Nick Herbert calls it “The Sarfatti Box”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sarfatti-box-nick-herbert-jack-sarfatti

Nick Herbert: “Of course by “testing Jack’s conjecture” I don’t mean actually doing a real experiment. Thought experiments are a lot cheaper and put the burden where it should be — inside the head of the person making the conjecture.

If Jack claims that regions where the phase velocity of light is small, the rigidity of spacetime also becomes small, then he should use his mighty mind to calculate the rigidity of spacetime inside an optical cavity. This is the kind of calculation we should naturally expect from a real physicist rather than pompous press agency of the “I alone have solved the riddle of alien spacecraft propulsion.”

If Jack carries out such a calculation for the optical cavity (I don’t believe he ever will) it could open up many futuristic possibilities.

One such possibility is that if spacetime inside the cavity becomes flexible enough the spacetime curvature inside the cavity caused by small bits of matter — two hydrogen atoms for instance — might be so large that their gravitational attraction will outweigh their electrostatic repulsion and tabletop cold fusion could be attained. Every household could have such a device and be independent of the electrical grid. No doubt the Sarfatti Box could be engineered to use ordinary water rather than hydrogen and free mankind from reliance on fossil fuels. Just in time since in a few hundred years oil and gas will become exceedingly expensive.

Automobiles, airplanes and ships all powered by water converted to energy inside a superflexible spacetime Sarfatti Box.

All this and much more could be the outcome of a single equation which certainly will become more famous than Einstein’s mass/energy relation — the Sarfatti Equation for the rigidity of spacetime in an optical cavity, the invention that changed the world.

I am tempted to tell Jack to “Shut up and calculate.” but I know he will never shut up.

Just calculate, amigo.”

Keith Wanser “It seems like “nonsense” to you because you completey misunderstand what he is saying.   Your strawman suggested experiment is not expected to produce anything measurable from Jack’s proposal. … Nick, apparently  you read (?) and do not understand.  Let me make it real simple why your notion of phase velocity does not apply to what Jack is saying and thus leads you to absurd conclusions. … By the way Nick, the c for the vacuum that appears in Einstein’s equation is indeed the phase velocity of a unidirectional wave.  On your reasoning, it should be replaced by zero in a standing wave cavity, obviously wrong! … Nick, the rest of your ridicule of Jack’s idea is really the result of your misunderstanding of what he is saying combined with your misunderstanding of phase velocity.  I must admit Jacks conjecture sounds pretty far fetched, but I am sure that non-radiating stationary states also sounded pretty far fetched at the time Bohr proposed them, with no really good justification for why they would not radiate.  (a lot of physicists do not understand to this day that stationary state charge densities and current densities are static (i.e. time independent) and so do not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations when plugged back in to them. …

The point is to pursue a promising hypothesis or theory, despite much criticism and lack of full understanding, and then propose experiments.  Armchair mental gymnastics are not the way to discover how the real world works.  One must do experiments to confirm scientific hypothesis. 

PS  Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a magic “Sarfatti box” that could do all the things you thought of?”

End Notes

From:“Wanser, Keith” <kwanser@fullerton.edu>
Date: Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 2:02 PM
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: Typo correction! Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Yet another typo correction!  Was talking about standing waves in the cavity for the E(x,t)^2 that goes in the stress energy tensor T.

E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=(E0^2)*[1-Cos[2kx-2wt]]/2

The above is for a traveling wave.  What I meant to show was for a standing wave, appropriate for a standing wave in an ideal cavity.

E^2=(E0*Sin(kx)*Sin(wt)^2=(E0^2)*{[1-Cos[2kx]]/2}*(Sin[wt])^2=(E0^2)*{[1-Cos[2kx]]/2}*{[1-Cos[2wt]]/2}=(E0^2)*{1-Cos[2wt]-Cos[2kx]+Cos[2kx]*Cos[2wt]}/4=

=(E0^2)*{1-Cos[2wt]-Cos[2kx]+(Cos[2kx-2wt]+Cos[2kx+2wt])/2}/4                 CORRECTION

This latter form clearly shows the k=0, +2k, -2k spatial Fourier components, and the w=0, +2w, and -2w temporal Fourier components of T (stress energy) for the standing wave in the cavity.  It also shows the two oppositely directed traveling energy terms at 2k and 2w (the last 2).

