Text Size


Aug 18

Is Low Power Warp Drive Possible?

Jack Sarfatti

Abstract of my paper to be presented at the DARPA/NASA Orlando meeting Sept 30-Oct 2, 2011

All conventional forms of spacecraft propulsion are unlikely to motivate large-scale private capital because the time scales for interstellar travel even to the nearest exo-planet are simply too long for practical commerce, the habitat problems are likely to be too difficult, and the cost in our declining world economy on the brink of financial if not environmental collapse in 2011 appear to be too great. Recent discoveries in the slowing of the speed of light in Bose-Einstein condensates and the negative electric permittivity and magnetic permeability in metamaterials suggests a low power speculative possibility for warp drive based on Einstein’s orthodox field equation for gravity coupled to the electromagnetic field. If we hope to reach the stars we must not fear to dream what at first seems impossible.

also in Nature this week - review of David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Saved Physics" with my photo
Aug 16

American Institute of Physics "Facebook"

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 



On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:33 AM, art wagner wrote:
"The possibilities of the particle and the event horizons as the IR cutoff length were subsequently discussed by Li[16], who found that apparently only a future event horizon cutoff can give a viable DE model."'
[16]  M. Li, Phys. Lett. B 603, 1 (2004). 

That's what I have been saying!  I never read Li.

However: "All models with a future-event-horizon cutoff suffer from the drawback that, although they may fit the data, they cannot reproduce an early matter dominated epoch."

We may not need a low temperature superconductor to slow the speed of light to get the (index of refraction)^4 amplification of applied stress-energy tensor's ability to warp spacetime. Click here.

On Aug 12, 2011, at 10:20 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:
I don't have much to report on the smaller list conversation of Mach effects.  From my perspective, it seems that one of the major stumbling blocks has been the fact that Mach's principle has a long and sometimes colorful history that complicates and confuses any attempt to invoke it in physical arguments. 

Yes, the only Mach's Principle that makes sense to me is our future event horizon as the hologram screen with a Wheeler-Feynman type retrocausal "back from the future" creation of everything  (all matter fields including gravity) as bootstrapped post-selected hologram images. I suppose this requires a block universe picture with Novikov self-consistent loops in time.

People get fixated on, for example, the eight versions that Rovelli mentions (in the quote Jack circulated) or the dozen versions that Bondi and Samuel mention in their 1997 paper, and so on.  The fact that GRT is a local field theory that has well-known anti-Machian solutions doesn't help either.  If you want to put Mach's principle to use, you have to isolate the essential physical content of the principle and strip away all of the contentious arguments that, for practical purposes anyway, are distractions.  That essential physical content is the claim that all inertial reaction forces are gravitational forces.  In a way, this should be quite plausible, for gravitational forces, like inertial reaction forces, are "fictitious" in the sense that because of their behavior and universality, they can be geometrized away.  This is just the EEP.  But I've already said more on this than I intended.  And I don't want to trigger another deluge of emails. . . .  :-)

On other matters, the NASA NIAC awards were announced this past week.  These are the "cross cutting", "revolutionary", "interdisciplinary", "paradigm shifting" projects that NASA hopes will radically change our future.  It's an interesting collection.

The 100 Year Starship program, with a meeting in Orlando at the end of September, also notified those selected to be presenters and panelists this past week.  At least one or two of you will be involved, and the meeting appears to be an interesting event.  I hope that those of you who go to the meeting will share your experiences with the rest of us.

As you know, Jack has told us that he will be presenting his superconductor/metamaterial scheme at the 100YSS convention.  And it's no secret that I've expressed some skepticism about that scheme.  Jack challenged me to "run the numbers", and I have done so.  That run is in the attached word document.  I apologize for the slightly convoluted way of running the numbers.  But the bottom line is that if the coupling coefficient in Einstein's equations really does contain n^4 as Jack claims, then realistic energies for incident EM radiation should produce some very startling effects in superconductors.  Indeed, if his conjecture is right, some startling effects probably should already have been seen.  In any event, since these are experiments that are doable, looking for Jack's predicted effect should not prove excessively difficult, or prohibitively expensive.

