Download if on the Internet, Press on your browser to

archived as http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/UNITEL_10.doc
more UNITEL is archived at http://www.stealthskater.com/UNITEL.htm
an Exchange and Critique of the various mechanisms which are
incorporated in UNITEL's stealth, propulsion, and
Macroscopic quantum tunneling concepts
From: Andrew Potter
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Re: Inverse Faraday Effect in High Intensity Laser Produced Plasmas
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:28:58 -0500
> Originating-Email: [[email protected]]
> From: "Edward Halerewicz, Jr."
> To: "Larry Maurer"
> Subject: Re: Inverse Faraday Effect in High Intensity Laser-Produced Plasmas
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 03:18:06 -0500
>
> Greetings,
>
> I don't believe existing experiments prove that the propulsion concept would work. If it were
possible to "teleport" an apple from New York to Hawaii, you would have something. But at
present, there is only circumstantial evidence which backs the propulsion concept. I concede that
CPA interpretation of the laser plasma may increase the magnetic field strength, although it still
seems very unlikely than lenses in combination with microwaves can produce a 10 39 G field. It
reeks too much of perpetual motion in my humble opinion.
>
> To create a "stealth" effect with the smart-skin, you would likely not need to bend radar waves.
You could possibly do 1-of-2 simpler things. First, you could use the electron cloud to scatter
incoming radar waves and shift them to different frequencies so that they become useless in
detecting a craft. Secondly, you may try to create an oscillation with the SEDs which matches the
radar frequency. You could then have the electron cloud act as a carrier source so that radar
emissions flow around a craft. It probably won't be easy, but it may be simpler to pursue those
choices rather than attempting to bend or absorb radar waves with exotic spacetime "warping".
>
> As far as reflecting spacetime, I very much think that is simply wishful thinking. The idea that
neutrinos could be responsible for gravitation is very hard to swallow. Gravitons in theory should be
of spin-two variety and have zero mass. Neutrinos have mass and are fermions. Using this
reasoning, neutrinos can be ruled out. So I found Barrett's interpretation which 'B.G.' quoted
somewhat questionable, although the modulated waveguide concept seemed interesting. Even so,
the EM effects on metric perturbations would be small. To be 'engineered' would require tapping
into the various quantum potentials of EM radiation which matter can detect. It would require a
detailed stochastic analysis of the electromagnetic vacuum, to say the least. Lochak's paper only
seems to use Field Theory to justify the monopole, and offers no experimental consequences of their
presence which would reveal their existence. So that must be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> The ionized neutrino-monopole stems from applying the fine structure constant to the properties of
the monopole. Further -- according to Lochak's paper -- this ionization is caused by tachyons which
causes other problems. The ground state of g=0 for the neutrino seems unlikely if the ionization
level is ~68.5 e (Eq. 5.20) by reasoning of the Schoerdinger wave equation. g may approach 0 for
the neutrino due to its low mass. However, for ionization to occur requires a ground state higher
than zero. Since neutrino mass is small, this may be the reason for this. However, this would only
apply for lone neutrinos. The monopole energy seems more like the wave nature created by the
neutrino interacting with another particle which creates a high magnetic potential.
>
>Lastly, Woodside only offered a research proposal and not much beyond that. In short, I consider
these monopole analogies of gravitation too full of holes to be taken seriously. Accepting such
interpretations for "spacetime reflections" at best would be pseudo-science. So I strongly caution
against this interpretation.
>
> ----- Original Message ---->> From: "B.G."
>> To: "Larry Maurer" ;
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:01 PM
>> Subject: Inverse Faraday Effect in High Intensity Laser Produced Plasmas
>>
>> Larry and Ed,
>>
>> I again read through the paper "A Physical Review of UNITEL's proposed Aerospace
Vehicle" to be published in the Journal of Advanced Propulsion Methods.
>
>>>"The plasma laser according to UNITEL's design proposal is powered through a
microwave frequency horn. As microwaves pass through the lens, the design hypothesizes
that they are phase shifted to the RGB optical spectrum forming a coherent packet of group
waves (or a beam of white light). The crystal-induced phase then again by UNITEL's
proposal begins a 720-degree rotation of the laser plasma."
