• Uwe Langer likes this.
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Adam Crowl wrote:
  
  Hi Jack
  
  Your last statement is a goal I agree with, if not share.
  
  Additional comments below...
  
  On 17/05/2013 6:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
  On May 17, 2013, at 9:00 AM, qraal01 wrote:
  
  "I am wary of claiming hard evidence when there is precisely zero evidence of FTL being achieved by UFOs. Tight-turns and flickering images is evidence? Sherlock Holmes' advised eliminating the possible before concluding the impossible. Don't mistake the light-show for the reality."
  
  Jack: You miss the obvious point, which is that if UFOs are real alien ET craft, the only way they can get here is with low-power warp/wormhole technology. The evidence is much better than a Roschach inkblot. Many informed people on the list think you grossly under-value the UFO evidence for real machines of extraordinary technology - including weapons. It's ultimately a Bayesean gamble. I am betting that real low power UFO alien ET technology is out there. You can continue on your path, but I doubt you will ever get serious funding for it. I hope I am wrong in that prediction.
  
  AC: And the possibilities I mentioned in another email don't bear thinking about?
  
  Jack: Maybe I missed it?
  
  AC: That "They" have been here a very long-time,
  
  Jack: Yes, most likely.
  
  AC: that They live for immense spans of time,
  
  Jack: Perhaps.
  
  AC: and so most of the issues people raise against conventional star-flight as the means by which They got here are totally irrelevant? "The only way..." is very restrictive on the possible - and the data isn't yet good enough to say either way.
  
  Jack: My estimation of the relative Bayesean probabilities differ from yours. Also I had an actual contact experience as a child that is evidence for back from the future time travel technology. So have others including Uri Geller.
  
  AC: As for "extraordinary technology" what makes you think we're not 50-100 years off emulating "Them"
  
  Jack: I'm hoping 5 to 10.
  
  AC: and that's why there's the "smoke-and-mirrors" show to bedazzle us?
  
  Jack: Because, I know the physicists in power and I know what their limits are. Such a secret is impossible to keep at those levels. Pure military types simply don't have the expertise for the job and the DARPA people are completely clueless here.
  
  AC: I maintain methodological scepticism - as much as I might want to believe in FTL Ufo technology, I can't assume it.
  
  Jack: And that's why you will never get the funding. You and the others are banging your heads against a stone wall on this.
  
  AC: But, as already noted, Eric's (Davis) experiences is suggestive. Not sure about the rest of the observed maneuvering. I maintain we have no proof that the high-gee maneuvers imply anything more than robotic control and/or acceleration mitigation. The lack of any visible exhaust implies either external reaction mass is used in the atmosphere - i.e. ionic wind thrusters - or the ability to make neutrino beams with high-efficiency. It doesn't equate to "anti-gravity" - we need more real data to rule out reaction drives of some sort.
  
  Jack: I think you are wrong, but this is an issue on which we can agree to disagree
  
  AC: As for funding proposals, it's far too early to propose to build starship. A sad fact that every starry-eyed dreamer presently lives with. My final question wasn't a rhetorical device - what sighting makes a solid case for FTL in UFOs?
  
  Jack: Ask the experts like Eric Davis, Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedmann, Hal Puthoff. My own focus is NOT the observational UFO evidence. My job is simply, ASSUME as a thought experiment, that alien ET UFO machines are here (possibly time machines from our future descendants here on Earth in a Novikov loop in time - Destiny Matrix) then how can we copy/reverse engineer their technology.
  
  AC: My friend .... suggests something like your Destiny Matrix in his own musings on what he calls "Morphians". His UFO encounters lie to the other end of the spectrum, away from hardware, more towards "living beings", intelligent plasmas, and/or higher dimensional life-forms.
  
  Jack: I am not against that at all. It's a big universe with many different kinds of life forms at different levels of technology.
  
  AC: His prehistoric research work on the significance of Cygnus X-3 in human mental/cultural evolution is suggestive of very high-energy life-forms able to fire "cygnons" our way - possibly John Cramer's high gamma-factor wormhole mouths - as well as modulating the cosmic-ray flux we encounter.
  
  Jack: "cygnon"?
  
  AC: The Universe's own goals might come into the picture as well. The recent preprint on Universal reproduction in the Multiverse, suggests that the evolutionary lineage that led to our current Universe has evolved "evolvability" - possibly the ability to make black-holes, which spawn new Universes in some theories. If life-forms evolve towards manipulating black-holes technologically, then there's clearly an "incentive" for the Universe to push us in that direction. There have been several papers which suggest means for turning black-holes into worm-holes technologically, thus an incentive for Life to shepherd the creation of black-holes. If the Kerr metric describes the conditions under the event horizon at all, then we might gain the means to explore the Multiverse.

   

Jack Sarfatti

5 minutes ago

Stephen Hawking's warning on ET Contact

• 

  Jack Sarfatti Stephen Hawking has warned us to keep a low profile with ET.
  
  Stephen Hawking's Tips for Contacting E.T: Everyone Please Just ...
  
  gizmodo.com/.../stephen-hawkings-tips-for-contacting-et-every...
  by Jack Loftus - in 107 Google+ circles
  Apr 25, 2010 – Stephen Hawking, brilliant scientist, has a simple message for humanity when it comes to contacting E.T.: Shut up. No, really. The pessimistic ...
  Stephen Hawking aliens warning: Contacting ET 'a bad idea' | Metro ...
  
