Text Size


Oct 01
Or will we go extinct on this planet? Those USAF whistle blowers at National Press Club Sept 27, 2010 in DC - the craft are real and can render our nukes impotent and obsolete - and have. That is true in my opinion with high probability.

On Sep 27, 2010, at 9:34 AM, james f woodward wrote:

If memory serves, Chiao's proposal, based on an analysis strikingly similar to that of Doug Torr and Ning Li of 20 years ago (criticized by Ed Harris in a FoPL article in 1999 I think), is an impedance matching scheme intended to facilitate energy transfer between gravity and EM waves in superconductors.  It is NOT a scheme for making the Jupiter masses of exotic restmass required to make absurdly benign wormholes (ABWs, the enabling technology required for rapid spacetime transport).

Yes. However, Ray was not thinking of negative refracting superconductors, nor was he thinking about the stopping of light in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates. Ray does mention an effective increase in the gravity coupling to EM by about 40 powers of ten as I recall. I only meant the comparison in a heuristic way - lots of buzz about anomalous gravity in superconductors - obvious reason would be the increase in refractive index n in n^4G/c^4.

Do I have a proposal to make absurdly benign wormholes (with Jupiter masses of exotic rest mass in compact structures a few tens of meters in size)?

My point is to get the effect with small amounts of applied stress-energy density currents.

Yes.  It was published 15 years ago in FoPL ("Making the Universe Safe for Historians: Time Travel and the Laws of Physics" [MUSH], FoPL vol. 8, pp. 1 - 39, 1995) followed by a more explicit version ("TWISTS of Fate: Can We Make Traversable Wormholes in Spacetime?," FoPL vol. 10, pp. 153 - 181, 1997; marred by some serious post-copy editing typos,
especially in some of the equations).  It was also the subject of a talk I gave at John Cramer's 75th Birthday Symposium a year ago (PPT of the talk at:

and a paper I am writing for a conference next year.  In part, it depends on an observation made by Peter Milonni to me nearly 20 years ago that the bare masses of elementary particles, even in the Standard Model, are negative and grotesquely large (infinite in the case of the Standard Model).  The technical problem for making ABWs seems to be figuring out
how to expose the bare masses of elementary particles.  Need I say, if doable at all, this is not a trivial problem?

My approach is intrinsically simpler. Both our approaches can be wrong of course - eminently Popper falsifiable.
However, I am glad you see the connection between Mach's Principle, Wheeler-Feynman & 't Hooft-Susskind hologram conjecture.