>>>
>>>... "While it is conceivable that charges rotating near the speed-of-light can produce highenergy magnetic fields, it is most certainly unclear how such fields can create a direct
interaction with the ZPF. The only clue from the considerations above is the fact that
through quantum field theory the laser plasma could create a topological charge field which
would mimic the field properties of the theoretical monopole."
>>>
>>> ... "As monopoles aren't allowed to exist classically without a symmetrical geometric
property known as duality, it may be possible for an artificial monopole to induce a
symmetry breaking of classical field theory which may result in the presence of ultra highenergy scales (it is also believed that monopoles haven't been observed directly because there
masses may be greater than what current particle accelerators can produce [16]). However,
the above possibility is only speculation. And UNITEL doesn't seem to give any further
clues as to how such an interaction with the ZPF can take place. At best, it seems that
producing a high-strength magnetic field is possible in theory. But how such fields could be
created in practice remains an open question."
>>>
>> ----->>
>> The attached paper (see appletonife.pdf) deals with the generation of magnetic fields in laserproduced plasmas:
>>>
>>>"One particular phenomenon -- the inverse Faraday effect (IFE) -- has been a source of
some controversy as theoretical predictions are in disagreement. IFE is a magneto-optical
phenomenon in which the propagation of circularly polarized radiation through a non-linear
medium induces an axial magnetic field along the direction of propagation."
>>>
>>> ... "For 1µm laser radiation at I = 1019 Watts/cm2 and a plasma density of 8 x 1020 cm3,
recent calculations predict a magnetic field of greater than 10 MG which should be localized
in space to the focal region of the intense laser pulse."
>>>
>> ----->>
>> Ed continues in his review paper (see MQT.pdf) on page 10 and 11:
>>>
>>>"UNITEL also makes the claim that the monopole-like state their ship mimics is capable
of reflecting spacetime [2], but the 'how' is somewhat elusive. The potential benefit of this is
that the craft could be isolated in its own mini-universe or baby universe, and therefore the
craft as a whole would not be limited in its tunneling ability. Even under the scenario where
the laser-hull can exist in the same quantum state as described in Section 3.1, the tunneling
ability of the craft would be limited to the particles on the hull of the craft. However if
spacetime could be reflected, then all that would be required for the whole of the ship to
tunnel is to have the baby universe mimic the quantum state of the laser-hull configuration.
There are, however, problems which can arise from this interpretation. The first is that
nothing is known to "reflect spacetime", so this argument is very speculative to say the least.
The second problem is the nature of the proposed interaction suggest that the craft's baby
universe would reside in AdS spacetime."
>>> ...
>>> "What is further needed is a description of what theoretical effects must occur to
produce the proposed high field strength as well to state the strengths which existing
technologies can produce in order to demonstrate its usefulness as a realistic propulsion
system."
>>>
>> ----->>
>> I agree with Larry that we should discuss several more applications of the smart-skin and
various effects to test for such as bending or absorbing radar waves. Larry wrote:
>>>
>>> "As far as I can see, most everything that was theoretical concerning our propulsions
system has been proven with working devices. Monopoles have not been actually observed
as yet. But Berry's phase for the photon (monopole effects) has recently been tested
successfully in Physical Review Letters. As you know, back in 1986 Tomita & Chiao have
produced the Berry's phase effect with RF waveguides and optical fibers. Our CPA laser
design in the space vehicle will produce the same effect only with much more power
(fusion). I know Ed Halerewicz has conservatively estimated 1040 Gauss in the beam to
attract the ship which is phenomenal by itself. But we will have much stronger effects with
flux pinning CPA system producing strong quantum effects."
>>
>> Should we also quote the work of Barrett and Lochak in this context? I mean for the
manuscript to be published at the German Aeronautics Congress in November 2003. What can
"reflect spacetime"? What are monopoles according to the view of Barrett and Lochak?
