STAIF 2008 Conclusion
Date: Friday, August 03, 2007 @ 21:53:28 UTC
Topic: Science


Dr. Jack Sarfatti wrote: Conclusion We will reiterate the main finding of this document; propellantless propulsion of an exotic spacecraft is able to do without conventional propellant because the geometrodynamic field itself is the invisible propellant. This is conceptually akin to some of the technologies of NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio. This center is home for the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project as mentioned by Leonard David “All manner of "exotic" research is ongoing. That includes delving into transient inertia effects, quantum vacuum energy, zero-point electromagnetic energy and Casimir forces, or exploring anomalous superconductor gravity effects and superluminal quantum tunneling


However, one of us (JS) does not believe that any of these aforementioned proposals have a chance of working apart from the approach taken here. Transient inertia effects, for example, would be very dangerous even assuming one could do it. You cannot change the charge to mass ratios of the elementary particles very much without destabilizing matter and possibly destroying the universe by inducing an “Ice 9” vacuum phase transition. British Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour”, discusses this. Not only that, but transient inertia effects ignore the fundamental geodesic principle of warp drive presented in this paper. Since Galileo we have known that the mass of the test particle cancels out of the equation in geodesic motion. The closest the dark energy proposal comes to matching some of the NASA funded advanced propulsion concepts is in being akin to vacuum energy extraction through the use of the Casimir pinch effect in plasmas. But once again, any Casimir effect process is not geodesic warp drive either since it is 100% quantum electrodynamics with no account of gravity warping in the calculations. Any effort to harness the dark energy for propulsion is a cross-disciplinary Manhattan Project scale effort involving soft condensed matter physics with nanotechnology. Expecting one senior physicist working alone to accomplish this mammoth task in the age of Big Physics with decades-long massive waste of NSF tax money on hare-brained speculations like string theory and loop quantum gravity dominating American physics department budgets today is not rational. That will not happen. However, the lead author’s theory will be instantly falsified if, for example, the Large Hadron Collider detects on-mass-shell exotic particles that can explain Omega(dark energy) ~ 0.23.
-----------

saul-paul & mary-minn sirag wrote:

Jack,

The last line of your conclusion should change "Omega (dark energy) ~
0.23" to "Omega (dark matter) ~ 0.23."

As you know, string theorists hope to find supersymmetry partners at the Large Hadron Collider, and this could go a long way to solving the dark matter problem.

Jack: Yes I know. I say they won't. I mean they may find supersymmetric particles but not enough to explain dark matter that I say is a simple zero point energy effect from positive pressure. Note I also have supersymmetry if we use quaternions instead of real numbers for the spacetime manifold.

SP: Presumably, you are (and have been for a long time) predicting that no supersymmetry partner particle will ever be discovered.

Jack: Yes in the above sense. I am not against supersymmetry per se. They may find all sorts of unstable exotic particles, but they cannot explain dark matter as an on-mass-shell effect. They would have to find stable supersymmetry particles that live for billions of years correct?

SP: This does make your theory falsifible, as you have said. It has frequently been said that string theory is not falsifiable (Peter Woit, "Not Even Wrong"). However, you should take a look at "The Four Trials of String Theory" in the July 14-20 issue of "New Scientist."

Jack: I am aware of what Eugene Gross calls "string phenomenology" - good development. There is actually a close connection of my theory to some aspects of both string theory and loop theory but my point is that the armies of string theorists are indulging in math overkill hitting fleas with steam shovels. I also have 6 extra c-number space dimensions, maybe even 11, using Shipov's approach, which I show is a simple consequence of locally gauging the 10-parameter rigid Poincare group of 1905 special relativity.

SP: Dark energy may also be accounted for by string theory.

JS: The problem again here is parsimony. String theory is less with more. In fact, so far string theory is nothing from more. It's a huge effort for decades with really nothing to show in terms of physics. As pure math conceptual art it's fine, but it should not be hyped as physics. It's in the wrong departments and it has wrecked theoretical physics and wasted the careers of a generation or two doing useless math in terms of physics - or so it appears so far. The few results like in Lenny Susskind's book "Cosmic Landscape" do not require hundreds of physicists working full time grasping for straws for more than 20 years. Little bang for big book when the basic results that connect with actual physics can be done with simpler tools. Ditto for hot fusion plasma - even worse in terms of tax money spent.

SPS: See, for example, the article "Is dark energy lurking in hidden spatial dimensions?" (13 July 2007), which is available at the New Scientist website. See also Lisa Randall's article, "The Case for Extra Dimensions," in the July 07 Physics Today ( pp. 80-81).

JS: As Isador Rabi said "Who ordered that?" Lisa's theories are Rube Goldberg, less with more. The dark energy problem is really very simple. The extra space dimensions are simply a way of packaging the internal symmetry groups U(1) SU(2) SU(3) as a Kaluza-Klein theory with supersymmetry i.e. quaternion manifold put in. Again it's excess mathematical baggage hence it's not good physics in my opinion. It's Laputan. There is just too much hype to the public from Brian Greene and Lisa et-al - pushing the new age Mantra that "everything is vibrating strings" is a monotonous toon. :-)


All for now.

Saul-Paul








This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2494