Second Draft
Memorandum for the Record

Subject: US Tax Dollars - How NOT to spend them!

More detailed commentary on Woodward's & Murad's remarks below

On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

My critique of the Haisch ZPF theory agrees with Nobel Prize physicist
Shelly Glashow's and with Coventry University's Ian Peterson's.

You can read it in a slightly uncorrected galley at

http://qedcorp.com/APS/galley.pdf 14 megs
http://qedcorp.com/APS/cover.jpg

The book will be out ~ October, 2005

A shorter tech version 2 megs is at

http://qedcorp.com/APS/zpf2005.pdf

There is a Rev Mod Phys article on "quantum friction" that shows that
the drag below is at best a small correction to the mass. The Higgs
coherence mechanism explains the origin of inertia. The Haisch theory is
to quote Shelly Glashow "not even wrong". It is a waste of USG
taxpayer's money to support that line of inquiry IMHO. Any theory based
only on the EM field is clearly incomplete at best.

On Aug 22, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Robert Baker wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: james f woodward ]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:39 AM
To:
Cc:
Subject: W-E Experiment Update-4C-MLT TRL Ratings

"Paul,

I guess there are a couple of points that I didn't include in the
previous email about this that I should mention.

You are right; their argument assumes that the ZPF exerts a full Lorentz
force on an accelerating electric charge. There are two problems with
this. First, the virtual photons of the EM ZPF do not exert the magnetic
part of the Lorentz force on anything. That is the operational
difference between "virtual" and "real" photons it turns out. If virtual
photons did exert the magnetic part of the Lorentz force on anything,
large, unobserved effects would be predicted."

This is an interesting idea. Detailed proof? Reference? Seems right. It
completely demolishes the Haisch theory if true. It is definitely true
that no virtual quanta can elicit any observable irreversible quantum
electrodynamic response in a measurement. This is in contrast to gravity
where a direct response and influence is demanded by the equivalence
principle. Both Haisch and Puthoff and their collaborators are not at
all aware of the latter. They never mention it in any of their
publications and reports yet it is key to low power practical metric
engineering of warp and wormhole.

So Woodward says that there is no Lorentz force effect in the Lamb shift
for example?


"Second, even if you allow the magnetic part of the Lorentz force --
essential to the HRP argument -- act on accelerating charges, there would
be no net, time-averaged force in the direction of the acceleration. It
turns out that the Lorentz force of an EM wave acting on a free charge
makes it move in a little figure-8 -- without any net momentum transfer
in the direction of the wave. In order to get momentum transfer in the
direction of the wave, you have to introduce some radiation damping to
introduce a phase lag between the action of the E and B parts of the
wave. But radiation damping already implicitly involves the "mass" of
the particle that the whole argument is alleged to explain. So you end
up explaining mass by putting it in by hand."

Good point.


"And then, of course, there's the coupling problem I already mentioned.
ZPF virtual photons acting on electric charges just don't explain inertia
.. . . . But if they did, then Peter's little paper on radiation reaction
-- though intended as a vector approximation of gravity (a la Sciama) --
shows in principle that Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory can equally
account for the effect. So you don't really have to believe in the ZPF
as real virtual photons after all (as Milonni showed all those years
ago). :-)"

Agreed.


Best,

Jim

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 11:35:56 EDT writes:


All:

"I don't know what I can add after Jim's eloquent dialogue. I
guess I am a little confused."

To put it mildly. :-)

"I still enjoy thinking about the Puthoff and Haisch paper concerning
that the inertia on a charged particle is a Lorentz force acting against
the ZPE. I remember going through most of the equations and almost got
to the last one when my pen ran out of ink."

How convenient! :-)

"Are we now suggesting that the above proof is wrong?"

Nobel Laureate Shelly Glashow says it's "not even wrong".

"Did I get on the wrong train?"

Yes! Quite a while ago! The train derailed. :-)


Ufoguy...


In a message dated 8/21/2005 4:09:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
"Folks,

As many of you know, I've been preoccupied with other matters of late.
So I've only recently caught up with this discussion -- which seems to
be coming to a congenial ending.

But before it comes to a full stop, let me add a few things so that you
all can understand better exactly where Eric, Hal, and ZPFers and I
disagree.