  metro.co.uk/.../stephen-hawking-aliens-warning-contacting-et-a-...
  by Ted Thornhill - in 22 Google+ circles
  Apr 25, 2010 – Stephen Hawking: Aliens warningThe world-reknowned theoretical physicist rings the alarm bells about reaching out to ET in a new ...
  Stephen Hawking says Earth should not phone ET - New Scientist
  www.newscientist.com/blogs/.../04/stephen-hawking-says-earth-sho.html
  Apr 26, 2010 – Should we try to make contact with ET? Certainly not, says StevenHawking, citing concerns that our Earthly resources would be plundered.
  Stephen Hawking: "We've Been Overlooked by Advanced ET ...
  www.dailygalaxy.com/.../stephen-hawkings-wager-we-have-been-overlo...
  Nov 22, 2011 – In his famous lecture, Life in the Universe, Stephen Hawking asks: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we ...
  Stay home ET. Stephen Hawking: Aliens may pose risks
  phys.org/news191420676.html
  Apr 25, 2010 – (AP) -- British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial ...
  Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth - Technology & science ...
  www.nbcnews.com/id/.../ns/.../hawking-aliens-may-pose-risks-earth/
  Apr 25, 2010 – British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says aliens are out there, but it could be too dangerous for humans to interact with extraterrestrial life.
  If Aliens Exist,They May Come to Get Us, Stephen Hawking Says ...
  
  www.space.com/8288-aliens-exist-stephen-hawking.html
  by Clara Moskowitz - in 395 Google+ circles
  Apr 26, 2010 – If intelligent alien life forms do exist, they might not be the friendly cosmic neighbors the people of Earth are looking for, famed British scientist ...

  4 minutes ago · Like
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Adam Crowl wrote:
  
  "Of course no one ever discusses the theories that Eric's collaborator, Jacques Vallee, has about the nature and purpose of UFOs. Too scary? That ET might have a sinister agenda? Might want to mess with our heads for their own ends?"
  
  I replied:
  Yes, you are correct. However, if Jacques is correct there is even less reason to support clunky rockets for interstellar travel! Indeed, Dan Throop Smith is running with Vallee's ball in his comical eccentric way of course.
  
  Of course, any advanced civilization with warp-wormhole WEAPONRY will also most likely have post-quantum signal nonlocality mind-control psychotronics.
  Subquantum Information and Computation
  Antony Valentini
  (Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
  It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).
  Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
  Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
  Journal reference: Pramana - J. Phys. 59 (2002) 269-277
  DOI: 10.1007/s12043-002-0117-1
  Report number: Imperial/TP/1-02/15
  Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0203049
  (or arXiv:quant-ph/0203049v2 for this version)
  
  They will have solved the mind-matter problem perhaps along the lines I have suggested well described here by Michael Towler in Lecture 8
  
  http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

  De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture cour

  www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

  4 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview
• 

  Write a comment...

1. There has been dissatisfaction on the right with Mae Jemison's handling of the DARPA grant to get private investors to build a starship in the next 100 years.
   

   On May 12, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Angelo wrote:
   
   Jack, I heard that in 2 years (from Orlando 2011) she just did nothing useful, she did not find any single investor, she spent almost all DARPA grant (500 k$) and no one knows how, she left her partner Icarus Interstellar without a penny. I don´t know if this is the whole truth but I think that we are very close to it! :-)
   In fact this year Icarus interstellar is organizing his own symposium on interstellar propulsion and missions.
   
   http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/congress-announcement/
   
   Come on, Jack, regarding Hill´s book please tell me your opinion on the UFO propulsion system described by Hill. I think that it is consistent with the witnessed UFO performance, but...
   
   Best,
   Angelo
    

   http://www.starpod.us/2011/10/06/ufos-crash-and-burn-at-100-year-starship-symposium/#.UZX65IKhSgg
   

   Some see the whole effort as a political kow towing to the politically correct left.
   

   Jack Sarfatti

   3 minutes ago

   Back in London after two weeks in Paris, Provence and Geneva, the UFO controversy and the failure of the DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project heat up.

   "}">Like · · Share

   • 

     Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 9:00 AM, AC wrote:
     
     "I am wary of claiming hard evidence when there is precisely zero evidence of FTL being achieved by UFOs. Tight-turns and flickering images is evidence? Sherlock Holmes' advised eliminating the possible before concluding the impossible. Don't mistake the light-show for the reality."
     
     Jack: You miss the obvious point, which is that if UFOs are real alien ET craft, the only way they can get here is with low-power warp/wormhole technology. The evidence is much better than a Roschach inkblot. Many informed people on the list think you grossly under-value the UFO evidence for real machines of extraordinary technology - including weapons. It's ultimately a Bayesean gamble. I am betting that real low power UFO alien ET technology is out there. You can continue on your path, but I doubt you will ever get serious funding for it. I hope I am wrong in that prediction.
     
     AC "As for funding proposals, it's far too early to propose to build starship. A sad fact that every starry-eyed dreamer presently lives with. My final question wasn't a rhetorical device - what sighting makes a solid case for FTL in UFOs?"
     
     Jack: Ask the experts like Eric Davis, Bruce Maccabee, Stanton Friedmann, Hal Puthoff. My own focus is NOT the observational UFO evidence. My job is simply, ASSUME as a thought experiment, that alien ET UFO machines are here (possibly time machines from our future descendants here on Earth in a Novikov loop in time - Destiny Matrix) then how can we copy/reverse engineer their technology.

     2 minutes ago · "}">Like
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti On May 17, 2013, at 10:14 AM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:
     
     Eric has outed himself many times in the public record.
     
     Begin forwarded message:
     
     From: ....
     Subject: Re: Eric Davis On the Limits of Academic Discussion and How this Stifles Progress
     Date: May 17, 2013 8:37:03 AM GMT+01:00
     To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com>
     
     Interesting. I've read the Hill book and have owned a copy since its initial publication. It's littered with margin notes and highlighting, as I consider it among the best in print on the subject. You might also be aware of Dr. Wang Sichao's statements, of Nanjing University's Purple Mountain Observatory, regarding tracking inbound objects decelerating from .8c.
     
