WMAP ratio calculated as 75.3 :20.2 : 4.5

GraviPhotons andthe Cosmological Constant


In the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel, Gravity and the CosmologicalConstant come from the MacDowell-Mansouri Mechanism and the15-dimensional Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2) ConformalGroup, which is made up of:

According to gr-qc/9809061by R. Aldrovandi and J. G. Peireira:

"... By the process of Inonu-Wigner group contraction with R -> oo ...[where R ]... the de Sitter pseudo-radius ... , both de Sitter groups ... with metric ... (-1,+1,+1,+1,-1) ...[or]... (-1,+1,+1,+1,+1) ... are reduced to the Poincare group P, and both de Sitter spacetimes are reduced to the Minkowski space M. As the de Sitter scalar curvature goes to zero in this limit, we can say that M is a spacetime gravitationally related to a vanishing cosmological constant.

On the other hand, in a similar fashion but taking the limit R -> 0, both de Sitter groups are contracted to the group Q, formed by a semi-direct product between Lorentz and special conformal transformation groups, and both de Sitter spaces are reduced to the cone-space N, which is a space with vanishing Riemann and Ricci curvature tensors. As the scalar curvature of the de Sitter space goes to infinity in this limit, we can say that N is a spacetime gravitationally related to an infinite cosmological constant.

If the fundamental spacetime symmetry of the laws of Physics is that given by the de Sitter instead of the Poincare group, the P-symmetry of the weak cosmological-constant limit and the Q-symmetry of the strong cosmological-constant limit can be considered as limiting cases of the fundamental symmetry. ...

... N, whose geometry is gravitationally related to an infinite cosmological constant, is a 4-dimensional cone-space in which ds = 0, and whose group of motion is Q. Analogously to the Minkowski case, N is also a homogeneous space, but now under the kinematical group Q, that is, N = Q/L. In other words, the point-set of N is the point-set of the special conformal transformations. Furthermore, the manifold of Q is a principal bundle P(Q/L,L), with Q/L = N as base space and L as the typical fiber. The kinematical group Q, like the Poincare group, has the Lorentz group L as the subgroup accounting for both the isotropy and the equivalence of inertial frames in this space. However, the special conformal transformations introduce a new kind of homogeneity. Instead of ordinary translations, all the points of N are equivalent through special conformal transformations. ...

... Minkowski and the cone-space can be considered as dual to each other, in the sense that their geometries are determined respectively by a vanishing and an infinite cosmological constants. The same can be said of their kinematical group of motions: P is associated to a vanishing cosmological constant and Q to an infinite cosmological constant.

The dual transformation connecting these two geometries is the spacetime inversion x^u -> x^u / sigma^2 . Under such a transformation, the Poincare group P is transformed into the group Q, and the Minkowski space M becomes the cone-space N. The points at infinity of M are concentrated in the vertex of the cone-space N, and those on the light-cone of M becomes the infinity of N. It is interesting to notice that, despite presenting an infinite scalar curvature, the concepts of space isotropy and equivalence between inertial frames in the cone-space N are those of special relativity. The difference lies in the concept of uniformity as it is the special conformal transformations, and not ordinary translations, which act transitively on N. ...

... in the light of the recent supernovae results ... favoring possibly quite large values for the cosmological constant, the above results may acquire a further relevance to Cosmology ...".

Since the Cosmological Constant comes from the 10 Rotation, Boost,and Special Conformal generators of the ConformalGroup Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2), the fractional part of our Universe ofthe Cosmological Constant should be about 10 / 15 = 67%.

Since Black Holes, including Dark Matter PrimordialBlack Holes, are curvature singularities in our 4-dimensionalphysical spacetime, and since Einstein-Hilbert curvature comes fromthe 4 Translations of the 15-dimensional ConformalGroup Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2) through the MacDowell-Mansouri Mechanism(in which the generatorscorresponding to the 3 Rotations and 3 Boosts do not propagate),the fractional part of our Universe of Dark Matter PrimordialBlack Holes should be about 4 / 15 = 27%.

Since Ordinary Matter gets mass from the Higgs mechanism which isrelated to the 1 Scale Dilatation of the 15-dimensional ConformalGroup Spin(2,4) = SU(2,2), the fractional part of our universe ofOrdinary Matter should be about 1 / 15 = 6%.

Therefore, our Flat Expanding Universe should, according to thecosmology of the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8VoDou Physics model, have, roughly:

67% Cosmological Constant-

- related to GraviPhotons of SpecialConformal transformations and Akira/TetsuoEnergy.

- According to an article by Michael S. Turner inPhysics Today (April 2003, pp. 10-11): "... vacuum energy ... ischaracterized by an "equation of state" ...[ w = pressure /density = -1 for vacuum energy with negative pressure ]...[that] determines how the energy density of dark energy ... vacuumenergy ... changes as the universe expands: ...[ vacuum energydensity is proportional to 1 / R^3(1+w) = 1 = constant ]...for comparison, for nonrelativistic matter w = 0 and for radiation, w= 1/3 ...[In]... Einstein's theory ... the strength ofgravity depends on pressure, p, [and density, rho,] withrho + 3p acting as the source of gravity ...[so thatvacuum energy with p = - rho < - rho / 3 ]... has gravitythat repels rather than attracts. ...[and is]... exotic.... The ratio of pressure to energy density is characterized by thesquare of the internal velocity divided by c^2. thus ... vacuumenergy ... is intrinsically relativistic and is more like energy thanmatter. ...[If vacuum energy could be bottled up, wecould]... create an object with antigravity....".

27% Dark Matter -

- such as black holes, rangingin size from the stable Planckmass to Jupiter mass;possibly some gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds; and/oreffective contributions from MOND.

6% Ordinary Matter -

- According to a New Scientist (22 March 2003pp. 41-42) article by Govert Schilling: "... Only around(1%) ... is ... in objects we can see ... stars, galaxies,and gas clouds ... Up to another ... (1%) .. may be...[in]... objects too faint for our telescopes too pickup, such as burned-out stars, small planets, or stars that failedto ignite ... The ...[ other 4% ] ...[maybe]... strung outlike cobwebsthroughout the cosmos ...".


Some relevant observational results in cosmologyare discussed by Subir Sakar in hep-ph/0201140,where he says:

"... The most exciting observational developments have undoubtedly been in measurements of the deceleration parameter q = ( dH^(-1) / dt ) - 1, which equals 0.5 for the E-deS model where H ...[is proportional to]... t^(2/3), and -1 for a DeSitter (deS) model with OMEGA_m = 0, OMEGA_/\ = 1 which has H constant. ... for z > 1 the cosmological constant becomes unimportant relative to the increasing matter density ( ...[proportional to]... (1+z)^3) so the expansion should be seen to be slowing down at such epochs; the transition from acceleration to deceleration occurs at z = ( 2 OMEGA_/\ / OMEGA_m )^(1/3) -1. ...

