robert J. Scherrer has come up with a model
      > that could cut the mystery in half by explaining dark matter and dark
      > energy as two aspects of a single unknown force. His model is
      > described in a paper titled "Purely Kinetic k Essence as Unified Dark
      > Matter" published online by Physical Review Letters on June 30 and
      > available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402316.
      >
      > "One way to think of this is that the universe is filled with an
      > invisible fluid that exerts pressure on ordinary matter and changes
      > the way that the universe expands," says the professor of physics at
      > Vanderbilt University.
      >
      > According to Scherrer, his model is extremely simple and avoids the
      > major problems that have characterized previous efforts to unify dark
      > matter and dark energy.
      >
      > In the 1970's, astrophysicists postulated the existence of invisible
      > particles called dark matter in order to explain the motion of
      > galaxies. Based on these observations, they estimate that there must
      > be about 10 times as much dark matter in the universe as ordinary
      > matter. One possible explanation for dark matter is that it is made up
      > of a new type of particle – dubbed Weakly Interacting Massive
      > Particles, or WIMPs) – that don't emit light and barely interact with
      > ordinary matter. A number of experiments are searching for evidence of
      > these particles.
      >
      > As if that weren't enough, in the 1990's along came dark energy, which
      > produces a repulsive force that appears to be ripping the universe
      > apart. Scientists invoked dark energy to explain the surprise
      > discovery that the rate at which the universe is expanding is not
      > slowing, as most cosmologists had thought, but is accelerating
      > instead. According to the latest estimates, dark energy makes up 75
      > percent of the universe and dark matter accounts for another 23
      > percent, leaving ordinary matter and energy with a distinctly minority
      > role of only 2 percent.
      >
      > Scherrer's unifying idea is an exotic form of energy with well-defined
      > but complicated properties called a scalar field. In this context, a
      > field is a physical quantity possessing energy and pressure that is
      > spread throughout space. Cosmologists first invoked scalar fields to
      > explain cosmic inflation, a period shortly after the Big Bang when the
      > universe appears to have undergone an episode of hyper-expansion,
      > inflating billions upon billions of times in less than a second.
      >
      > Specifically, Scherrer uses a second-generation scalar field, known as
      > k-essence, in his model. K-essence fields have been advanced by Paul
      > Steinhardt at Princeton University and others as an explanation for
      > dark energy, but Scherrer is the first to point out that one simple
      > type of k-essence field can also produce the effects attributed to
      > dark matter.
      >
      > Scientists differentiate between dark matter and dark energy because
      > they seem to behave differently. Dark matter appears to have mass and
      > to form giant clumps. In fact, cosmologists calculate that the
      > gravitational attraction of these clumps played a key role in causing
      > ordinary matter to form galaxies. Dark energy, by contrast, appears to
      > be massless and spread uniformly throughout space where it acts as a
      > kind of anti-gravity, a repulsive force that is pushing the universe
      > apart.
      >
      > K-essence fields can change their behavior over time. When
      > investigating a very simple type of k-essence field – one in which
      > potential energy is a constant – Scherrer discovered that as the field
      > evolves it passes through a phase where it can clump and mimic the
      > effect of invisible particles, followed by a phase when it spreads
      > uniformly throughout space and takes on the characteristics of dark
      > energy.
      >
      > "The model naturally evolves into a state where it looks like dark
      > matter for a while and then it looks like dark energy," Scherrer says.
      > "When I realized this, I thought, 'This is compelling, let's see what
      > we can do with it.'"
      >
      > When he examined the model in more detail, Scherrer found that it
      > avoids many of the problems that have plagued previous theories that
      > attempt to unify dark matter and dark energy.
      >
      > The earliest model for dark energy was made by modifying the general
      > theory of relativity to include a term called the cosmological
      > constant. This was a term that Einstein originally included to balance
      > the force of gravity in order to form a static universe. But he
      > dropped the constant cheerfully when astronomical observations of the
      > day found it was not needed. Recent models reintroducing the
      > cosmological constant do a good job of reproducing the effects of dark
      > energy, but do not explain dark matter.
      >
      > One attempt to unify dark matter and dark energy, called the Chaplygin
      > gas model, is based on work by a Russian physicist in the 1930's. It
      > produces an initial dark-matter-like stage followed by a
      > dark-energy-like evolution, but it has trouble explaining the process
      > of galaxy formation.
      >
      > Scherrer's formulation has some similarities to a unified theory
      > proposed earlier this year by Nima Arkani-Hamed at Harvard University
      > and his colleagues, who attempt to explain dark matter and dark energy
      > as arising from the behavior of an invisible and omnipresent fluid
      > that they call a "ghost condensate."
      >
      > Although Scherrer's model has a number of positive features, it also
      > has some drawbacks. For one thing, it requires some extreme
      > "fine-tuning" to work. The physicist also cautions that more study
      > will be required to determine if the model's behavior is consistent
      > with other observations. In addition, it cannot answer the coincidence
      > problem: Why we live at the only time in the history of the universe
      > when the densities calculated for dark matter and dark energy are
      > comparable. Scientists are suspicious of this because it suggests that
      > there is something special about the present era.
      >
      >
      > ###
      > For more news about Vanderbilt research, visit Exploration,
      > Vanderbilt's online research magazine at
      > www.exploration.vanderbilt.edu.
      >
      >
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      > ---------
      > [ Print This Article | Close This Window ]
      >
      >
      > Gary S. Bekkum
      > garysbekkum@...
      >
      >
    • Jack Sarfatti
      I seem to recall a detailed discussion of the Lorentz boosts of the blackbody spectrum in Richard Tolman s old text on Statistical Mechanics that I actually
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 2, 2004
        I seem to recall a detailed discussion of the Lorentz boosts of the
        blackbody spectrum in Richard Tolman's old text on Statistical
        Mechanics that I actually may have a copy of in my office. This relates
        to the "aether" issue over which amateurs get confused. GR(1916) is a
        covering theory of SR(1905), things globally true in SR are no longer
        so in GR. SR is approximately locally true in GR provided:

