bcc

Memorandum for the Record
Metric Engineering of Weightless Warp Drive and Wormhole Time Travel for
USG NDI MASINT Star Gate Contact Mission (J-Rod, Charlene, Charlie "Core
Story")

On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:05 AM, A. P. US Naval Intelligence "RET" (High
Rank Officer) wrote:

Tony Smith said: "IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION
EXPERIMENTS IS NOT DEVELOPED BY THE USA, THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE
DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD
SUPERPOWER." Anyone familiar with Tony's work understands that this is
not just another North Georgia lawyer speaking but also a very highly
trained theorist. Are the right experiments or group of experiments
already proposed with enough detail to test this model?

My theory explains the anomalies of dark energy and dark matter as well
as the phenomenology of the UFOs as given in the NIDS papers of Eric
Davis and Jacques Vallee. This is all in my book Super Cosmos that
everyone should get for reference. My theory is very close to the
observations, much closer than string theory, or PV or HRP SED ZPF or
anything else even close to metric engineering in the NASA BPP &
STAIF/MITRE meetings.

I also solve the old problem of the stability of the electron - a
spin-off of my discussions with Ken Shoulders on the charge clusters. My
theory for the emergence of gravity with virtual ZPE dark energy/matter
is very mainstream and consistent with the Higgs mechanism for the
generation of the small rest masses of leptons and quarks before the
quarks get confined to give the hadrons much larger mass.

You all need to put this in perspective. This is a monumental task on
the scale of the Manhattan Project. It's like asking Einstein to develop
a detailed blueprint of a nuclear reactor in 1908 3 years after he
writes "E = Mc^2". I am ONE GUY working ALONE. So far what I have done
is BIG BANG for small buck relative to what everyone else is doing with
much larger resources. You get what you pay for IF YOU ARE LUCKY and USG
has a poor track record in this regard.

The engineering problem for warp drive is nano-technology, anyons, and
probably soft solid state stuff I am not aware of. This requires more
people to do it in a short enough time. I have a steep learning curve in
that regard.

Again for the record:

I. Stability of the single electron & Ken Shoulder's charge clusters
including Hal Puthoff's beloved Casimir force. Improved calculation.

The effective Newtonian limit potential energy per unit mass of a
rotating thin shell of charge of radius r with a uniform core of zero
point dark energy /\zpf is

V = ahc/mr + be^2/mr + (J/mr)^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2

Note the SU(3) symmetric 3D harmonic oscillator potential /\zpfr^2 that
has "confinement" built in automatically.

Hal's Casimir force F = -dU/dL for parallel conducting uncharged plates
has the potential energy U

UCasimir = (number)hcA/L^3

A is area of plates separated by L and (number) is computed from QED.
Side issue is the use of w = +1/3 rather than the correct w = -1 in the
QED calculation Hal does, but that is irrelevant to the key physics here
that Hal completely misses).

Since L^2 = A in the thin shell, in my model

VCasimir = ahc/mr

a is a pure number from QED. I don't really care what it's precise value
is. The parameter b is another pure number depending on details of the
charge distribution as in the old books by Becker, Lorentz 100 years ago.

Use the dimensionless effective self-potential for the micro-geon (Bohm
hidden variable) extended rotating thin shell of charge

V/c^2 = ahc/Mr + bQ^2/Mc^2r + (J/Mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

For a charge cluster EVO (Ken Shoulders)

J = L (orbital) + S(total spin)

Q = Ne

M = Nm

For the single electron N = 1, J = h/2, Q = e, M = m ~ 10^-27 gm

h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

V/c^2 = (h/mcr)(a + b@) + (h/2mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

@ = e^2/hc ~ 1/137

Note that /\zpf is tiny outside the shell of charge compared to what it
is inside. This is consistent with the number for dark energy density
from Type 1a supernovae observations.

Equilibrium is obviously stable, i.e. d^2V/dr^2 0, from the SU(3)
confinement 3D oscillator potential provided by the dark energy core
/\zpfr^2 with w = -1 inside the shell of charge. Note that "cold fusion"
EXPLOSION passage through Coulomb barrier would have /\zpf 0 (AKA
"dark matter") rather than /\zpf 0 (aka "dark energy") as in this case
of confinement.

dV/dr = 0 critical point

is the quartic polynomial

- (h/mc)(1/r^2)(a + b@) - 2(h/2mc)^2(1/r)^3 + 2/\zpfr = 0

i.e.

2/\zpfr^4 - (h/mc)(a + b@)r - 2(h/2mc)^2 = 0


Graphical analysis shows a negative unphysical root (it may be physical
in GR where this is similar to a Kerr-Newman metric with G* G) one
positive root, and a pair of complex conjugate roots (unstable particles?).

The real positive root is clearly from the physics either

r* = e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm

or

r* ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

However since, we already have quantum effects in there in a kind of
semi-classical way, I will take the latter that is consistent with

N(h/mc)^2 ~ 4pir*^2

for an EVO charge cluster. Both Hal Puthoff & I agree on this formula.

Therefore,

2/\zpf(h/mc)^4 - (h/mc)^2(a + b@) - (1/2)(h/mc)^2 = 0

/\zpf(h/mc)^2 - (1/2)(a + b@ + 1) = 0

/\zpf = (mc/h)^2(1/2)(a + b/137 + 1)

Explains why the electron is not a point particle at low energy, and why
its shell of charge does not explode.

On the other hand, when you probe the extended electron at high energy,
it appears to shrink to a point particle because of the extreme spatial
curvature warping as shown in a picture in Kip Thorne's book "Black
Holes and Time Warps". The effective short-scale G* here induced by the
dark energy core is ~ 10^40G(Newton).