...[reference 44 is]... A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 560 (2001) 49; see also M.S. Turner and A.G. Riess, [astro-ph/0106051]. ...".

According to M.S. Turner and A.G. Riess, in astro-ph/0106051:

"... the SN data favor recent acceleration (z < 0.5) and past deceleration (z > 0.5) ... Specializing to a flat Universe, as indicated by recent CMB anisotropy measurements which determine OMEGA_0 = 1 ± 0.04 ... and constant w_X, these expressions become

H(z)^2 = H_0^2 [ OMEGA_M (1+z)^3 + OMEGA_X (1+z)^3(1+w_X) ]

q(z) = (1/2) [ ( 1 + (OMEGA_X / OMEGA_M) (1+3w_X) (1+z)^3w_X ) /

/ ( 1 + (OMEGA_X / OMEGA_M) (1+z)^3w_X ) ) ]

From this it follows that the redshift of transition from deceleration to acceleration ( = z_(q=0) ) is

1 + z_(q=0) = [ (1+3w_X)( OMEGA_M - 1) / OMEGA_M ]^(-1/(3w_X) ] =

= [ 2 OMEGA_/\ / OMEGA_M ]^(1/3)

where the second equation is for vacuum energy (i.e., w_X = -1). ...".

Note that for the /\ Cosmological Constant - Cold Dark Matter -Ordinary Matter model that is favored by WMAPobservations and the above calculations, OMEGA_/\ / OMEGA_M = 2(approximately), so that 1 + z_(q=0) = [ 2 OMEGA_/\ / OMEGA_M]^(1/3) = 4^(1/3) = 1.587 so that the redshift at the inflectionpoint between decelerated and accelerated expansion is about z_(q=0)= 0.587.


As Dennnis Marks pointed out to me:

the ratio of their overall average densities must vary with time,or scale factor R of our Universe, as it expands so that the abovecalculated ratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06 is valid only for a particulartime, or scale factor, of our Universe, and that is a time near ourpresent time at which WMAPmeasures that ratio to be 0.73 : 0.23 : 0.04 (in myopinion very close to the above caculated ratio). His remarksare substantially equivalent to a question that Michael S. Turner, inastro-ph/0202005,calls "... The Nancy Kerrigan Problem ... in the past dark energy wasunimportant and in the future it will be dominant! We just happen tolive at the time when dark matter and dark energy have comparabledensities. In the words of Olympic skater Nancy Kerrigan, "Why me?Why now?". In other words:

WHEN is the abovecalculated ratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06 ?

Since WMAP observes OrdinaryMatter at 4% NOW, the time WHEN Ordinary Matter was 6% would be atredshift z such that 1 / (1+z)^3 = 0.04 / 0.06 = 2/3 , or (1+z)^3 =1.5 , or 1+z = 1.145 , or z = 0.145. To translate redshift into time,in billions of years before present, or Gy BP, use this chart

from awww.supernova.lbl.gov file SNAPoverview.pdf. to see that thetime WHEN Ordinary Matter was 6% would have been a bit over 2 billionyears ago, or 2 Gy BP.

What about Dark Energy /\ and ColdDark Matter during the past 2 Gy ?

( Note that the equation of state for MONDmight be similar to that for gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds, so, in thesecalculations, MOND dark mattermight be taken to include gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds. )

If Cold Dark Matter = PrimordialBlack Holes (PBH):

The above calculation of 2 Gy BP for the ratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06is based only on the decline in the Ordinary Matter component withexpansion of Space, so it is only a rough estimate, in that itignores such things as decay of Ordinary Matter protons by GUT(10^31 year lifetime) or by Black Holeprocesses (10^64 year lifetime), which would be less importantduring the relevant time periods near NOW than in theBlack Hole and Dark Eras of the distant future.

Jack Sarfatti said (in the context of his physics/cosmology model): "... "... I am also saying that lepto-quarks [leptons and quarks] have dark matter cores on small scale. It's /\zpf < 0 that keeps electron stable. Think, naively for the nonce, of electron as a shell of electric charge with an inner /\zpf < 0 core. It looks like a "point" from huge effective curvature of /\zpf. ...".

That idea is not only interestingly similar to the idea of /\zpf < 0 haloes helping to hold galaxies together, but also seems very much like the Compton Radius Vortex model of leptons and quarks as Kerr-Newman black holes with no cosmic censorship of their naked singularities.

Also, perhaps the concept of Primordial Black Holes as Cold Dark Matter might be a particle manifestation of the part of /\zpf < 0 (or, perhaps equivalently, MOND Cold Dark Matter) that is not found in the center of /\ = 0 Ordinary Matter leptons and quarks. If that viewpoint is correct, in view of the WMAP ratio of 73% - 23% - 4% of /\ > 0 , /\ < 0, /\ = 0, there should be a lot more mass in /\ < 0 Primordial Black Holes than in /\ = 0 leptons and quarks.

Further, Cold Dark Matter cores of leptons and quarks seems consistent with an association of Ordinary Matter with production of MOND Cold Dark Matter in early times of our Universe, and it may be that PBH Cold Dark Matter and MOND Cold Dark Matter may be very closely related.

As to how the Dark Energy /\ and Cold Dark Matter terms haveevolved during the past 2 Gy, a rough estimate analysis would be,if Cold Dark matter = PBH:

The Ordinary Matter excess 0.06 - 0.04 = 0.02 plus the first-orderCDM excess 0.27 - 0.18 = 0.09 should be summed to get a totalfirst-order excess of 0.11, which in turn should be distributed tothe /\ and CDM factors in their natural ratio 67 : 27, producing, forNOW after 2 Gy of expansion:

for a total calculated ratio for NOW of 0.75 : 0.21 :0.04

so that the present ratio of 0.73 : 0.23 : 0.04 observed byWMAP seems to meto be consistent with the cosmologyof the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel if Cold Dark Matter = PBH.

If Cold Dark Matter = MOND:

( Note that the equation of state for MONDmight be similar to that for gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds, so, in thesecalculations, MOND dark mattermight be taken to include gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds. )

The above calculation of 2 Gy BP for the ratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06is based only on the decline in the Ordinary Matter component withexpansion of Space, so it is only a rough estimate, in that itignores such things as decay of Ordinary Matter protons by GUT(10^31 year lifetime) or by Black Holeprocesses (10^64 year lifetime), which would be less importantduring the relevant time periods near NOW than in theBlack Hole and Dark Eras of the distant future.

At first glance it might appear that if MOND obeys an equation of state with w = -1 similar to /\, as opposed to w = 0 similar to Ordinary matter, then MOND could not be the CDM of our Universe because, as Max Tegmark says: "... rho is proportional to (1+z)^3 for baryons and cold dark matter ...", while rho is constant if w = -1. However,

Jack Sarfatti has suggested (in the context of his physics/cosmology model) that "... the galactic halos are huge spheres of exotic vacuum ...[ /\ < 0 Cold Dark Matter]... keeping the galaxies stable ..." (an idea interestingly similar to the idea of Dark Matter cores of leptons and quarks).