First of all, something that's been missing in the present discussion is
a fundamental point about ZPFs and radiation reaction that was pointed
out by Peter Milonni more than 30 years ago -- and repeatedly over those
decades: the fluctuation-dissipation theorem can be used to show, for
the virtual photons of QED at least, that the ZPF and radiation reaction
(including Wheeler-Feynman) are just different interpretations of the
same set of observable facts."

Correct.

"So you can believe either one. But you CANNOT assert that one or the
other is the true state of nature on the basis of the facts that
demonstrate the validity of QED (the Lamb shift and the like)."

Correct.

"Milonni, by the way, wasn't the only one to show this. A couple of
Russians, Hal tells me, did much the same demonstration at about the
same time.

Now I should mention that there are a couple of limitations on Milonni's
argument. First, it doesn't necessarily apply to the virtual
electron-positron pairs assumed to populate the vacuum in QED (needed
for charge renormalization). And second, clearly it doesn't apply to
the quanta of the gravitational field -- because that field has not yet
been (and may never be) successfully quantized. Nonetheless, were it
ever to be quantized, since the gravitational field is a long-range
field, its
quanta would be zero rest-mass particles, like photons, and it seems
reasonable to assume that an argument like Milonni's might work."

In my theory of emergent ODLRO gravity you do not re-quantize gravity.
This explains why naive quantum gravity is not renormalizable.

I derive "classical" c-number Einstein 1915 GR is ONE LINE

B = (hG/c^3)d[arg(phi)]

where

e = 1 + B

is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-form

d is the exterior derivative of the 0-form argphi = Goldstone phase

This is a topologically multiply-connected T4 - Diff(4) local gauge
transformation in the sense of Hagen Kleinert's theory and the Michael
Berry phase theory seen, for example, in the Abrikosov quantized
magnetic flux vortex lattice in Type II superconductors and in the
quantized steps of the quantum Hall effect with anyons in thin films.

The inertia-creating vacuum coherent ODLRO macro-quantum "More is
different" "local order parameter" condensate Higgs-Goldstone potential
V(phi) for spontaneous broken symmetry (SBS) is shown in

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_27_jpg.htm

Formally Einstein's GR is simply

g ~ (1 + B)n(1 + B)

n = flat metric

g = curved metric

The Shipov torsion 2-form S is

S = De

D = d + W/\

S = dB + W/\B

in 1915 GR

S = 0

This determines the SPIN CONNECTION 1-form W completely in terms of B.

The Riemann geodesic deviation tidal curvature 2-form is

R = DW = dW + W/\W

When the torsion field S is not zero we must use

e' = e + S

We still use the old definition of the metric

g = ene i.e. EEP (Einstein Equivalence Principle)

DO NOT USE here

g = e'ne' (teleparallel ansatz)

But the Bianchi identity RELATIVE TO original 1915 GR e is violated by
the SB & S^2 terms. A generalized Bianchi identity relative to e' will
of course be obeyed.

This implies that Einstein's cosmological constant /\ is now a locally
variable scalar field. The new exotic virtual dark energy/matter vacuum
field equation needed for practical metric engineering of weightless
warp drive (globally superluminal with time travel to past) and star
gate wormhole is

Guv + /\guv = 0

where

Guv^;v = - /\^,vguv =/= 0

This only happens when the torsion field S =/= 0 that I did not
emphasize sufficiently previously. The key Josephson weak link "local
heterodyne oscillator" phase modulator metric engineering equation is

/\ ~ (c^3/hG)(Control Condensate Surface Density)^1/2cos(Vacuum Phase -
Control Phase)

; is the 1915 GR partial covariant derivative relative to only the e
tetrad not the e' tetrad.

Woodward continues:
"That is, a gravitational ZPF and radiation reaction equivalence would
also obtain. In this sense Eric, Hal, and I are in agreement I think.

There are a few subtle issues here worth mentioning. In the ZPF
picture, no source for the ZPF is required. After all, all we're
talking about is random fluctuations about the vacuum state."

From nothing comes nothing. What is wrong with Haisch's whole picture
is that there is no coherence damping down the random ZPF "dark energy".

"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler

Haisch, Puthoff et-al are not asking the right "Question" of Dame Nature.