Keith

Jack: Remember you have to multiply these squared electric fields (volts/meter in SI) by SI permittivity of free space multiplied by 3 million for the Korean stuff.

PS  Sorry for the typos, but this is what happens when you are in a hurry to get to the rec. center to go swimming.  I spent way too much precious time on this email.

From: Wanser, Keith
Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:13:45 PM
To:nick herbert
Subject:Typo correction! Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Typo corrections in my yellow highlighted first paragraph below.

E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=[1-Cos[2kz-2wt]]/2

This should read  E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=E0^2*[1-Cos[2kx-2wt]]/2

I forgot to carry forward the E0^2 and interchanged x and z.  The E^2 appears in the EM stress energy tensor on the RHS of the Einstein field equations.

Keith

PS  This is the zero order ideal cavity field without the gravitational back reaction (i.e. metric distortion effects corrections on E)

From:Wanser, Keith
Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:02 PM
To:nick herbert
Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

>>It is indeed true that the wave in a cavity is the superposition of two waves with finite phase velocity but the END RESULT is what counts.<<

Nick, and that is precisely what you are not thinking thru, the end result.  In Jack’s theory, to get the total matter response, one must back Fourier space time transform the coupling “constant” and the stress energy tensor T.  That will pick up the two oppositely directed traveling wave Fourier components, since one sums over all wave vectors, in 1D, both positive and negative propagation.  That is also picked up (in a nonlinear way, in the stress energy tensor associated with the two E(k,w) field components, or if you want, the individual k components of T(k,w) that must be summed over to get the END RESULT! (Note that the ideal cavity E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=[1-Cos[2kz-2wt]]/2, which produces a k=0 (spatailly uniform term) and a +2k and -2k terms.  These all get summed in the energy momentum tensor in the spatial domain, assuming n is flat over the region of interest so we don’t have to worry about a complicated Fourier back transform integral, and as the paper Art found points out, the material with the highest value of n so far is very broadband (non-resonant) in its response.

>>Metamaterials work the same way: Deep down they are superpositions of waves traveling at the normal speed of light with a normal phase velocity. But due to vast amounts of superposition the END RESULT of all this scattering from specially engineered scatterers of perfectly normal light is a macroscopic wave with anomalous dispersion.<<

Metamaterials, as commonly used, are simply periodic systems, like a dielectric stack coating.  These were studied long before periodic, photonic band structures in periodic solids and layered dielectric coatings for filters and anti-reflection.   They are also used in fiber Bragg gratings, which I have published papers on and have a US patent on multimode fiber gratings.  The multiple scattering has nothing to do with the argument.  There is an index of refraction ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL.  It may or may not be the same in the reverse direction, depending on it the material is non-reciprocal (like Faraday effect and non-linear Kerr effect, or time dependent fluctuations in the dielelctric constant, etc.)  The point is the index of refraction itself is defined in terms of a single direction of travel.

Think about it Nick how n is defined (and thus the phase velocity c’=[w(k)/k]), n = (Speed of light in vacuum)/(Speed of light in free space).  This obviously can be different for different frequency light waves (i.e temporal dispersion), but that is not the point.

Nick, Jack says for non-dispersive media, Modify Coupling factor in front of Stress Energy Tensor T from (8*Pi*G/c^4)->(8*Pi*G*n^4/c^4), where n is the index of refraction, DEFINED FOR PROPAGATION IN A SINGLE DIRECTION.  THE CONCEPT OF AN INDEX OF REFRACTION IS MACROSCOPIC, AND INVOLVES AVERAGING OVER A MACROSCOPIC VOLUME.  IN OPTICS, THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF RADIATORS/SCATTERERS IN THE AVERAGING VOLUME, THE INDEX FOR A GIVEN MATERIAL IS THEN THE SAME THROUGHOUT (i.e. a sample of glass).  Building in periodic structures with attendant multiple reflections does not change the fact that there is both forward and backward propagating modes (for example a fiber optic Bragg grating), and when an index can be defined, it is associated with a single direction of propagation.  Including the effects of spatial dispersion and multiple scattering does not change this one iota.  It might help you if we replaced c’=w(k)/k, using the definition of a phase velocity.  You only need look at the band structures of phonons and electrons in crystals to understand this fact.  You are too hung up on metamaterials and their resonant behavior.

