Horace, Thanks for a good analysis of this new theory vis-a-vis your theory and the mainstream thinking which precedes it.
It can be noted that your objection: "It seems to me this thinking is not right in that it leaves the question: what entity then remains to communicate via gravitons?" is also a semantics issue that goes away - with a more complex definition of "what is virtual" in the sense that can be implied from their paper. Many of us may not like whatever new definition of 'graviton' or 'photon' emerges from this, since it could (possibly) imply something akin to "flavor oscillations" which are seen in the neutrino to rationalize how a graviton, for instance, can go from massless to at least expressing a mass-like effect. That is a form of 'communication'. IOW to paraphrase (where I think they are going with the argument): the Ginzburg Landau approach is phenomenological and can be applied to any type of boson (and need not be confined simply to photons). We can assume that any particle in the standard model exists in a gravitationally active or inactive phase (and possibly an interfacial phase) so what we think of as "photons" are a subset of a more inclusive set (in which gravitons may or may not be included ?) To describe the phase transition behavior of a given boson, one may consider fundamental fermionic degrees of freedom that can "condense into the boson" being considered. Anyway, the original Beck/Mackey cite is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703364 Here is Wiki's entry on Ginzburg Landau which has a similarity to Higgs - and as you mention, Higgs might be the ultimate referee or indicator of truth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginzburg%E2%80%93Landau_theory The more I read Beck/Mackey (or the more I 'read into it' ;-) the more it seems that there is something in there which could be very important to those who have been looking for "overunity" ... yet - that is also the biggest "problem" with it - in that any theory which is attractive solely, or mostly, for its further implications, as opposed to its intrinsic logic and mathematical cogency, etc is going to be problematic. Mills' being the prime example of that kind of lure. ABSTRACT: We introduce a new model for dark energy in the universe in which a small cosmological constant is generated by ordinary electromagnetic vacuum energy. The corresponding virtual photons exist at all frequencies but switch from a gravitationally active phase at low frequencies to a gravitationally inactive phase at higher frequencies via a Ginzburg-Landau type of phase transition. Only virtual photons in the gravitationally active state contribute to the cosmological constant. A small vacuum energy density, consistent with astronomical observations, is naturally generated in this model. We propose possible laboratory tests for such a scenario based on phase synchronization in superconductors. All very interesting and challenging... Jones ----- Original Message ---- > From: Horace Heffner > On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:48 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > Robin & Horace, > > > >> I think you will find that the ZPE cutoff frequency is about 10^43 > >> Hz. Any > > number in the THz region is simply a limitation imposed by the > > hardware. > > > > > > This may be a semantics problem. The Haisch Calphysics site > > mentions the recent > > work by Christian Beck at the University of London and Michael Mackey > > at McGill University suggesting that dark energy is nothing other > > than a subset of zero-point energy. He apparently agrees. Beck/ > > Mackey propose that a phase transition occurs so that zero-point > > photons (virtual) below a frequency of about 1.7 THz are > > gravitationally active whereas above that they are not. They > > distinguish this as dark energy. > > > > I take this to mean that below the upper cutoff of 1.7 THz, which > > is a rather cold equivalent temperature - it will be possible, with > > a properly engineered device - to cohere that subset of ZPE - dark > > energy - which is a gravitationally active component of zero-point > > energy. > > > > Perhaps the evidence of a successful harnessing of this energy, in > > addition to the obvious: > > > > P-out > P-in > > > > is an apparent loss of mass during operation. The "loss" would only > > be transient however. > > > > Do you disagree with that interpretation of Beck/Mackey? > > > > Jones > > This theory certainly seems at first glance to be at odds with my > theory of Gravimagnetism: > > http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf > > which concludes that the difference between virtual photons and real > photons is the presence of mass charge. Only real photons have mass > charge, i.e. the ability to emit or absorb gravitons. This nicely > accounts for the fact the zero point field has no mass, because it is > comprised of virtual photons. Dark energy is merely the presence of > negative gravitational mass matter, which is spontaneously created > from the vacuum (ZPE) by black holes at a rate depending on black > hole mass and distance of the site of a specific pair creation from > the black hole singularity. In fact the presence of this negative > gravitational mass matter, spewing forth in a spherical manner from > black holes at the center of galaxies, including the Milk Way, > accounts for the MOND equation that fits galactic rotations. In my > paper I discuss the fact this negative mass matter is likely cosmic > dark matter, that is to say matter which is mirror matter that has a > miniscule coupling constant with ordinary matter photons, and thus is > "dark". However this negative gravitational charge matter, i.e what > I called "cosmic matter" is not the "dark matter" which astronomers > are trying to identify, because it carries a negative gravitational > charge, and thus has been named by them "dark energy". I can't > account for dark matter readily unless mirror matter itself can be > created in two flavors - mirror matter with positive gravitational > charge and mirror matter with negative gravitational charge. If such > a combination exists, then negative mass black holes can spit out > both ordinary matter and mirror matter having positive gravitational > charge. I've posted variations of my theory here that would permit > this. > > Clouds of this combined matter/mirror-matter material can then > coalesce distantly from its source into galaxies comprised of both > light and dark matter where new black holes form. The mass of the > universe then is being continually created in waves of positive mass > black holes generating matter that condenses into negative mass black > holes generating positive mass black holes etc., ad infinitum. This > to me makes much sense, because it answers the question of how we got > out of the black hole that the big bang should have been. If all the > mass of the universe were at a point at one time then that point > would have been a whopping black hole. The answer to that dilemma is > that the big bang was not a black hole. It was comprised of equal > amounts of positive mass charge matter and negative mass charge > matter - and thus was highly expansive, not contractive. > > All that said, it seems to me logical that improved coupling of the > ZPF with nuclear particles occurs below some frequency, or more > appropriately in some frequency band depending on particle type. This > coupling adds energy and thus mass to nuclei. If momentum is > uncertain, energy is uncertain, and thus mass is uncertain. But > where does this mass reside? There is now some thinking that all > matter might be virtual: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is- > merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=true > > http://tinyurl.com/5b6b9y > > It seems to me this thinking is not right in that it leaves the > question: what entity then remains to communicate via gravitons? If > quantum mechanics is consistent with gravitation then what entity > exists as a source and sink for the force messenger, i.e. gravitons? > Of there is force then there must be a messenger and a charge that > interacts via the messengers. Photons give us a hint - they carry > mass charge. Virtual photons do not. Some attribute is given matter > or even the wispy photon that makes it "real". In my theory > gravitational charge carries an imaginary component i = (-1)^(1/2). > Perhaps the attribute matter requires is merely a vibration in the > imaginary dimension. My Theory of Gravimagnetism points out that not > only does an electromagnetic zero point field exist, but so does a > gravimagnetic zero point field. Perhaps a coupling of these fields > via string vibration provides the basis for real vs imaginary matter, > the transition between these states, and the emission of gravitons. > If so, then the coupling of the two kinds of zero point fields in the > vacuum with both matter and photons in space may indeed create > gravitational fields from apparent "dark matter". It will be most > interesting to see if the Higgs Boson exists. > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