If Cold Dark Matter is concentrated around galaxies, then maybe Cosmological Constant /\ > 0 Dark Energy energy is concentrated in the (now much larger) volume of space that is mostly empty vacuum and maybe the reason for them to be located in different parts of our universe is that:

As to how that would affect the evolution of MOND Cold Dark Matter:

  • in the distant past, when Ordinary Matter was far more abundant than Cosmological Constant /\ > 0 Dark Energy, the MOND Cold Dark Matter may have been mostly generated by, and therefore proportional by 27 / 6 to, the gravitational field of Ordinary Matter. Therefore, at early times, MOND Cold Dark Matter would have its effective equation of state derived from that of ordinary matter, evolving consistently with the early universe asymptote (1+z)^3 shown on the Tegmark figure; while
  • in the near present and the future, Cosmological Constant /\ > 0 Dark Energy dominates Ordinary Matter, and the rate of creation of MOND Cold Dark Matter will be proportional by 27 / 67 to Cosmological Constant /\ > 0 Dark Energy, although the MOND Cold Dark Matter will tend to fall into, and be concentrated near, Ordinary Matter such as is found in the galaxies of our universe.

In his physics/cosmology model, Jack Sarfatti describes Dark Matter as a gravitationally attractive exotic form of Dark Energy equivalent to a Cosmological Constant taking values /\ < 0, while he describes Ordinary Matter as corresponding to non-exotic /\ = 0 with equilibrium vaccuum fluctuations producing Born Rule quantum phenomena, and Dark Energy as corresponding to an anti-gravitating conventional Cosmological Constant with /\ > 0.

It may be that Jack Sarfatti's /\ < 0 Dark Matter may be substantially equivalent to my MOND Cold Dark Matter, and

it may also be that MOND Cold Dark Matter and PBH Cold Dark Matter may be very closely related.

As to how the Dark Energy /\ and Cold Dark Matter terms haveevolved during the past 2 Gy, a rough estimate analysis would be,if Cold Dark Matter = MOND:

The Ordinary Matter excess 0.06 - 0.04 = 0.02 should bedistributed to the /\ and CDM factors in their natural ratio 67 : 27,producing, for NOW after 2 Gy of expansion:

for a total calculated ratio for NOW of 0.68 : 0.28 :0.04

so that the present ratio of 0.73 : 0.23 : 0.04 observed byWMAP seems to meto be roughly consistent with the cosmologyof the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel if Cold Dark Matter = MOND, although the correspondenceis not quite as close as for the case that ColdDark Matter = PBH.

If Cold Dark Matter = PBH+ MOND:

( Note that the equation of state for MONDmight be similar to that for gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds, so, in thesecalculations, MOND dark mattermight be taken to include gravitationalinteractions from other Worlds of the Many-Worlds. )

The above calculation of 2 Gy BP for the ratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06is based only on the decline in the Ordinary Matter component withexpansion of Space, so it is only a rough estimate, in that itignores such things as decay of Ordinary Matter protons by GUT(10^31 year lifetime) or by Black Holeprocesses (10^64 year lifetime), which would be less importantduring the relevant time periods near NOW than in theBlack Hole and Dark Eras of the distant future. As to how theDark Energy /\ and Cold Dark Matter terms have evolved during thepast 2 Gy, a rough estimate analysis would be, if Cold Dark Matter= (1/2) PBH + (1/2) MOND:

The Ordinary Matter excess 0.06 - 0.04 = 0.02 plus the first-orderCDM excess 0.13 = 0.09 = 0.04 should be summed to get a totalfirst-order excess of 0.06, which in turn should be distributed tothe /\ and CDM factors in their natural ratio 67 : 27, producing, forNOW after 2 Gy of expansion:

for a total calculated ratio for NOW of 0.71 : 0.25 :0.04

so that the present ratio of 0.73 : 0.23 : 0.04 observed byWMAP seems to meto be quite consistent with the cosmologyof the D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel if Cold Dark Matter = PBH + MOND.

What are the Special Times in the History of our Universe?

In my opinion, there are four Special Times in the historyof our Universe:

After the Last Intersection at the end of the Early Part of theAccelerating Expansion of our Universe, expansion of our Universecontinues to accelerate with the Late Part of its AcceleratingExpansion until New Universes arecreated by Quantum FluctuationBlack Holes. New Universe creation canhappen many times at many Times (almost all of which are late).

Those four Special Times define four Special Epochs:

NOW happens to be about 2 billion years into the LateAccelerating Expansion Epoch.

The Copernican insight that Earth, the home ofHumanity and its precursor Life, is Not Special in our SolarSystem (and also its place among the stars of our Milky Way Galaxy)led us to understand the true structure of our Solar System and ourMilky Way Galaxy.

Our present insight that the Time of Life on Earth, from theProterozoic begining of Eukaryotic Life to Present-Day Humanity,covers the 2 billion years beginning with a SpecialTime in the Time-Historyof our Universe leads us to a better understanding of theUnification of Gravity / ParticlePhysics / Mathematics / Information/ Consciousness, and perhaps to a betterunderstanding our our ultimate Fate.


the above calculated ratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06 of about 2billion years ago corresponds to the WMAPmeasured ratio 0.73 : 0.23 : 0.04 for the time NOW


the present ratio of 0.73 : 0.23 : 0.04 observed byWMAP seems to meto be consistent with thecosmology ofthe D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel.


It is interesting to compare the Special Time of the calculatedratio 0.67 : 0.27 : 0.06 with the D4-E5-E6-E7-E8VoDou Physics model calculationsof particle masses and force strength constants, because

For example, calculation of the QCD color force strength gives thenumber 0.6286, but that is only valid at the energy level of /\qcd =245 MeV. To get the QCD force strength that you see around the W massof about 91 GeV, you have to run the QCD forcestrength by renormalization equations, which, on a simple level,give a QCD force strength of about 0.106 at 91 GeV, which in myopinion may be a reasonablyphysically realistic result.


Einstein-Hilbert Gravitationof General Relativity, without a Cosmological Constant /\, can bedescribed as a theory of a massless spin-2 field in flat Minkowskispacetime. What about

Gravitons for a Cosmological Constant /\ =/= 0?

Zeldovich and Novikovsay, in Stars and Relativity (Dover 1996, a reprint of their 1971volume 1 of Relativistic Astrophysics), at page 33:

"... Often it is said that /\ =/= 0 means that gravitons have a nonzero rest mass.

But /\ =/= 0 leads also to the result that, even in the absence of matter, spacetime cannot be flat everywhere. In curved spacetime the very definition of the mass of a graviton is no longer clear. ...".