On the Mach effect front, ...I've managed to get several PZT stacks built using the new crystals purchased from Steminc last spring.  Two of the stacks are nearly identical in configuration to the old stacks.  They differ in the stiffness, dissipation, and dielectric constant of the material.  And the stacks have three accelerometers, where the old stacks only have one.  There are some pictures in the PPT file attached.  In addition to the two stacks just mentioned, a short stack is nearing completion in anticipation of going to higher frequencies.  Sometime soon.
I trust all is well with you and yours,

by James Woodward


"The field equation is:

Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv                       

And the coefficient of Tuvi n cgs units is 2 X 10-48.  We know that a Jupiter mass (2 X 1030 gm) of stuff will produce serious warps, so we set T = mc2 getting 2 X 1051 ergs.  Multiplying by the coefficient, we find that the RHS of the field equation has the value 4 X 103 for the case of a Jupiter mass of stuff.

Now, in the case of laser light propagating through a superconductor, we make some modest assumptions.  We take the power of the laser to be a milliwatt, and the duration of the affected pulse to be a millisecond.  Since there are 107 ergs in a joule, the energy of the pulse deposited in the super conductor will be 10 ergs.

 We next implement Jack’s proposal and assume that there is an n4 = 1 X 1040 in the numerator of the coefficient.  This makes the coefficient = 2 X 10-8, and with Too = 10 ergs we have 2 X 10-7 for the RHS of the equation as compared with 4 X 103 for Jupiter.   To get the effective mass of our 10 ergs in the superconductor – at least as far as the local geometry is concerned – we simply take the ratio of these numbers and multiply it times the Jupiter mass.  That number turns out to be 1 X 1020 grams.  Were the “effective” mass to act like a real mass, 1 X 1020 grams is enough to produce serious disruptions in any realistic lab.  Arguably this should be the case as the electromagnetic radiation is strongly coupled to the superconductor’s constituent material structure.

Nonetheless, we aren’t talking about real mass.  We’re talking about geometric distortions of local spacetime.  What does it take to produce serious spacetime distortions at laboratory scale?  Well, the event horizon condition for a black hole is:

                        R = 2GM/c^2

 And for R to be on the order of 10 meters or so, not surprisingly, we get back a Jupiter mass for M.  So, to produce a meso-scale black hole in the lab, we would have to increase the 10 ergs by 10 t0 11 orders of magnitude.  So, we’re talking about 1 to 10 kilojoules being deposited in our superconductor to produce serious spacetime warps.  While it is doubtful that the superconducting state could be maintained in the presence of several kilojoules of energy in a region with a typical dimension of a centimeter or so, a few kilojoules of energy is by no means an unreasonable amount of energy.  So, testing the proposition that the coupling coefficient in Einstein’s field equations depends on the index of refraction of any medium present should be a tractable problem if the technical problem of the deposition of a large amount of energy in a superconductor without disrupting the superconducting state can be managed.


Part Two of The Current
Hippie Physics - David Kaiser, MIT
"We started this segment with a clip from physicist Jack Sarfatti. Perhaps not as famous as Neils Bohr or Albert Einstein, but according to MIT Cosmologist David Kaiser, Sarfatti holds an important place in science history, too ".... part of a group of New Age physicists in the 1970s who helped rescue physics from the doldrums.

I haven't completely given up on entanglement signaling using the non-orthogonal Glauber coherent states with a pair of interferometers, Faraday rotators, phase plates et-al. I mean within orthodox quantum theory bearing in mind of course Stapp's general proof that it's not possible based on linearity, unitarity and implicitly orthogonality of the base states - the latter being the possible loop hole.

Of course, beyond that motivated by Daryl Bem's latest "feeling the future" data in people, both Stapp and I do agree that a more general non-orthodox extension of quantum theory - as general relativity is to special relativity as an analogy - with "signal nonlocality" violating Abner Shimony's "passion at a distance" and the Born rule that probability ~ squared modulus of complex Feynman histories quantum amplitude (e.g. Antony Valentini) is warranted by the facts.