>>
>> Barrett was quoted:
>>>
>>> A new conception of magnetic monopole is presented based on (1) a distinction between
descriptions of medium-independent fields and the constitutive relations to the medium in
which they exist; and (2) the magnetic monopole defined as the excited state of a neutrino
(Lochak, II). Using twistor formalism, it is shown that the interactive exchange between
electromagnetic fields and the space-time metric (gravitational metric or "aether") is a
second-order differential mapping of the A-vector potential onto the metric (aether) provided
by the neutrino-antineutrino pair concept (Lochak).
>>>
>>> "The excited state of the neutrino (i.e., the magnetic monopole is proportional to the rate
of change of the real part of the dielectric and magnetic susceptibilities and also of the rate of
change of the neutrino) is a phase change which is proportional to the rate of change of the
imaginary part of the dielectric and magnetic susceptibilities and also of the electrical and
magnetic conduction. Thus, the electromagnetic field and the space-time metric (neutrino
network) have an independent or inherent existence. But the excited states (magnetic
monopole) and phase changes of the neutrino have a dependent existence derived from
fluctuations in the electromagnetic field aforementioned. Justification for field-metric
exchanges is found is the requirement for entropy-energy balance conservation between
fields and metric.
>>>
>>> "The twistor formalism is only exactly applicable to the electromagnetic field
conditioned by polarization modulation (an angular momentum twistor).
The
electromagnetic field without polarization modulation is well-known to be of U(1) symmetry
and thus of non-Abelian Yang-Mills form. Conditioning the U(1) electromagnetic field into
SU(2) form, in effect, adds a degree of freedom to the field.
>>>
>>> "The consequences of this new picture are both an understanding of the ubiquitous
nature of the magnetic monopole (leading to a reformulation of Maxwell's theory) as well as
an approach to the unification of electromagnetism and gravitational theory.
>>>
>>> "The major conclusion is that the relation of local fields and their metric is governed by
an adiabatic polarization modulation waveguide. Experimental testing of this theory can
proceed at radar, infrared, and visible frequencies. While the necessary speed of polarization
modulation at optical frequencies (in the picosecond range) is quite difficult to obtain
technically, the necessary speeds required for polarization modulation at infrared and radar
frequencies are easily obtained."
>>>
>> -->> See also the Lochak link with reference to:
>>
>>> W.A. Rodrigues, Jayme Vaz, and E. Recami Free Maxwell Equations, Dirac Equation
and non-dispersive debroglie wave-packets Courants, Amers Ecueils en Microphysique, G.
Lochak and P. Lochak, eds., p. 379-392 (1993).
>>>
>>> http://www.recom.hotmail.ru/LOCHAK_MONOPOLE.doc
>>>
>>> The symmetry between Electricity and Magnetism and the problem of the existence of a
Magnetic Monopole.
>>>
>>> They describe 2 charge conjugated particles (a monopole and an anti-monopole) with
the same charge constant but opposite helicities and going up-and-down all the time. The
charge operator G is thus related to the helicity. And our monopole appears as a kind of
excited neutrino. The system (8.4) reduces to the neutrino 2-component equations if g = 0.
Therefore, this monopole may be considered as a "magnetically excited" neutrino. More
exactly, we have a family of monopoles with different values of n and the neutrino is the
ground state with n = 0.
>
> It is thus natural to ask the question is it possible that such monopoles have not only
electromagnetic but also weak interactions? And this question leads to another one: is it
possible to produce monopoles in weak reactions instead of neutrinos? If it is so, there must
be different families of monopoles associated with the different leptons e, m, and t.
>
> Finally, this leads to the hypothesis that these monopoles could play a role in the magnetic
activity of the Sun (in particular, in the sunspots). Apart from the neutrinos produced by
weak interactions responsible for the solar energy, mass-less monopoles could appear and -contrary to the ordinary neutrinos -- they would undergo an important loss of energy in the
condensed matter. It could be a possible explanation for the lack of registered solar
neutrinos.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 6. A spinor wave equation for a magnetic monopole.