Just as Feynman and Deserbuild General Relativity (without cosmological constant) by startingwith massless spin-2 gravitons in flat Minkowski spacetime anditerating,

you should be able to construct General Relativity with/\ > 0 and curved background spacetime by starting with massivespin-2 gravitons in flat Minkowski spacetime.


/\ > 0 outside GravitationallyBound Domains in Unispace


Since /\ > 0 is necessary for the observed acceleratingexpansion of our Universe, and since around 67% of our Universe ismade up /\ > 0 stuff, such as massive spin-2 gravitons related toSpecial Conformal transformations, and since our universe expansionis like pennies glued on a balloon, where the pennies (gravitationally bound regions of clusters of galaxiesand their galaxies, stars, and planets including Earth ) doNOT expand and the accelerated expansion is only of the balloonoutside the pennies,


massive spin-2 gravitons and other /\ > 0 Conformalphenomena may be confined to theparts of our Universe outside Gravitationally Bound Domains inUnispace in which Segal's Conformal Gravityprevails.




Zeldovich and Novikov say, in their1983 volume 2 of Relativistic Astrophysics (Chicago 1983), at pages668-669:

"... [A] side of the theory of gravitation consists of ascribing a definite "elasticity" to spacetime itself. The qualitative idea goes back to Clifford. If space can in principle be curved, then there must be a factor - the elasticity - by virtue of which space, with high precision, actually remains flat on the scales of the Earth, the solar system, and the Galaxy. Indeed, the elasticity idea corresponds to the term
const. INTEGRAL R dV

in the GTR Lagrangian introduced by Einstein. Upon variation, this particular term gives the left-hand side of Einstein's equations, while the right-hand side of the equations represents the energy and momentum densities of real matter. ... According to ... an idea developed by Sakharov ...[in 1967]... the elasticity of space depends on vacuum polarization. From this point of view, the theory of gravity cannot even in principle exist without an account of all other fields (the electron, positron-electron, ... etc.), although the total practical contribution of these fields is expressed through the magnitude of the gravitational constant G.

The above account gives the situation as it was in 1971( see ...[ Zeldovich and Novikov, in Stars and Relativity (Dover 1996, a reprint of their 1971 volume 1 of Relativistic Astrophysics), at page 33, where they say "... In the vacuum, virtual particles with mass m and average separation L = hbar / mc are created. Their total proper energy is zero, so the gravitational interaction of the neighboring particles detemines the energy density of the vacuum:

E_/\ = ( G m^2 / L ) ( 1 / L^3 ) = G m^6 c^4 / hbar^4 ..."]) ...
... New developments that radically change the picture are allowed when one takes into account the conformal invariance of the fields describing the ... [photon], e+/-, ... and presumably the hadrons too. Indeed, it follows from the conformal invariance that the contribution of the enumerated fields and particles to the elasticity of the vacuum is negligibly small, of the order of

G m^2 / ( hbar c ) or ( G m^2 / ( hbar c ) ) ln( p_0 / m c ), where p_0 is a limiting momentum. Particles with zero rest mass contribute nothing at all; such a conclusion follows immediately from the realization that there is no vacuum polarization if m = 0 in a conformally flat space ...

... because the equation describing gravitational waves and their quanta, gravitons, is not conformally invariant ... a theory is possible in which only the spacetime is considered and in which interesting results are obtained concerning the gravitons and the curvature of the background spacetime due to the gravitational field of the gravitons. The gravitons, in addition, propagate in this background spacetime, so what is obtained is actually a closed picture for a graviton-background system ...".

In my opinion, contrary to my understanding of what Zeldovich andNovikov said in 1983, perhaps electron-positron phenomena could beuseful when coupled with GraviPhotons of my D4-D5-E6-E7-E8VoDou Physics model, which has 5conformal graviphotons:


/\ and ZeroPoint Energy

If /\ = 0, with massless spin-2gravitons and flat Minkowski background spacetime prevails inGravitationally BoundDomains such as clusters of galaxies and their galaxies, stars,and planets including Earth, and corresponds to a Born Ruleequilibrium vaccuum,


if /\ < 0, with massive spin-2gravitons related to MOND and BlackHoles are associated with GravitationallyBound Domains such as clusters of galaxies and their galaxies,stars, and planets including Earth, but correspond to a non-Born Rulenon-equilibrium vaccuum,


if /\ > 0, with massive spin-2gravitons related to Special Conformal transformations and curvedcone-space background spacetime, prevails in the rest of our Universeoutside Gravitationally BoundDomains, and corresponds to a non-Born Rule non-equilibriumvacuum,


is there a way for us here on Earth to use their differentvacuum energies ?


Jack Sarfatti's physics/cosmologymodel has such a way that in my opinion is compatible with theconformal structure of theD4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics model. Here is a rough outline ofhow it might work:

There are 3 different vacua:

Jack Sarfatti says "... They are different regions of the sameunified local /\zpf(x) field - on different scales (Fouriertransform, or in general a Wigner density and even a wavelet versionof the Wigner density). /\zpf is a continuous variable with localstress-energy density tensor tuv(x)zpf = (c^4/8piG)/\zpf(x) ...".

Jack uses a /\ = 0 Ordinary Matter superconductor as aJosephson Junction to regulate the energy difference between /\ >0 Dark Energy and /\ < 0 Dark Matter. He says "... That's thegeneral idea. See Appendix C in ...[theSarfatti Nova paper]... . You use magnetic flux et-al phasemodulation to create exotic vacuum dark energy and dark matterregions in the initial /\zpf = 0 non-exotic vacuum. ...

...[also]... There are clearly ...[possiblyuseful]... energy density differences ...[between /\ = 0Ordinary vacuum and either or both of the /\ > 0 Dark Energy and/\ < 0 Dark Matter vacua]... if the different regions arethere already in Nature as there are on large scale. ...

...[a rough estimate of the magnitude of the energies involvedis]...

tuv(x)zpf = (c^4/8piG)/\zpf(x)guv(x)

I use conventions where /\zpf > 0 gives positive zpf energydensity with dominating equal and opposite negative zpf pressure (w =-1), but gravity effect in GR is ~ G(energy density + 3pressure)...

...[in the equation

/\zpf(x) = - Lp |< g|e+(x)e-(x)|g >|^2 ( 1 + (cosPHI(x) / ( Lp^(3/2) |< g|e+(x)e-(x)|g >| )))

for the Josephson Junction regulator]... The giant wave localfunction is normalized to the actual superfluid number density like asingle particle wave is normalized to probability density thatintegrates to 1. ... |< 0|e+(x)e-(x)|0 >|^2 = 1/Lp^3 ...corresponds to non-exotic /\zpf = 0 vacuum. ...".

As to how to construct such a Josephson Junction regulator,consider the related question:

Can we carry outUnconventional Laboratory Experiments on Earth that let us use all 15generators of Conformal Spin(2,4), including the 4 ConformalGraviphotons?

which can be answered by opening Special Conformal Degrees ofFreedom with electromagnetic currrents in 4 Rodincoils arranged in the geometry of a FullerVector Eqilibrium Cuboctahedron.