Unified Field Theory for c-number boson fields in macro-quantum coherent
states.

1. Maxwell EM theory

Given an electron Dirac field with global U(1) locally gauge it to get
the 1-form connection

(e/c)A = h'd'(Phase of Electron Field)

This is "Flux without flux", e.g. Dirac string phase singularity

'd' means not "globally exact" (see R. Kiehn) also see H. Kleinert
("multi-valued phase transformations")

Note d^2 = 0 in simply connected manifolds when forms are integrated
over cycles that bound i.e. dual &^2 = 0 AKA J.A. Wheeler's "Boundary of
a boundary vanishes."

But d'd' =/= 0 and &'&' =/= 0 from non-trivial cohomology where deRham
period integrals of Cartan forms over co-form manifolds do not vanish
and are quantized when they come from a single-valued order parameter.

Maxwell's field equations are

F = dA 2-form

dF = 0 (Faraday's law + No magnetic monopoles) 3-form

The * operator requires a space-time metric and constitutive relations
for a matter source.

d*F = *J (Ampere's law + Gauss's law) 3-form source equations

d*J = 0 is local conservation of electric current density 4-form


2. Yang-Mills theory of SU(2)weak and SU(3)strong

Locally gauge SU(2) and SU(3) for lepton & quark Dirac fields to get A'

Define the gauge covariant exterior derivative with Meissner effect

D' = d + A'/\

/\ is exterior multiplication

F' = D'A'

D'F' = 0 (Bianchi identities)

D'*F' = *J' source equations

D*J'= 0 local conservation of strong and weak source currents.

3. Einstein's 1915 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field

Locally gauge T4 to Diff(4) for all matter source fields universally,
therefore get the B Cartan tetrad curvature field. The full
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

e = 1 + B (e.g. Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online)

B = 0 is 1905 Special Relativity

The Einstein Equivalence Principle is the symmetric bi-linear map

g(curved spacetime) = (1 + B)(flat spacetime)(1 + B)

This is local frame invariant under all locally gauged physical symmetry
groups and all global symmetry groups trivially.

e.g.

g(curved spacetime) = guvdx^udx^v is a scalar 0-form.

W is the spin-connection that works for spinor source on curved
space-time and which gives the Levi-Civita connection for boson fields.

D = d + W/\

Zero torsion 2-form is

T = De = 0

i.e.

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Therefore W and B are not independent.

The curvature 2-form is

R = DW

Einstein's field equations with the Cosmological Constant /\zpf are

DR + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0

D*R = *J(Matter)

D*J(Matter) = 0 (local conservation of stress-energy current density of
matter)

Note that D/\zpf = d/\zpf = 0 i.e. /\zpf is a real constant in this 1915 GR.

Also obviously from before T = De = 0

The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density L is

L = R/\e/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e/\e

where remember

e = 1 + B

The action principle (Dan Smith's BPW) is

&L/&e = 0

&/&e is the functional derivative relative to the tetrad field.

See Sean Carroll's text to see how to translate this into the old
cumbersome tensor notation that Einstein used.

BTW to my knowledge no one has really done this as simply as I - Rovelli
comes close.

Next my original contribution of "More is different" emergent gravity

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum
Field)

No gravity when h = 0, no gravity when c - infinity. This is NEW!

Higgs field comes from spontaneous breakdown of SU(2)weak in standard model.

The SU(2)weak phase is the 2x2 matrix Ta@^a, where {Ta} is the Lie
algebra of SU(2) and I use the fundamental real 2x2 representation.

Goldstone Phase = Trace[Ta@^a]

Therefore the standard model of leptons & quarks is made consistent with
the equivalence principle of general relativity because the small rest
masses of leptons and unconfined free quarks emerges from the same Higgs
field that gives gravity. This is all virtual in the coherent vacuum
condensate and does not require exciting real Higgs quanta. The Higgs
mass does not appear in the Yukawa couplings for the lepton and
unconfined quarks masses. The Higgs particle corresponds to far-field
propagating amplitude vibrations in the Higgs vacuum field. Gravity of
large masses comes from the non-propagating near field Goldstone phase
modulation of the total Higgs coherent field. Gravity waves come from
far field phase modulations. Puthoff's HRP SED ZPF origin of inertia is
completely wrongly-posed. James Woodward's Mach Principle is completely
superfluous. Also we do not want to change rest masses m because that
destabilizes the entire universe if e/m changes too much. In any case
changing mass, say with Mach's principle, is not a weightless, i.e.
timelike geodesic warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre.


4. Gennady Shipov's torsion field comes from locally gauging O(1,3) in
addition to T4 as shown by Kibble in the 1960's.

We have the torsion 1-form S. The torsion 2-form is then

T" = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)

In my theory

T" = (hG/c^3)d'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum
Field) =/ = 0

where, same as in 1915 GR

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Note that T' = 0 when S = 0. Also note the direct torsion-curvature
couplings

W/\S and S/\B terms.

D" = d + W/\ + S/\

The torsion field equations are

D"T" = 0

D"*T" = *J"(spinning sources)

D"*J(spinning sources) = 0

The generalized curvature field equations are

R" = D"(W + S)

D"R" = 0

D"*R" = *J(matter)

D"*J"(matter) = 0

Note, that when S =/= 0 /\zpf becomes a local quintessent variable
scalar field because now, obviously

DR =/= 0 in the larger theory with the S =/= 0 action density

L" = R"(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S) + /\zpf(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1 +
B + S)/\(1 + B + S)

DR =/= 0

DR + d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B) = 0

where d/\zpf comes from the S-dependent terms in D"R" = 0 separating out
the DR terms and calling the remainder d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B)

From: Jack Sarfatti


On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Tony Smith wrote:


Jack, when John Brandenburg asked
"... does ...[Jack's model]... suggest EM technology
that can create gravity modifcations? ..."

you replied
"... Of course it does and in a lot more detail
than anything Hal & Co have suggested. ...".

and

when John Brandenburg said
"... I bet you these theories [Jack's and Hal's] will converge
on the same recipe. ..."

you replied
"... No sign of that at all. ...".

