Skinwalker Evidence Star Gate Portal

1 Skinwalker Ranch Evidence for a Traversable Wormhole Portal jacksarfatti@comcast.net May 24, 2020 V3 I predict that the inhomogeneities and anisotropies in the electromagnetic susceptibility complex function responses of the meta-material to the external Frohlich photon pump driving it beyond the critical point threshold for its non-equilibrium nonlinear dissipative macro-quantum coherent active matter phase function as Matt Visser’s phantom/ghost scalar field with negative kinetic energy via dissipative phase modulation supporting the stability of the Skinwalker Star Gate Portal hovering 1000 feet over a place in the Ranch.1 The exponential metric represents a traversable wormhole2 Petarpa Boonserm 1;2, Tritos Ngampitipan 3, Alex Simpson 4, and Matt Visser 4 arXiv:1805.03781v1 [gr-qc] 10 May 2018 1 2 The phantom field quanta acquire rest mass in the macro-quantum phase (Higgs mechanism). https://www.quantamagazine.org/newfound-wormhole-allows-information-to-escape-black-holes-20171023/ 2 https://www.quantamagazine.org/newfound-wormhole-allows-information-to-escape-black-holes-20171023/ 3 4 n(r ) = 2Gε ( r )µ( r ) M ε 0 µ0 r =e ε (r ) µ (r ) 4Gε ( r )µ( r ) M ε 0 µ0 r =e ε (r ) µ (r ) ( 4GM ε ( r ) µ ( r ) = r log e ε 0 µ0 − log e ε ( r ) µ ( r ) ) Solved self-consistent analog computer graphical solution. Adding dissipation n ( r ) = Re ⎡⎣ n ( r ) ⎤⎦ + i Im ⎡⎣ n ( r ) ⎤⎦ ( 4GM ε ( r ) µ ( r ) eiϑ = r log e ε 0 µ0 − log e ε ( r ) µ ( r ) + iϑ tan ϑ ( r ) = { } Re {ε ( r ) µ ( r )} Im ε ( r ) µ ( r ) ) (1.1) 5 6 The controllable meta-material electromagnetic susceptibility resonance spin zero scalar field coupling between matter and gravity that I have introduced for the first time in the history of physics is precisely the “ghost” /” phantom” field explaining all the mysteries of flying saucers and the Skinwalker Portal. 7 I combine the above Star Gate Portal metric with the Alcubierre Warp Drive “Tic Tac” Toy Model Metric inside meta-material – for now as an exercise - more realistic attempt later. 8 The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity. Miguel Alcubierre∗ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wales, College of Cardiff, P.O. Box 913, Cardiff CF1 3YB, UK. arXiv:gr-qc/0009013v1 5 Sep 2000 Abstract “It is shown how, within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed. By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the spaceship and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible. The resulting distortion is reminiscent of the ‘warp drive’ of science fiction. However, just as it happens with wormholes, exotic matter will be needed in order to generate a distortion of spacetime like the one discussed here.” 9 Graphics by Julien Geffrey showing Jack Sarfatti’s prediction of reverse gravity “Doppler Shift” from UAVs in weightless ZERO G-FORCE low energy low speed warp drive as seen in US Navy Close Encounters with “Tic Tac” and other UAVs. 10 Alcubierre: “When we study special relativity, we learn that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This fact is still true in general relativity, though in this case one must be somewhat more precise: in general relativity, nothing can travel locally faster than the speed of light. Since our everyday experience is based on a Euclidean space, it is natural to believe that if nothing can travel locally faster than light