Such a Rodin Coil GateWay Junction might result from coupling ofelectron-positron phenomena with GraviPhotonsof my D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physicsmodel, which has 5 conformalgraviphotons:

If a Rodin Coil Josephson Junction were used to access the energyof massive Special Conformal Cone-Space Vacuum Gravitons of /\ > 0Dark Energy, it would be less like using aplutonium Fat Man bomb and more like using a U-235 Little Boy bomb ora deuterium/tritium fusion bomb, in that:

The /\ = 0 Flat Minkowski vacuum here in our Gravitationally BoundDomain, including Earth, is very stable due to the prevailingGravitational Binding Energy, so that spontaneous natural energyflows from the underlying /\ > 0 Special Conformal Cone-SpaceVacuum are very rare or non-existent. That is fortunate for us hereon Earth, because that any such spontaneous flow might cause ourworld to be flooded with huge amounts of energy, perhaps destroyingour Earth.

If you try to use /\ > 0 Special Conformal Cone-Space VacuumZeroPoint Energy by using Rodin Coil GateWay Junctions, you must becareful to first solve the problem of storing the energetic /\ > 0material in such a way that they do not blow up in your face(such as almost happened at Oak Ridge before Feynmanstopped their practice of transporting U-235 in solution that wasdangerously close to critical density, while over in the USSR,without Feynman, such "accidents" did actually occur).


Each Rodin coil of such a Rodin Coil GateWay Junction would havethe geometry of a Hopffibration of a 3-sphere S3 by Clifford circles.


There should be 4 coils, one for each of the 4 physical dimensionsof SpaceTime, and they should be configured as 4 axes that are 3-dimprojections of the 4-dim coordinate axes of the 4-dim 24-cell,i.e., as 4 axes of  Fuller'sVector Equilibrium, the cuboctahedron,


The 4 Rodin Coil Clifford-Hopf Tori are indicated by thecyan,magenta,yellow, andgreen hexagonal "equators" of acuboctahedron

which configuration is a 3-dimensional projection of the4-dimensional 24-cell

Each of the 12 vertices of the cuboctahedron corresponds to 2 ofthe 24 vertices of the 24-cell, which 24 vertices are the vertices ofa green cuboctahedron, ared octahedron, and ablue octahedron.

Here is a different perspective illustration, patterned after Fig.172 of Geometry and the Imagination (Anschauliche Geometrie) by DavidHilbert and S. Cohn-Vossen (Chelsea 1952), with 12green vertices of a centralcuboctahedron, 6 red vertices of aninner octahedron, and 6 blue vertices ofan outer octahedron.

The 4 Rodin Coil Clifford-Hopf Tori of thecyan,magenta,yellow, andgreen hexagonal "equators" of acuboctahedron appear on the 24-cell as four (cyan,magenta,yellow, andgreen ) hexagonal rings. Since the24-cell is self-dual, the 4 hexagonal rings can also be seen as 4rings of 6 octahedral faces. Three such rings of octahedra are of thesame type as the one illustrated here

where the common triangular faces of the 6 octahedra in the ringare shaded.

The fourth ring, corresponding to thegreen ring of 6 octahedra, all of whichare in the central cuboctahedron, is of the type similarlyillustrated here

The three similar rings can be thought of as space-like, while thedistinct fourth ring can be thought of as timelike.

Note that the 6th octahderon of the distinct ring consists of theexterior of the outer octahedron, going all the way to infinity.

Note also that if you were to try to construct a Rodincoil, you would have to be careful that the loops are orientedcorrectly with respect to each other as shown in the 24-cellillustrations, and that the cuboctahedron projection illustrationobscures some of that orientation information.

You should realize that flows through the Rodin coil would bedescribed by the dual 24-cell to the 24-cell used in construction ofthe windings of the Rodin coil, and

that flow within a Rodincoil would be internal for the 3 similar rings, but would be a flowfrom the outside of the Rodin coil through the center of the Rodincoil and exiting into the opposite outside, through the center of thedistinct fourth ring.

Such a Rodin Coil could be a GateWay Junction controlling .


Such a GateWay Junction constructed of/\ = 0 Ordinary Matter might act as a regulatoryJosephson Junction between /\ > 0 Special Conformal Cone-SpaceDark Energy and /\ < 0 Dark Matter.

/\ > 0 Antigravity

As Jack Sarfatti hasnoted, the gravitationallyrepulsive nature of /\ > 0 material means that /\ >0 material could be used as antigravityfor transportation, etc., in GravitationallyBound Domains (including Earth).

As for regions of our Universe outside Gravitationally BoundDomains, where /\ > 0 is the prevalent Vacuum State, theSpecial Conformal nature of /\ > 0 means that SpecialConformal SpaceWarp Drive could be used in regions of ourUniverse outside GravitationallyBound Domains.


What might be the magnitude of a /\energy source here on Earth?

As Richard Feynman says in Lecture 11.2 of his Feynman Lectures onGravitation (Addison-Wesley 1995), at page 154:

"... we may give an interpretation of the theory of gravitation ... as follows: ... Consider a small three-dimensional sphere ... [ in a ] three-space perpendicular to the time axis ... Its actual radius exceeds the radius calculated by Euclidean geometry ... by an amount proportional ... [ by the factor ] G / 3 c^2 ... to the amount of matter inside the sphere ... one fermi per 4 billion metric tons ... we require the same result to hold in any coordinate system regardless of its velocity. ...".

The potential energy difference between the /\ > 0 SpecialConformal Cone-Space Vacuum and the /\ =0 Flat Minkowski Vacuum might be very great, on the order ofFeynman's factor of G / 3 c^2 =

= 6 x 10^(-8) cm^3 / g sec^2 x (1/27) x 10^(-20) sec^2 / cm^2=

= 2 x 10^(-29) cm/g

The energy of an electromagnetic current needed for a RodinCoil Josephson Junction GateWay might be very much smaller, sothat a huge amount of energy might be obtainable here on Earth.


Perhaps QuantumConsciousness Resonance phenomena might be useful in making andcontrolling a Rodin Coil Josephson JunctionGateWay (compare the energy sources of TheMatrix and Akira).