From the paper that Art found, the material is highly broadband, contrary to ordinary metamaterials, and the index much higher  (i.e. the index remains nearly constant for 8.5 to 12GHz in the graph of the paper, and they claim does not vary strongly below that all the way from zero frequency.  This broadband, extremely high index material is quite different in its operation than the resonant response happening with metamaterials when the probe wavelengh approaches the size of the underlying periodic structure.  In fact the higher frequency (1.55um) response was resonant, but with a much, much lower peak (Real part) refractive index of only about 17.  I highly suggest that you read the paper carefully, it should clear up a number of misconceptions you seem to have.

>>Thank you for your astute analysis which helps to cement the essential sameness of these two ways of achieving extremely low phase velocities.<<

Nick, apparently  you read(?) and do not understand.  Let me make it real simple why your notion of phase velocity does not apply to what Jack is saying and thus leads you to absurd conclusions.

As pointed out above, Jack says use Coupling constant (8*Pi*G*n^4/c^4), for simplified cases with no dispersion of n, i.e. n sensibly constant over a broad frequency range as in most ordinary materials, including the Korean paper material.  (with dispersion, we just have to work in Fourier (k,w) domain).

Nick claims that for an empty cavity with no material, (for which n=1 on all accounts), the phase velocity is zero.  However, that is not what Jack’s formula says, for the case of n=1, (vacuum cavity), Jack’s formula reduces to the ordinary Einstein formula for the coupling constant, i.e. (8*Pi*G*(1)^4/c^4).  For the case of a cavity with the Korean n=1800 material in it, Jack’s formula says the coupling constant is

(8*Pi*G*(1800)^4/c^4)=(1.05*10^13)*(8*Pi*G*(1)^4/c^4), or 13 orders of magnitude larger.  Simple as that.  Your characterization of what Jack is saying is false. 

For what Nick asserts to be true, that the empty cavity produces an overall phase velocity of zero, he would need n->infinity in the vacuum cavity, or (n=1), c->0, since the vacuum speed of light is not zero in a vacuum cavity.

By the way Nick, the c for the vacuum that appears in Einstein’s equation is indeed the phase velocity of a unidirectional wave.  On your reasoning, it should be replaced by zero in a standing wave cavity, obviously wrong!

When we talk about the phase speed of light, we are not talking about the speed of the superposition of two waves.   If you want to get technical and talk about multiple scattering, fine, then average over  some small length along the direction of propagation that is large compared to the scatterers, and define the phase speed of propagation between input and output of a unidirectional input wave as v=c/n=w/k (I know Jack wants more than this contribution, but I am just talking about the main, conventional contribution for the sake of discusson).  One operational way is to define k for a slab of material of thickness L is measure the frequency dependent phase shift between input and output waves for a time harmonic input  traveling in the positive x direction,  phi(w), define k=phi(w)/L  (this definition allows for multiple scattering and disordered materials inside the slab).  From this k(w), define the phase speed as v=w/k(w).  There are other ways, but this is operationally how one can do it.  You always use unidirectional waves to define what is meant by the underlying wave parameters, like n for example.

All this is well known in S matrix theory of microwave components Nick.

>>Zero phase velocity is easy to achieve. The ball, as they say, is now in Jack’s court.<<

Nick, if it is so easy, why don’t you publish your ideas about zero phase velocity and try to get a paper in Nature that gives an even higher value to the refractive index than the value of n=1800 in the paper Art Wagner found?

Keith Wanser

PS  Peace and Love — V V

From:nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 9:21:47 AM
To:Wanser, Keith
Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Keith–

It is indeed true that the wave in a cavity is the superposition of two waves with finite phase velocity but the END RESULT is what counts.

Metamaterials work the same way: Deep down they are superpositions of waves traveling at the normal speed of light with a normal phase velocity. But due to vast amounts of superposition the END RESULT of all this scattering from specially engineered scatterers of perfectly normal light is a macroscopic wave with anomalous dispersion.

The only difference between a cavity and a metamaterial ( or glass for that matter) is the number of interfering ordinary waves that produce the macroscopic END RESULT.

The cavity uses a superposition of only two normal waves to produce zero overall phase velocity.

The metamaterial uses a superposition of an essentially infinite number of normal waves to produce its overall low phase velocity.

The optical cavity is equivalent to a metamaterial achieved by special boundary conditions rather than by an array of special scatterers.

Thank you for your astute analysis which helps to cement the essential sameness of these two ways of achieving extremely low phase velocities.