---------------------------------------------

Jack, I have been following your work and your discussion
about Hal's work for years, and the following (which I will
try to put in simple English without equations) is clear to me.

1 - Your replies quoted above are correct.

2 - You understand the importance of quantum coherence
and Hal (as far as I understand his stuff) does not.
Your quantum coherent stuff means that you have
correlated connections among MANY particles,
as opposed to gaussian noise fluctuations in which
the individual particles are NOT correleted.

Exactly! That's one reason the SED approach of HRP is no good at all.

For example, in cond-mat/0007185, Philip W. Anderson says:
"... the many-body correlations are so strong that the dynamics
can no longer be described in terms of individual particles ...".

When the correlations are taken into account, you see that
stuff does NOT merely scale linearly, but scales up MUCH faster.
In short:
YOUR MODEL HAS QUANTUM COHERENCE, AND HENCE CORRELATION STRENGTH,
WHILE HAL'S MODEL (as far as I understand it) DOES NOT.

Yes.

3 - Your dark energy stuff may be experimentally accessible
by using arrays of nano-scale high-frequency Josephson junctions,
as you have mentioned. THIS IS NOT IDLE SPECULATION. THERE ARE
EXPERIMENTAL LINES OF WORK THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED IF YOUR WORK
WERE TO BE PURSUED BY THOSE THAT THE AVIARY CLAIMS TO REPRESENT.
For example,
Beck and Mackey paper at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0406504
say: "... If ... the measured spectrum in Josephson junction
experiments
...[does not]... exhibit a cutoff at the critical frequency ...
the corresponding vacuum energy density would exceed the currently
measured dark energy density of the universe. ...".
(I know that some have made theoretical objections to Beck and Mackey,
but what counts is experiment, and no experiments have ruled out
the Beck and Mackey idea.)

Yes. The Aviary "experts" are not asking the right questions, I mean
Puthoff, Davis, who got into Nick Cook's book and even Aviation Week
with The Wrong Stuff. More importantly, they got into The Pentagon's DIA
and the CIA at Langley.

Further,
A paper at http://www.physics.gatech.edu/mbennett/dist2003.pdf
by Matthew Bennett and Kurt Wiesenfeld describes
Josephson Junction Arrays, saying: "... The resonant case ... leads
to significant physical insight into achieving attracting synchronized
dynamics. ... There are ... hints that distributed arrays exhibit
fundamentally different phenomena than their lumped counterparts.
In one case, experiments on distributed Josephson arrays
reported evidence of super-radiance ...".

4 - The reason that I understand your model is (as we have discussed
by e-mail earlier) that when you
"... Locally gauge T4xO(1,3) to get
Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory. ..."
what you are doing is closely related to
the generalized MacDowell-Mansouri procedure that I use in my model.



If you say so. I have not read those papers. Better that I don't. You
can be "Dyson"! :-) Did Feynman read Schwinger & Tomonaga? I doubt it.
Would be an interesting history of physics project.


5 - IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION EXPERIMENTS IS NOT
DEVELOPED BY THE USA,
THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS
TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD SUPERPOWER.

Obviously.


Tony

Is this a random word generator?

Gary Eickmeier

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

Memorandum for the Record
Metric Engineering of Weightless Warp Drive and Wormhole Time Travel for
USG NDI MASINT Star Gate Contact Mission (J-Rod, Charlene, Charlie "Core
Story")

On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:05 AM, A. P. US Naval Intelligence "RET" (High
Rank Officer) wrote:

Tony Smith said: "IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION
EXPERIMENTS IS NOT DEVELOPED BY THE USA, THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE
DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD
SUPERPOWER." Anyone familiar with Tony's work understands that this is
not just another North Georgia lawyer speaking but also a very highly
trained theorist. Are the right experiments or group of experiments
already proposed with enough detail to test this model?

My theory explains the anomalies of dark energy and dark matter as well
as the phenomenology of the UFOs as given in the NIDS papers of Eric
Davis and Jacques Vallee. This is all in my book Super Cosmos that
everyone should get for reference. My theory is very close to the
observations, much closer than string theory, or PV or HRP SED ZPF or
anything else even close to metric engineering in the NASA BPP &
STAIF/MITRE meetings.

I also solve the old problem of the stability of the electron - a
spin-off of my discussions with Ken Shoulders on the charge clusters. My
theory for the emergence of gravity with virtual ZPE dark energy/matter
is very mainstream and consistent with the Higgs mechanism for the
generation of the small rest masses of leptons and quarks before the
quarks get confined to give the hadrons much larger mass.

You all need to put this in perspective. This is a monumental task on
the scale of the Manhattan Project. It's like asking Einstein to develop
a detailed blueprint of a nuclear reactor in 1908 3 years after he
writes "E = Mc^2". I am ONE GUY working ALONE. So far what I have done
is BIG BANG for small buck relative to what everyone else is doing with
much larger resources. You get what you pay for IF YOU ARE LUCKY and USG
has a poor track record in this regard.

The engineering problem for warp drive is nano-technology, anyons, and
probably soft solid state stuff I am not aware of. This requires more
people to do it in a short enough time. I have a steep learning curve in
that regard.

Again for the record:

I. Stability of the single electron & Ken Shoulder's charge clusters
including Hal Puthoff's beloved Casimir force. Improved calculation.

