Text Size


Apr 18

The Second Relatvity Revolution

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

"The difference between science and technology is the ability to engineer your surroundings to your own ends, and not just explain them. In the Second Quantum Revolution, we are now actively employing quantum mechanics to alter the quantum face of our physical world. We are transforming it into highly unnatural quantum states of our own design, for our own purpose. For example, in addition to explaining the periodic table, we can make new artificial atoms—quantum dots and excitons—which we can engineer to have electronic and optical properties of our own choosing. We can create states of quantum coherent or entangled matter and energy that likely existed nowhere else in the Universe. These new man-made quantum states have novel properties of sensitivity and nonlocal correlation that have wide application to the development of computers, communications systems, sensors and compact metrological devices."

Jonathan P. Dowling1.
Quantum Computing Technologies Group, Section 367,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
Pasadena, California 91109, USA.
Gerard J. Milburn2,
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics,
University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge,UK.
Centre for Quantum Computer Technology.
The University of Queensland
St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia;
Similarly, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity passively just explains gravity. The post-Einstein revolution (Michio Kaku's "Type IV" super-technology) will actively manipulate gravity to get low power warp drive into the absolute elsewhere and wormhole time travel to both past and future (CPC wrong etc.).  If UFOs are real, they show not only what is possible, but what is actual. That's a big "if" of course. It's possible all the talk of aliens is a mass delusion.

Apr 17

Two new important gravity papers

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 
Equivalence Principle and Gravitational Redshift
Michael A. Hohensee,1,* Steven Chu,1,† Achim Peters,2 and Holger Mu¨ ller1
1Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
2Institut fu¨r Physik, Humboldt-Universita¨ t zu Berlin, Newtonstrasse 15, 12489 Berlin, Germany
(Received 17 February 2011; published 11 April 2011)
We investigate leading order deviations from general relativity that violate the Einstein equivalence
principle in the gravitational standard model extension.We show that redshift experiments based on matter
waves and clock comparisons are equivalent to one another. Consideration of torsion balance tests, along
with matter-wave, microwave, optical, and Mo¨ssbauer clock tests, yields comprehensive limits on spinindependent
Einstein equivalence principle-violating standard model extension terms at the 106 level.

Gravity makes time flow differently in different places.
This effect, known as the gravitational redshift, is the
original test of the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP)
[1] that underlies all of general relativity; its experimental
verification [2–6] is fundamental to our confidence in the
theory. Atom interferometer (AI) tests of the gravitational
redshift [4,6] have a precision 10 000 times better than tests
based on traditional clocks [3], but their status as redshift
tests has been controversial [7]. Here, we show that the
phase accumulated between two atomic wave packets in
any interferometer equals the phase between any two
clocks running at the atom’s Compton frequency following
the same paths, proving that atoms are clocks.

Frame-Dragging Vortexes and Tidal Tendexes Attached to Colliding Black Holes:
Visualizing the Curvature of Spacetime
Robert Owen,1 Jeandrew Brink,2 Yanbei Chen,3 Jerey D. Kaplan,3 Georey Lovelace,1 Keith D.
Matthews,3 David A. Nichols,3 Mark Scheel,3 Fan Zhang,3 Aaron Zimmerman,3 and Kip S. Thorne3, 4
1Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 14853
2National Institute of Theoretical Physics, Private Bag X1 Matieland, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 7602
3Theoretical Astrophysics 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
4 Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), Wallenberg Research
Centre at Stellenbosch University, Marais Street, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa

When one splits spacetime into space plus time, the spacetime curvature (Weyl tensor) gets split
into an "electric" part Ejk that describes tidal gravity and a \magnetic" part Bjk that describes
differential dragging of inertial frames. We introduce tools for visualizing Bjk (frame-drag vortex
lines, their vorticity, and vortexes) and Ejk (tidal tendex lines, their tendicity, and tendexes), and
also visualizations of a black-hole horizon's (scalar) vorticity and tendicity. We use these tools to
elucidate the nonlinear dynamics of curved spacetime in merging black-hole binaries.
Apr 16

Good news no dark matter particles yet

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Subject: Re: Good news no dark matter particles yet

If they find them, my theory is falsified. I think dark matter is a phase of quantum vacuum where there are more virtual fermion-antifermion pairs then virtual bosons. Therefore, the net zero point pressure is positive causing attractive gravity.

