|There are currently, 236 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb more powerful than thermonuke!|
Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 @ 21:57:01 MST by vlad
Dr. Jack Sarfatti writes: Begin forwarded message:
From: Doc Savage
Date: September 1, 2004 9:08:58 AM PDT
To: (Victor Martinez)
Subject: Re: Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb more powerful than thermonuke!
Information on Ken Shoulders
1. Long-time associate of Hal Puthoff. Both worked in US Intelligence Community for years.
2. Brilliant gadgeteer with small microwave devices holds several important patents.
3. Ken's opinions are taken seriously in the USG Defense Intelligence Community.
4. Pressure is mounting for Shoulders, Sarfatti and Puthoff to write a joint paper together showing conflicting models of the phenomenon.
Puthoff uses a model of Casimir's "Type II" in which there is a positive zero point energy pressure outside the thin shell of electrons and vanishing zero point pressure inside it. Sarfatti says Casimir made an error by assuming that the well known "dubya factor" (i.e. w = (pressure)/(energy density)) is +1/3, which it is for real photons propagating energy to infinity as electromagnetic radiation. Sarfatti objects that w = -1 for the virtual photons of the zero point vacuum fluctuations. That w = -1 for this case is well known to cosmologists working on the "dark energy" (e.g. Mike Turner's Op/Ed in April 2003 Physics Today). "w = -1 follows from Einstein's equivalence principle together with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Furthermore, boson statistics require a positive virtual photon energy density, therefore an equal and opposite negative virtual photon pressure. Virtual quanta are directly observable in their warping of spacetime. You cannot subtract them out. The pressure warps space-time three times more than the energy density. The negative pressure makes repulsive anti-gravity that is the 'Right Stuff' for weightless warp drives, wide wormholes and, unfortunately 'universe destroying' weird weapons." said Sarfatti. Sarfatti cited Sir Martin Rees's book "Our Final Hour" on this subject. Sarfatti's model is the mirror opposite of Puthoff's. "The zero point pressure is negative inside the thin shell of typically a trillion to ten thousand trillion electrons in the observed EVOs 10^-5 cm to 10^-5 meters across and is zero outside. Negative zero point pressure makes the vacuum like a spring and the electric repulsion does work against the vacuum to create a metastable EVO. The electrons make a bottle or container for the anti-gravity dark energy vacuum core of the EVO. Break the bottle to release the Dark Energy Genie as 'Cold Fusion'. Mike Turner wrote that it couldn't be done, apparently Ken Shoulders has done what was thought to be an impossible dream." says Sarfatti.
For further reading see August 2004 Popular Mechanics p. 77
The above article mentions the recent unsolved murder of Cold Fusion advocate Gene Mallove.
And Moscow's PRAVDA
On Sep 1, 2004, at 7:53 AM, Victor Martinez wrote:
WORLDWIDE MILTARY ORDNANCE EXCLUSIVE: DARK ENERGY BOMB MORE POWERFUL THAN NUKES! –
"If done too fast with a large enough Exotic Vacuum Object this would be a powerful bomb - more powerful than thermonuclear" – Dr. Jack Sarfatti
(PRWEB) September 1, 2004 -- Experimentalist Ken Shoulders claims that electrons are behaving in ways thought to be impossible. A new and previously unknown force appears to be binding the electrons at short range into clusters of electron charge. Shoulders calls these clusters Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVO's.
Shoulders describes this as "a short-range force resembling a positive charge negating the effect of repulsive electronic charge"
One of Ken Shoulder's latest papers suggests nefarious uses for charged cluster technology based on EVO's:
"The author can easily imagine a scenario where instructions are generated with enough clarity for about 1 person in 1,000 to perform the necessary operations to refine and store a gallon jug of electrons in the form of Exotic Vacuum Objects (EVO's) ... there is no doubt that this jug would be light enough to carry and be highly sensitive to destabilization of a catastrophic nature..."
Ken Shoulders has recently collaborated on several papers with independent theoretical physicist Dr. Jack Sarfatti, in San Francisco. Sarfatti suggests that his theory of exotic vacuum dark energy/dark matter can explain Shoulders' experimental data.
Although Sarfatti hopes for carefully controlled release of energy from the EVO's, both Sarfatti and Shoulders warn that rapid release of a large EVO would be explosive, perhaps more powerful than a thermonuclear device.
Disclaimer: If you have any questions regarding information in these
press releases please contact the company listed in the press release.
Please do not contact PR Web™. We will be unable to assist you with
your inquiry. PR Web™ disclaims any content contained in these
release. Our complete disclaimer appears here.