The effective Newtonian limit potential energy per unit mass of a
rotating thin shell of charge of radius r with a uniform core of zero
point dark energy /\zpf is

V = ahc/mr + be^2/mr + (J/mr)^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2

Note the SU(3) symmetric 3D harmonic oscillator potential /\zpfr^2 that
has "confinement" built in automatically.

Hal's Casimir force F = -dU/dL for parallel conducting uncharged plates
has the potential energy U

UCasimir = (number)hcA/L^3

A is area of plates separated by L and (number) is computed from QED.
Side issue is the use of w = +1/3 rather than the correct w = -1 in the
QED calculation Hal does, but that is irrelevant to the key physics here
that Hal completely misses).

Since L^2 = A in the thin shell, in my model

VCasimir = ahc/mr

a is a pure number from QED. I don't really care what it's precise value
is. The parameter b is another pure number depending on details of the
charge distribution as in the old books by Becker, Lorentz 100 years ago.

Use the dimensionless effective self-potential for the micro-geon (Bohm
hidden variable) extended rotating thin shell of charge

V/c^2 = ahc/Mr + bQ^2/Mc^2r + (J/Mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

For a charge cluster EVO (Ken Shoulders)

J = L (orbital) + S(total spin)

Q = Ne

M = Nm

For the single electron N = 1, J = h/2, Q = e, M = m ~ 10^-27 gm

h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

V/c^2 = (h/mcr)(a + b@) + (h/2mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

@ = e^2/hc ~ 1/137

Note that /\zpf is tiny outside the shell of charge compared to what it
is inside. This is consistent with the number for dark energy density
from Type 1a supernovae observations.

Equilibrium is obviously stable, i.e. d^2V/dr^2 0, from the SU(3)
confinement 3D oscillator potential provided by the dark energy core
/\zpfr^2 with w = -1 inside the shell of charge. Note that "cold fusion"
EXPLOSION passage through Coulomb barrier would have /\zpf 0 (AKA
"dark matter") rather than /\zpf 0 (aka "dark energy") as in this case
of confinement.

dV/dr = 0 critical point

is the quartic polynomial

- (h/mc)(1/r^2)(a + b@) - 2(h/2mc)^2(1/r)^3 + 2/\zpfr = 0

i.e.

2/\zpfr^4 - (h/mc)(a + b@)r - 2(h/2mc)^2 = 0


Graphical analysis shows a negative unphysical root (it may be physical
in GR where this is similar to a Kerr-Newman metric with G* G) one
positive root, and a pair of complex conjugate roots (unstable particles?).

The real positive root is clearly from the physics either

r* = e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm

or

r* ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

However since, we already have quantum effects in there in a kind of
semi-classical way, I will take the latter that is consistent with

N(h/mc)^2 ~ 4pir*^2

for an EVO charge cluster. Both Hal Puthoff & I agree on this formula.

Therefore,

2/\zpf(h/mc)^4 - (h/mc)^2(a + b@) - (1/2)(h/mc)^2 = 0

/\zpf(h/mc)^2 - (1/2)(a + b@ + 1) = 0

/\zpf = (mc/h)^2(1/2)(a + b/137 + 1)

Explains why the electron is not a point particle at low energy, and why
its shell of charge does not explode.

On the other hand, when you probe the extended electron at high energy,
it appears to shrink to a point particle because of the extreme spatial
curvature warping as shown in a picture in Kip Thorne's book "Black
Holes and Time Warps". The effective short-scale G* here induced by the
dark energy core is ~ 10^40G(Newton).

Unified Field Theory for c-number boson fields in macro-quantum coherent
states.

1. Maxwell EM theory

Given an electron Dirac field with global U(1) locally gauge it to get
the 1-form connection

(e/c)A = h'd'(Phase of Electron Field)

This is "Flux without flux", e.g. Dirac string phase singularity

'd' means not "globally exact" (see R. Kiehn) also see H. Kleinert
("multi-valued phase transformations")

Note d^2 = 0 in simply connected manifolds when forms are integrated
over cycles that bound i.e. dual &^2 = 0 AKA J.A. Wheeler's "Boundary of
a boundary vanishes."

But d'd' =/= 0 and &'&' =/= 0 from non-trivial cohomology where deRham
period integrals of Cartan forms over co-form manifolds do not vanish
and are quantized when they come from a single-valued order parameter.

Maxwell's field equations are

F = dA 2-form

dF = 0 (Faraday's law + No magnetic monopoles) 3-form

The * operator requires a space-time metric and constitutive relations
for a matter source.

d*F = *J (Ampere's law + Gauss's law) 3-form source equations

d*J = 0 is local conservation of electric current density 4-form


2. Yang-Mills theory of SU(2)weak and SU(3)strong

Locally gauge SU(2) and SU(3) for lepton & quark Dirac fields to get A'

Define the gauge covariant exterior derivative with Meissner effect

D' = d + A'/\

/\ is exterior multiplication

F' = D'A'

D'F' = 0 (Bianchi identities)

D'*F' = *J' source equations

D*J'= 0 local conservation of strong and weak source currents.

3. Einstein's 1915 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field

Locally gauge T4 to Diff(4) for all matter source fields universally,
therefore get the B Cartan tetrad curvature field. The full
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

e = 1 + B (e.g. Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online)

B = 0 is 1905 Special Relativity

The Einstein Equivalence Principle is the symmetric bi-linear map

g(curved spacetime) = (1 + B)(flat spacetime)(1 + B)

This is local frame invariant under all locally gauged physical symmetry
groups and all global symmetry groups trivially.

e.g.

g(curved spacetime) = guvdx^udx^v is a scalar 0-form.