Now the opportunity lies wide open for Jack to CALCULATE the Sarfatti Cavity Equation and to achieve world fame via the Sarfatti Box universal power source.

Zero phase velocity is easy to achieve. The ball, as they say, is now in Jack’s court.

Nick

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 30, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Wanser, Keith <kwanser@fullerton.edu> wrote:

>>I still maintain that for an optical cavity, both the group and phase velocity are zero. The field energy just oscillates at any location in the cavity between electric and magnetic forms at the resonant frequency. Depending on what mode is excited there may even be nodes in the cavity where both E and H fields are zero. And these nodes do not move. The optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial that’s achieved by controlling the boundary conditions.<<

Come on Nick, this is really basic stuff.  A standing wave in a cavity consists of two traveling waves in opposite directions with velocity v phase for each component.  This is basic 1D wave equation 101.

i.e. general solution of 1D wave equation is u(x,t) = [f(x-vt)+g(x+vt)], in the case of no dispersion, and v=w/k, the phase velocity.  Phase velocity is how you move on a surface of constant phase and applies to a single traveling wave component.  Case with dispersion, just deal with individual spatial Fourier Components, each traveling with their respective phase velocities.   i.e. Real solutions are Cos(kx-wt+delta) (traveling in plus x), Cos(kx+wt+delta), (traveling in minus x).  These can obviously be written as Cos[k(x-vt)+delta] and Cos[k(x+vt)+delta], where v=w/k is the phase velocity for each wave.  The phase velocity makes no sense when you are talking about multiple Fourier Components.  Note that {Cos[kx-wt+delta]-Cos[kx+wt+delta]}/2={Sin[kx+delta]*Sin[wt]}, i.e. two waves traveling in opposite directions with the same phase speed (v=w/k, w and k both positive here, can take Re[k] if damped waves) produce a standing wave, that appears to stand still (i.e nodes and antinodes do not move to the left or right on a string).

Jack explicitly was talking about individual Fourier (or Wavelet) components in his paper on the subject, as you have to since in general the index of refraction is dispersive.  It does not matter that a standing wave on a string simply goes up and down at a single spatial location and nodes and antinodes do not move.  There is still an underlying phase velocity associated with each spatial Fourier component of the wave, and that is what appears in what Jack has conjectured.  He has said 8*Pi*G/(c’)^4, where c’=c/n, and n is in general a function of frequency (and he also allows for spatial dispersion so one has n(k,w).)Just watch an ocean wave coming in to a cliff wall and watch the reflected wave going back as it collides with a new incoming wave, pretty impressive where the two crests, traveling in opposite directions meet.

Any kid with a jump rope tied to a garage door handle and shaking the rope up and down at different rates learns about superposition of traveling waves going in different directions produce standing waves.

>>So it would seem that if Jack needs a metamaterial with a vanishingly small phase or group velocity, he need look no further than the familiar optical cavity which is well – characterized theoretically and exists in many physical realizations including hi-Q superconducting cavities.<<

No, no, no Nick.  This is completely wrong!  The cavity is a superposition of 2 components with non-zero phase velocities.  Otherwise you could have an empty cavity doing the same thing as a high index one and it would make no difference, since both would have a very small “phase velocity” in your way of thinking.

Here is the killer for your idea Nick.  An empty cavity would have n=1.  However, you think the phase velocity (which would be c in free space in this case) goes to zero in Einsteins equations??  No, that is not what Jack is saying, and a moments reflection on your part would have considered a cavity with and without dielectric and compared the two.  Without dielectric, n=1, Jack agrees with Einstein.  With dielectric present with very large dielectric constant, Jack says (for the case of the Korean material with n=1800, the coupling constant in the Einstein equation is increased by a factor of (1800)^4=1.05*10^13.  Now, that is a huge amount, and so a cavity filled with that kind of material, one could then calculate the GRT effects for the two standing wave components, how the metric inside is modified, and how this would be manifest in various experimental measured situations. 

Nick, the rest of your ridicule of Jack’s idea is really the result of your misunderstanding of what he is saying combined with your misunderstanding of phase velocity.  I must admit Jacks conjecture sounds pretty far fetched, but I am sure that non-radiating stationary states also sounded pretty far fetched at the time Bohr proposed them, with no really good justification for why they would not radiate.  (a lot of physicists do not understand to this day that stationary state charge densities and current densities are static (i.e. time independent) and so do not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations when plugged back in to them.