On Apr 15, 2011, at 2:24 PM, garysbekkum@hotmail.com wrote:

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Interactions News Wire" <newswire@interactions.org>
Sender: interactionsnewswire-bounces@lists.xenomedia.com
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:26:13
To: <interactionsnewswire@lists.xenomedia.com>
Subject: [Interactions News Wire] #13-11: New data from XENON100 narrows
down the search for dark matter

Interactions News Wire #13 - 11
15 April 2011 http://www.interactions.org
Source: INFN/Gran Sasso National Laboratory
Content: Press Release
Date Issued: 14 April 2011

New data from XENON100 narrows down the search for dark matter

On Thursday, scientists from the XENON collaboration announced the result
from their search for the elusive component of our universe known as dark
matter. After analyzing one hundred days of data taken with the XENON100
experiment, they see no evidence for the existence of Weakly Interacting
Massive Particles (WIMPs), the leading candidates for the mysterious dark
matter. The XENON100 experiment is operated deep underground at the Gran
Sasso National Laboratory of the INFN, in Italy. While the group observed
three candidate events, they expected two from background radiation. These
new result translates into the highest sensitivity reported by any dark
matter experiment to date, and serves to further constrain the new physics
models for particle dark matter, which will help target future WIMP
searches. A paper about the results was submitted to Physical Review
Letters and on the arXiv.

A direct observation of WIMPs would link the largest observed structures
with the world of subatomic particle physics. While no detection can be
claimed yet, the level of sensitivity achieved by the XENON100 experiment
may allow an actual detection in the near future.

XENON100 is an ultra-sensitive device, with specially designed layers of
water, lead, copper and other shielding, including liquid xenon
scintillator, to filter out radiation and other sources of energy that
could cause a false signal. This is also why the experiment is located
beneath a mile of rock and Earth-these materials help shield the detector
from cosmic radiation that is constantly bombarding Earth.

The XENON100 detector uses 62 kg of liquid xenon as a WIMP target, and
measures the tiny charge and light signals that are expected from rare
collisions between WIMPs and xenon atoms. Xenon-the same noble gas used to
make those ultra-bright car headlights that have a bluish tint-is
condensed to liquid form to become three time more dense than water, and
is used in this experiment because it has a large nucleus that WIMPS can
collide with. When such a collision happens, it creates a bluish light and
a charge that scientists can detect with highly sensitive cameras
positioned at each end of the detector.

Cosmological observations consistently point to a picture of our universe
where ordinary matter as we know it makes up only  about 4%, while new,
yet unobserved forms of so-called dark matter and dark energy make up the
rest. This is consistent with ideas on small scales too, since attractive
extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics suggest that exotic
new particles, which are perfect dark matter candidates, exist. This makes
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles of interest to both cosmology and
particle physics.  A search for WIMPs is thus well motivated and a direct
detection of such particles is the central missing piece of information to
confirm this new picture of our universe. New data from the 2011 run and
the collaboration's plan to build a much larger experiment with 2500 kg of
xenon in the coming years, promise an exciting decade towards the solution
of one of Nature's most fundamental mysteries.

The XENON collaboration consists of 60 scientists from 14 institutions in
the USA (Columbia University New York, University of California Los
Angeles, Rice University Houston), China (Shanghai Jiao Tong University),
France (Subatech Nantes), Germany (Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik
Heidelberg, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Westfälische
Wilhelms-Universität Münster), Israel (Weizmann Institute of Science),
Italy (Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, INFN e Università di Bologna),
Netherlands (Nikhef Amsterdam), Portugal (Universidade de Coimbra) and
Switzerland (Universität Zürich).

XENON100 is supported by the collaborating institutions and by the
National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy in the USA, by
the Swiss National Foundation in Switzerland, by l'Institut national de
physique des particules et de physique nucléaire and La Région des Pays de
la Loire in France, by the Max-Planck-Society and by Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, by the Weizmann Institute of Science,
by the German-Israeli Minerva Gesellschaft and GIF in Israel, by FOM in
the Netherlands, by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia in Portugal,
by the Instituto Nazionale di FIsica Nucleare in Italy and by STCSM in

Professor Elena Aprile (Spokesperson)
Columbia University, Physics Department
Tel.: +1 212-854-3258 ; +1 914-3255839
Email: age@astro.columbia.edu

Apr 15

--On 14 April 2011 21:23:05 -0700 Paul Zielinski wrote:
What stands out in this demonstration for me is the reliability and
reproducibility of the effect, which is hardly typical
of previously investigated cold fusion phenomena
For the record, a number of cold fusion phenomena have turned out to be fairly, though not completely reproducible.  lenr.org is a good source of information in general.
* * * * * * *    Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification *   voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
*   Project   *       WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *

On Apr 14, 2011, at 4:00 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Clever suggestion.
But how does one safely transfer intensely radioactive Nickel
to the reaction chamber?
And then appear to "turn it on" with current flowing
through a resistor?
Plus lack of gamma radiation
would seem to rule out this possibility.