        1. scale of measurements L << scale of local tensor radii of curvature
        Rc

        2. L >> Lp* = scale of micro-quantum metric and connection zero point
        vacuum fluctuations.

        Note Lp* may be a function of L and NOT a constant 10^-33 cm. Indeed in
        my theory

        Lp*(1 fermi) ~ 1fermi in order to stabilize the spatially-extended
        electron as a Wheeler "Mass without mass" micro-geon = Bohm-Vigier
        "extra variable."

        This feature is largely missed in Wheeler 90th 'Science and Ultimate
        Reality" BTW.

        The WMAP observations show CMB black body spectrum isotropic to ~ 10^-5
        angular correlations over entire celestial sphere relative to Hubble
        flow of the dark energy accelerated expansion of 3D space of the
        Tegmark "Level I" Hubble bubble universe we are inside of like E.
        Abbott's Flatlanders on a Euclidean plane. My theory BTW explains
        Linde's chaotic inflation dynamically.

        A Lorentz boost on the CMB relative to the Hubble flow introduced
        anisotropy in the CMB, which is an "absolute velocity" meter for star
        ships just as measuring absolute Kelvin temperature of the CMB is an
        absolute cosmological clock for those Masters and Commanders navigating
        Her Majesty's Space Navy! ;-)

        http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/captain.mp3

        On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Mark Davidson wrote:

        > I think Jack is correct, the zero point spectrum of QED is the only
        > Lorentz invariant spectrum. Put a cutoff in that spectrum and you
        > destroy Lorentz invariance. Black body spectrum is not Lorentz
        > invariant except at zero temperature.
        >
        > Mark
        >
        > At 12:19 AM 7/2/2004, Paul Zielinski wrote:
        >> I was under the impression that there is a class of v^3 ZPE
        >> density distributions that are Lorentz invariant?
        >>
        >> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
        >>
        >>> I think Puthoff has an argument related to that? Definitely as I
        >>> recall the EM ZPF spectrum is the only one consistent with local
        >>> Lorentz invariance as I recall off top of my head.
        >>>
        >>> On Jul 1, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
        >>>
        >>>> While it has been shown that the black-body distribution is
        >>>> compatible with Lorentz invariance, I know of no proof that
        >>>> that the full blackbody spectrum is a *necessary* condition
        >>>> for such invariance.
        >>>>
        >>>> This is an interesting question IMO.
        >>>>
        >>>> Z.
        >>>>
        >>>> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>> "The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler, The Daring
        >>>>> Conservative
        >>>>>
        >>>>> We need to distinguish several issues:
        >>>>>
        >>>>> 1. Is a virtual photon ZPF cutoff actually observed in the lab? -
        >>>>> empirical question.
        >>>>> 2. If yes, does that imply a new experimental effect of anisotropy
        >>>>> in Lamb shift radiation as observed perhaps in angular correlation
        >>>>> measurements on such radiation? - empirical question.
        >>>>> 3.What is the value of the cutoff if it exists? - empirical
        >>>>> question
        >>>>> 4. If a virtual photon cutoff is a fact, is this evidence for
        >>>>> non-commuting space-time? theoretical question
        >>>>> .....
        >>>
        >
        >
      • Jack Sarfatti
        * Hal Puthoff wrote (for some reason my reply command does not work on Hal s e-mail address - it works on all others! So I have to copy and paste. Odd. ET
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 2, 2004
          * Hal Puthoff wrote (for some reason my "reply" command does not work
          on Hal's e-mail address - it works on all others! So I have to copy and
          paste. Odd. ET surveillance by Dan Smith's friends? :-)): Hal's remarks
          in quotes.