/\ and Chiao QM-GR Transduction ofEM-Gravity

The interplay between the /\ > 0 Special ConformalCone-Space Vacuum and the /\ = 0 Flat Minkowski Vacuum may be similarto the proposal by RaymondChiao in gr-qc/0303100where he says:

"... It should be kept in mind that QM not only describesmicroscopic phenomena, but also macroscopic phenomena, such assuperconductivity. Specifically, I would like to point out thefollowing three conceptual tensions:

... These conceptual tensions originate from the superpositionprinciple of QM, which finds its most dramatic expression in theentangled state of two or more spatially separated particles of asingle physical system, which in turn leads toEinstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) effects. It should be emphasized herethat it is necessary to consider two or more particles for observingEPR phenomena, since only then does the configuration space of theseparticles no longer coincide with that of ordinary spacetime. ...This mathematical nonfactorizability implies a physicalnonseparability of the system, and leads to instantaneous, space-likecorrelations-at-a-distance in the joint measurements of theproperties (e.g., spin) of discrete events ... we have observednonlocal features of the world. ... a fundamental spatialnonseparability of physical systems has been revealed ... theobserved space-like EPR correlations occur on macroscopic,non-Planckian distance scales, where the conceptual tension (1)between QM and GR becomes most acute. ... there are new issues whichcrop up due to the long-range nature of the gravitational force,which are absent in special relativity, but present in generalrelativity. ... It is therefore natural to look to the realm ofmacroscopic phenomena associated with quantum fluids, rather thanphenomena at microscopic, Planck length scales, in our search for ...experimental consequences. ...

... a macroscopically coherent quantum system, e.g., a quantumfluid such as the electron pairs inside a superconductor, usuallypossesses an energy gap which separates the ground state of thesystem from all possible excited states of the system. ... thesequantum fluids are protectively entangled, in the sense that theexistence of some sort of energy gap separates the nondegenerateground state of the system from all excited states, and henceprevents any rapid decoherence due to the environment. Under thesecircumstances, the macroscopically entangled ground state of aquantum fluid, becomes a meaningful global concept, and the notion ofnonlocality, that is, the spatial nonseparability of a system intoits parts, enters in an intrinsic way into the problem of theinteraction of matter with gravitational fields. ...

... there should exist a difference between classical and quantummatter in their respective responses to gravitational tidal fields.At a fundamental level, this difference arises from the quantum phaseshift which is observable in the shift of the interference fringepattern that results from an atom travelling coherently along twonearby, but intersecting, geodesics in the presence of spacetimecurvature ...

... Another difference between a classical and a quantum liquiddrop is the possibility of the presence of quantized vortices in thelatter, along with their associated persistent, macroscopic currentflows. These quantum flows possess quantized vorticities of±h/m, where m is the mass of the superfluid atom. ...

... particles in a macroscopically coherentquantum many-body system, i.e., a quantum fluid, are entangled witheach other in such a way that there arises an unusual "quantumrigidity" of the system, closely associated with what London called"the rigidity of the macroscopic wavefunction" ... One example ofsuch a rigid quantum fluid is the "incompressible quantum fluid" inboth the integer and the fractional quantum Hall effects ... Thisrigidity arises from the fact that there exists an energy gap (forexample, the quantum Hall gap) which separates the ground state fromall the low-lying excitations of the system. This gap, as pointed outabove, also serves to protect the quantum entanglement present in theground state from decoherence due to the environment, provided thatthe temperature of these quantum systems is sufficiently low. Thusthese quantum fluids exhibit a kind of "gap-protected quantumentanglement." Furthermore, the gap leads to an evolution inaccordance with the quantum adiabatic theorem: The system staysadiabatically in a rigidly unaltered ground state, which leads infirst-order perturbation theory to quantum diamagnetic effects.Examples of consequences of this "rigidity of the wavefunction"are

... The Meissner effect in a superconductor is closely analogousto the Higgs mechanism of high-energy physics, in which the physicalvacuum also spontaneously breaks local gauge invariance, and can alsobe viewed as forming a condensate which possesses a single-valuedcomplex order parameter with a well-defined local phase. From thisviewpoint, the appearance of the London penetration depth for asuperconductor is analogous in an inverse manner to the appearance ofa mass for a gauge boson, such as that of the W or Z boson. Thus, thephoton, viewed as a gauge boson, acquires a mass inside thesuperconductor, such that its Compton wavelength becomes the Londonpenetration depth.

Similar considerations apply to the effect of the Chern-Simonsterm in the quantum Hall fluid. ...

 ... Closely related to this spontaneous symmetry breakingprocess is the appearance of Yang's off-diagonal long-range order(ODLRO) of the reduced density matrix in the coordinate-spacerepresentation for most of these macroscopically coherent quantumsystems ... In particular, there seems to be no limit on how farapart Cooper pairs can be inside a single superconductor before theylose their quantum coherence. ODLRO and spontaneous symmetry breakingare both purely quantum concepts with no classical analogs. ...

... Due to its gyroscopic nature, the spin vector of an electronundergoes parallel transport during the passage of a GR wave. Thespin of the electron is constrained to lie inside the space-likesubmanifold of curved spacetime. This is due to the fact that we canalways transform to a co-moving frame, such that the electron is atrest at the origin of this frame. In this frame, the spin of theelectron must be purely a space-like vector with no time-likecomponent. This imposes an important constraint on the motion of theelectron's spin, such that whenever the space-like submanifold ofspacetime is disturbed by the passage of a gravitational wave, thespin must remain at all times perpendicular to the local time axis.If the spin vector is constrained to follow a conical trajectoryduring the passage of the gravitational wave, the electron picks up aBerry phase proportional to the solid angle subtended by this conicaltrajectory after one period of the GR wave. In a manner similar tothe persistent currents induced by the Berry phase in systems withODLRO ... such a Berry phase induces an electrical current in thequantum Hall fluid, which is in a macroscopically coherent groundstate ... This macroscopic current generates an EM wave. Thusa GR wave can be convertedinto an EM wave. By reciprocity, the time-reversed process of theconversion from an EM wave to a GR wave must also be possible....

... While the precise form of the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian isnot known for the many-body system in a weakly curved spacetimeconsisting of electrons in a strong magnetic field, I conjecture thatit will have the form ...

... H = 1/(2m) ( p - a - b )^2 + V ...

where the particle index, the spin, and the tetrad indices haveall been suppressed. Upon expanding the square, it follows that for aquantum Hall fluid of uniform density, there exists a cross-couplingor interaction Hamiltonian term of the form

H_int = a . b

which couples the electromagnetic a field to the gravitational bfield. In the case of time-varying fields, a(t) and b(t) represent EMand GR radiation, respectively. ...

... In first-order perturbation theory, the quantum adiabatictheorem predicts that there will arise the cross-coupling energybetween the two radiation fields mediated by the quantum fluid ...For the adiabatic theorem to hold, there must exist an energy gapEgap (e.g., the quantum Hall energy gap) separating the ground statefrom all excited states, in conjunction with the approximation thatthe time variation of the radiation fields must be slow compared tothe gap time hbar / E_gap. This suggests that under these conditions,there might exist an interconversion process between these two kindsof classical radiation fields mediated by this quantum fluid ...