© Copyright 1997-2004, PR Web™. All Rights Reserved
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Average Score: 3.47|
|"Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb more powerful than thermonuke!" | Login/Create an Account | 1 comment | Search Discussion|
|The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register|
|Re: Worldwide Exclusive: 'Dark Energy' bomb more powerful than thermonuke! (Score: 1)|
by vlad on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 @ 22:05:04 MST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
|Joel Isaacson writes: Public service: Mike Turner's Physics Today article on Dark Energy ===>>|
[Note: the contrarian statement therein is: "Even though repulsive gravity sounds like fun, dark energy--as far as we know--can't be bottled up to create an object with antigravity." =jdi=
Dark Energy: Just What Theorists Ordered
Michael S. Turner
In the article on page 53, Saul Perlmutter describes how his team, and one led by Brian Schmidt, used distant supernovae to discover that the expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down. At puzzling times like these, theorists are called upon to provide understanding and, in the process, to convince their audience that they actually anticipated the puzzling discovery (maybe even predicted it). The discovery of cosmic speedup, perhaps one of the most important in all of science over the past 25 years, saved a beautiful theory--inflation--and presented theorists with a wonderful puzzle--"dark energy," the stuff causing cosmic speedup. What more could we ask for?
Since 1980, Alan Guth's cosmic inflation has been the driving idea in cosmology. Central to inflation is a very early, tremendous burst of expansion, powered by the potential energy associated with a hypothetical scalar field called the inflaton. In a tiny fraction of a second, a small bit of the universe is blown up to a size that encompasses all that we can see today and much, much more. Any spatial curvature becomes flattened, and quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field are stretched from subatomic to astrophysical size. The decay of the inflaton produces the heat of the Big Bang, and the quantum fluctuations in it lead to the matter inhomogeneity that provides the seeds for all the structure in the universe, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies and beyond.
Inflation not only explains, it also predicts. Its predictions include: a spatially flat universe, a pattern of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that arises from the quantum-produced density perturbations, and a sea of gravitational waves. Inflation was the inspiration for the very successful cold dark matter (CDM) scenario for how structure formed. CDM theory is based on a flat universe, dark matter made of slowly moving elementary particles, and density perturbations arising from quantum fluctuations.
From the beginning, inflation's signature prediction--a flat universe--was in trouble. According to Einstein's theory, the mean energy density r0 determines the spatial curvature of the universe; for a flat universe, it must be equal to the critical energy density. In cosmology talk, W0 = 1, where W0 is the ratio of the mean energy density in any and all forms to the critical energy density. In 1980, astronomers' measurements of W0 indicated its value was something around 0.1.
Inflationists (like me) pinned our hopes on growing evidence for enormous amounts of dark matter that hold galaxies and clusters of galaxies together. This dark matter is distributed more diffusely than stars, making it harder to inventory. Estimates for W0 rose, and for a while it appeared that enough dark matter would be found to meet the inflationary prediction.
By 1990, the problems for a flat universe were piling up. Estimates of the amount of dark matter were getting better and still falling short, and observations of large-scale structure suggested a CDM universe with a matter density that was one-third of the critical density, that is, WM = 1/3. Several of us sheepishly made a suggestion1 to save inflation: Add a cosmological constant, L, for the missing two-thirds of the critical density, WL = 2/3. Thus W0 = WM + WL = 1. The inflationary prediction is a flat universe, not necessarily WM = 1.
To save a beautiful theory, theorists are willing to consider the implausible, although not the impossible. With its checkered history in cosmology, the cosmological constant was certainly implausible. Albert Einstein used it to create a static model of the universe; Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle used the cosmological constant to address the fact that the time back to the Big Bang appeared to be less than the age of Earth, and now it is invoked to save inflation.
By the mid-1990s, the observational evidence for the L version of CDM, including the first hints from CMB anisotropy measurements that the universe is flat, was becoming compelling, at least for theorists.1 However, there was a problem: LCDM (CDM with a cosmological constant) also predicts accelerated expansion, and the first supernova results did not yet show acceleration.
With the discovery of cosmic speedup in 1998, everything quickly fell into place: The universe is flat, with one-third in matter and two-thirds in something like a cosmological constant. Overnight, skeptical astronomers became believers in inflation. Strange as it was, cosmic speedup was the missing piece in the puzzle. It saved inflation, but be careful what you wish for!
According to Isaac Newton, gravity is always attractive, because the strength of an object's gravity depends only on its mass. Einstein's theory, however, allows for repulsive gravity and cosmic speedup because the strength of gravity also depends on pressure, p, with r + 3p acting as the source of gravity. Something that is very elastic (that is, negative pressure p
Something with pressure comparable to its energy density is exotic. Matter, even at the center of a sun, has a pressure that is orders of magnitude smaller than its energy density. The ratio of pressure to energy density is characterized by the square of the internal velocity divided by c2. Thus dark energy is intrinsically relativistic and is more like energy than matter. Even though repulsive gravity sounds like fun, dark energy--as far as we know--can't be bottled up to create an object with antigravity.
Quantum mechanics provides a candidate for something that is very elastic: The virtual pairs that fill the vacuum have negative pressure. To see this, compute the pdV work done by an expanding piston that encloses quantum vacuum; you will find that pvac = - rvac where rvac is the quantum vacuum's energy density (see the figure). Thus, quantum vacuum energy is very repulsive because r + 3p = -2 rvac. Mathematically, quantum vacuum energy is equivalent to Einstein's infamous cosmological constant.