     "During his August 23 speech in Guangzhou, Sichao stated that UFOs have been observed by astronomers traveling as fast as 80 percent of the speed of light at distances of between 150 and 1,500 km from Earth."
     
     http://technorati.com/technology/article/chinese-astronomer-claims-some-ufos-are/
     
     I have been trying to find a contact for Dr. Wang for some time for a quote on the record, but my Chinese isn't good enough for cogent communication; I only took two years at uni.
     
     However, out of respect, I do not wish to use this statement of yours about Dr. Davis unless you wish to publicly out him, and I don't think that would benefit your working relationship. He is not responding to requests for comment. Nor will Professor Peter Sturrock of Stanford, who I am almost certain asked the question based on video imagery and audio of his voice, as well as a nondenial-denial statement of his in email. I recognize that going public could have damaging repercussions for Dr. Davis' career and do not wish to impede his work. On the other hand, that statement of his I quoted has been unnoticed on the public record for over two years and so I believed it was fair game. I note Dr. Davis is scheduled to speak at MUFON's 2013 symposium. I'm trying to line up someone in attendance to directly ask him for a quote regarding that statement.
     
     The technical details regarding the correctness, or lack thereof, in his analysis I'll leave to those better educated in the field. If I might quote that I'd be thankful. But a general quote on the stifling of fringe research into anomalous events is also of interest. I'm currently reading a fascinating paper by Roland Benabou of Princeton, "Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets" which I believe to be relevant, along with Kuhn's classic.
     
     http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Review of Economic Studies-2013-Benabou-429-62.pdf
     
     Thank you,
     --M

     

     Chinese Astronomer Claims Some UFOs Are Of Extraterrestrial Origin

     technorati.com

     Purple Hills Observatory professor says objects demonstrate anti-gravity capabilities

     about a minute ago · "}">Like · Remove Preview
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@mac.com> wrote:
     Yes, of course. I know Eric Davis for years from Joe Firmage's ISSO and I am completely aware of his position on this and what his real secret work is/was about. Eric is wrong about no evidence for warp drive in near earth flight. 180 degree turns at high speed is evidence as is sudden stopping and apparent dematerialization. See, e.g. Paul Hill's book. Also he contradicts himself below when he talks about the possible wormhole on the Bigelow ranch. Wormhole and warp drive physics are both essentially the same and the evidence is that there is a low power technology for them. I gave a paper on this at the Oct 1, 2011 DARPA 100 yss Starship Meeting. Vince Tefilio and two referees at JBIS, who obviously were not competent, mistakenly thought I was talking about simulations of warp drive in meta-materials. That is not the case and Jim Woodward correctly describes what I actually wrote in his Star Ship book (Springer-Verlag). One referee did not understand textbook quantum density matrix formalism - pathetic.
     
     On May 17, 2013, at 5:28 AM, JMG wrote:
     
     Dr. Sarfatti,
     
     We have been in limited contact before. Would you be willing to give a quote on the record concerning the limits of academic debate in regard to fringe physics and other scientific matters? I wish to write about how cultural limits within the scientific, academic and grant funding establishment impede discovery and stifle careers.
     
     The context of this regards a rather remarkable statement by Astrophysicist Dr. Eric W. Davis, who spoke about how some members of NASA's Advanced Propulsion Physics Project had researched aspects of the UFO phenomena in deriving speculative theories that were later published. This statement was made during a Society for Scientific Exploration lecture on the potential for Warp Drives, Wormholes, and Gravity manipulation in 2010. The talk is posted to the SSE website, and has also been available on the SSE Youtube channel for about two years; a link will be included at the bottom of this email.
     
     Dr. Davis obtained a PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Arizona in 1991, was a co-founding member of NASA-JSC's Advanced Deep Space Transport Technology Assessment Group, and was a contract physicist for NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project before it was disbanded due to funding shortfalls in 2002. He has numerous published papers on the potential for wormhole and warp drive physics.
     
     During the Q&A session after his lecture, he was asked: "Is there any thought to using the known properties of UFOs as a guide to your thinking and research?"
     
     His answer was quite remarkable. A full transcript of his statement is provided at the bottom of this email. I've written a short news article on the matter which may be of interest as well, if only to show the quality of my writing and accuracy of presentation.
     
     The man I believe to have asked the question is a well respected academic physicist at Stanford, but he is unwilling to go on the record. After contacting the gentleman, he agreed that he had attended the event but stated that he 'did not remember' if he had posed the question. He then did not respond to a further request in confirming his identity. Based on photographs and audio recordings, I am confidant he is the gentleman in question. I suspect you would recognize him as well. But I respect his unwillingness to confirm identity or go on the record and did not disclose it in the article. In addition, after attempting to contact Dr. Davis, I did not receive a reply, indicating that he too is unwilling to go on the record (as is his right).
     
     This unwillingness to talk about statements made in public and on camera about a matter of extreme sensitivity to the academic community is the impetus for the article I wish to write. It will not editorialize the existence or nonexistence of UFOs, but instead will focus strictly on the issue of how exploring fringe topics can endager academic careers and thus stifle scientific progress.
     
     Sources for this work would include Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Noam Chomsky's thesis on restricting the envelope of debate within Manufacturing Consent; material about the academic review conducted at Harvard University after Professor John Mack began investigating and publishing material about UFO abduction cases; etc. Again, the issue is not that I want a positive statement regarding the veracity of fringe matters, but that I would seek a statement about how fears of damage to academic credibility and even risk to tenure might impact future career paths for both established and up and coming academics.
     
     For background, I am a former technical staffer and computer services manager at the Laboratory for Nuclear Science at MIT, having worked there for about twelve years. Thus, I know the community and culture reasonably well. However, I am not an established print author, nor do I have a degree in physics. I simply hold a nontechnical BA from Harvard.
     