On Apr 14, 2011, at 11:37 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "stardrive.org" <admin@stardrive.org>
Date: April 14, 2011 10:40:26 AM PDT
To: adastra1@me.com
Subject: Author notification: New comment posted
Reply-To: Carl C Paulson <carlpaulson@cox.net>

Dear author,

This is a system notification to inform you that a user has recently submitted a comment on your article. You may view the details below,

Article Title: Geopolitics of Cold Fusion, Nuclear Reactors and Oil Industry

Comment Title: Beta decay rather than Cold Fusion

Due to the presence of hydrogen gas, most people seem to be assuming that the Focardi-Rossi device is operating via a form of cold fusion. It seems to me more likely its just beta decay of Ni-63 and Ni-65 into Cu-63 and Cu-65. Both of these isotopes of copper are reported to be in the “after operation” powder. The “before operation” powder is just reported to be Nickel with no isotope numbers mentioned. This would lead one to believe it is a combination of the stable isotopes. Two of those are Ni-62 (abundance ~3.6%) and Ni-64 (abundance ~0.9%). To convert them to the unstable ones mentioned above would only require neutron capture which, due to the lack of a coulomb repulsion, is a lot easier to achieve than a fusion process. While the half life of Ni-63 is long (~100 years), the half life of Ni-65 is only a few hours thus making it the more active portion of the reaction. In terms of generating power, Ni-65 being the most active is an asset since it is also a lot more energetic reaction (in terms of gamma radiation).


[Powered by Jom Comment]


Converting steam to electricity is approximately 50% efficient.


From my Facebook page
Jack Sarfatti
What countries produce the most nickel? Global production in the early 1990s was headed by Russia and Canada, followed by Australia, New Caledonia, ...
17 minutes ago · Like ·
Sylvana Saade likes this.
David Stewart Most of that Canadian nickel came from Sudbury Ontario, deposited there by meteoric impact more than a few years before . . .
Instead of having oil wars on earth, I would be much happier if we went to space for nickel!!
11 minutes ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti
However, the basic technology is so simple that underdeveloped countries can do it in primitive places. All they need is nickel and hydrogen IF it works as advertised. This will totally alter the geopolitical landscape - coming at a strange time now that Japan is wrecked.
18 minutes ago · Like ·
David Stewart likes this.
Doug Cantrell It's only strange if you see the two events as unrelated.
about a minute ago · Like
Jack Sarfatti
I hope everyone realizes that if the Bologna cold fusion machine financed by the Greek Leonardo Corporation really works it will render oil and nuclear reactor industries impotent and obsolete in a decade or two. This will crash the Saudi economy unless they invest in the new technology at the beginning, which they will probably do.
22 minutes ago · Like ·
Dennis Skola, Doug Cantrell, Bobby Seals and 2 others like this.
Jose Ruben Rodriguez Fuentes exactly and we continue being slaves of the monolithic and obsolete saudi rulers until somebody develop stargate tv series ZPMs :P
18 minutes ago · Like
Doug Cantrell Oh, now that's an unfortunate name for the device. The debunkers will be calling it the "Baloney Cold Fusion Machine."

They need to replace their marketing firm.

Let's hope this breakthrough is genuine. It would definitely be a game-changer.
7 minutes ago · Like
Doug Cantrell And I'd also bet the Saudis will be early investors/developers. They are already looking ahead in the energy arena for innovative technology.
3 minutes ago · Like
Dennis Skola not like they are hurting for the capital i just wonder how this will affect the USof A technology rights owners aside god knows we dont have any real money to invest.
a few seconds ago · Like

On Apr 13, 2011, at 2:02 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

--On 12 April 2011 16:06:56 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

OK why doesn't MIT & Cal Tech et-al send over their people to test it
now that the Swedes have?