... The question immediately arises: EM radiation is fundamentallya spin 1(photon) field, but GR radiation is fundamentally a spin 2(graviton) field. How is it possible to convert one kind of radiationinto the other, and not violate the conservation of angular momentum?The answer: The EM wave converts to the GR wave through a medium.Here specifically, the medium of conversion consists of a strong DCmagnetic field applied to a system of electrons. This systempossesses an axis of symmetry pointing along the magnetic fielddirection, and therefore transforms like a spin 1 object. Whencoupled to a spin 1 (circularly polarized) EM radiation field, thetotal system can in principle produce a spin 2 (circularly polarized)GR radiation field, by the addition of angular momentum. However, itremains an open question as to how strong this interconversionprocess is between EM and GR radiation. ... the size of theconversion efficiency of this transduction process needs to bedetermined by experiment. ...

... We can see more clearly the physical significance of theinteraction Hamiltonian H_int = a . b once we convert it into secondquantized form and express it in terms of the creation andannihilation operators for the positive frequency parts of the twokinds of radiation fields, as in the theory of quantum optics, sothat in the rotating-wave approximation

... H_int = a* b + b* a ...

where the annihilation operator a and the creation operator a* ofthe single classical mode of the plane-wave EM radiation fieldcorresponding the a term, obey the commutation relation [a,a*] = 1, and where the annihilation operator b and the creationoperator b* of the single classical mode of the plane-wave GRradiation field corresponding to the b term, obey the commutationrelation [b, b*] = 1. (This represents a crude, first attemptat quantizing the gravitational field, which applies only in the caseof weak, linearized gravity.) The first term a* b then corresponds tothe process in which a graviton is annihilated and a photon iscreated inside the quantum fluid, and similarly the second term b* acorresponds to the reciprocal process, in which a photon isannihilated and a graviton is created inside the quantum fluid....

... In the case of superconductors, Cooper pairs of electronspossess a macroscopic phase coherence, which can lead to anAharonov-Bohm-type interference absent in the ionic lattice.

Similarly, in the quantum Hall fluid, the electrons will alsopossess macroscopic phase coherence, ... which can lead toBerry-phase-type interference absent in the lattice.

Furthermore, there exist ferromagnetic superfluids with intrinsicspin, in which an ionic lattice is completely absent, such inspin-polarized atomic BECs ... and in superfluid helium 3. In suchferromagnetic quantum fluids, there exists no ionic lattice to giverise to any classical response which could prevent a quantum responseto tidal gravitational radiation fields. The Berry-phase-inducedresponse of the ferromagnetic superfluid arises from the spinconnection (see the above minimal-coupling rule, which can begeneralized from an electron spin to a nuclear spin coupled to thecurved spacetime associated with gravitational radiation), and leadsto a purely quantum response to this radiation. The Berry phaseinduces time-varying macroscopic quantum flows in this ferromagneticODLRO system ... which transports time-varying orientations of thenuclear magnetic moments. This ferromagnetic superfluid can thereforealso in principle convert gravitational into electromagneticradiation, and vice versa, in a manner similar to the case discussedabove for the ferromagnetic quantum Hall fluid.

Thus we expect there to exist differences between classical andquantum fluids in their respective linear responses to weak externalperturbations associated with gravitational radiation.

Like superfluids, the quantum Hall fluid is an example of aquantum fluid which differs from a classical fluid in itscurrent-current correlation function ... in the presence of GR waves.In particular, GR waves can induce a transition of the quantum Hallfluid out of its ground state only by exciting a quantized,collective excitation across the quantum Hall energy gap. Thiscollective excitation would involve the correlated motions of amacroscopic number of electrons in this coherent quantum system.Hence the quantum Hall fluid is effectively incompressible anddissipationless, and is thus a good candidate for a quantum antenna....

... In general relativity, there exists in general no global timecoordinate that can apply throughout a large system, since fornonstationary metrics, such as those associated with gravitationalradiation, the local time axis varies from place to place in thesystem. It is therefore necessary to set up operationally a generallaboratory frame by which an observer can measure the motion ofslowly moving test particles in the presence of weak, time-varyinggravitational radiation fields. For either a classical or quantumtest particle, the result is that its mass m should enter into theHamiltonian through the replacement of p - eA by p - eA - mN, where Nis the small, local tidal velocity field induced by gravitationalradiation on a test particle located at X_a relative to the observerat the origin (i.e., the center of mass) of this frame ... Due to thequadrupolar nature of gravitational tidal fields, the velocity fieldN for a plane wave grows linearly in magnitude with the distance ofthe test particle from the center of mass, as seen by the observerlocated at the center of mass of the system. Therefore, in order torecover the standard result of classical GR that only tidalgravitational fields enter into the coupling of radiation and matter,one expects in general that a new characteristic length scale Lcorresponding to the typical size of the distance X_a separating thetest particle from the observer, must enter into the determination ofthe coupling constant between radiation and matter. For example, Lcan be the typical size of the detection apparatus (e.g., the lengthof the arms of the Michelson interferometer used in LIGO), or of thetransverse Gaussian wave packet size of the gravitational radiation,so that the coupling constant associated with the Feynman vertex fora graviton-particle interaction becomes proportional to the extensivequantity sqrt(GL), instead of an intensive quantity involving onlysqrt(G). For the case of superconductors, treating Cooper pairs ofelectrons as bosons, we would expect the above arguments would carryover with the charge e replaced by 2e and the mass m replaced by 2m....

... Returning to the general problem of quantum fields embedded incurved spacetime, we recall that the ground state of asuperconductor, which possesses spontaneous symmetry breaking, andtherefore ODLRO, is very similar to that of the physical vacuum,which is believed also to possess spontanous symmetry breakingthrough the Higgs mechanism. In this sense, therefore, the vacuum is"superconducting." The question thus arises: How does a ground or"vacuum" state of a superconductor, and other quantum fluids viewedas ground states of nonrelativistic quantum field theories withODLRO, interact with dynamically changing spacetimes, e.g., a GRwave? ...

... we suspect that there might exist superconductors, viewed asquantum fluids, which are transducers between EM and GR waves ...If the quantum transducerconversion efficiency turns out to be high, this will lead to anavenue of research which could be called "gravity radio." ... Wehave obtained an upper limit on the conversion efficiency for YBCO atliquid nitrogen temperature of 1.6 x 10^(-5). Details of thisexperiment will be reported elsewhere ...[see gr-qc/0304026]...".


Perhaps QuantumConsciousness Resonance phenomena might be useful in using ChiaoQM-GR Transduction of EM-Gravity to make and control a RodinCoil Josephson Junction GateWay (compare the energy sources ofThe Matrix and Akira).


[ July 2004 note by FrankD. (Tony) Smith, Jr., on

Josephson Junctions and DarkEnergy

Consider the experimental results mentioned in the Beck and Mackeypaper at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0406504in which they say:

"... the zero-point term has proved important in

It is this latter effect that concerns us here. ... We predictthat the measured spectrum in Josephson junction experiments mustexhibit a cutoff at the critical frequency nu_c ... [corresponding to the currently observed Dark Energy density 0.73 xcritical density = 0.73 x 5.3 GeV/m^3 = 3.9 GeV/m^3 ]... If not,the corresponding vacuum energy density would exceed the currentlymeasured dark energy density of the universe. ... The energyassociated with the computed cutoff frequency nu_c ...[ about 1.7x 10^12 Hz ]...