     Thank you,
     J
     
     ----
     
     Source Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xDx1po_apZU

     

     SSE Talks - Gravity Control, Warp-Drive, Propulsion Frontiers - Eric Davis

     www.youtube.com

     http://www.scientificexploration.org/ ----------------------------------- The sc...See More

     a few seconds ago · "}">Like · Remove Preview
   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Full transcript of Dr. Eric Davis' SSE statement (see from 37m30s on):
     
     Audience Question: Is there any thought to using the known properties of UFOs as a guide to your thinking and research?
     
     Dr. Eric W. Davis: The answer is yes and no. Secretly, yes and overtly no. Because the mainstream academics don’t like the topic of UFOs and they really don’t have any credibility with them, especially with policy-makers and decision-makers in charge of funding and programatics. They don’t want to hear the topics of UFOs. So, for the purpose of doing this officially [we didn’t bring in UFOs], but we did consider it under the table.
     
     And yes, there is a subset of us who have looked at UFO data. And we’ve looked at all the physical events and physical descriptions that have been provided by investigators from Jacques Vallee to yourself, and whatnot, and George Hathaway and so forth. And we’ve been able to use that data as input to give us an idea, and that data does drive the concepts that we did derive later on [when we did] the book and went into the original NASA program. Like warp drives and wormholes. For example, at the NIDS Utah Ranch, where I used to work for Bob Bigelow for six years, we had the experience of one scientist and one investigator seeing a wormhole – what looked like a wormhole – with a creature crawling through, and then the ranch owners had seen an opening in the sky in broad daylight with a triangular craft that came through it. Well, that’s an example of data that indicates there’s a wormhole involved. I mean, geometry tells you what a wormhole looks like when it intersects our space. It appears as a very bright – intensely bright – point of light and then, as the intersection gets larger and larger, it opens up and you begin to see the hole. And, things would be going in and out of it. So, that’s an example of two datasets that we verified at the NIDS Utah Ranch that match what I know as a physicist what a wormhole would do.
     
     Warp drives. We haven’t seen UFOs do performances that adhere to the warp drive, because the warp drive… basically it’s just between stars and we don’t see UFOs warping anywhere or warping around. We see them doing ninety degree turns and rapid motions; they disappear and reappear. That is undetermined yet. I would think that wormhole is a big possibility still. I’m trying to think of anything else. I would think that anti-gravity – we have anti-gravity in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and I cover that in my chapter in the book; one of my three chapters. There are aspects of anti-gravity, the properties of negative vacuum energy that would create a repulsive force that allows something to levitate up. And UFOs do exhibit that. So there’s Hal Putthoff’s Polarized Vacuum Model. It’s a different form of Relativity where instead of a space-time you envision space-time as a polarized vacuum of a quantum zero point fluctuations. And, if you exert a field on that medium, the fluctuations are polarized, that creates a space-time bending effect similar to warp drive and wormholes. So, we see that. We see that in aspects of what’s predicted.
     
     Article text on the statement Dr. Davis made:
     
     http://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ed8uo/dr_eric_w_davis_of_nasas_breakthrough_propulsion/

     

     Dr. Eric W. Davis, of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Project, discussed UFOs during lecture : UFOs

     www.reddit.com

     By J. Maynard Gelinas Dr. Eric W. Davis, formerly a contract research physicist ...See More

     a few seconds ago · "}">Like · Remove Preview

Jack Sarfatti proper acceleration in a static coordinate metric

ds^2 = gttdt^2 - grrdr^2 - r^2(spherical coordinate metric)

is

g(r) ~ gtt^-1/2d(g00/dr)

the two metrics of interest are

gtt = 1 - A^1/2/r black hole of area entropy A

we at r ---> infinity outside black hole

gtt = 1 - r'^2/A de Sitter horizon

we at r' = 0

inside cosmological horizon

use

1 + z = femit/fobserve f = frequency

1 + z = [gtt(observe)gtt(emit)]^1/2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Quantum gravity says horizons gtt = 0 are really Lp thick.

so for both metrics above using

r = A^1/2 + Lp for black hole

&

r' = A^1/2 - Lp

get same factors (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 redshift of radiation emitted from A

(A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 blue shift of radiation falling into A.

Now the Hawking black hole radiation temperature at A is

T ~ h(A^1/2/Lp)c^2/cA^1/2kB ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

and this redshifts down to hc/A^1/2kB ~ Newtonian horizon surface gravity just as Hawking says.

In contrast, for the new quantum gravity radial oscillations of the thickness of the horizon

T' ~ hc/LpkB

which redshifts down to us to T' ~ hc/kB(LpA^1/2)^1/2

by Stephan Boltzman T^4 law

this gives hc/Lp^2A

both for anomalous w = +1/3 radiation from black holes whose horizon is not observer dependent

& also dark energy density from future horizon which looks like w = -1 virtual photon vacuum energy peaked at c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 frequency whose horizon is observer dependent.

We need to use John Cramer's TI here.

en.wikipedia.orgIn physics (especially astrophysics), redshift happens when light seen coming from an object that is moving away is proportionally increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. More generally, when an observer detects electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum, "red...

On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:39 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

My reply to Z's comments below.

Special relativity is 10-parameter Poincare group P10 covariance of local field equations (invariant action S) + Global  Inertial Frame (GIF) invariance of physical speed of light in vacuum.

P10 = T4 * SO1,3

* = semi-direct product

General relativity is 6- parameter Lorentz subgroup SO1,3 of Poincare group covariance of local field equations (invariant action S) + Local  Inertial Frame (LIF) invariance of physical speed of light in vacuum.

The latter is the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP) in a formal form.