          In a message dated 7/2/2004 11:24:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
          mdavid@... writes:

          .... the zero point spectrum of QED is the only Lorentz
          invariant spectrum.

          "Indeed, as discussed in my paper, H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a
          Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev
          A 47, 3454 (1993),"

           

          "... Lorentz invariance, which derives specifically from the spectrum's
          cubic dependence on frequency.  The cubic spectrum is unique in its
          property that delicate cancellations of Doppler shifts with velocity
          boosts leaves the spectrum Lorentz invariant." 

             Put a cutoff in that spectrum and you destroy Lorentz invariance. 

          "In principle, yes.  However, as discussed in my footnote 21 in the
          above paper, I point out:"

           
          "The possible existence of a cutoff in quantum theory is recognized to
          introduce a non-Lorentz-invariant factor, in that detection of a
          Doppler-shifted cutoff frequency by a moving detector could in
          principle reveal absolute motion.  As pointed out in the literature,
          however, [for example, by M. A. Shupe, Am. J. Phys. 53, 122 (1985)], as
          long as the cutoff frequency is beyond detectability (as in the Planck
          frequency in this case) there is no measurable consequence expected of
          such a breakdown of Lorentz invariance at this limit of present
          physical theory, either now or in the foreseeable future."

          Cheers,

          Hal Puthoff"

          Right as far as SR is concerned. However as I show below GR demands a
          breakdown of SR globally. Indeed, the problem of nonlocality of the
          total energy in GR is related to this fact that

          1. The symmetry group of SR (1905) with rest inertia m is the 10
          parameter Poincare group.

          2. The symmetry group of GR(1916) is the 10 parameter Diff(4)xLorentz
          Group

          Diff(4) replaces the 4-parameter translation group T4 infinitesimally
          generated by the TOTAL MOMENERGY (Wheeler) Pu.
          that is T4 is locally gauged and the strain tensor of the elastic world
          distortion field (~ tetrad field) is the metric field guv.
          The tetrad field eu emerges from the macro-quantum phase variations of
          the partially coherent physical vacuum according to the Bohm guidance
          constraint

          eu = Lp*^2(Phase of partial vacuum coherence),u

          is elastic analog to quantum hydrodynamic particle IT velocity v =
          (h/m)Grad(Phase of Pilot qu-BIT wave)

          where, a, u = 0,1,2,3

          eu = eaEu^a

          a in flat tangent space, u in curved base space

          guv = Eu^anabEv^b = (1/2)[eu,v + ev,u]

          nab = SR metric

          ' is ordinary partial derivative

          Phase transformations on the vacuum coherence ---> Einstein's tensor
          general coordinate transformations