W is the spin-connection that works for spinor source on curved
space-time and which gives the Levi-Civita connection for boson fields.

D = d + W/\

Zero torsion 2-form is

T = De = 0

i.e.

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Therefore W and B are not independent.

The curvature 2-form is

R = DW

Einstein's field equations with the Cosmological Constant /\zpf are

DR + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0

D*R = *J(Matter)

D*J(Matter) = 0 (local conservation of stress-energy current density of
matter)

Note that D/\zpf = d/\zpf = 0 i.e. /\zpf is a real constant in this 1915
GR.

Also obviously from before T = De = 0

The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density L is

L = R/\e/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e/\e

where remember

e = 1 + B

The action principle (Dan Smith's BPW) is

&L/&e = 0

&/&e is the functional derivative relative to the tetrad field.

See Sean Carroll's text to see how to translate this into the old
cumbersome tensor notation that Einstein used.

BTW to my knowledge no one has really done this as simply as I - Rovelli
comes close.

Next my original contribution of "More is different" emergent gravity

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum
Field)

No gravity when h = 0, no gravity when c - infinity. This is NEW!

Higgs field comes from spontaneous breakdown of SU(2)weak in standard
model.

The SU(2)weak phase is the 2x2 matrix Ta@^a, where {Ta} is the Lie
algebra of SU(2) and I use the fundamental real 2x2 representation.

Goldstone Phase = Trace[Ta@^a]

Therefore the standard model of leptons & quarks is made consistent with
the equivalence principle of general relativity because the small rest
masses of leptons and unconfined free quarks emerges from the same Higgs
field that gives gravity. This is all virtual in the coherent vacuum
condensate and does not require exciting real Higgs quanta. The Higgs
mass does not appear in the Yukawa couplings for the lepton and
unconfined quarks masses. The Higgs particle corresponds to far-field
propagating amplitude vibrations in the Higgs vacuum field. Gravity of
large masses comes from the non-propagating near field Goldstone phase
modulation of the total Higgs coherent field. Gravity waves come from
far field phase modulations. Puthoff's HRP SED ZPF origin of inertia is
completely wrongly-posed. James Woodward's Mach Principle is completely
superfluous. Also we do not want to change rest masses m because that
destabilizes the entire universe if e/m changes too much. In any case
changing mass, say with Mach's principle, is not a weightless, i.e.
timelike geodesic warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre.


4. Gennady Shipov's torsion field comes from locally gauging O(1,3) in
addition to T4 as shown by Kibble in the 1960's.

We have the torsion 1-form S. The torsion 2-form is then

T" = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)

In my theory

T" = (hG/c^3)d'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum
Field) =/ = 0

where, same as in 1915 GR

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Note that T' = 0 when S = 0. Also note the direct torsion-curvature
couplings

W/\S and S/\B terms.

D" = d + W/\ + S/\

The torsion field equations are

D"T" = 0

D"*T" = *J"(spinning sources)

D"*J(spinning sources) = 0

The generalized curvature field equations are

R" = D"(W + S)

D"R" = 0

D"*R" = *J(matter)

D"*J"(matter) = 0

Note, that when S =/= 0 /\zpf becomes a local quintessent variable
scalar field because now, obviously

DR =/= 0 in the larger theory with the S =/= 0 action density

L" = R"(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S) + /\zpf(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1 +
B + S)/\(1 + B + S)

DR =/= 0

DR + d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B) = 0

where d/\zpf comes from the S-dependent terms in D"R" = 0 separating out
the DR terms and calling the remainder d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B)

From: Jack Sarfatti


On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Tony Smith wrote:


Jack, when John Brandenburg asked
"... does ...[Jack's model]... suggest EM technology
that can create gravity modifcations? ..."

you replied
"... Of course it does and in a lot more detail
than anything Hal & Co have suggested. ...".

and

when John Brandenburg said
"... I bet you these theories [Jack's and Hal's] will converge
on the same recipe. ..."

you replied
"... No sign of that at all. ...".

---------------------------------------------

Jack, I have been following your work and your discussion
about Hal's work for years, and the following (which I will
try to put in simple English without equations) is clear to me.

1 - Your replies quoted above are correct.

2 - You understand the importance of quantum coherence
and Hal (as far as I understand his stuff) does not.
Your quantum coherent stuff means that you have
correlated connections among MANY particles,
as opposed to gaussian noise fluctuations in which
the individual particles are NOT correleted.

Exactly! That's one reason the SED approach of HRP is no good at all.

For example, in cond-mat/0007185, Philip W. Anderson says:
"... the many-body correlations are so strong that the dynamics
can no longer be described in terms of individual particles ...".

When the correlations are taken into account, you see that
stuff does NOT merely scale linearly, but scales up MUCH faster.
In short:
YOUR MODEL HAS QUANTUM COHERENCE, AND HENCE CORRELATION STRENGTH,
WHILE HAL'S MODEL (as far as I understand it) DOES NOT.

Yes.

3 - Your dark energy stuff may be experimentally accessible
by using arrays of nano-scale high-frequency Josephson junctions,
as you have mentioned. THIS IS NOT IDLE SPECULATION. THERE ARE
EXPERIMENTAL LINES OF WORK THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED IF YOUR WORK
WERE TO BE PURSUED BY THOSE THAT THE AVIARY CLAIMS TO REPRESENT.
For example,
Beck and Mackey paper at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0406504
say: "... If ... the measured spectrum in Josephson junction
experiments
...[does not]... exhibit a cutoff at the critical frequency ...
the corresponding vacuum energy density would exceed the currently
measured dark energy density of the universe. ...".
(I know that some have made theoretical objections to Beck and Mackey,
but what counts is experiment, and no experiments have ruled out
the Beck and Mackey idea.)