The point is to pursue a promising hypothesis or theory, despite much criticism and lack of full understanding, and then propose experiments.  Armchair mental gymnastics are not the way to discover how the real world works.  One must do experiments to confirm scientific hypothesis. Keith Wanser

PS  Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a magic “Sarfatti box” that could do all the things you thought of?

From:nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 8:58:16 PM
To:Wanser, Keith

Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Keith–

Thanks for your comments.

I still maintain that for an optical cavity, both the group and phase velocity are zero. The field energy just oscillates at any location in the cavity between electric and magnetic forms at the resonant frequency. Depending on what mode is excited there may even be nodes in the cavity where both E and H fields are zero. And these nodes do not move. The optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial that’s achieved by controlling the boundary conditions.

So it would seem that if Jack needs a metamaterial with a vanishingly small phase or group velocity, he need look no further than the familiar optical cavity which is well – characterized theoretically and exists in many physical realizations including hi-Q superconducting cavities.

For proof of principle there is no need to invoke exotic metamaterials to test Jack’s conjecture. A simple optical cavity will suffice.

Of course by “testing Jack’s conjecture” I don’t mean actually doing a real experiment. Thought experiments are a lot cheaper and put the burden where it should be — inside the head of the person making the conjecture.

If Jack claims that regions where the phase velocity of light is small, the rigidity of spacetime also becomes small, then he should use his mighty mind to calculate the rigidity of spacetime inside an optical cavity. This is the kind of calculation we should naturally expect from a real physicist rather than pompous press agency of the “I alone have solved the riddle of alien spacecraft propulsion.”

If Jack carries out such a calculation for the optical cavity (I don’t believe he ever will) it could open up many futuristic possibilities.

One such possibility is that if spacetime inside the cavity becomes flexible enough the spacetime curvature inside the cavity caused by small bits of matter — two hydrogen atoms for instance — might be so large that their gravitational attraction will outweigh their electrostatic repulsion and tabletop cold fusion could be attained. Every household could have such a device and be independent of the electrical grid. No doubt the Sarfatti Box could be engineered to use ordinary water rather than hydrogen and free mankind from reliance on fossil fuels. Just in time since in a few hundred years oil and gas will become exceedingly expensive.

Automobiles, airplanes and ships all powered by water converted to energy inside a superflexible spacetime Sarfatti Box.

All this and much more could be the outcome of a single equation which certainly will become more famous than Einstein’s mass/energy relation — the Sarfatti Equation for the rigidity of spacetime in an optical cavity, the invention that changed the world.

I am tempted to tell Jack to “Shut up and calculate.” but I know he will never shut up.

Just calculate, amigo.

Nick Herbert to Jack via Keith Wanser

Sent from my iPadOn Mar 28, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Wanser, Keith <kwanser@fullerton.edu> wrote:

Nick,

Sarfatti clearly is using c’=c/n as the velocity in the medium.  The enhancement of the gravitational coupling to the energy momentum tensor is only in the region of the small c’ (i.e. large n).  It has nothing to do with group velocity.  The confusion was initially caused by the reference to the “slow light” work others had done, and that indeed used only the group velocity.  Turns out that is NOT what Sarfatti is referring to.

Read the Nature paper Art Wagner dug up on actual giant index n (as high as 1800 at about 0.3 Thz) in an artificial material.

Your reference to a zero group velocity for a standing wave is irrelevant.  The phase velocity of each Fourier component is still c’=c/n.  For a gas cavity, the n is near one.  Ordinary solid state laser, still not very large n.  There will be no orders of magnitude enhancement of gravitational effects in the vicinity of an optical cavity that has an “ordinary” size refractive index.

>>But perhaps Jack does not really believe

that whenever the group velocity of light is small

the spacetime continuum becomes more squishy.<<

I’ll let Jack speak for himself, but as I now understand his conjecture (not the confusion caused by the large group delay of a pulse in the case of the “slow light” work), why would he believe that the group velocity has anything to do with his hypothesis.  It is completely irrelevant.

>>It seems like a nonsense conjecture to me

but I would become a true believer if your cavity calculation

yielded a result that was measurable via conventional gravimeters<<

It seems like “nonsense” to you because you completey misunderstand what he is saying.   Your strawman suggested experiment is not expected to produce anything measurable from Jack’s proposal.