In addition, there is a new group of local general coordinate transformations that is the global translation group T4 locally gauged to T4(x) with the new gravity field as a local gauge field.

ds^2 is still locally invariant under both groups T4(x) & SO1,3

For the most general Local Non-Inertial Frame (LNIF)

ds^2 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

Now in the special case of light rays - classical null geodesics, no quantum theory yet

ds^2 = 0

Therefore,

0 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

0 = 1 +  g0icdtdx^i/ g00c^2dt^2 +  gijdx^idx^j/g00c^2dt^2
0 = 1 +  g0idx^i/ g00cdt+  gijdx^/dtidx^j/dt/g00c^2

define V^i = dx^i/dt = coordinate speed component of light ray in the LNIF

define Ray Chiao's gravi-magnetic 3-vector field

Bi = g0i

0 = 1 + B.V/cg00 + V^2/c^2g00

V = 3-vector coordinate velocity of light measured in the LNIF

The physical velocity 3-vector of light in the LNIF is

c' = V/g00^1/2

So when either B = 0 or B.V = 0, the physical speed of light in the LNIF is the same as in the coincident LIF (vacuum case only)

In general this simple quadratic equation has two roots c'+ & c'-, which in the special case of a rotating Sagnac interferometer gives the fringe shift
The Sagnac effect (also called Sagnac interference), named after French physicist Georges Sagnac, is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation. The Sagnac effect manifests itself in a setup called a ring interferometer. A beam of light is split and the two beams are made to follow the same path but in opposite directions. To act as a ring the trajectory must enclose an area. On return to the point of entry the two light beams are allowed to exit the ring and undergo interference. The relative phases of the two exiting beams, and thus the position of the interference fringes, are shifted according to the angular velocity of the apparatus. This arrangement is also called a Sagnac interferometer  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

0 = 1 + B.c'/cg00^1/2 + c'^2/c^2

define x = |c'/c|

Therefore

x^2  + Bcos@x/g00^1/2 + 1 = 0

<3ca857f705daba6b9e6e6d3ccad7990f.png>

2x+,- = (-Bcos@x/2g00^1/2 +,- [B^2cos^2@/g00 - 4]^1/2)

Note, the very bizarre behavior at a horizon g00 --> 0, where the constant "4" term is ignorable

one root for the physical speed of light converges to zero, but the other diverges to infinity (classical limit) when cos@ =/= 0


On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:57 PM, Paul Zielinski <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

If the physical speed of light propagating through the vacuum depends on acceleration or rotation of the observer's reference  frame, then it follows that in the absence of a light medium, the relativity principle of 1905 SR doesn't generalize to accelerating  frames.

If the physical speed of light depends on physical acceleration or rotation of the source, then the light principle of 1905  SR doesn't generalize to non-inertial motion.

Either way, if you're right, the Sagnac experiment would appear to block generalization of Einstein's two principles as stated  in his 1905 relativity paper. Which means that the ability to generalize application of these two principles does not discriminate between the Einstein and Poincare versions of "special" relativity.

The difference between Poincaré and Einstein with regard to the ether was not a dispute about whether redundant elements  should be eliminated from physical theories; it was a dispute about whether a light medium was truly redundant. Poincaré, the conventionalist, stated quite clearly well before 1905 that once it was determined that the "hypothesis" of an ether was no longer  useful to physics, it should be abandoned. His position in 1905 however was that it was still theoretically useful, and not  "superfluous" as Einstein argued.

The existence of a light medium in the context of the wave theory of light not only ensures automatic satisfaction of the relativity  principle, but also *explains* why the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. For Einstein this was simply a  postulate, assumed as a premise with no physical justification. This alone suggests that Poincaré was right not to regard the idea of a light medium as "superfluous".

Also, the Poincaré-Lorentz ether was not a material ether. The only essential properties attributed to it were (1) it serves as a  physical medium for light propagation; and (2) it defines a preferred inertial frame wrt which inertial clock retardation is an objective physical phenomenon, as opposed to being an observer-dependent kinematical artifact according to Einstein 1905.

Point (1) alone shows that notwithstanding Einstein's clever "Machian" 1905 argument for the relativity of simultaneity, Poincaré's ether was not at all "superfluous" once the comparative explanatory powers of the theories are taken into account.

Thus it is no mystery as to why Einstein later changed his position on the ether to the point where it became almost indistinguishablefrom Poincaré's, once he had discarded his Machian blinders.

I think it's interesting that Smolin, who wrote a book titled "The Trouble With Physics", is to all appearances unaware of this reality.

On 4/18/2013 5:39 AM, Jackpacbell wrote:
The physical speed of light depends on g0idx^i/cg00dt There are two roots for c solving a quadratic equation for ds^2 = 0

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:11 AM, Paul Zelinsky f <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

In any case, doesn't the Sagnac effect invalidate the light principle, which says that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitter?

On 4/17/2013 11:07 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Do you distinguish between geometric g_0i =/= 0 and coordinate g_0i =/= 0?

On 4/17/2013 10:35 PM, Jackpacbell wrote:
Speed of light depends on g0i
In Sagnac effect

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 4:19 AM, Paul Zielinski <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:

Jack, if the theory is generally covariant then the physics can't depend on rotation of the reference frame. The Sagnac  effect can only be due to *physical* rotation of the sources wrt the vacuum, caused by geometric g_0i =/= 0. So this  doesn't have any impact on my argument below.

On 4/17/2013 5:01 PM, Jackpacbell wrote:
What Z says is wrong because of the Sagnac effect

Speed of light can depend on the acceleration of the frame from g0i terms

In GR the *coordinate* speed of light is not necessarily the same as the actual physical speed of light. Only the coordinate  speed depends on frame acceleration.

For example, the Rindler horizon is a coordinate singularity, not a geometric inflection boundary. It is a coordinate artifact in globally flat Minkowski spacetime.