Yes. The Aviary "experts" are not asking the right questions, I mean
Puthoff, Davis, who got into Nick Cook's book and even Aviation Week
with The Wrong Stuff. More importantly, they got into The Pentagon's DIA
and the CIA at Langley.

Further,
A paper at http://www.physics.gatech.edu/mbennett/dist2003.pdf
by Matthew Bennett and Kurt Wiesenfeld describes
Josephson Junction Arrays, saying: "... The resonant case ... leads
to significant physical insight into achieving attracting synchronized
dynamics. ... There are ... hints that distributed arrays exhibit
fundamentally different phenomena than their lumped counterparts.
In one case, experiments on distributed Josephson arrays
reported evidence of super-radiance ...".

4 - The reason that I understand your model is (as we have discussed
by e-mail earlier) that when you
"... Locally gauge T4xO(1,3) to get
Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory. ..."
what you are doing is closely related to
the generalized MacDowell-Mansouri procedure that I use in my model.



If you say so. I have not read those papers. Better that I don't. You
can be "Dyson"! :-) Did Feynman read Schwinger & Tomonaga? I doubt it.
Would be an interesting history of physics project.


5 - IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION EXPERIMENTS IS NOT
DEVELOPED BY THE USA,
THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS
TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD SUPERPOWER.

Obviously.


Tony

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
Is this a random word generator?

Gary Eickmeier

Certainly not! But regretfully he only talks to himself...

Harald

Ufo's and power are slick partners,

God and planetary control

Atonement may be further behind

What is frightening you?







Jack Sarfatti wrote in
:

bcc

Memorandum for the Record
Metric Engineering of Weightless Warp Drive and Wormhole Time Travel
for USG NDI MASINT Star Gate Contact Mission (J-Rod, Charlene, Charlie
"Core Story")

On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:05 AM, A. P. US Naval Intelligence "RET" (High
Rank Officer) wrote:

Tony Smith said: "IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION
EXPERIMENTS IS NOT DEVELOPED BY THE USA, THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE
DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD
SUPERPOWER." Anyone familiar with Tony's work understands that this
is not just another North Georgia lawyer speaking but also a very
highly trained theorist. Are the right experiments or group of
experiments already proposed with enough detail to test this model?

My theory explains the anomalies of dark energy and dark matter as
well as the phenomenology of the UFOs as given in the NIDS papers of
Eric Davis and Jacques Vallee. This is all in my book Super Cosmos
that everyone should get for reference. My theory is very close to the
observations, much closer than string theory, or PV or HRP SED ZPF or
anything else even close to metric engineering in the NASA BPP &
STAIF/MITRE meetings.

I also solve the old problem of the stability of the electron - a
spin-off of my discussions with Ken Shoulders on the charge clusters.
My theory for the emergence of gravity with virtual ZPE dark
energy/matter is very mainstream and consistent with the Higgs
mechanism for the generation of the small rest masses of leptons and
quarks before the quarks get confined to give the hadrons much larger
mass.

You all need to put this in perspective. This is a monumental task on
the scale of the Manhattan Project. It's like asking Einstein to
develop a detailed blueprint of a nuclear reactor in 1908 3 years
after he writes "E = Mc^2". I am ONE GUY working ALONE. So far what I
have done is BIG BANG for small buck relative to what everyone else is
doing with much larger resources. You get what you pay for IF YOU ARE
LUCKY and USG has a poor track record in this regard.

The engineering problem for warp drive is nano-technology, anyons, and
probably soft solid state stuff I am not aware of. This requires more
people to do it in a short enough time. I have a steep learning curve
in that regard.

Again for the record:

I. Stability of the single electron & Ken Shoulder's charge clusters
including Hal Puthoff's beloved Casimir force. Improved calculation.

The effective Newtonian limit potential energy per unit mass of a
rotating thin shell of charge of radius r with a uniform core of zero
point dark energy /\zpf is

V = ahc/mr + be^2/mr + (J/mr)^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2

Note the SU(3) symmetric 3D harmonic oscillator potential /\zpfr^2
that has "confinement" built in automatically.

Hal's Casimir force F = -dU/dL for parallel conducting uncharged
plates has the potential energy U

UCasimir = (number)hcA/L^3

A is area of plates separated by L and (number) is computed from QED.
Side issue is the use of w = +1/3 rather than the correct w = -1 in
the QED calculation Hal does, but that is irrelevant to the key
physics here that Hal completely misses).

Since L^2 = A in the thin shell, in my model

VCasimir = ahc/mr

a is a pure number from QED. I don't really care what it's precise
value is. The parameter b is another pure number depending on details
of the charge distribution as in the old books by Becker, Lorentz 100
years ago.

Use the dimensionless effective self-potential for the micro-geon
(Bohm hidden variable) extended rotating thin shell of charge

V/c^2 = ahc/Mr + bQ^2/Mc^2r + (J/Mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

For a charge cluster EVO (Ken Shoulders)

J = L (orbital) + S(total spin)

Q = Ne

M = Nm

For the single electron N = 1, J = h/2, Q = e, M = m ~ 10^-27 gm

h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

V/c^2 = (h/mcr)(a + b@) + (h/2mcr)^2 + /\zpfr^2

@ = e^2/hc ~ 1/137

Note that /\zpf is tiny outside the shell of charge compared to what
it is inside. This is consistent with the number for dark energy
density from Type 1a supernovae observations.