>>>
>>> Now, we shall find a wave equation for a magnetic monopole. It will be shown that the
famous Dirac equation for the electron admits not only one local gauge invariance but also
two. And only two. As it is known, the first invariance (the ordinary phase invariance)
corresponds to an electric charge. The second one corresponds to a magnetic monopole. The
new spinorial equation so obtained describes (in quantum terms) the Curie symmetry laws.
We shall see that new symmetries are involved that can be given only in Quantum Mechanics
without any classical equivalence -- especially the correct definition of an anti-monopole.
>>>;
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 7. Symmetries of the wave equation.
>>>
>>> Gauge invariance.
>>>
>>> By definition, Eq. (6.29) is invariant with respect to the chiral gauge transformation
(6.23). This entails the conservation of the axial current that will play the role of a magnetic
current :
>>> ...
>>>
>>> It must be noticed that this magnetic current is not parallel to the electric current and that
its pseudo-tensorial variance is in accordance with the Curie laws. The question of its spacelike character will become clear a little further. The same expression for the magnetic
current was previously suggested by Salam [41] for reasons of symmetry. But here, it is
deduced from a wave equation and a gauge condition.
>>>
>>> b) CPT.
>>>
>>> In this formulae, the most important point is that the charge conjugation does not change
the sign of the magnetic constant of charge. In the next section, we shall see what exactly
charge conjugation means. Bt we can already assert that 2 conjugated monopoles have the
same charge constant and that 2 monopoles with opposite charges are not charge conjugated.
Changing g in -g in Eq. (6.29), we find a new equation which is not unitary equivalent to the
original one. Therefore, we cannot create or annihilate pairs of monopoles with opposite
charges g and -g in the way pairs of electric charges are created or annihilated.
>
> The properties of charge conjugation of Eq. (6.29) show that there is no danger of an
infinite polarization of vacuum which could occur from the zero mass of our monopole. And
it shows that one cannot invoke the hypothesis of great masses to explain the rarity of
monopoles or, at least, the difficulty to observe them. The fact that chiral invariance and
conservation of magnetism are easily broken shows that more probably, monopoles are
abundant in Nature and that the difficulty of the isolation of one of them is not a question of
energy. But what are conjugated monopoles ?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 8. Weyl's representation. Two-component theory.
>>>
>>> They describe 2 charge conjugated particles -- a monopole and an anti-monopole -- with
the same charge constant but opposite helicities and going up-and-down all the time. The
charge operator G is thus related to the helicity and our monopole appears as a kind of
excited neutrino : the system (8.4) reduces to the neutrino two-component equations if g = 0.
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> The important point is that w is not quantized. The monopole in a Coulombian electric
field is always in a ionizing state. This fact (predicted by Dirac) may be guessed for 2
reasons. (1) Because we know the spiraling motion on the cone described in the classical
case by ;Poincaré, and we know that our equation has the Poincaré equation as a classical
limit. (2) The potential B given in (5.15) has an infinite string. and thus the wave equation
cannot have square integrable solutions.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> In other words: 1() The electric current becomes isotropic, but this is not interesting for
us, because we have supposed that the particle has no electric charge; (2) More interesting is
the fact that the magnetic current vanishes for a pair of charge conjugated monopoles,
although their charges are not of opposite sign. If we were living in an "aether" made of such
pairs of monopoles, it would be very difficult to observe them. Which means that perhaps
the apparent rarity of monopoles is not due to a true rarity but to the difficulty of observing
only one of them. It must not be forgotten that we are living in a world full of electrons.
And it is not so easy to "see" one of them !
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 14. The presence of tachyons in the non-linear monopole equation.
>>>
>>> This is the dispersion relation of a supraluminal particle -- a tachyon -- the theory of
which was extensively developed for many years (in particlular by E. Recami and coworkers
[51], [52], [53] ). The wave equation (13.4) seems to be the first one in which tachyon
solutions appear, although it was originally written for quite independent reasons. This nonlinear equation was more accurately described in some works in view of finding soliton
solutions and stability properties [54], [55]. Nevertheless, the following result is unpublished
:
>>>
>>>Consider the nonlinear equations (13.4) in the case of a Coulombian electric field. That
is, with a pseudo-potential (5.15) or (5.16). The equations cannot be separated as were the
equations (8.4) and the 2´2 matrix operators. (11.1) cannot represent the total angular
momentum.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>15. Miscellaneous remarks.