Wrong - the Rindler horizon is physical for the LNIF Rindler observer, who sees Hawking black body radiation from it. Of course it's not there for the coincident LIF geodesic observer. Basically this is group theory The field equations must be covariant under different groups & for SO1,3 c is invariant in vacuum

The GR field equations and the spacetime metric are generally covariant. Which means the objective physics does not depend  on the choice of coordinates. Neither does it depend on the choice of Galilean vs. Lorentzian coordinate frame transformations.

In GR the objective physics is determined entirely by the locally Lorentzian property of the metric.

Isn't that obvious?

It's more complicated for propagation of light in media c/n
Of course interacting fields matter + light is Lorentz covariant but not if you integrate out matter This breaks Lorentz symmetry in the partial description of light alone

You are not making the necessary distinctions between geometric Lorentz symmetry and Lorentzian coordinate invariance.

The physics is determined by the Lorentzian property of the metric, not by coordinate invariance. This should be obvious given the general covariance of the theory.

See landau & lifshitz electrodynamics of continuous media.

e.g., in a Bose Einstein condensate u can make c/n -> 0

But this is all premised on Einstein kinematics. I'm talking about a very different model with Galilean kinematics, and objective clock retardation accounted for by the locally Lorentzian character of the metric. That this works is guaranteed by the general
covariance of the theory and the tensor character of the Riemann metric.

That won't work.
 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Tam Hunt <tam@communityrenewables.biz> wrote:

Paul, that's my feeling too, as should be clear from my interview questions and my articles that I link to in the interview.
That said, I think Smolin is being smart in how he approaches this needed paradigm shift - pushing a bit but not too hard to alienate people. Time will tell if his approach is right.
I'm curious, Paul, if you have a list of attempts to generalize Lorentzian or Poincarean relativity? I know only of Reg Cahill's process physics as a generalization of Lorentzian relativity (neo-Lorentzian), but I'm sure there are others.
Tam Hunt, J.D.
Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
(805) 214-6150
Fax: (805) 456-7760
Check out our new "Solar Broker" service



On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Paul Zelinsky <paulz@fuzzychip.com> wrote:
In case there is any doubt that this myth is still alive an well, here's Smolin:

"The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from  the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well."

Smolin clearly states that the the Lorentz coordinate frame transformations and thus the relativity of simultaneity of 1905 Einstein SR are a logical consequence of Einstein's two postulates, the light principle and the inertial relativity principle.  He also indicates that the relativity of simultaneity is somehow confirmed by empirical observations.

These are both red herrings.

The light principle is a natural feature of any wave theory of light propagating in a physical medium. It is Einstein who had to pull the light principle out of thin air as a postulate, not the ether theorists. In contrast, the light principle has no natural explanation in Einstein's 1905 version of "special" relativity.

The relativity principle is automatically satisfied by any wave theory of light propagating through a medium, since the speed of propagation relative to the medium is automatically invariant under changes in any observer's frame of reference, whether inertial or non-inertial. And even if the state of inertial motion of the medium itself changes, this will not affect the  speed of propagation of light with respect to the medium.

Finally, a theory of relativity such as Poincare's, which assumes a preferred inertial frame and absolute kinematical simultaneity, can also be formulated in a Minkowski spacetime with Lorentzian metric using Galilean coordinate frames, and yields exactly the same empirical predictions as Einstein's 1905 theory.

So from my POV Smolin, while he is quite critical of the current state of theoretical physics, doesn't go nearly far enough.





On 4/17/2013 11:46 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
I found Smolin's responses on SR and the invariance of the speed of light to be somewhat disappointing. I think
they understate the case.

According to Einstein's 1905 relativity paper the basis for the invariance of the speed of light was supposed to be

(1) The independence of the speed of light from the speed of the emitter;

(2) The relativity principle, which as stated by Einstein requires that the laws of electrodynamics be invariant under
changes in the observer's inertial frame of reference.

Few realize that both conditions (1) and (2) are automatically satisfied in a wave theory of light propagating through a medium (since the pertinent laws are formulated with reference to the speed of propagation wrt the medium). Not only that, but the light principle (1) is a natural feature of that model, whereas in Einstein's theory it comes out of nowhere and is simply presented as a postulate.
In other words, one has to *assume* that there is no light medium in order for (1) and (2) to present a problem to begin with. Einstein tacitly assumes that there is no light medium, resolves the resulting apparent inconsistency of (1) and (2) by abandoning objective kinematical simultaneity in favor of Lorentzian kinematical transformations, and then declares that there is thus *no need* for any reference to a light medium in his theory (which is correct).

Of course an unreconstructed Machian would immediately conclude based on this "redundancy" that the hypothesis of a light medium is *ips

On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:


I agree that 'no mysticism' need be involved in explaining results of measurements, and that (to put it charitably)  Wheeler's contributions to physics were far greater than his contributions to philosophy of physics.

 I address these foundational matters in my new book on PTI. Bohm's theory may seem to provide a handy way to solve the measurement problem, however it encounters some serious challenges at the relativistic level.  It has also been argued by Harvey Brown and David Wallace (2005) that even at the nonrelativistic level there are problems with the idea that a Bohmian corpuscle can give you a measurement result (ref. on request).

please send reference


On the other hand  TI (extended in terms of PTI) finds its strongest expression at the relativistic level, in that one has to take absorption into account in the relativistic domain in any case, and absorption is the key overlooked aspect according to TI. In fact I argue that the measurement problem remains unsolved in the competing 'mainstream' nonrelativistic interpretations because they neglect the creation and annihilation of quanta. Emission is action by creation operators, and absorption is action by annihilation operators. You can get a definitive end to the measurement process by taking absorption (aka annihilation) into account. This happens way before the macroscopic level (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5227, section 5) so that you don't get the usual infinite regress of entanglement of macroscopic objects which is the measurement problem.