What's the point?

To confirm that the Swedes were not hoodwinked somehow. Did they check utility company records during the time of the test?

In case people are wondering how I got Martin F's signature in the RS admissions book, this appeared in a film shown by Martin Rees at the RS's 350 year celebration (when I pointed it out to him he said it was an embarrassment, but soon he may be thinking the reverse).  It is on the copy send to Fellows, and it remains to be seen if it will make it to the web site.  The reason why that page was shown is that Alec Jeffries, who features in the video, is on the same page.

Re your theory, it sounds a bit like the hydrinos postulated by Mills in connection with 'Black Light Power'.

It's not my theory. It's J. P. Vigier's theory. I am not advocating it at all. I am merely pointing out that an atomic orbital explanation MAY be an alternative to a nuclear mechanism. Mills took me and Fred Alan Wolf out to dinner in the mid 1990s at the Washington Square Bar and Grill in San Francisco. He tried to recruit us but we were not tempted. The resemblance of Mill's hydrinos to Vigier's theory I suspect is superficial. Vigier's theory may be wrong, but I suspect Mills's theory is not even wrong.

I gather the latter produces less power and is less reliable.


* * * * * * *    Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification *   voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
*   Project   *       WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *
On Apr 13, 2011, at 12:32 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

Ask Rubbia!


from Brian Josephson
Mind-Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory
Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK

And I forgot Schwinger. So three of you? ;-)

On Apr 13, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Basil Hiley wrote:

Brian was not alone.  Google Julian Schwinger and you will find the relevant references to another Nobel Laureate who was actively involved in trying to understand cold fusion.  In the early days I was at a meeting in Turin where Martin Fleischmann presented some of his experimental findings and it was clear to me that something very interesting was going on. It certainly needed further investigations along the lines Schwinger was pursuing.   Sometimes giving a phenomenon the 'wrong' name can trigger hostility and derision.  I remember as a kid looking at the globe and noticing that if I 'pushed' Africa and South America together they kind of fitted.  Continental drift?  It was declared at that stage to be 'utter rubbish'.  Then much later I saw articles on 'plate tectonics' and continental drift had become part of the established orthodoxy under a different name!  No derision, it is now obvious!


On 12 Apr 2011, at 19:06, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

I note for the historical record that if this claim turns out to be true it would be another triumph for Brian Josephson's intuition since he alone among the Nobel Laureates in physics and Fellows of the Royal Society has been the voice crying in the wilderness for years that there is something real in cold fusion claims and has been maligned by so-called "skeptics" for doing so. We live in interesting times. ;-)

On 13 Apr 2011, at 00:06, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

so you're the only Nobel Laureate

Apr 12

Update on the Italian Cold Fusion Machine

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Apr 12, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

--On 12 April 2011 10:06:24 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Are you checking out the cold fusion claim?

I'm not sure who this is addressed to, but you'll see from the wikipedia page on the Rossi reactor that a team including a member of the Swedish sceptics society and the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy energy committee checked the reactor out and concluded (I see Nick (Herbert) has also sent something about this):


    "Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh
    from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only
    alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear
    process that gives rise to the measured energy production."

Perhaps Bernard (Carr) has not been talking to the Bologna locals, but a few weeks ago I encountered a student from there who told me there is much interest in the Rossi device in Bologna.

I gather there may be significant developments soon.


* * * * * * *    Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification *   voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
*   Project   *       WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

* * * * * * *
OK, so you're the only Nobel Laureate and one of two Royal Fellows brave enough. ;-)
If this thing really works it is amazing. Can Vigier's theory (tight atomic electronic states - metastable ground states) explain it? More on that possibility later. Were the Swedes hoodwinked? Did they find this off a flying saucer? Kim says some Greeks are hooking 300 of these things together to show how it scales up to industrial level. Beware Greeks bearing gifts. :-)
If this device really works, it can replace batteries in laptops, be applied to cars, ships, airplanes, spacecraft, homes ... too good to be true? There must be a fly in the ointment. OK why doesn't MIT & Cal Tech et-al send over their people to test it now that the Swedes have?