then given two places that are separated by a spatial proper distance D, it is impossible to make a round trip between them in a time less than 2D/c (where c is the speed of light), as measured by an observer that remains always at the place of departure. Of course, from our knowledge of special relativity we know that the time measured by the person making the round trip can be made arbitrarily small if his (or her) speed approaches that of light. However, the fact that within the framework of general relativity and without the need to introduce nontrivial topologies (wormholes), one can actually make such a round trip in an arbitrarily short time as measured by an observer that remained at rest will probably come as a surprise to many people. 11 Here I wish to discuss a simple example that shows how this can be done. The basic idea can be more easily understood if we think for a moment in the inflationary phase of the early Universe, and consider the relative speed of separation of two comoving observers. It is easy to convince oneself that, if we define this relative speed as the rate of change of proper spatial distance over proper time, we will obtain a value that is much larger than the speed of light. This doesn’t mean that our observers will be travelling faster than light: they always move inside their local light-cones. The enormous speed of separation comes from the expansion of spacetime itself. 1 1 This superluminal speed is very often a source of confusion. It is also a very good example of how an intuition based on special relativity can be deceiving when one deals with dynamical spacetimes. The previous example shows how one can use an expansion of spacetime to move away from some object at an arbitrarily large speed. In the same way, one can use a contraction of spacetime to approach an object at any speed. This is the basis of the model for hyper fast space travel that I wish to present here: create a local distortion of spacetime that will produce an expansion behind the spaceship, and an opposite contraction ahead of it. In this way, the spaceship will be pushed away from the Earth and pulled towards a distant star by spacetime itself. One can then invert the process to come back to Earth, taking an arbitrarily small time to complete the round trip. I will now introduce a simple metric that has precisely the characteristics mentioned above. I will do this using the language of the 3+1 formalism of general relativity [1, 2], because it will permit a clear interpretation of the results. In this formalism, spacetime is described by a foliation of spacelike hypersurfaces of constant coordinate time t. The geometry of spacetime is then given in terms of the following quantities: the 3-metric ij of the hypersurfaces, the lapse function _ that gives the interval of proper time between nearby hypersurfaces as measured by the “Eulerian” observers (those whose four-velocity is normal to the hypersurfaces), and the shift vector _i that relates the spatial coordinate systems on different hypersurfaces. Using these quantities, the metric of spacetime can be written as: 12 13 I combine Alcubierre’s warp drive metric tensor equation (8) with Visser’s exponential traversable wormhole metric and my meta-material resonance ANSATZ3 ds 2 = −e = −e − − 2Gεµ M r 2Gεµ M r 2Gεµ M dt 2 +e r εµ {( ) 2 dx − vs f ( rs ) dt + dy 2 + dx 2 } 2Gεµ M 2Gεµ M 2 dt 2 + e r vs2 f ( rs ) dt 2 − e r 2vs f ( rs ) dxdt − dx 2 − dy 2 − dx 2 εµ { ⎛ − 2Gεµr M ⎞ 2Gεµ M 2Gεµ M 2 e 2 r ⎜ =− −e vs f ( rs ) ⎟ dt 2 − e r 2vs f ( rs ) dxdt − dx 2 − dy 2 − dx 2 ⎜ εµ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ { ( ) } (1.2) } 2 rs2 ( t ) = x − xs ( t ) + y 2 + z 2 ⎛ − 2Gεµr M ⎞ 2Gεµ M 2Gεµ M 2 e 2 2 ds = − ⎜ − e r vs f ( rs ) ⎟ dt 2 − e r 2vs f ( rs ) dxdt − dx 2 − dy 2 − dx 2 ⎜ εµ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ { } For dx = dy = dz = 0 ⎛ − 2Gεµr M ⎞ 2Gεµ M 2 e 2 2 − e r vs f ( rs ) ⎟ dt 2 ds = − ⎜ ⎜ εµ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ Time distortion factor can be controlled. e.g. require −e − 2Gεµ M r c(2vacuum ) = 2 + εµvs2 f ( rs ) e 2Gεµ M r = εµ ε 0 µ0 1 Maxwell's 1865 unification light, electricity, magnetism ε 0 µ0 In a dissipative resonance 2 2GM εµ cos ϑ ⎛ v ⎞ 2 r ≈1 ⎜ ⎟ f ( rs ) e ⎜⎝ c( vacuum ) ⎟⎠ (1.3) (1.4) 3 Both Alcubierre and Visser et-al make the unfortunate choice G = c = 1 thus missing the greatest discovery in the history of physics – the control of space and time with small amounts of energy – the secret of the Time Lords. 14 2 2GM εµ cos ϑ ⎛ v ⎞ 2 r ≈1 ⎟ f ( rs ) e ⎜ ⎜⎝ c( vacuum ) ⎟⎠ ⎛ v ⎞ 2GM εµ cos ϑ 2log e ⎜ =0 ⎟ + 2log e f ( rs ) + ⎜⎝ c( vacuum ) ⎟⎠ r Zero time distortion between crew in Tic Tac/Star Gate Portal and Commander Fravor, or Brandon Fugel et-al outside warp field. εµ → εµ cos ( arg ε + arg µ ) arg ε + arg µ ≡ ϑ tan ( arg ε / µ ) ≡ Im ε / µ Re ε / µ (1.5) ⎞ ⎛ − 2Gεµr M ⎞ ⎛ − r 2G εµ cos ϑ M 2Gεµ M 2 2 e e 2 2 r ⎜ − e r vs f ( rs ) ⎟ → ⎜ −e vs f ( rs ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ εµ ⎟ ⎜ εµ cos ϑ ⎟⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎜⎝ 2G cos ϑ M ( ) The area A M of the hovering portal at 1000 feet at Skinwalker in this model is 4 A( M ) = 4π e2G 2 εµ cos 2 ( 2ϑ ) M 2 (1.6) Neglecting inhomogeneous gradients and directional anisotropies in the electromagnetic susceptibility response fields to external pumping, the tidal/compression Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor at the wormhole star gate portal “orb” mouth is 15 Rtrtr ( M ) = −2Rttθθ ( M ) = −2Rttφφ ( M ) = 0 Rrrθθ = Rrrφφ = − θφ Rθφ =+ e−2 (G εµ cosϑ M ) 2 e−2 (G εµ cosϑ M ) 2 e = 2.72 In a metamaterial resonance (1.7) εµ ≫ 1 when cosϑ ≠ 0 ε 0 µ0 the tidal stretch-squeeze and compression/expansion are neglible for travel to future or past etc. The conformal Weyl (non-zero in vacuum) tensor at the Star Gate portal mouth is θφ Ctrtr ( M ) = −2Cttθθ = −2Cttφφ − 2Crrθθ = −2Crrφφ = Cθφ = 2e−2 3( Gεµ M ) → 0 2 εµ→∞ (1.8) 16 The Ricci (compression/expansion zero in vacuum) and Einstein tensors are Rba ( M ) = − R( M ) = − Gba ( M ) = 2e−2 a (Gεµ M ) 2 diag {0,1,0,0}b 2e−2 (Gεµ M ) 2e−2 2 (1.9) a (Gεµ M ) diag {1,−1,1,1}b 2 All decrease in susceptibility resonance peak. Including dissipation (Kramers-Kronig dispersion relations) εµ → εµ cos ϑ Local frame curvature invariants Rabcd R abcd (M)= Cabcd C abcd ( M ) = 12e−4 (Gεµ M ) 4 16e−4 3( Gεµ M ) Rab R ab ( M ) = R 2 ( M ) = (1.10) 4 4e−4 (Gεµ M ) 4 17 The Phantom Ghost Field More realistically, the inhomogeneities and anisotropies in the electromagnetic susceptibility response fields are essentially Matt Visser’s fields needed for stability of the traversable wormhole Star Gate Portal Time Travel Machine (aka Tic Tac) ⎛ ε ( r ) µ ( r ) ⎞ − 2(Gεµ M ) r Φ(r ) ≡ ⎜ ≡ Phantom/Ghost Field Potential ⎟e ⎝ ε 0 µ0 ⎠ ⎛ ε (r ) µ (r )⎞ Z (r ) ≡ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ε 0 µ0 ⎠ pure complex function of real variables no physical dimensions 2( Gεµ M ) ⎡ − 2(Gεµ M ) a ⎤ − a r ∇ Z (r ) + Z (r )∇ e r ⎥ ∇ Φ(r ) = ⎢e ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ 2( Gεµ M ) 2( Gεµ M ) 2 ( Gεµ M ) − − ∇ a e r = +e r r2 2( Gεµ M ) ⎡ 2GM ε 0 µ0 Z ( r ) a ⎤ − a ∇ Φ ( r ) = 2e r ⎢∇ a Z ( r ) + x ⎥ r3 ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ 1 Rba ( r ) = − ∇ a Φ ( r ) ∇ bΦ ( r ) 2 ⎫ 1⎧ 1 Gba ( r ) = − ⎨∇ a Φ ( r ) ∇ bΦ ( r ) − g ba g cd ∇ c Φ ( r ) ∇ d Φ ( r ) ⎬ 2⎩ 2 ⎭ a ( ) (1.11) The dissipative effect required by causality Kramers-Kronig dispersion relations4 is even more important than the real part of the meta-material susceptibility going negative. It took me awhile to realize this. The locally frame invariant spin zero/zero rank SR/GR tensor “scalar field” coupling of matter to gravity ( Z ( r ) ≡ ε ( r ) µ ( r ) ≡ µαβγδ Medina-Stephany ) ( r ) µ( αβγδ Medina-Stephany ) (1.12) Z ( r ) = X ( r ) + iY ( r ) Is a complex spin zero tensor field with real elastic scattering and imaginary inelastic scatter part. Therefore, I predict a compensating U (1) spin 1 vector local gauge field V a r similar to Frank Wilczek’s anyon gauge fields in 2D quantum wells and edge states in candidate topological computing materials with hologram duality with the bulk states. () 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers–Kronig_relations 18 Φ ( r ) ≡ 2Ζ ( r ) e − 2( GM εµ ) ≡ Phantom/Ghost Field Potential r iφ r Φ(r ) = Φ(r ) e ( ) ⎡ Im Φ ( r ) ⎤ ⎥ φ ( r ) = arctan ⎢ ⎢⎣ Re Φ ( r ) ⎥⎦ ε ( r ) µ ( r ) ε ( r ) µ ( r ) iϑ = e Ζ (r ) = ε 0 µ0 ε 0 µ0 { { − 2( Gεµ M ) e r − =e ( 2 GM εµ eϑ } } ) r iϑ e = cos ϑ + isin ϑ (1.13) ∇ Φ(r ) = e a − 2( GM εµ ) r ( ⎡ a 2G ( ε 0 µ0 ) Z ( r ) M a ⎤ x ⎥ ⎢∇ Z ( r ) + r3 ⎢⎣ ⎦⎥ iϑ r 2 GM εµ e ( ) )⎡ ⎤ a ⎢∇ Z ( r ) e ⎥ + x r3 ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ The rule is to compute all intermediate steps using the complex functions ∇ Φ(r ) → e a − r a ( iϑ ( r ) ) iϑ r 2GM ( ε 0 µ0 ) Z ( r ) e ( ) with their accumulating total phases Θ ( r ) . Then at the very end take the real part with the cosΘ ( r ) . We also need the internal U(1) symmetry connection spin 1 field for local gauge invariance of the global action ∇ a → D a = ∇ a − V a where (1.14) iϕ r D a Φ ( r ) = e ( ) D a Φ' ( r ) iϕ r Φ ( r ) → Φ' ( r ) = e ( )Φ ( r ) V ( r ) → V ' ( r ) = V ( r ) + i∇ aϕ ( r ) iϕ r iϕ r iϕ r iϕ r D a Φ' ( r ) = e ( )∇ a Φ ( r ) + i∇ aϕ ( r ) Φ ( r ) e ( ) − V a ( r ) e ( )Φ ( r ) − i∇ aϕ ( r ) e ( )Φ ( r ) The Frohlich resonant electromagnetic pumping of the meta-atom neural network suggests that we treat the collective emergent spin zero coupling field as a Landau-Ginzburg order parameter. This would be a thermodynamic non-equilibrium dissipative structure analog of a superconductor at ambient room temperature especially if we add the net charge on the capacitor in a previous model for a meta-atom as a nano-LCR oscillator as in the Reissner-Nordstrom metric. 