"This has a counterpart in the radiation reaction picture, because it
can be done in the "deformable electron" version without invoking
anything other than local effects. But it can also be done in the
Wheeler-Feynman version where the absorber
plays a crucial role. If the Wheeler-Feynman version is in fact
correct, however, then the local ZPF must actually have its source in
the absorber."

Space is flat on the large scale. The facts show k = 0 like in the
steady state theory which is consistent with chaotic inflation. This
seems to be a perfect future absorber consistent the retarded Arrow of
Time (p. 49 Cosmology & AAD Electrodynamics, Hoyle & Narlikar). BTW I
told this to Haisch several times in person 1999-2000, but he did not
understand it. I mean he did not know about Wheeler-Feynman future
absorber - radiation reaction in past emitter ~ virtual photon ZPF at
past emitter.

"But the idea that local ZPFs have distant sources is an oxymoron.
Local ZPFs are by definition local. In electrodynamics I know of no way
to experimentally discriminate between the two radiation reaction
pictures, alas.

What does all this have to do with Mach's principle? Well, Mach's
principle selects the Wheeler-Feynman picture of radiation reaction
since it requires that the distant matter in the cosmos (the "absorber"
of Wheeler-Feynman electrodynamics) participate in local gravitational
and inertial effects. I suspect that Eric and Hal would not find this
objectionable [but you never know in this business :-)]."

There is also an error in what Woodward says here because the percentage
of "matter" limits to zero in the future universe! What happens instead
is infinite redshift of the past emitter retarded radiation!

Look at this picture to get the point!

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_21_jpg.htm


"Where we part company seriously is over the issue of whether gravity
and inertia can be rendered as electromagnetic effects."

This is too vague. Haisch & Puthoff say that gravity and inertia come
only from virtual photons - obviously a wrong idea for more than one
reason. I have shown exactly where gravity and inertia come from in

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argphi)

But none of you Pundits understand this as yet.

"In the case of the argument over the origin of inertia, I don't really
think there's much of a case to be made for the virtual photon ZPF being
the origin of
inertia."

Agreed. Shelly Glashow dismisses all this as "not even wrong."

"The simple fact of the matter is that the electromagnetic field doesn't
couple to electric charges in a way that can be made to mimick the
universal coupling of gravity to matter; and inertia demands that
universal coupling since mass, not electric charge, is the measure of
inertia."

Agreed.

"In an attempt to sidestep this obvious flaw, Rueda and Haisch have
stopped talking about the field to source coupling, and they've
introduced an arbitrarily adjustable fudge function to try to gloss the
issue further. These steps are not the signature of a serious physical
theory (though I note that some physical theories taken seriously by
professionals have these features)."

Agreed.

"I also note that Hal has moved on to his polarizable vacuum approach.
At the quantum level it would depend on the virtual electron-positron
pairs, and Milonni's argument may not cover that. I also note that this
aspect of the vacuum undergirds Jack Sarfatti's ideas. But I'm not
going to say any more about that."

But you should. However, in this case discretion is the better part of
valor. The key equation here is

B = (hG/c^3)^2/2d(argphi)

No gravity and inertia if h = 0

No gravity and inertia if c -- infinity

Even when G =/= 0.

No gravity and inertia when the macro-quantum coherent World Hologram
Goldstone phase argphi randomizes back to the globally flat conformal
false vacuum pre-inflation where the Dirac mass gaps 2mc^2 - 0.

"Anyway, back to the main point: Can gravity and inertia be reduced to
manifestations of electromagnetism? I don't think so. At least not in
the ways that have been proposed so far."

Not in any way proposed by Haisch, Puthoff et-al.

"Notwithstanding that electromagnetism is a long-range interaction, it
is fundamentally a local phenomenon. That is, it doesn't depend on the
existence of the rest of the stuff in the universe (except in the
Wheeler-Feynman picture of
radiation reaction). Gravity and inertia, on the other hand, very
obviously do depend on the distant stuff in the universe."

"Stuff" is mostly virtual off-mass-shell. Today virtual stuff is 95% of
all stuff. Only 5% is real on-mass-shell stuff.

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_12_jpg.htm
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_21_jpg.htm

Cold dark matter (CDM) is w = -1 virtual stuff in a compact source with
positive pressure. It mimics w = 0.