On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:

For the record, Fleischmann is an FRS :-) . Here's his signature in the admission book:

from Brian Josephson
Mind-Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory
Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK

On 12 Apr 2011, at 19:06, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

I note for the historical record that if this claim turns out to be true it would be another triumph for Brian Josephson's intuition since he alone among the Nobel Laureates in physics and Fellows of the Royal Society has been the voice crying in the wilderness for years that there is something real in cold fusion claims and has been maligned by so-called "skeptics" for doing so. We live in interesting times. ;-)

Sean M. Carroll(1) and George B. Field(2)
(1)Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear Science
and Department of Physics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
email: carroll@marie.mit.edu
(2)Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
email: field@cfa.harvard.edu
"We discuss the possibility of constraining theories of gravity in which the connection is
a fundamental variable by searching for observational consequences of the torsion degrees
of freedom. In a wide class of models, the only modes of the torsion tensor which interact
with matter are either a massive scalar or a massive spin-1 boson. Focusing on the scalar
version, we study constraints on the two-dimensional parameter space characterizing the
theory. For reasonable choices of these parameters the torsion decays quickly into matter
fields, and no long-range fields are generated which could be discovered by ground-based
or astrophysical experiments.

Thus, the curvature and torsion have a similar status as tensors which characterize a
specified connection. Special relativity posits a spacetime connection for which both tensors
vanish; the transition from special to general relativity may be thought of as allowing for
the dynamics of a nonzero curvature, while constraining the torsion to vanish. From
a point of view which takes the connection as an independent variable, this restriction
seems somewhat arbitrary (although it is nevertheless possible, by judicious choice of
Lagrangian, to make the torsion nonpropagating or even vanishing). We are therefore led
to consider theories in which both the curvature and torsion are determined dynamically
by the response of the metric and connection to matter fields."

Even in special relativity, physics in an accelerating frame has a non-vanishing connection.
The local value of connection describes covariant accelerations of the (LNIF) detectors not that of the test particle that is detected. A non-vanishing covariant curl between neighboring values of the connection will describe the intrinsic curvature of the spacetime detected by pairs of neighboring non-accelerating local inertial frame detectors (LIF).

"The introduction of additional propagating degrees of freedom opens the possibility
that such a theory could lead to observable deviations from general relativity. Experiments
in the solar system and in binary pulsar 1913+16 offer strong evidence that the metric
must not deviate too far from the form specified by Einstein’s equations [7]. The situation
with respect to torsion is less clear, as the literature contains various different proposals
for what the dynamics of torsion could be. ...

Our goal in this paper is to determine whether there are any observational consequences
of propagating torsion which are relatively independent of any specific gravitational
model. To that end, we discuss possible actions for torsion and its interaction with
matter fields such as those in the standard model of particle physics. In these theories we
construct a free Lagrangian from powers and derivatives of the torsion, and couple “minimally”
to matter through the covariant derivative. We find that there is only a small range
of models possible without placing arbitrary restrictions on the dynamics. In these models
only a single mode interacts with matter, either a massive scalar or a massive spin-1 field,
and each model is parameterized by two constants with the dimensions of mass. In this
paper we concentrate on the scalar theory, which is related to several different proposals
found in the literature. We discuss what regions of parameter space are excluded by laboratory
and astrophysical data. A reasonable expectation, however, would be for each of
the two mass parameters to be of order the Planck scale; such a choice is a safe distance
away from the regions excluded by experiment. We conclude that, while there are reasons
to expect that the torsion degrees of freedom exist as propagating fields, there is no reason
to expect any observable signature from torsion.


The picture of torsion as an extremely short-range field runs somewhat counter to the
intuitive conception of torsion as a part of spacetime geometry. More concretely, we are
used to gauge theories giving rise to massless, long-range fields, and the status of torsion
as part of the connection on the tangent bundle might lead us to expect the same in
this case. This conflict with intuition may be resolved by noticing that the torsion is a
tensor which is linear in the connection. It therefore becomes possible to construct gauge
invariant interactions which give a mass to some of the connection degrees of freedom.
This is in contrast with the pure metric theory, or with gauge theories on internal vector
bundles, where all gauge invariant terms involve the curvature tensor, constructed from
derivatives of the fundamental fields. Thus, despite its origin as part of the geometry of
spacetime, the physical manifestation of torsion can be significantly different from that of
other “geometrical” fields.

The possible existence of torsion is of interest both in the construction of quantum
theories of gravity and in the experimental search for deviations from general relativity.
The important lesson of this paper is that the absence of effects of torsion in experiments
should not lead us to discount the possibility of torsion playing a role in the ultimate
theory of gravity."

This paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403058 has a lot of interesting details.