A clue is that (ODLRO) spontaneous broken ground state symmetry ("More is different" emergent order) with Higgs amplitude and Goldstone phase quanta excited out of the Bose-Einstein c-number condensate does not obey the nonlocal linear unitary Schrodinger equation in entangled configuration space 3N + N. Rather, it obeys a low energy effective field local nonlinear non-unitary Landau-Ginzburg equation in single-particle ordinary 3D + 1 spacetime. Indeed, the gravitational field tetrads and spin connections for local inertial frames LIFs can emerge from such a Higgs-Goldstone field precipitated at the moment of creation of our observable universe sandwiched between our past particle horizon and our future de Sitter dark energy event horizon that may well be a Seth Lloyd computer and indeed the "hologram screen" invented by 't Hooft and Susskind. This would necessitate the Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar-Cramer-Aharonov ideas of retro-causal advanced signal "transactional" "post-selections on the final cause hologram screen cosmic computer (e.g. P.K. Dick's VALIS & Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega Point."). Crazy idea to be sure, but is it crazy enough to be true? ;-)

Part Two of The Current
Hippie Physics - David Kaiser, MIT
We started this segment with a clip from physicist Jack Sarfatti. Perhaps not as famous as Neils Bohr or Albert Einstein, but according to MIT Cosmologist David Kaiser, Sarfatti holds an important place in science history, too .... part of a group of New Age physicists in the 1970s who helped rescue physics from the doldrums.

Kaiser writes about how these groovy big-time thinkers and their big ideas drove a revival of quantum theory in his new book How the Hippies Saved Physics. He joined us from Boston.
Hippie Physics - David Harrison

So, a science once dominated by slide rules became dominated by people who let the rules slide. Our next guest was part of the movement and makes an appearance in Kaiser's book.
David Harrison is a senior lecturer of physics at the University of Toronto where he created a course called The Zen of Physics. David joined us in our Toronto studio.

Related Link:
Merry-Prankster Physicists Trying to draw a line from LSD to ESP by way of quantum physics. Hey, it was the '70s. By John Gribbin - Wall Street Journal
Begin forwarded message:
Subject: Your International Press ;)
Date: August 13, 2011 8:25:44 AM PDT
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Cc: sarfatti@pacbell.net
lovely interview with david kaiser and david harrison on cbc radio
popup mp3 link

Aug 13

Lecture on Local Gauge Theory Aug 12, 2011

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

pdf uploaded to Physics section of Library

see also http://tinyurl.com/3ex62z2

On Aug 12, 2011, at 2:20 PM, Dragan Hajdukovic wrote:

Dear Jack
Nice to receive an email as it should be between colleagues.
I am strictly limited on the study of the consequences a hypothetical gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter. Here are a few recent references
1. Can the new Neutrino Telescopes reveal the Gravitational Properties of Antimatter?
2. Do we live in the universe successively dominated by matter and antimatter?
3. Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum?
4. On the absolute value of the neutrino mass
I will read carefully your papers, after my holidays
Best regards