          http://qedcorp.com/destiny/warpdrive.pdf 3 meg file

           
          On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

          > I seem to recall a detailed discussion of the Lorentz boosts of the
          > blackbody spectrum in Richard Tolman's old text on Statistical
          > Mechanics that I actually may have a copy of in my office. This
          > relates to the "aether" issue over which amateurs get confused.
          > GR(1916) is a covering theory of SR(1905), things globally true in SR
          > are no longer so in GR. SR is approximately locally true in GR
          > provided:
          >
          > 1. scale of measurements L << scale of local tensor radii of curvature
          > Rc
          >
          > 2. L >> Lp* = scale of micro-quantum metric and connection zero point
          > vacuum fluctuations.
          >
          > Note Lp* may be a function of L and NOT a constant 10^-33 cm. Indeed
          > in my theory
          >
          > Lp*(1 fermi) ~ 1fermi in order to stabilize the spatially-extended
          > electron as a Wheeler "Mass without mass" micro-geon = Bohm-Vigier
          > "extra variable."
          >
          > This feature is largely missed in Wheeler 90th 'Science and Ultimate
          > Reality" BTW.
          >
          > The WMAP observations show CMB black body spectrum isotropic to ~
          > 10^-5 angular correlations over entire celestial sphere relative to
          > Hubble flow of the dark energy accelerated expansion of 3D space of
          > the Tegmark "Level I" Hubble bubble universe we are inside of like E.
          > Abbott's Flatlanders on a Euclidean plane. My theory BTW explains
          > Linde's chaotic inflation dynamically.
          >
          > A Lorentz boost on the CMB relative to the Hubble flow introduced
          > anisotropy in the CMB, which is an "absolute velocity" meter for star
          > ships just as measuring absolute Kelvin temperature of the CMB is an
          > absolute cosmological clock for those Masters and Commanders
          > navigating Her Majesty's Space Navy! ;-)
          >
          > http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pinafore/captain.mp3
          >
          > On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:24 AM, Mark Davidson wrote:
          >
          >> I think Jack is correct, the zero point spectrum of QED is the only
          >> Lorentz invariant spectrum. Put a cutoff in that spectrum and you
          >> destroy Lorentz invariance. Black body spectrum is not Lorentz
          >> invariant except at zero temperature.
          >>
          >> Mark
          >>
          >> At 12:19 AM 7/2/2004, Paul Zielinski wrote:
          >>> I was under the impression that there is a class of v^3 ZPE
          >>> density distributions that are Lorentz invariant?
          >>>
          >>> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
          >>>
          >>>> I think Puthoff has an argument related to that? Definitely as I
          >>>> recall the EM ZPF spectrum is the only one consistent with local
          >>>> Lorentz invariance as I recall off top of my head.
          >>>>
          >>>> On Jul 1, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
          >>>>
          >>>>> While it has been shown that the black-body distribution is
          >>>>> compatible with Lorentz invariance, I know of no proof that
          >>>>> that the full blackbody spectrum is a *necessary* condition
          >>>>> for such invariance.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> This is an interesting question IMO.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> Z.
          >>>>>
          >>>>> Jack Sarfatti wrote:
          >>>>>
          >>>>>> "The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler, The Daring
          >>>>>> Conservative
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> We need to distinguish several issues:
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> 1. Is a virtual photon ZPF cutoff actually observed in the lab?
          >>>>>> - empirical question.
          >>>>>> 2. If yes, does that imply a new experimental effect of
          >>>>>> anisotropy in Lamb shift radiation as observed perhaps in angular
          >>>>>> correlation measurements on such radiation? - empirical question.
          >>>>>> 3.What is the value of the cutoff if it exists? - empirical
          >>>>>> question
          >>>>>> 4. If a virtual photon cutoff is a fact, is this evidence for
          >>>>>> non-commuting space-time? theoretical question
          >>>>>> .....
          >>>>
          >>
          >>
          >
        • Jack Sarfatti
          ... Hal s paper above is basically a fancy way of saying: Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3 Where c/Lp* = ZPF frequency cutoff That is c^3Lp*^2/h = G* = c^5/h(ZPF frequency
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 2, 2004
            On Jul 2, 2004, at 10:23 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
            > In a message dated 7/2/2004 11:24:19 AM Central Daylight Time,
            > mdavid@... writes:
            >
            > ".... the zero point spectrum of QED is the only Lorentz invariant
            > spectrum."
            >
            >

            Puthoff wrote:

            > "Indeed, as discussed in my paper, H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a
            > Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force," Phys. Rev. A 39, 2333 (1989); Phys. Rev
            > A 47, 3454 (1993),"

            Hal's paper above is basically a fancy way of saying:

            Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3

            Where

            c/Lp* = ZPF frequency cutoff

            That is

            c^3Lp*^2/h = G* = c^5/h(ZPF frequency cutoff)^2

            The larger the ZPF frequency cutoff the weaker is the strength of
            gravity.

            "ZPF frequency cutoff" is generically for ALL SR (1905) quantum fields
            spins 1/2, 1 in the completely random incoherent UNSTABLE GLOBALLY-FLAT
            PRE-INFLATIONARY FALSE VACUUM where all rest masses m = 0 and, in fact,
            real on-mass shell quasi-particles are forbidden. We do not get
            ordinary matter with Omega ~ 0.04 in our Hubble bubble until
            post-inflation with a partial vacuum coherence that gives rise to
            UNRENORMALIZABLE smooth ODLRO curved space-time as an emergent
            property. Real on-mass-shell matter is only a small amount of
            post-inflationary "ice" showing above the exotic vacuum dark
            energy/matter "waterline."

            Indeed

            G* = c^5/h(ZPF frequency cutoff)^2 is the measure of Sakharov's
            "metric elasticity" that, in turn is a special case of P.W. Anderson's
            more general "macro-quantum phase rigidity" in the sense of "More is
            different" and also "string tension" ~ hc/(quantum of area) = hc/Lp*^2

            But Lp*^2 is a scale-dependent variable in order to get a consistent
            theory.

            What is true about size of Lp*^2 at the cosmological scale of the FRW
            metric > 10^2 megaparsecs need not be true at the current lepto-quark
            scale of 1 fermi.

            Indeed Lp*(cosmological scale) ~ 10^-33 cm ~ Lp*(Planck scale)?

            Lp*(1 fermi) ~ 1 fermi?

            I am not sure if this can be made consistent with the world hologram
            formula

            Lp* = Lp^2/3L^1/3

            for measurement scale L

            Note, current size of universe ~ 10^28 cm gives Lp* ~ 1 fermi.

            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.