19 ± 2GM ( εµ ) ⎛ Q2 ⎞ ⎜ 1+ ⎟ r ⎝ 4 πε Mr ⎠ ± r 2GM ( εµ ) e r →e for unbalanced charge Q more realistic is Tic Tac fuselage network of electric dipoles with zero net charge The electric dipole potential energy of the meta-atom is 1 Q 2 ℓcosθ 4πε r2 The effective mass is U ( E dipole) = µ Q 2 ℓcosθ 4π r2 The gravity radius of this mass of electromagnetic origin is Q 2 ℓcosθ rQ = Gεµ r2 The Reissner-Nordstrom electric dipole correction to the metric field is 2 rQ2 r2 e ± (Gεµ Q ℓcosθ ) = 2 2 2 r4 2GM ( εµ ) r →e ± r (Gεµ Q ℓcosθ ) 2 2GM ( εµ ) e ± 2 (1.15) 2 r4 If we imagine that Visser’s phantom field is the Frohlich non-equilibrium analog to the thermodynamic equilibrium Landau-Ginzburg local order parameter for a superfluid or superconductor5 with Oliver Penrose-Lars Onsager ODLRO macro-quantum coherence, we then have the semi-phenomenological field equation Non-equilibrium Prigogine dissipative structure Frohlich Free Energy Density ! ! 2 ! !2 2 β 4 F ⎡⎣ Φ,V ⎤⎦ = F(equilibrium ) + α Φ + Φ + γ i∇ − V Φ + δ ∇ × ΦV 2 ( ) (1.16) The compensating vector field here is what I suggested6 in my 1969 Ph.D. dissertation with F.W. Cummings and (informally) Herbert Frohlich. It is a transverse flow/elastic whose curl is vorticity in the fluid case and a kind of twisting torsion in the elastic solid meta-material. From the Lagrangian formulation Legendre transformation of the Free Energy Density, the Euler-Lagrange field equations are 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginzburg–Landau_theory In addition, we expect global heat resistant topological terms e.g. anyons, edge states. 6 Rather unsuccessfully in 1969 when I was precognitively remote viewing now in 2020 with a bad signal to noise ratio in a Novikov loop in time. ;-) 20 ! ! ! ! ! ∇ × ΦV = Φ∇ × V + ∇Φ × V ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! 2 αΦ + β Φ Φ + γ i∇ − V Φ + 2δ Φi∇ × V + i∇Φ × V ⋅ ∇ × V = 0 ! ! ! ! ! ! −∇ × ∇ × V = J + δ∇Φ × V ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ∇ × ∇ × V = ∇ ∇ ⋅ V − ∇ 2V ! ! ! J = γ Re Φ * i∇ − V Φ ( ( { ( ) ( )( ) (1.17) ) ) } In the static homogeneous limit ! V = 0, ∇Φ = 0 2 αΦ + β Φ Φ = 0 Φ = 0 is the thermodynamic equilibrium state below the critical Frohlich pump "laser" threshold for onset of macro-quantum phase coherence. Above non-equilibrium "lasing" threshold 2 α Φ =− β (1.18) Landau et-al had a different physical situation, thermodynamic equilibrium for a superconductor and even a superfluid (He4). Landau posited empirically α (T ) = α 0 (T − Tc ) α0 >0 β Therefore T > Tc ⇒ Φ = 0 incoherent locally random T < Tc ⇒ Φ ≠ 0 coherent locally non-random (1.19) 21 Mathematical Model of the Frohlich Pumped Coherent Non-Equilibrium Phase Transition. In the Frohlich case I replace absolute equilibrium temperature T by an non-equilibrium effective temperature T ' " T! ' ω , k ( Tc )=2T 1 " " " " ⎞ Tc ⎛ ω , k × H ω , k E ⎜ 1± " ⎟ " " " ⎜ ⎟ ⎡E ω,k × H ω,k ⎤ ⎣ ⎦( threshold ) ⎠ ⎝ ( ( ) ) ( ( ) ) " E ≡ driving pump electric field ( volts meter ) " H ≡ driving pump magnetic excitation ( charge meter × seconds ) (1.20) ω ≡ Frohlich/Floquet driving pump frequency " k ≡ Frohlich/Floquet driving pump wave vector " " charge × volts energy ⎡⎣ E × H ⎤⎦ = = ≡ Poynting vector energy flux 2 meter × sec meter 2 × sec The + sign in denominator of (1.20) is for continuous energy eigenvalues of the relevant quasiparticles and collective modes forming the electromagnetic susceptibility response tensor field of the medium (e.g., meta-material). The – sign is for discrete energy eigenvalues like for qubit electric dipoles and magnetic dipoles. In the continuous energy eigenvalue spectrum case of + sign, let Tc be the Landau-Ginzburg critical temperature in thermodynamic equilibrium for a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) to