RK

I agree about the importance of including both creation and destruction in a time loop, but I don't see off-hand that is a problem for Bohm's theory.

Indeed, in my debate with Jim Woodward on dark energy density hc/Lp^2A as redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation from our detector dependent future de Sitter horizon where the Hawking radiation density is hc/Lp^4 - the TI loop in time means that we must use the static LNIF representation of the metric for the virtual electron-positron pairs stuck at r = A^1/2 - Lp relative to the detector at r = 0 where

gtt = 1 - r^2/A

giving 1 + zstaticLNIF ~ (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 = femit/fdetect

not the usual FRW metric where gtt = 1 and there is no horizon - that works for co-moving absorbers that will see the effect of expanding space for retarded radiation from us &  1 + zcomovingLIF = anow/athen

The static LNIF redshift factor for advanced radiation source frequency c/Lp from the future horizon back to our past detector is ~ (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2.

Even for retarded black body radiation reaching us from a past black hole horizon with Hawking's original redshifted peak frequency c/A^1/2, there should be a second peak signal at c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 from radial oscillations of the horizon. Hawking's signal is from surface mode vibrations of the horizon.

• Cesar Estrada likes this.
• 

  Jack Sarfatti Hawking's low freq radiation are analogous to Goldstone modes, my new high freq horizon signal is like a Higgs signal.

  a few seconds ago · Like · 1
• 

  Jack Sarfatti On jet-lag in London from SFO
  
  Hawking radiation peak frequency is c/A^1/2
  
  A = area entropy of 2D horizon gtt = 0.
  
  Think of horizon as spherical membrane of thickness Lp.
  
  So c/A^1/2 are the theta, phi phase waves in an effective order parameter potential V(r, theta, phi).
  
  As A ---> infinity the frequency ---> 0 - massless Goldstone mode.
  
  However, the Higgs mode I predict is in the radial vibrations peak frequency c/Lp gets red shifted by (Lp/A^1/2)^1/2 < 1 at the detector to peak frequency
  
  c/(LpA^1/2)^1/2 > c/A^1/2
  
  In limit A ---> infinity both modes are gapless, but as soon as A is finite the Higgsian type mode splits off a higher frequency branch.
  
  Not sure how far this analogy goes, but I want to record it just in case.

Jack Sarfatti

Timeline

Now

1. 

   

   Jack recommends The Internet is a surveil... on CNN.

   Like · Comment

   More Recent Activity
2. 

   Jack Sarfatti

   a few seconds ago near San Francisco

   I predict a new high energy signal from the event horizons of black holes in addition to the low energy signal predicted by Stephen Hawking.

   Like · · Share

   • 

     Jack Sarfatti Thorizon ~ hc/rskB
     
     R. Buosso Adventures in de Sitter Space
     
     The proper acceleration of virtual particles stuck in the horizon of Planck length thickness Lp and area-entropy A is
     
     g ~ gtt^-1/2dgtt/dr
     
     However, the retarded radiation gravity redshift factor from a past black hole is calculated from
     
     Gravitational redshift any stationary spacetime (e.g. the Schwarzschild geometry)
     (for the Schwarzschild geometry,
     
     The receiver is always at r ---> infinity, therefore, gtt(receiver) = 1
     
     Hence,
     
     fobsv/femit = (1 + z)^-1 ---> gtt(source)^1/2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2rsource)^1/2
     
     Therefore, the gtt^1/2 factors cancel in numerator and denominator and the resulting Hawking-Unruh-Bekenstein (HRB) temperature (peak frequency) of the blackbody signal is simply proportional to the Newtonian event horizon surface gravity acceleration c^2/rs (the IR
     
     rs ~ GM/c^2
     
     Computing this in more detail, we must use for the virtual particle radiators stuck to the gtt = 0 horizon source
     
     rsource ~ rs + Lp
     
     Lp/rs << 1
     
     gtt^1/2 ~ [1 -rs/(rs + Lp)]^1/2 ~ [1 - 1/(1 + Lp/rs)]^1/2
     
     ~ (Lp/rs)^1/2 << 1 = gravity red shift factor
     
     Now, what Hawking et-al predict are the LOW ENERGY IR surface eigen-modes from ripples in the event horizon area.
     
     There, should also be HIGH ENERGY UV radial eigen-modes of fundamental frequency c/Lp from the horizon.
     
     These also get redshifted down to our detectors to peak signal frequency c/(Lprs)^1/2
     
     i.e. wavelength = geometric mean of Planck scale with horizon scale.
     
     When we apply this to back from the future advanced radiation from our future de Sitter horizon, we get exactly the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A
     
     However, let's look at retarded radiation from black holes in our past light cone.
     
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
     
     a solar mass black hole is ~ 3km ~ 10^5 cm
     
     Lprs ~ 10^-33x10^5 ~ 10^-28 cm^2
     
     The geometric mean wavelength is ~ 10^-14 cm
     
     i.e. signal frequency ~ 10^24 Hz
     
     What about a super-massive black hole?
     for 10^10 solar masses
     
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
     
     10^-33 x 10^15 ~ 10^-18 cm^2
     
     i.e. wavelength ~ 10^-9 cm
     
     signal frequency ~ 10^19 Hz GAMMA RAY
     
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
     see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
     
     However, this radiation should not be usually in burst form, but should be a steady signal.
     
     For the universe as a whole, i.e. our future cosmic event horizon in the causal diamond
     
     Lprs ~ 10^-33 x 10^29 ~ 10^-4 cm^2
     
     i.e. advanced Wheeler-Feynman dark energy peak signal frequency ~ 10^14 Hz.
     
     visible light is 10^15 Hz

     

     Schwarzschild radius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

     en.wikipedia.org

     The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object is compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smalle...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)

It looks like the stodgy JASONS were wrong in their conclusion. They never even considered Ray Chiao's work. Lack of due diligence. When I mentioned Ray Chiao's papers at that meeting I was greeted with blank stares. Similarly, when I mentioned UFOs at the DARPA-NASA Starship meeting in Orlando Oct 1 - 2 ,2011.