Dark energy (DE) is w = -1 virtual stuff spread out everywhere-when with
negative pressure.

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_05_jpg.htm

"Local inertial frames of reference are determined thereby. For example,
local
inertial frames are non-rotating with respect to the universe. And in GRT
with reasonable boundary conditions, local inertial frames are fixed by
distant matter and inertial reaction forces are gravitational in origin."

Show the math with k = 0 how this works exactly. We now know k = 0 to
about 2% precision.

"That's Einstein's version of Mach's principle.

Does going to PV or an e-p BEC vacuum (a la Sarfatti) allow you to make
gravity and inertia electromagnetic?"

Don't put words into my mouth. I make no such claim. My claim is

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argphi)

I don't see no e in my equation.

My B comes from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4) + spontaneously breaking a
U(1) vacuum symmetry. I use U(1) only for pedagogical convenience. In
fact it's probably SU(2)hypercharge that allows for the Pioneer anomaly
as a hedgehog topological defect in phi centered at all stars (seeds of
formation).

a_g = -cH(t)

H(t) = a(t)^-1da(t)/dt

Using SU(2) is consistent with the Higgs-Yukawa mechanism for the
emergence of inertia of the lepto-quarks before the quarks get confined
to make hadrons.
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...s2/default.htm

"I don't think so. At any rate Hal hasn't showed how PV would produce
electromagnetic inertial reaction forces."

Agreed. PV is a dead horse. That USG may fund it is the only issue.

"And Sarfatti's relying on Higgs bosons to do the inertia trick. I share
Eric's skepticism on that point."

Well that puts Woodward way beyond the fringe of mainstream particle
physics into the crank camp. Does Woodward think Weinberg, Glashow &
Wilczek should give back their Nobel Prizes?

"Does this mean that there's no relationship between gravity and inertia
and electromagnetism?"

Woodward's question is not posed well. The relationship is between
gravity and inertia and the gauge forces. The vacuum order parameter
must be charge-neutral for all fields. It looks like SU(2)hypercharge is
the correct group to be spontaneously broken. Then my theory of emergent
gravity is consistent with the standard model of particle physics and
with the NASA Pioneer anomaly.

"Quite the contrary. Mach's principle in its strong form -- the
gravitational induction of mass per se,"

Show us the math for that. My math is ONE LINE

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argphi)

That's all I need to get The Whole Enchilada!

One day

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2d(argphi)

will be a cultural icon like

E = Mc^2

Mark my words.


"required in the derivation of the Mach effects that at least some of us
hope to be
the solution of the propulsion challenges"

Nonsense all you need for that metric engineering of warp and wormhole is

Guv^;v = - /\^,vguv =/= 0

This only happens when the torsion field S =/= 0 that I did not
emphasize sufficiently previously. The key Josephson weak link "local
heterodyne oscillator" phase modulator metric engineering equation is

/\ ~ (c^3/hG)(Control Condensate Surface Density)^1/2cos(Vacuum Phase -
Control Phase)



"-- yields that GM/R = c^2"

What good does that do you? It's a very weak "Sciama" result. What is M?
The mass of the universe? What you are really saying is Omega = 1.
That's inflation with k = 0.


"so that the total gravitational energy of an object turns out to be
equal to
mc^2."

Talk about fantasy, hand-waving, fudge and shell-game as well as Glass
Houses, motes in eyes and all that. Hey not so fast! Show us how that
works again - much more slowly and in much more detail. Woodward's
argument here is in fact "And then a Miracle happens."

"There is a profound connection."

Where? I missed it. Show us again please. I have searched high and low
and there is not a profound connection anywhere to be found in what
Woodward just wrote.

"But one that has not yet been captured in any of the theories that have
been proposed.

It's 1 AM. That's enough. :-)"

Actually it's not enough at all.


On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:53:54 -0500 "Dr. Eric Davis"
writes:

"All I can add to this is that Jim collegially disagrees with me and Hal on
the existence of the vacuum ZPF and its hypothetical connection to inertia.
Jim wrote a counterargument on this in one of his papers. And we were
unable to theoretically verify Jim's theory to our own satisfaction, so
we disagree with him (collegially). We have two different approaches to
describing inertia.
BUT....we are firm believers in doing lab experiments, and support Jim
continuing on with his work because we believe that the final arbitrator of
all theory is what comes out of experimentation (you know, the scientific
method in action). And I believe that Jim feels the same way about our work
on exploring the ZPF."