Equilibrium is obviously stable, i.e. d^2V/dr^2 0, from the SU(3)
confinement 3D oscillator potential provided by the dark energy core
/\zpfr^2 with w = -1 inside the shell of charge. Note that "cold
fusion" EXPLOSION passage through Coulomb barrier would have /\zpf 0
(AKA "dark matter") rather than /\zpf 0 (aka "dark energy") as in
this case of confinement.

dV/dr = 0 critical point

is the quartic polynomial

- (h/mc)(1/r^2)(a + b@) - 2(h/2mc)^2(1/r)^3 + 2/\zpfr = 0

i.e.

2/\zpfr^4 - (h/mc)(a + b@)r - 2(h/2mc)^2 = 0


Graphical analysis shows a negative unphysical root (it may be
physical in GR where this is similar to a Kerr-Newman metric with G*
G) one positive root, and a pair of complex conjugate roots
(unstable particles?).

The real positive root is clearly from the physics either

r* = e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm

or

r* ~ h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm

However since, we already have quantum effects in there in a kind of
semi-classical way, I will take the latter that is consistent with

N(h/mc)^2 ~ 4pir*^2

for an EVO charge cluster. Both Hal Puthoff & I agree on this formula.

Therefore,

2/\zpf(h/mc)^4 - (h/mc)^2(a + b@) - (1/2)(h/mc)^2 = 0

/\zpf(h/mc)^2 - (1/2)(a + b@ + 1) = 0

/\zpf = (mc/h)^2(1/2)(a + b/137 + 1)

Explains why the electron is not a point particle at low energy, and
why its shell of charge does not explode.

On the other hand, when you probe the extended electron at high
energy, it appears to shrink to a point particle because of the
extreme spatial curvature warping as shown in a picture in Kip
Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps". The effective short-scale
G* here induced by the dark energy core is ~ 10^40G(Newton).

Unified Field Theory for c-number boson fields in macro-quantum
coherent states.

1. Maxwell EM theory

Given an electron Dirac field with global U(1) locally gauge it to get
the 1-form connection

(e/c)A = h'd'(Phase of Electron Field)

This is "Flux without flux", e.g. Dirac string phase singularity

'd' means not "globally exact" (see R. Kiehn) also see H. Kleinert
("multi-valued phase transformations")

Note d^2 = 0 in simply connected manifolds when forms are integrated
over cycles that bound i.e. dual &^2 = 0 AKA J.A. Wheeler's "Boundary
of a boundary vanishes."

But d'd' =/= 0 and &'&' =/= 0 from non-trivial cohomology where deRham
period integrals of Cartan forms over co-form manifolds do not vanish
and are quantized when they come from a single-valued order parameter.

Maxwell's field equations are

F = dA 2-form

dF = 0 (Faraday's law + No magnetic monopoles) 3-form

The * operator requires a space-time metric and constitutive relations
for a matter source.

d*F = *J (Ampere's law + Gauss's law) 3-form source equations

d*J = 0 is local conservation of electric current density 4-form


2. Yang-Mills theory of SU(2)weak and SU(3)strong

Locally gauge SU(2) and SU(3) for lepton & quark Dirac fields to get
A'

Define the gauge covariant exterior derivative with Meissner effect

D' = d + A'/\

/\ is exterior multiplication

F' = D'A'

D'F' = 0 (Bianchi identities)

D'*F' = *J' source equations

D*J'= 0 local conservation of strong and weak source currents.

3. Einstein's 1915 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field

Locally gauge T4 to Diff(4) for all matter source fields universally,
therefore get the B Cartan tetrad curvature field. The full
Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

e = 1 + B (e.g. Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online)

B = 0 is 1905 Special Relativity

The Einstein Equivalence Principle is the symmetric bi-linear map

g(curved spacetime) = (1 + B)(flat spacetime)(1 + B)

This is local frame invariant under all locally gauged physical
symmetry groups and all global symmetry groups trivially.

e.g.

g(curved spacetime) = guvdx^udx^v is a scalar 0-form.

W is the spin-connection that works for spinor source on curved
space-time and which gives the Levi-Civita connection for boson
fields.

D = d + W/\

Zero torsion 2-form is

T = De = 0

i.e.

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Therefore W and B are not independent.

The curvature 2-form is

R = DW

Einstein's field equations with the Cosmological Constant /\zpf are

DR + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0

D*R = *J(Matter)

D*J(Matter) = 0 (local conservation of stress-energy current density
of matter)

Note that D/\zpf = d/\zpf = 0 i.e. /\zpf is a real constant in this
1915 GR.

Also obviously from before T = De = 0

The Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density L is

L = R/\e/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e/\e

where remember

e = 1 + B

The action principle (Dan Smith's BPW) is

&L/&e = 0

&/&e is the functional derivative relative to the tetrad field.

See Sean Carroll's text to see how to translate this into the old
cumbersome tensor notation that Einstein used.

BTW to my knowledge no one has really done this as simply as I -
Rovelli comes close.

Next my original contribution of "More is different" emergent gravity

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO
Vacuum Field)

No gravity when h = 0, no gravity when c - infinity. This is NEW!

Higgs field comes from spontaneous breakdown of SU(2)weak in standard
model.

The SU(2)weak phase is the 2x2 matrix Ta@^a, where {Ta} is the Lie
algebra of SU(2) and I use the fundamental real 2x2 representation.