>>>
>>> 1) A geometric property. When m (r2) is constant in Eq. (13.2) and (13.4), it was shown
(see [12], [40]) using an older work of Rodichev [56] that the presence of a monopole may be
considered as a local torsion of an affine twisted space, the total curvature of which is : R =
Const. ´ r2. Therefore, an aether made of pairs of monopoles is a flat space (because in this
case, r = 0) and the question of the observability of monopoles may be expressed in a
geometrical form. If such an aether do exist, what must be done in order that a local torsion
appear?
>>>
>>> 2) A possible relation between magnetic monopoles and weak interactions.
>>>
>>> We know that the equations (6.28) or (8.4) give the neutrino equations as a particular
case for g = 0, and g is quantized by the Dirac condition (5.8) (which is also a consequence
of our equations) :
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> Therefore, this monopole may be considered as a "magnetically excited" neutrino. More
exactly, we have a family of monopoles with different values of n and the neutrino is the
ground state with n = 0. It is thus natural to ask the question is it possible that such
monopoles have not only electromagnetic but weak interactions ? A nd this question leads to
another one: is it possible to produce monopoles in weak reactions instead of neutrinos ? If it
is so, there must be different families of monopoles associated with the different leptons e,
m, and t.
> Finally, this leads to the hypothesis that these monopoles could play a role in the magnetic
activity of the Sun (in particular in the sunspots). Apart from the neutrinos produced by
weak interactions responsible for the solar energy, mass-less monopoles could appear and -contrary to the ordinary neutrinos -- they would undergo an important loss of energy in the
condensed matter. It could be a possible explanation for the lack of registered solar
neutrinos.
>>>
>> ----->>
>> Dr. Myron Evans recently wrote:
>>>
>>> "This shows that electrodynamics must be a higher symmetry gauge field theory than
U(1), and I suggested O(3) electrodynamics (www.aias.us, see my 200-page review "O(3)
Electrodynamics" in volume 119(2) of Advances in Chemical Physics). My latest 3 papers in
Found. Phys. Lett. develop electrodynamics as a torsion in General Relativity and show that
electrodynamics must be a wedge product of 2 metric 4 vectors if gravitation is an outer
product of 3 metric 5 vectors as in Einstein's theory of General Relativity for gravitation.
This procedure unifies the 2 fields (gravitation and electrodynamics) with the metric 4 vector
and automatically shows that electromagnetism is a non-U(1) gauge field theory because the
tangent space in a U(1) gauge field theory is a scalar.
>>>
>>> The physical space, however, must have 5 space-time dimensions. And the
electromagnetic potential field must be a tetrad form. The electromagnetic gauge field is
then a torsion form, and the gravitational field a Riemann form. The Riemann and torsion
forms are defined by the Maurer Cartan equations of differential geometry, which therefore
become laws of Grand Unified Field Theory. The topological phase described above is the
result of the non-Abelian Stokes Theorem and is therefore a Hodge or Montonen Olive
duality, having the important result of allowing Grand Unification of the 4 known fields by
identifying the tangent space of General Relativity with the fiber bundle space of gauge field
theory.
>>>
>>> Up to now, this was thought to be impossible because the tangent space was thought to
be a physical space of General Relativity, and the fiber bundle space was an abstract space of
gauge field theory in Special Relativity. My new equations are generally covaraint for all 4
fields -- i.e., obey the Principle of General Relativity for all 4 fields. This is an important
advance over the Standard Model.
>>
>> See also:
>> http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~dalew
>> http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/~dalew/thesis/ResPro3a.ps
>>
> "Investigation of Relativistic Longitudinal Gauge Fields and their Interactions" by Dale Alan
Woodside
>>
>> Regards,
>> "B.G."
if on the Internet, Press <BACK> on your browser to return to
the previous page (or go to www.stealthskater.com)
else if accessing these files from the CD in a MS-Word session, simply <CLOSE> this
file's window-session; the previous window-session should still remain 'active'