form. When T! ' < Tc . The discrete energy eigenvalue spectrum case of – sign is like a laser with negative spin/Jaynes-Cummings effective quantum temperature that happens at the critical point when T! ' → ∞ when the denominator in (1.20) hits zero. The equilibrium L-G phenomenological constitutive equations (1.19) hold in the non-equilibrium case with T replaced by T! ' .7 The LG Onsager-Penrose “ODLRO” macro-quantum phase coherence length is ξ= 8γ α The “Meissner effect” penetration length is 7 Except of course in numerator on the RHS of first line in (1.20). (1.21) 22 λ≅ 1 1 β = = 2 γ α Φ γ γ Φ (1.22) Φ →0⇒λ→∞ The LG parameter is κ≡ λ ξ 0 <κ < κ> 1 Type I First Order Phase Transition 2 (1.23) 1 Type II Second Order Phase Transition 2 Abrikosov lattice of quantized vorticity filaments. “The interior of a bulk superconductor cannot be penetrated by a weak magnetic field, a phenomenon known as the Meissner effect. When the applied magnetic field becomes too large, superconductivity breaks down. Superconductors can be divided into two types according to how this breakdown occurs. In type-I superconductors, superconductivity is abruptly destroyed via a first order phase transition when the strength of the applied field rises above a critical value Hc. This type of superconductivity is normally exhibited by pure metals, e.g. aluminium, lead, and mercury. The only alloy known up to now which exhibits type I superconductivity is TaSi2.[1] The covalent superconductor SiC:B, silicon carbideheavily doped with boron, is also type-I.[2] Depending on the demagnetization factor, one may obtain an intermediate state. This state, first described by Lev Landau, is a phase separation into macroscopic non-superconducting and superconducting domains forming a Husimi Q representation.[3] This behavior is different from type-II superconductors which exhibit two critical magnetic fields. The first, lower critical field occurs when magnetic flux vortices penetrate the material but the material remains superconducting outside of these microscopic vortices. When the vortex density becomes too large, the entire material becomes non-superconducting; this corresponds to the second, higher critical field. The ratio of the London penetration depth λ to the superconducting coherence length ξ determines whether a superconductor is type-I or type-II. Type-I superconductors are those with 0 < λ/ξ < 1/√2, and type-II superconductors are those with λ/ξ > 1/√2.[4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type-I_superconductor 23 Vortices in a 200-nm-thick YBCO film imaged by scanning SQUID microscopy[1] “In superconductivity, an Abrikosov vortex (also called a fluxon) is a vortex of supercurrent in a type-II superconductor theoretically predicted by Alexei Abrikosov in 1957.[2] Abrikosov vortices occur generically in the Ginzburg–Landau theory of superconductivity, and can be explicitly demonstrated as solutions to that theory in a general mathematical setting, viz. as vortices in complex line bundleson Riemannian manifolds.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrikosov_vortex The LG model does not have my δ “turbulence” term that I was looking for unsuccessfully in my 1969 Ph.D. dissertation with Fred W. Cummings and (informally) Herbert Frohlich. I was clearly precognitively remote viewing my work now in 2020 back in San Diego in 1968-9. To be continued.