Goldstone Phase = Trace[Ta@^a]

Therefore the standard model of leptons & quarks is made consistent
with the equivalence principle of general relativity because the small
rest masses of leptons and unconfined free quarks emerges from the
same Higgs field that gives gravity. This is all virtual in the
coherent vacuum condensate and does not require exciting real Higgs
quanta. The Higgs mass does not appear in the Yukawa couplings for the
lepton and unconfined quarks masses. The Higgs particle corresponds to
far-field propagating amplitude vibrations in the Higgs vacuum field.
Gravity of large masses comes from the non-propagating near field
Goldstone phase modulation of the total Higgs coherent field. Gravity
waves come from far field phase modulations. Puthoff's HRP SED ZPF
origin of inertia is completely wrongly-posed. James Woodward's Mach
Principle is completely superfluous. Also we do not want to change
rest masses m because that destabilizes the entire universe if e/m
changes too much. In any case changing mass, say with Mach's
principle, is not a weightless, i.e. timelike geodesic warp drive in
the sense of Alcubierre.


4. Gennady Shipov's torsion field comes from locally gauging O(1,3) in
addition to T4 as shown by Kibble in the 1960's.

We have the torsion 1-form S. The torsion 2-form is then

T" = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)

In my theory

T" = (hG/c^3)d'd'(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Macro-Quantum ODLRO Vacuum
Field) =/ = 0

where, same as in 1915 GR

dW + W/\(1 + B) = 0

Note that T' = 0 when S = 0. Also note the direct torsion-curvature
couplings

W/\S and S/\B terms.

D" = d + W/\ + S/\

The torsion field equations are

D"T" = 0

D"*T" = *J"(spinning sources)

D"*J(spinning sources) = 0

The generalized curvature field equations are

R" = D"(W + S)

D"R" = 0

D"*R" = *J(matter)

D"*J"(matter) = 0

Note, that when S =/= 0 /\zpf becomes a local quintessent variable
scalar field because now, obviously

DR =/= 0 in the larger theory with the S =/= 0 action density

L" = R"(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S) + /\zpf(1 + B + S)/\(1 + B + S)/\(1
+ B + S)/\(1 + B + S)

DR =/= 0

DR + d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B) = 0

where d/\zpf comes from the S-dependent terms in D"R" = 0 separating
out the DR terms and calling the remainder d/\zpf(1 + B)/\(1 + B)

From: Jack Sarfatti


On Oct 9, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Tony Smith wrote:


Jack, when John Brandenburg asked
"... does ...[Jack's model]... suggest EM technology
that can create gravity modifcations? ..."

you replied
"... Of course it does and in a lot more detail
than anything Hal & Co have suggested. ...".

and

when John Brandenburg said
"... I bet you these theories [Jack's and Hal's] will converge
on the same recipe. ..."

you replied
"... No sign of that at all. ...".

---------------------------------------------

Jack, I have been following your work and your discussion
about Hal's work for years, and the following (which I will
try to put in simple English without equations) is clear to me.

1 - Your replies quoted above are correct.

2 - You understand the importance of quantum coherence
and Hal (as far as I understand his stuff) does not.
Your quantum coherent stuff means that you have
correlated connections among MANY particles,
as opposed to gaussian noise fluctuations in which
the individual particles are NOT correleted.

Exactly! That's one reason the SED approach of HRP is no good at all.

For example, in cond-mat/0007185, Philip W. Anderson says:
"... the many-body correlations are so strong that the dynamics
can no longer be described in terms of individual particles ...".

When the correlations are taken into account, you see that
stuff does NOT merely scale linearly, but scales up MUCH faster.
In short:
YOUR MODEL HAS QUANTUM COHERENCE, AND HENCE CORRELATION STRENGTH,
WHILE HAL'S MODEL (as far as I understand it) DOES NOT.

Yes.

3 - Your dark energy stuff may be experimentally accessible
by using arrays of nano-scale high-frequency Josephson junctions,
as you have mentioned. THIS IS NOT IDLE SPECULATION. THERE ARE
EXPERIMENTAL LINES OF WORK THAT COULD BE FOLLOWED IF YOUR WORK
WERE TO BE PURSUED BY THOSE THAT THE AVIARY CLAIMS TO REPRESENT.
For example,
Beck and Mackey paper at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0406504
say: "... If ... the measured spectrum in Josephson junction
experiments
...[does not]... exhibit a cutoff at the critical frequency ...
the corresponding vacuum energy density would exceed the
currently measured dark energy density of the universe. ...".
(I know that some have made theoretical objections to Beck and
Mackey,
but what counts is experiment, and no experiments have ruled out
the Beck and Mackey idea.)

Yes. The Aviary "experts" are not asking the right questions, I mean
Puthoff, Davis, who got into Nick Cook's book and even Aviation Week
with The Wrong Stuff. More importantly, they got into The Pentagon's
DIA and the CIA at Langley.

Further,
A paper at http://www.physics.gatech.edu/mbennett/dist2003.pdf
by Matthew Bennett and Kurt Wiesenfeld describes
Josephson Junction Arrays, saying: "... The resonant case ...
leads to significant physical insight into achieving attracting
synchronized dynamics. ... There are ... hints that distributed
arrays exhibit fundamentally different phenomena than their
lumped counterparts. In one case, experiments on distributed
Josephson arrays reported evidence of super-radiance ...".

4 - The reason that I understand your model is (as we have discussed
by e-mail earlier) that when you
"... Locally gauge T4xO(1,3) to get
Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory. ..."
what you are doing is closely related to
the generalized MacDowell-Mansouri procedure that I use in my
model.



If you say so. I have not read those papers. Better that I don't. You
can be "Dyson"! :-) Did Feynman read Schwinger & Tomonaga? I doubt
it. Would be an interesting history of physics project.


5 - IF YOUR MODEL AND RELATED JOSEPHSON JUNCTION EXPERIMENTS IS NOT
DEVELOPED BY THE USA,
THEN IT PROBABLY WILL BE DEVELOPED BY SOMEONE ELSE WITH AMBITIONS
TO BECOME THE DOMINANT WORLD SUPERPOWER.

Obviously.


Tony