>>Jack seems to believe that only when metamaterials reduce the light speed

will the Sarfatti Effect be manifest.

Does he not realize that an optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial

achieved by altering the boundary conditions?<<

His theory only says that if c’=c/n becomes small, then the effective gravitational coupling constant 8*Pi*G/(c’)^4 becomes orders of magnitude larger, thus making gravitational effects due to stress energy (INSIDE THE MATERAL WITH THE LARGE n) much, much larger.  (outside the material, n=1). For the Nature paper example, this is an enhancement factor of n^4=(1800)^4=1.05*10^13, with existing technology from 2016!!!!!

Although a huge enhancement, because the effects are primarily inside the high n material, it is still hard to detect them at this level, because electromagnetic effects are still about 12 orders of magnitude stronger.

Keith Wanser

From:nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 7:15:41 PM
To:Jack Sarfatti
Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

For a standing wave in an optical cavity the group velocity of light is zero. This is a much simpler way to achieve zero speed than using metamaterials. If the Sarfatti conjecture is true spacetime rigidity should be reduced in the vicinity of an optical cavity. Then the only question remaining is what is the magnitude of this effect?

One might imagine that the strength of the alleged Sarfatti Effect would scale as some power of the cavity’s Q number.

Since Jack believes in the existence of this effect he’s the one who should do the calculation. But perhaps Jack does not really believe that whenever the group velocity of light is small the spacetime continuum becomes more squishy. It seems like a nonsense conjecture to me but I would become a true believer if your cavity calculation yielded a result that was measurable via conventional gravimeters Jack seems to believe that only when metamaterials reduce the light speed will the Sarfatti Effect be manifest. Does he not realize that an optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial achieved by altering the boundary conditions?

Doctor Jabir

Imam of Radio Beach

Protector of Vegetation

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 28, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think Nick Herbert and Brian Josephson have a lot of eggs on their faces. 😉

What I propose may turn out wrong, but to call it “nonsense” is clearly wrong.

Well if the CIA, Pentagon guys had any brains they would give this top priority.

The Russians are keenly translating all my ideas and they insinuated that Vladimir Putin himself is interested in all this weird spooky physics stuff.

Note, I appear in this June 2016 video twice toward the end.

https://www.5-tv.ru/glavnoe/broadcasts/509155/476/?fbclid=IwAR2JHhn4pqN8jT9XINB63X-62-8VIOxJv2wrMbdRiIqED5yI95nepQiYe-o

They also did a 2-hour video of me on the physics stuff previously.

From: “Wanser, Keith” <kwanser@fullerton.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:38 PM
To: JACK SARFATTI <jsarfatti@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Jack,

Art sent this to me also, and I just sent a brief response to you about it.This is great news, however, the largest values are broadband (even better than resonant!) and the resonant peak in the one graph is for a much lower value of n at 1.55um (in the near IR/optical region). The amazing thing about this paper is that it teaches how to make broadband very large n. You need to propose some experiments that can be done with this factor of 10^13 enhancement of the effective grav. coupling constant to test you conjecture.

Keith

From:JACK SARFATTI <jsarfatti@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:21:40 AM
To:JACK SARFATTI
Subject:Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12661.pdf

0

13 thoughts on “Nick Herbert calls it “The Sarfatti Box””

  1. Jack, I am thinking out loud. These types of posts I think would be better handled in a group instead of a post. Groups are set up to handle more specific discussions. A group is self-administered and can exclude or include people in their discussion.

    Do you know how to make a group?

    1+
    avatar
  2. I don’t see how posting email exchanges proves anything.

    What tests have you rum on your predictions?  Do you have a link to some experiment that is peer reviewed? You mentioned Dark Matter. It is my understanding that there are measures supporting it’s existence based on observations . Those are well documented.  So, what are the similar things you have to point too?

    Thanks,

    Bryan

    0

  3. Bryan you do not at all understand how physics is done. Experiments to test my theory require large budgets and many scientists. I am only at the very beginning of this whole approach. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in hot fusion for 60 years with no success. Can’t make bricks without straw.

     

    On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 15:17 Wanser, Keith <kwanser@fullerton.edu> wrote:

    Yep, and it is good that your theory makes specific predictions that one can test!