Dear Dragan
Yes, of course. However, as far as I know I was the first to suggest specifically (in 2006 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022) that dark matter was due to vacuum polarization (virtual fermion-antifermion pairs) with w = -1 is responsible for dark matter. It mimics w = 0 CDM perfectly clumping to smaller scales. Of course, you were not influenced by my work and I was not influenced by yours. Our details differ granted, but the basic idea is the same. Note my abstract from the 2006 paper (final version 11 July, 2007). If you check the earlier versions I think you will find the dark matter as vacuum polarization is there from the beginning or close to it in 2006. I was learning the Cartan formalism on my own and Professor Waldyr Rodrigues Jr created a bit of a stir about it under pressure from unknown parties. However, those formal issues had no bearing on the physical idea at issue. In any case, it is good that we both came to essentially the same qualitative conclusion that dark matter is not caused by real on-mass-shell particles whizzing through space. I only use mainstream physics, i.e. positive pressure from virtual fermion-antifermion pairs 3x more than the negative energy density (free field theory of course) causes attractive gravitation that mimics CDM. Just the opposite for virtual bosons (primarily photons) with negative pressure (dark energy) so I have unified both with very elementary mainstream physics.
In any case MIT physics professor/historian David Kaiser has already written about me extensively in his best seller "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and I am sure he will set the record straight for the official record. Keep up your fine work. :-)
PS Yes you are correct, as I said your detailed model is different from mine. I do not think there is any anti-gravity from real anti-particles. In any case it plays no role in my very simple mainstream model.
Emergent Gravity and Torsion: String Theory Without String Theory, Why the Cosmic Dark Energy Is So Small
Jack Sarfatti
(Submitted on 7 Feb 2006 (v1), last revised 11 Jul 2007 (this version, v21))
A surprisingly simple holographic explanation for the low dark energy density is suggested. I derive the Einstein-Cartan disclination curvature tetrads and the physically independent dislocation torsion gap spin connections from an "M-Matrix" of non-closed Cartan 1-forms made from 8 Goldstone phase 0-forms of the vacuum ODLRO condensate inflation field in which the non-compact 10-parameter Poincare symmetry group is locally gauged for all invariant matter field actions. Quantum gravity zero point vacuum fluctuations should be renormalizable at the spin 1 tetrad level where there is a natural scale-dependent holographic dimensionless coupling (hG/zpf/c^3)^1/3 ~ (Bekenstein BITS)^-1/3. The spacetime tetrad rotation coefficients play the same role as do the Lie algebra structure constants in internal symmetry spin 1 Yang-Mills local gauge theories. This suggests an intuitively pleasing natural "organizing idea" now missing in superstring theory. It is then clear why supersymmetry must break in order for our pocket universe to come into being with a small w = -1 negative pressure zero point exotic vacuum dark energy density. Just as the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a null result, this model predicts that the Large Hadron Collider will never find any viable on-mass-shell dark matter exotic particles able to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23 as a matter of fundamental principle, neither will any other conceivable dark matter detector because dark matter forming galactic halos et-al is entirely virtual exotic vacuum w = - 1 with positive irreducibly random quantum zero point pressure that mimics w = 0 CDM in its gravity lensing and all effects that we can observe from afar.
Comments:    This version is the second major revision addressing several unresolved fundamental empirical problems
Subjects:    General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as:    arXiv:gr-qc/0602022v21
Submission history
From: Jack Sarfatti [view email]
[v1] Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:39:00 GMT (801kb)
[v2] Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:50:47 GMT (608kb)
[v3] Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:43:34 GMT (754kb)
[v4] Wed, 8 Mar 2006 18:51:11 GMT (807kb)
[v5] Thu, 9 Mar 2006 05:17:26 GMT (828kb)
[v6] Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:20:35 GMT (738kb)
[v7] Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:51:26 GMT (691kb)
[v8] Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:34:30 GMT (879kb)
[v9] Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:13:39 GMT (903kb)
[v10] Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:25:49 GMT (841kb)
[v11] Mon, 27 Mar 2006 05:09:30 GMT (801kb)
[v12] Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:18:39 GMT (998kb)
[v13] Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:32:26 GMT (920kb)
[v14] Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:17:20 GMT (492kb)
[v15] Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:53:43 GMT (509kb)
[v16] Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:56:52 GMT (509kb)
[v17] Tue, 3 Jul 2007 03:12:11 GMT (685kb)
[v18] Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:15:51 GMT (700kb)
[v19] Wed, 4 Jul 2007 20:21:49 GMT (700kb)
[v20] Fri, 6 Jul 2007 02:21:13 GMT (715kb)
[v21] Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:03:58 GMT (765kb)
On Aug 12, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Dragan Hajdukovic wrote:
"Professor Sarfatti
Much before me, and much before you, people have started to speculate that dark matter is an illusion and that dark energy is an illusion. For example look at these links
July 2003 http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/07/23/908651.htm
May 2005 http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29315
The key question is “what is the mechanism of illusion”, i.e. what is the alternative explanation of the phenomena for which dark matter and dark energy have been invoked.  Different people have proposed different mechanisms (as you can see in above links and at many other links).
 My work is based on the hypotheses that there is gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter. Your work is based on Holographic Model and Consciousness. We have absolutely nothing in common. Today, I have read your papers but it is evident that you have acted before reading my papers."
I repeat. Our ideas have nothing in common. But even if it was not so, I have clear priority. Your first paper is arxiv preprint from 2009, and my first paper is arxiv preprint from 2008, but I had a long fight with mainstream referees before my paper was accepted for publication in jour. Here is the abstract from 2008:
Dark matter, dark energy and gravitational proprieties of antimatter
Authors: Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic
(Submitted on 19 Oct 2008 (this version), latest version 21 Oct 2009 (v3))
Abstract: We suggest that the eventual gravitational repulsion between matter and antimatter may be a key for understanding of the nature of dark matter and dark energy. If there is gravitational repulsion, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs in the vacuum, may be considered as gravitational dipoles. We use a simple toy model to reveal a first indication that the gravitational polarization of such a vacuum, caused by visible (baryonic) matter in a Galaxy, may produce the same effect as supposed existence of dark matter. In addition, we argue that cancelation of gravitational charges in virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, may be a basis for a solution of the cosmological constant problem and identification of dark energy with vacuum energy. Hence, it may be that dark matter and dark energy are not new, unknown forms of matter-energy but an effect of complex interaction between quantum vacuum and known baryonic matter.
General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0810.3435v1 [physics.gen-ph]
The title “Sarfatti's idea that dark matter is an illusion caused by the quantum vacuum rediscovered at CERN” (http://www.stardrive.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4924:dark-matter-may-be-an-illusion-caused-by-the-quantum-vacuum&catid=43:science&Itemid=82) is an offence for CERN and me. The minimum is to apologize on the same web site.
By the way I am surprised that you have written to me without a simple “Hi” and “Regards”
Best regards Professor Sarfatti
Dragan S. Hajdukovic