I agree with James Woodward's assessment that the ZPF & PV theories of
Haisch and Puthoff are not correct. Eric Davis mentions "experiments".
What experiments? If he means high-power laser experiments I would black
ball those for USG funding. I am not aware of any other experiments
currently being done at IAS Austin. Some of them may be OK. I do not
think Woodward as any good theoretical alternative however. He also has
an experiment that I predict will not come to anything. However, it's
fine that he does it.


"[The only theories, experiments, or claims (based on those) that I
personally put down all the time are the ones promoted by people who
behave mysteriously, who make up bizarre excuses to cover their strange
actions, who are shady, who go to the media to promote their work before
it is peer-reivewed or independently verified, who are uncooperative,
etc. Podkletnov, De Aquino, David Hudson, et al. all fall into this group."

I agree with Eric Davis in the above paragraph.

"Podkletnov and Ning Li have an unfortunate penchant for being on the
borderline even though they did legitimate work at one time."

I take Eric's word on this.


"It has been known in the history of science that people in rival camps are
collegial, and do collaborate with each other; and this is how the
correct theory is able to make its way above the fray and become
recognized and accepted by
all."

What about Newton, Leibnitz & Hooke? What about Watson & Crick vs
Pauling? Other cases as well. Also this is more than physics. This is
Covert Intelligence as well.

"Inertia is a tricky subject. It was founded on the basis of Mach's
philosophy of science, and it found some quantitative formalism within
Einstein's GTR. There is a deep level to inertia we have not reached,
and that is where the answer lies. It might turn out that Jim's theory
via Sciama and Wheeler-Feynman and our theory via the stochastic
electrodynamic model for ZPF are merely two sides of the same coin like
the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanical objects - just as you
said in your message below - two sides of the same coin."



"I think the Higgs boson explanation for mass is a joke."

This statement by Eric Davis is "cranky" in the eyes of every mainstream
particle physicist at SLAC, at Fermilab, at CERN et-al

"Still haven't found Higgs after 20 years, so I don't think it exists.
The LHC is
coming on line in short time, so I think this will be the definitive end
of the
line for a Higgs boson search. If it isn't found in the LHC, then quantum
field theorists will be forced to confront other models for inertia and
mass that have nothing to do with the Standard Model formulation."

What Eric just wrote is a Red Herring. He does not understand the Higgs
mechanism origin of inertia at all! It does not depend at all on the
finding of a real Higgs particle on-mass-shell. The Higgs-Goldstone
origin of inertia is strictly a virtual quantum effect inside the
coherent vacuum with order parameter phi. See for example the recent
SLAC Summer School Lectures

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...s1/default.htm

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...s2/default.htm

especially

http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_10_jpg.htm

For the Yukawa coupling formulae for the inertia of the quarks and
leptons. This only depends on the charge neutral component magnitude of
the order parameter |phi| = v. Eric simply is speaking off the top of
his head. The mass of the Higgs is in the small vibrations around v! It
has nothing to do direction with the equilibrium value v about which the
small vibrations occur.

"Also, I'm not sure if Jim has related this to you guys or not, but the
Standard Model violates the equivalence principle at high energy. That
means a breakdown in
quantum field theory occurs at high energy because it is missing fundamental
components."

Another Red Herring. I have shown how gravity emerges from dargv to use
the notation in

http://www
conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Dienes1/Dienes1_Page_10_jpg.htm

The standard model is semi-phenomenological at best. Eric is taking it
beyond its domain of validity in a Red Herring argument.

There is no gravity in the standard model inside it's proper scale
region. It is in FLAT space-time. The rest masses m are lumped
parameters. The standard model is the short-scale substratum out of
which large-scale gravity emerges via

B = Lp*dargv.


"What unifies the two sides of the coin is not yet known to us. There could
be something fundamental that we have been overlooking all along."

That's the only correct non-trite statement Eric Davis has made here.
What he has overlooked is

B = Lpdargv


"Experimentation might show the way.

Regards,

Eric"

Yeah and also I will win the lottery tomorrow.