Although Einstein dismissed the cosmological constant as a personal blunder, quantum mechanics makes it obligatory. Unfortunately, even the best quantum "mechanics" have failed to produce a sensible prediction for L. The sum of zero-point energies diverges due to short-wavelength modes. Truncating at an energy scale beyond which we can appeal to physics ignorance illustrates the enormity of the problem: For a 100-GeV cutoff, WL = 1055. This disparity is the greatest embarrassment in all of theoretical physics.
Many particle theorists believe that a correct calculation of L will yield precisely zero because of the utter implausibility of obtaining a number 55 or more orders of magnitude smaller than its "natural value." If quantum nothingness weighs nothing, what, then, is causing the universe to accelerate? Dark energy!
What do we know about dark energy and how can we learn more? It accounts for about two-thirds of the critical energy density and is much more smoothly distributed than matter. If it clumped, we would see its effects when studying clusters and other gravitationally bound objects, and we do not. Dark energy is characterized by an "equation of state," which is the ratio w (pronounced "dubya") of its pressure to its energy density w = p/r. Although w need not be constant, for simplicity I will assume that for now.
If dark energy is vacuum energy, w = -1 (for comparison, for nonrelativistic matter w = 0, and for radiation, w = 1/3.) The ratio w determines how the energy density of dark energy changes as the universe expands: r µ 1/R3(1+w), where R is the cosmic scale factor. Negative pressure (w
That dark energy was unimportant in the past is good: This fact means the repulsive gravity of dark energy doesn't interfere with the attractive gravity of dark matter that drives the formation of cosmic structure. The lesser importance of dark energy in the past is also the root of an independent argument for cosmic acceleration. The "missing energy" needed in addition to matter to account for the flat universe determined from CMB measurements (see the story on page 21) must have been unimportant in the past; otherwise its smooth distribution would have interfered with the formation of structure. To make the missing energy unimportant in the past requires that w
Imaginative theorists have suggested an array of possibilities for dark energy. Many involve the existence of a new, scalar field and the idea that we are in a period of mild inflation while this field (called quintessence) rolls toward its ground state. Because quintessence and inflation both involve accelerated expansion and the underlying cause of each is poorly understood, it has been speculated that they might be related. Thus far, quintessence has raised new questions without shedding light on dark energy.
What we call dark energy could be the harbinger of exotic physics rather than a new, etherlike substance. Cosmic acceleration could be signaling that Einstein's theory requires modification, perhaps due to the influence of unseen additional spatial dimensions. An interesting twist is that some string theorists believe that cosmic speedup and string theory, which itself predicts extra dimensions, are incompatible. This will come as a relief to the less enthusiastic fans of string theory.
One thing is clear: Dark energy leads to a revision in our view of cosmic destiny. With matter alone, destiny and geometry are one: Closed universes recollapse and open or flat universes expand forever. If dark energy is vacuum energy, our flat universe will continue accelerating to a bleak future--in 100 billion years all but a few hundred galaxies nearby will have their light shifted too far into the red to be seen. If dark energy eventually dissipates, the universe will begin to decelerate, possibly even recollapse.
Because dark energy is so diffuse, cosmology offers the only known way of getting at it, and w is the hook. The energy density of dark energy, which depends on w, affects the expansion rate. Models for dark energy differ in their predictions for w and thus in their predictions for the expansion history of the universe. Distant supernovae, galaxy clusters, and gravitational lensing can all be used to chart the past expansion rate and determine w. And there is much interest in doing so: Two new centers--the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford University and the NSF Center for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago--list the study of dark energy as a primary science goal. The US Department of Energy is planning a dedicated space telescope for supernovae, the SuperNova/ Acceleration Probe (SNAP). NASA has targeted dark energy for one of its new Einstein probes. NSF is considering an 8-m wide-field survey telescope to study dark energy, the Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). Add in my nine-year-old son's theoretical work, and progress is assured.
Dark energy is one of the deepest and most exciting puzzles in all of science. It is likely that a crazy new idea is needed to explain cosmic speedup and resolve the cosmological constant problem. (That does not mean every crazy idea is a solution.) The payoff will be well worth the effort: We will gain new insights into the nature of matter, space, and time, and shed light on our cosmic destiny.
1. M. S. Turner, G. Steigman, L. Krauss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2090 (1984);
P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 52, 2090 (1984); L. Kofman, A. A.
Starobinskii, Sov. Astron. Lett. 11, 271 (1985); G. Efstathiou et al.,
Nature 348, 705 (1990); M. S. Turner, Phys. Scr. T36, 167 (1991).
2. L. Krauss, M. S. Turner, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 27, 1137 (1995); J.
Ostriker, P. Steinhardt, Nature 377, 600 (1996).
Michael Turner is the Rauner Distinguished Service Professor at the
University of Chicago and a staff scientist at Fermilab.