I just noticed your comment at the end. Let me reassure you that no offense was intended to you or to CERN by my headline, which I think is accurate. In any case professional historians of physics like David Kaiser can settle that. My use of the word "rediscovered" I think is polite and as I say accurate. In no way does it suggest any impropriety on your part or CERN's. I never intended that. Again, let me clarify that my position is only with regard to the general idea that dark matter is a vacuum polarization effect using only simple quantum field theory and plain vanilla general relativity with the general hologram conjecture to be sure, and is not caused by real particles like massive neutrinos, or axions et-al.

As to why no salutation, it was very late at night when I noticed Kim Burrafato citing your paper on http://stardrive.org and I wrote the message in haste - so I would not forget about it in the morning as I am multi-tasking. Again no offense intended.


"We also note that hyperbolic metamaterials behave as diffractionless “perfect lenses”.

Will Heisenberg's microscope gedanken experiment work for a diffractionless perfect lens?

I just pose the problem, just woke up to Art's message, having morning coffee, have not thought it through as yet.

Any opinions?

Heisenberg's argument

"Heisenberg's Microscope, with cone of light rays focusing on a particle with angle .
Heisenberg's argument can be found in (Heisenberg 1930), and is summarized as follows. Heisenberg begins by supposing that an electron is like a classical particle, moving in the x direction along a line below the microscope, as in the illustration to the right. Let the cone of light rays leaving the microscope lens and focusing on the electron makes an angle @ with the electron. Let λ be the wavelength of the light rays. Then, according to the laws of classical optics, the microscope can only resolve  he position of the electron up to an accuracy of" wavelength divided by sine of @.

The Abbe diffraction limit for a microscope

The observation of sub-wavelength structures with microscopes is difficult because of the Abbe diffraction limit. Ernst Abbe found in 1873 that light with wavelength λ, travelling in a medium with refractive index n and converging to a spot with angle φ will make a spot with radius

The denominator nsinφ is called the numerical aperture (NA) and can reach about 1.4 in modern optics, hence the Abbe limit is roughly d=λ/2. With green light around 500nm the Abbe limit is 250nm which is large compared to most nanostructures or biological cells which have sizes on the order of 1μm and internal organelles which are much smaller. To increase the resolution, shorter wavelengths can be used such as UV and X-ray microscopes. These techniques offer better resolution but are expensive, suffer from lack of contrast in biological samples and may damage the sample.

Also besides n < 0 in metamaterial, what happens if in addition |n| >> 1

On Aug 11, 2011, at 9:15 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Thanks Art

arXiv.org Search Results
Back to Search form
The URL for this search is http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/physics/1/au:+Smolyaninov_I/0/1/0/all/0/1