[PDF] High Frequency Gravitational Waves - Federation of American ...
www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/gravwaves.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
both the underlying science and technology of HFGW, and their implications for national security. JASON hosted briefings during June 17-18, 2008 from ...
Our Final Hour Martin Rees - tampering with the Higgs field.
stardrive.org/.../3597-Our-Final-Hour-Martin-Rees---...

by Jack Sarfatti - in 30 Google+ circles - More by Jack Sarfatti
Mar 13, 2011 – PS, I got the idea to use meta-materials from the Project JASON meeting on HFGW I attended at General Atomics in La Jolla June 2008 I think it ...
Jack Sarfatti
www.stardrive.org/stardrive/index.../March-2012/?...
Mar 14, 2011 – PS, I got the idea to use meta-materials from the Project JASON meeting on HFGW I attended at General Atomics in La Jolla June 2008 I think it ...
High Frequency Gravitational Waves
www.scribd.com › Research › Science
High Frequency Gravitational Waves - download or read online. ... L. briefing to JASON on June 17. 2008.V. [15] G.[12] Robert M. [13] Dietrich ... S. DC 20505- 0001JASON Library [5] The MITRE Corporation 3550 General Atomics Court ...
Fwd: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering - Yahoo!
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/.../150...
Jan 21, 2010 – Fwd: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering, < Prev Next > ... the science of HFGW are fundamentally wrong; that there can be no security threat ... I attended the above session at General Atomics June 2008.
Re: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering - Yahoo!
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/.../150...
Jan 21, 2010 – Re: JASON, Ray Chiao, Metamaterials & Metric Engineering, < Prev Next > ... and national security significance of high frequency gravitational waves(HFGW). ... I attended the above session at General Atomics June 2008.
4 The gravitational dynamical Casimir effect, and the generation
of coherent gravitational radiation

In this final section, we speculate that the above ideas can be extended to include the case of gravitational
radiation. The physical concept that ties all these ideas together is the crucial use of the DeWitt minimal
coupling rule in all of them.

In particular, we briefly comment on the possibility of extending the “separated parametric oscillator”
idea for generating EM microwaves by means of the vibrating SC membrane placed inside the extremely
high Q “triple” SC cavity, as depicted in Figure 4, to the much more speculative idea of generating GR
microwaves using the same vibrating SC membrane inside the same “triple” SC cavity. This extension
is based on the fact that the interaction Hamiltonian Hhh in (39) is mathematically identical to that
of the interaction Hamiltonian HAA in (38). Furthermore, we are assuming that it is permissible for
gravitational radiation fields to be second quantized (see (42)).

However, for this extension of the parametric oscillator idea to work, it is crucial that the walls
SC cavity, including the surfaces of the moving SC membrane, reflect GR microwaves with as high a
reflectivity as in the case of EM microwaves. In the paper “Do mirrors for gravitational waves exist?”
[33], it was predicted that even thin SC films are highly reflective mirrors for GR plane waves. This
surprising prediction was based on the DeWitt minimal coupling rule (20) applied to the Ginzburg-
Landau theory of superconductivity. The “off-diagonal long-range order” (ODLRO) [34] nature of the
Cooper pairs causes these pairs to behave differently from the ions in the ionic lattice, for which ODLRO
does not exist. As a result, inside the SC thin film, the Cooper pairs, which exhibit constructive AB
interference, do not undergo geodesic motion, in contrast to the ions, which do undergo geodesic motion,
in response to incident GR radiation. This difference in the internal motions of the Cooper pairs and of
the ions inside the SC in the presence of GR radiation, leads to a charge separation effect induced by an
incoming GR plane wave, such that a huge back-action of the SC film on the GR wave that causes its
reflection, results.

If such SC mirrors for GR waves were indeed to exist in Nature, then moving SC mirrors would not
only be able to do work like a piston on these waves, but would also simultaneously lead to a Doppler
effect that leads to the exponential amplification of these waves above the threshold for parametric oscillation,
as explained above. Thus, a laser-like generation of coherent GR waves starting from vacuum
fluctuations should become possible. If so, a Hertz-like experiment for GR radiation at microwave frequencies
[15] would become feasible to perform.



On Apr 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

Thanks
I am always interested in what Ray Chiao is doing.

On Apr 1, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Gary S Bekkum <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:

A thought experiment is proposed to demonstrate the existence of a gravitational, vector Aharonov-Bohm effect. A connection is made between the gravitational, vector Aharonov-Bohm effect and the principle of local gauge invariance for nonrelativistic quantum matter interacting with weak gravitational fields. The compensating vector fields that are necessitated by this local gauge principle are shown to be incorporated by the DeWitt minimal coupling rule. The nonrelativistic Hamiltonian for weak, time-independent fields interacting with quantum matter is then extended to time-dependent fields, and applied to problem of the interaction of radiation with macroscopically coherent quantum systems, including the problem of gravitational radiation interacting with superconductors. But first we examine the interaction of EM radiation with superconductors in a parametric oscillator consisting of a superconducting wire placed at the center of a high Q superconducting cavity driven by pump microwaves. We find that the threshold for parametric oscillation for EM microwave generation is much lower for the separated configuration than the unseparated one, which then leads to an observable dynamical Casimir effect. We speculate that a separated parametric oscillator for generating coherent GR microwaves could also be built.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4270v3

-- Gary S. Bekkum
STARstream Research
STARpod.org
STARpod.us
P.O. Box 385207
Bloomington, MN 55438
Mobile VM (763) 439-0719

garybekkum@yahoo.com
garysbekkum@gmail.com