     

    Jack, no one else has proposed anything as interesting or provocative, and that in itself makes it a worthwhile endeavor to check.  Especially given the consequences and possible enormous applications.

     

    Better to have proposed something that can be tested and turns out wrong than to be a naysayer insisting the earth is flat and doing nothing to show that it is round.

     

    Keith

     

     

    From: David Sonntag <dave@cetas.technology>
    Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 12:46 PM
    To: Wanser Keith <kwanser@fullerton.edu>

    Subject: Re: Re math typo: My theory of low power warp may be wrong Popper falsifiable, but it is quantitative making precise numerical predictions.

     

    I am very interested in the quantum biology side of this, and huge potential overlap. 

     

    I first followed this area from DIA as an analyst (2002-2006), then funded work for AFOSR from our Tokyo Det from 2006-2011.

     

    I visited and funded quantum bio/nanotech researchers in Singapore, Korea, and Japan during that period, bringing together a bunch of ideas at the Google Quantum Biology workshop in 2010.

     

    The guy who organized that workshop, Hartmut Neven, still heads up QC efforts for GOOG.

     

    GOOG workshop snapshot is still here:

     

    http://aoardlifesci.wordpress.com

     

    Granted, the Kopelman paper I cite has not been replicated elsewhere, but per their work, E fields inside the cell were reported as 3.5 MV/m, especially around mitochondria and microtubules!

     

    Since that workshop, Quantum Biology has emerged as a legitimate field. Herb Froehlich’s Condensate, first posited in 1968, was confirmed in 2015, via advances in THz spectrosopy and sources, and detected in egg albumin protein. 

     

    Japan’s National Institute of Material Sciences, which we funded from my AFOSR office, obtained key patents, upheld by EU (2019) and USPTO (2015), recognizing microtubules as a unique 4th circuit element. 

     

    My gut suspicion: I suspect intracellular LENR can in fact support biological transmutation and quantum computation as the basis for consciousness. The same physics likely applies to Tic-Tac.

     

    So this is far from just being about anti-gravity and anomalous tic-tac flight parameters!

     

    Galileo peered into a telescope and said “eppur si muove” after the Vatican called him a heretic.

     

    The nice part of a falsifiable hypothesis is to be able to, at the end of the day, say “call me a heretic, but the sh*t still moves.”

     

     

     


    From: Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@hotmail.com>
    Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 10:39:23 AM
    To: Wanser, Keith
    Subject: Re math typo: My theory of low power warp may be wrong Popper falsifiable, but it is quantitative making precise numerical predictions.

     

    typo


    Subject: My theory of low power warp may be wrong Popper falsifiable, but it is quantitative making precise numerical predictions.

     

    Then G(k,f) = n(k,f)^4 * Tuv(k,f) = integral n(k’,f’)^4 Tuv(k – k’,f – f’)d^3k’df’

    0

  4. Bryan you are mis-reading. I never said anything about dark matter. That was someone else.

    That said, there is plenty of evidence for both dark matter and dark energy – easy to find online.

    0

  5. Jack Sarfatti:
    Bryan you are mis-reading. I never said anything about dark matter. That was someone else.

    That said, there is plenty of evidence for both dark matter and dark energy – easy to find online.

    Yep. You have questioned me buying it. I do. Guess that answers it.

    As far as your predictions , I look forward to being presented with your positive results .

    0

  6. Bryan G. Stephens:

    Jack Sarfatti:
    Bryan you are mis-reading. I never said anything about dark matter. That was someone else.

    That said, there is plenty of evidence for both dark matter and dark energy – easy to find online.

    Yep. You have questioned me buying it. I do. Guess that answers it.

    As far as your predictions , I look forward to being presented with your positive results .

    Do you have a quote? I thought Bubba brought up Dark Matter.

    0

  7. 10 Cents:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Jack Sarfatti:
    Bryan you are mis-reading. I never said anything about dark matter. That was someone else.

    That said, there is plenty of evidence for both dark matter and dark energy – easy to find online.

    Yep. You have questioned me buying it. I do. Guess that answers it.

    As far as your predictions , I look forward to being presented with your positive results .

    Do you have a quote? I thought Bubba brought up Dark Matter.

    Considering all the insults thrown at me by Jack, I really don’t feel compelled to wade through them all again.

    When there is proof of the astounding claims, I will be excited to see them. Until then, it is unproven speculation.

    0

Leave a Reply