Showing results 1 through 21 (of 21 total) for au:Smolyaninov_I

1. arXiv:1108.2203 [pdf]
Vacuum as a hyperbolic metamaterial
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 10 pages, 1 figure
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
2. arXiv:1107.4053 [pdf]
Hyperbolic metamaterial interfaces: Hawking radiation from Rindler horizons and the "end of time"
Igor I. Smolyaninov, Ehren Hwang, Evgenii Narimanov
Comments: 21 pages, 4 figures
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
3. arXiv:1104.0561 [pdf]
Modeling of Time with Metamaterials
Igor I. Smolyaninov, Yu-Ju Hung
Comments: 15 pages, 4 figures, this version is accepted for publication in JOSA B
Journal-ref: JOSA B, 28, 1591-1595 (2011)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
4. arXiv:1101.4625 [pdf]
Virtual Black Holes in Hyperbolic Metamaterials
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 11 pages, 2 figures
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
5. arXiv:1101.3366 [pdf]
Fluorescence Enhancement in an Array of "Trapped Rainbows"
Vera N. Smolyaninova, Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 8 pages, 2 figures
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
6. arXiv:1009.5663 [pdf]
Metamaterial-based model of the Alcubierre warp drive
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 10 pages, 1 figure
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
7. arXiv:1009.1180 [pdf]
Lattice models of non-trivial "optical spaces" based on metamaterial waveguides
Alexei I. Smolyaninov, Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 3 pages, 4 figures, accepted for publication in Optics Letters
Journal-ref: Optics Letters, 36, 2420-2422 (2011)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
8. arXiv:1007.1130 [pdf]
Metric Signature Transitions in Optical Metamaterials
Igor I. Smolyaninov, Evgenii E. Narimanov
Comments: 16 pages, 3 figures, accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev.Lett.105:067402,2010
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); Quantum Gases (cond-mat.quant-gas); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
9. arXiv:1006.0914 [pdf]
Imaging Properties of Two-Dimensional Microlenses
Vera N. Smolyaninova, Igor I. Smolyaninov, Alexander V. Kildishev, Vladimir M. Shalaev
Comments: 15 pages, 7 figures
Journal-ref: Optics Letters 35, 3396-3398, (2010)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
10. arXiv:1005.1002 [pdf]
Metamaterial "Multiverse"
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 13 pages, 2 figures, this version is accepted for publication in the Journal of Optics
Journal-ref: J.Optics 13:024004,2011
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
11. arXiv:0911.4464 [pdf]
Experimental observation of the trapped rainbow
V.N. Smolyaninova, I.I. Smolyaninov, A.V. Kildishev, V. M. Shalaev
Comments: 2 pages, 1 figure
Journal-ref: Appl.Phys.Letters 96, 211121 (2010)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
12. arXiv:0910.3981 [pdf, other]
Broadband Purcell effect: Radiative decay engineering with metamaterials
Zubin Jacob, Igor Smolyaninov, Evgenii Narimanov
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
13. arXiv:0908.2407 [pdf, ps, other]
Optical models of the big bang and non-trivial space-time metrics based on metamaterials
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 3 pages
Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. Letters 105, 067402 (2010)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
14. arXiv:0903.3437 [pdf]
Anisotropic Metamaterials Emulated by Tapered Waveguides: Application to Optical Cloaking
Igor I. Smolyaninov, Vera N. Smolyaninova, Alexander V. Kildishev, Vladimir M. Shalaev
Comments: 4 pages, 4 figures, corrected references
Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. Letters 103, 213901 (2009)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
15. arXiv:0709.2862 [pdf]
Electromagnetic cloaking in the visible frequency range
I.I. Smolyaninov, Y.J.Hung, C.C. Davis
Comments: 3 pages, 1 figure
Journal-ref: Optics Letters 33, 1342-1344 (2008)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
16. arXiv:physics/0610230 [pdf]
Magnifying superlens in the visible frequency range
I.I. Smolyaninov, Y.J.Hung, C.C. Davis
Comments: 3pages, 1 figure
Journal-ref: Science 315, 1699-1701 (2007)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
17. arXiv:physics/0607144 [pdf, ps, other]
Hawking radiation in a waveguide is produced by self-phase modulation
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 2 pages, 1 figure
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)
18. arXiv:physics/0606072 [pdf]
Unruh effect in a waveguide
Igor I. Smolyaninov
Comments: 12 pages, 2 figures, accepted for publication in Physics Letters A
Journal-ref: Physics Letters A 372, 5861-5864 (2008)
Subjects: Optics (physics.optics)

On Aug 11, 2011, at 7:53 AM, art wagner wrote: