Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch
Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...
OK here I agree with Menas.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:
"Agree with Paul.
So now let’s move on.
What is next?"
Jack writes: Glad u asked.
My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE
C = Mach Effect
Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame
F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2
effective "dark energy" potential
V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2
/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2
In Einstein's GR this goes into g00
and a nonunitary dissipative friction term
In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0
Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0
Also
C = CDestiny + CHistory
The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82
therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18
In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.
g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2
gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)
Jack Sarfatti "Recently (Anderson 1995; Bonnor 1996) there has been a revival of interest in the question as to whether the cosmological expansion also proceeds at smaller scales. There is a tendency to reject such an extrapolation by confusing it with the intrinsically unobservable
”expansion” (let us refer to this as ”pseudo-expansion”) described above.
By contrast, the metric of Friedman–Robertson–Walker (FRW) in general relativity is intrinsically dynamic with the increase (decrease) of proper distances correlated with red–shift (blue–shift). It does so on any scale provided the light travel time is much longer than the wave period. Thus, the cosmological metric alone does not dictate a scale for expansion and in principle, it could be present at the smallest practical scale as real – as opposed to pseudo–expansion, and observable in principle.
However, it is reasonable to pose the question as to whether there is a cut–off at which systems below this scale do not partake of the expansion. It would appear that one would be hard put to justify a particular scale for the onset of expansion. Thus, in this debate, we are in agreement with Anderson (1995) that it is most reasonable to assume that the expansion does indeed proceed at all scales. However, there is a certain ironical quality attached to the debate in the sense that even if the expansion does actually occur at all scales, we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale."
It's not clear yet if this is fatal for Jim's theory. It may not be if Jim is simply invoking an advanced Wheeler-Feynman radiative reaction effect. In spin 1 electromagnetism the Mach effect back from the future ~ "jerk" d^3x(test particle)/dt^3, however Jim claims that for spin 2 gravity this same retro-causal effect ~ d^2x(test particle)/dt^2
Electromagnetic radiative reaction is dual to local zero point vacuum energy, i.e. random ZPF virtual photons responsible for spontaneous emission. Therefore, MET if it worked would be a ZERO POINT spin 2 graviton reaction-less engine analogous to the random spin 1 virtual photons in Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar theory are a past effect whose future cause are the photon absorbers with our future event horizon as the final absorber of last resort. Jim's device uses spin 2 virtual gravitons not spin 1 virtual photons, but the idea is the same.
That is, if I understand his claim correctly Jim claims a modified off-geodesic Newton 2nd law of motion
F = (D/ds)[(Mach Cosmology Effect)P]
D/ds is the covariant derivative with respect to proper time of the test particle
F is the non-gravity 4-force on the test particle
P is the 4-momentum of the test particle
D/ds = d/ds + Inertial pseudo forces including Newton's gravity "force without force" (Levi Civita terms).
The future horizon, if it's a total absorber, gives
(Mach Cosmology Effect) ~ 1 on the average.
OK Jim's idea of the MET thruster is very simple if you accept the above
If there is a dynamic Machian oscillation then even when F = 0 and even in a local inertial frame where the pseudo forces vanish by the Einstein equivalence principle
0 = Pd(Mach Coefficient)/ds + (Mach Coefficient)dP/ds
However, the fly in Jim's ointment is
"we will show that the effects of the cosmological expansion on smaller spatial and temporal scales would be undetectable in general in the foreseeable future and hence one could just as comfortably hold the view that the expansion occurs strictly on the cosmological scale"
On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:30 PM, JACK SARFATTI <instbio@gmail.com> wrote:
This paper is essential for Jim's MET
the issue is how large scale cosmic structure influences the small-scale of Jim's machine
On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:45 PM, David Mathes wrote:
29. arXiv:astro-ph/9803097 [pdf, ps, other]
The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems
F. I. Cooperstock, V. Faraoni, D. N. Vollick (University of Victoria)
Comments: To appear in the Astrophysical Journal, Latex
Journal-ref: Astrophys.J. 503 (1998) 61
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
On Jun 27, 2013, at 12:04 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
there are results in A that may be more relevant because it deals with bound states.
None of the S-Matrix papers deal with mundane electrical power engineering
i.e. quasi-static non-radiative near fields of say capacitors, solenoids, electric motors and dynamos, power lines with small radiative leaking.
Of course classical EM provides a practical theory for electrical engineers, but our problem is to see how this very practical world fits in with QED S-Matrix. We are not interested here in scattering input real particles into output real particles. We are interested rather in the quantum description of the near EM fields.
Also, ordinary S-Matrix never deals with coherent Glauber states only with Fock states.
Of course a classical current Ju makes Glauber coherent states - but for near fields the photons are virtual not real.
The Gorkov method for BCS superconductor is more to the point - there the Glauber coherent states of Cooper pairs is an emergent non-perturbative effect from summing I think and infinity of tree Feynman diagrams? So that is one way to think of spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in many particle systems.
Note that the key LNIF metric representations for Schwarzschild, de Sitter, Kerr are all Glauber coherent states of virtual gravitons.
Ordinary space crystal lattice ground states are Glauber coherent states of virtual phonons f = 0 & ki ~ n/ai, ai lattice spacings of unit cell.
Ferromagnetic ground states are Glauber coherent states of virtual spin wave quanta
In contrast, superconductor ground states are Glauber coherent states of real Cooper pairs?
Superfluid helium 4 ground state is a Glauber coherent state of virtual phonons as well f = 0 with a continuum of ki.
Except for the Cooper pairs - the we have above ground states whose Landau-Ginzburg order parameters are Glauber coherent states of the massless Goldstone boson in virtual off-mass-shell form.
In the post-inflation vacuum we also have Glauber coherent states of virtual massive Higgs bosons.
Actually to be more precise the order parameter is in simplest case e.g. center of mass of Cooper pair
<0|Psi|0> = R(x)e^iS(x)
Psi is a second quantized annihilation operator in ordinary spacetime
|0> is the broken symmetry ground state
x = ordinary 3D + 1 event
R(x) is a condensate of massive Higgs bosons
S(x) the coherent state is a condensate of massless Goldstone particles.
|R(x)e^IS(x)> is the Glauber coherent state
On Jun 26, 2013, at 11:26 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
I had it at one time but can't seem to find it. But as I recall it is superseded by the two that I sent you, which give a more comprehensive and general treatment.
R
> From: adastra1@me.com
> Subject: Davies paper A
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:20:36 -0700
> To: rekastner@hotmail.com
>
> Do u have it? Apparently it's a prequel to the two you sent.
On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:33 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:
I agree with Brian. And as far as M-theory is concerned, it is offered as the complete theory of everything, in my view to avoid the problem of consciousness.
I have yet to watch all the Stanford Susskind videos on string and M-theory to see if there is any "there" there?
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Josephson [mailto:bdj10@cam.ac.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Ruth Kastner
Subject: Re: Reality of Possibility
On 25 Jun 2013, at 15:45, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Brian, I will look at this, but first let me clarify something.
By 'complete' in the book, what I'm really getting at is that the
theory doesn't need either
(1) the addition of beables a la Bohm
Bohm's idea which is very natural actually starts with Bohr, but goes beyond it.
In my own formulation for the masses:
The EM 2-form F = dA is the REAL IT beable. It has a BIT super-Q as described by Basil Hiley. All pointer reading of all experiment on all matter fields in the final analysis ends up with F. I think Geoffrey Chew first emphasized this at the Berkeley meetings described by David Kaiser in "How the Hippies Saved Physics."
The classical world corresponds to Q negligible - with the exception of spontaneous broken ground state symmetries giving emergent over-complete distinguishably non-orthogonal Glauber coherent states of both real and virtual quanta. That's a lot of exceptions including crystals (both space and time), superfluids, lasers, ferromagnets, ferroelectrics, nematics, superconductors, and finally life and consciousness itself. See P.W. Anderson's "More is different."
(2) ad hoc modifications such as 'spontaneous collapse' theories
The point has to be made though that unless there is a theory of everything QM cannot be considered complete. QM is no use unless it has a Hamiltonian to work with, and all we have at present is approximations that work only in a limited domain, or theories such as M-theory that are a kind of 'vapourware', having no existence in the form of written text. This is independent of any considerations relating to life.
Brian
------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge Director, Mind-Matter Unification Project
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254
On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 2013, at 1:25 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jack, it's really not correct to say that Bohmian beables are 'obviously required'.
JS: I think it is correct. It's a matter of opinion.
RK: I give an alternative account in my book
that allows for the emergence of the 'classical macroscopic world'.
JS: I think that you have replaced one mystery with another. This word "possibility" is "real". I see no essential physical difference between how you use "possibility" and how Bohmians use "Q". Also the Bohmian beable is Wheeler's IT and Bohm's Q is Wheeler's BIT in
IT FROM BIT.
RK:Others give different interpretations that I don't agree
with for various reason (e.g. MWI because it doesn't provide a good physical reason for Born Rule, and splitting of worlds via decoherence is ultimately observer-dependent), but those don't rely on beables either.
JS: Valentini has explained the origin of the Born rule as a contingency in terms of the statistical mechanics of beables. Now Valentini may have erred in his recent stability claims. But even if we fall back on what he calls de Broglie dynamics instead of Bohm dynamics we still have the Born rule as a contingency and not an absolute truth.
RK:You may prefer the Bohmian account, but that's certainly not a basis for saying that it's 'obviously required'.
JS: Show me how you get the basic beable which is Maxwell-Cartan 2-form F for the electromagnetic field.
F = dA
dF = 0
d*F = *J
d*J = 0