In 1995 PRIOR to discovery that dark energy with w = -1 is 73% of the
universe - not really known reliably until ~ 2002.

p. 122 eq. 12.29 of Lorentzian Wormhole

|-a-| along z-axis

Tuv(Casimir zpf) ~ (hc/a)^4((pi)^2/720)

too ~ -1

txx = tyy = -too

tzz = + 3too

Therefore, the (Euclidean, not Lorentzian) trace dominating the weak
field limit is

too + txx + tyy + tzz = too(1 + 3w(Casimir)) = too(1 -1 -1 +3) = +2too

with too 0 this will give an anti-gravity effect not to be confused
with the QED Casimir force.

Thus, 1 + 3w = +2

w(Casimir) = +1/3

So this is what Bryce De Witt meant as cited by Hal Puthoff.

However, Hal did not present this simple argument to clarify what DeWitt
meant.

This is not w = +1 of course.

That w(Casimir) = + 1/3 is misleading here however. What is really going
on is that the two transverse pressures are positive equal and opposite
to the energy density, which is negative. But the longitudinal pressure
is the same sign as the energy density, but is 3x as strong. w here is a
statistically averaged parameter with the boundary induced anisotropy
information from the breaking of T4 translational symmetry washed out.

So one has to solve

Guv(Casimir) = kTuv(Casimir)

But that is not enough for a warp drive.

From "negative matter propulsion" we need basically two thin films. If
you have

too + txx + tyy + tzz = 2too then you want too 0 in the bow and too
0 in the stern

i.e.




On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

The key idea is that Eric Davis's "Green Cheese" with w = +1 is not
vacuum zero point energy, which must have w = -1 from fundamental laws
of physics in limit of vanishing boundary effects. Even in the most
general case with boundaries

w(zpf) = -(1/3)(a + b + c)

where in the absence of boundaries

a = b = c = 1

If Eric wants to get w = +1 using some kind of Casimir effect or some
kind of zero point energy effect in some kind of cavity then he must
show how to get

a + b + c = -3

Good trick, if he can do it.

Eric claims Matt Visser says w = +1 with negative energy density exists?
Where does Visser say that?


On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Note

kolb1new_Page_05.jpg
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...age_05_jpg.htm
Yes, above is large-scale. However NO ONE has suggested w = +1 for
anything physically real! Eric is counting Angels on a Pin. Completely
worthless IMHO. In contrast w = -1 comes from 2 Battle-Tested Ideas

1. Lorentz Invariance

2. Equivalence Principle

w = +1 for rho negative would work mathematically as Eric says, problem
is no one knows how to make it. In fact, it cannot be made IMHO. Does
Eric say Casimir effect makes it? Gott says pressure is negative along
the perpendicular to the plates and positive along the two transverse
directions. So that will not fit Eric's scheme at all!

Note also if w = +1 then as universe expands energy density falls off as
a(t)^-6 ! That stuff is not stable compared to ZPF w = -1 where energy
density is independent of a(t).


On Dec 2, 2005, at 8:10 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:

Jack:

I said no such thing.

I said I am using GR-based wormhole physics, which does not recognize w
= -1 as being any equation of state that is relevant to generating a
traversable wormhole or warp drive metric.

Well then you are seriously wrong. Let this be clear for the historical
record.

One must have negative energy density and negative pressure to do so
according to Visser's papers and monograph.

Nonsense. Of course negative energy density with negative pressure means
w = +1.

Where does anyone use that? Be specific. IT WOULD WORK of course. It is
SUFFICIENT, but not necessary! It is HYPOTHETICAL STUFF. How do you make
it? In contrast ZPF is w = -1 (isotropic limit) and REALLY IS THERE. How
do you get such exotic stuff?

The equation of state w = -1 pertains to positive vacuum energy and
negative pressure as shown in the cosmological texts.

Yes, and that's exactly what we need.

I am not working within a cosmological model for local FTL spacetimes,

There you go again with that Red Herring.

I am working within local FTL spacetimes and their required rho = tau
equation of state (rho = energy density, tau = stress), or the
alternative rho 0, as defined in the energy conditions.

You mean rho less than or equal to tau? Well the Newtonian isotropic
limit is

Grad^2V = 4pi(rho + 3pressure/c^2)

Do you mean "tau" = "pressure" ?

In any case if we use your IMPOSSIBLE to make w = +1 then rho negative
will anti-gravitate. But w = +1 is completely OFF THE WALL. It does not
exist. w = -1 does exist.

Therefore, in that case you have nothing that will work. Let it be noted
for the historical record. We shall see who is correct. It's good to
know you are not serious competition for the real metric engineering. :-)

Eric

From: Jack Sarfatti

Subject: Seeing Darkness: The New Cosmology Eric V. Linder Berkeley Lab
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:14:12 -0800


Eric Davis is saying one cannot scale this stuff down for metric
engineering. I think he is saying that? Of course, he has nothing that
works to replace what I propose.