E_c = h nu_c = (7.00 ± 0.17) x 10^(-3) eV ...

coincides with current experimental estimates of neutrinomasses. .. It is likely that the Josephson junction experiment onlymeasures the photonic part of the vacuum fluctuations, since thisexperiment is purely based on electromagnetic interaction. ...

If it is possible to increase the maximum frequency by a factor ofabout 3, then this experiment could provide valuable information onthe nature of dark energy. ...

If the frequency cutoff is observed, it could be used to determinethe fraction ... of dark energy density that is produced byelectromagnetic processes ...

Finally, we conjecture that it will be interesting to re-analyzeexperimentally observed 1/f noise in electrical circuits under thehypothesis that it could be a possible manifestation of suppressedzero-point fluctuations. ... Our simple theoretical considerationsshow that 1/f noise arises naturally if bosonic vacuum fluctuationsare suppressed by fermionic ones. ...".

AS TO THE ISSUE OF LORENTZ INVARIANCE OF A CUTOFF at higher energies than have yet been observedin Josephson Junction fluctuations, my view is that you need to have ALL the forces (gravity, color, weak, and QED) to get cancellations that give a cosmological constant near zero, and when you get energetic enough to introduce neutrinos, you are effectively bringing in the weak force that is felt by the neutrinos so that you begin to change the equation (or introduce a cut-off) at that energy.Since the cut-off is due to introduction of weak force effects (and probably NOT a simple hard-line energy/frequency cut-off, which could violate Lorentz symmetry) it probably is a cut-off regulated by the gauge symmetry of the weak force. As Lubos Motl said in an spr post : "... cutoffs ...[can be]... Lorentz invariant ... the gauge symmetries: the regulators must be of specific kind to preserve these kinds of symmetry - but they almost always preserve Lorentz symmetry. ...", so the cut-off due to the phasing in of the weak force probably does not violate Lorentz symmetry.As you go to higher and higher energies, you introduce more and more forces, etc, and in the high-energy limit of D4-D5-E6-E7-E8 VoDou Physics there are cancellations due to subtle supersymmetry.AS TO EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, Beck and Mackey say:1 - the critical density in our universe now is about 5 GeV/m^32 - it is made up of Dark Energy : Dark Matter : Ordinary Matter    in a ratio DE : DM : OM = 73 : 23 : 43 - the density of the various types of stuff in our universe now is    DE = about 4 GeV/m^3    DM = about 1 GeV/m^3    OM = about 0.2 GeV/m^34 - the density of vacuum fluctuations already observed    in Josephson Junctions is about 0.062 GeV/m^3    which is for frequencies up to about 6 x 10^11 Hz5 - the radiation density (for photons) varies with frequency    as the 4th power of the frequency, i.e., as ( pi h / c^3 ) nu^46 - if Josephson Junction frequencies were to be experimentally    realized up to 2 x 10^12 Hz, then, if the photon vacuum fluctuation    energy density formula were to continue to hold,    the vacuum energy density would be seen to be 0.062 x (20/6)^4 =    = about 7 GeV/m^3 which exceeds the total critical density    of our universe now7 - to avoid such a divergence being physically realized,    neutrinos should appear in the vacuum at frequencies high    enough that E = h nu exceeds their mass of about 8 x 10^(-3) eV,    or at frequencies over about 1.7 x 10^12 Hz8 - if Josephson Junctions could be developed to see vacuum    fluctuation frequencies up to 10^12 Hz, and if the    photon equation were to hold there, then the obseved vacuum    fluctuation density would be about 0.5 GeV/m^3    which is well over the 0.2 GeV/m^3 Ordinary Matter energy density    which means that    DE and/or DM COMPONENTS WOULD BE SEEN IN VACUUM FLUCTUATIONS    IN JOSEPHSON JUNCTIONS THAT GO UP TO 10^12 HZ FREQUENCYAs to the experimental question:HOW TO DESIGN A 10^12 HZ JOSEPHSON JUNCTION ?A PhysicsWeb article by Belle Dume athttp://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/17describes the Beck and Mackey paper, saying"... In 1982, Roger Koch and colleagues,then at the University of California at Berkeleyand the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,performed an experiment in which they measuredthe frequency spectrum of current fluctuations in Josephson junctions.Their system was cooled to millikelvin temperaturesso that thermal vibrations were reduced to a minimum,leaving only zero-point quantum fluctuations. ...".So, our junction must be cooled to a few millikelvin,which was done back in 1982,which means that the next question is how to find a junctionsensitive to terahertz fluctuations.Here are a couple of relevant references:According to a paper by athttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-2048/15/12/309Terahertz frequency metrology based on high-Tc Josephson junctionsJ Chen1, H Horiguchi1, H B Wang1, K Nakajima1, T Yamashita2 and P H Wu31 Research Institute of Electrical Communication,Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, Japan2 New Industry Creation Hatchery Center, Tohoku University,04 Aza-aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan3 Department of Electronic Science and Engineering,University of Nanjing, Nanjing 210093, People's Republic of ChinaReceived 1 July 2002Published 22 November 2002:"...  Using YBa2Cu3O7/MgO bicrystal Josephson junctionsoperating between 6-77 K,we have studied their responsesto monochromatic electromagnetic radiation from 50 GHz to 4.25 THz.We have obtained direct detections for radiationat 70 K from 50 GHz to 760 GHzandat 40 K from 300 GHz to 3.1 THz. ...".Some details of how to make such things were outlined athttp://fy.chalmers.se/~tarasov/e1109m_draft.htmby E. Stepantsov a,b, M. Tarasov a,c, A.Kalabukhov a,d,T. Lindströoem a, Z. Ivanov a, T. Claeson aa MINA, Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University,GothenburgGöteborg, SE-41296, Swedenb Institute of Crystallography, Leninsky Prosp 59, Moscow 117333, Russiac Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, Mokhovaya 11,Moscow 101999, Russiad Department of Physics, Moscow State University, 119899 Moscow, Russiadated August 2001"... Submicron YBCO bicrystal Josephson junctionsand devices for high frequency applications were designed, fabricatedand experimentally studied.  The key elements of these devices are bicrystal sapphire substrates. ... A technological process based on deep ultraviolet photolithographyusing a hard carbon mask was developed for the fabrication of 0.4-0.6 mmwide Josephson junctions. ...These junctions were used as Josephson detectors and spectrometersat frequencies up to 1.5 THz ...".As to the possibility of using arrays of Josephson junctions,here is a relevant article:A paper entitledAveraged Equations for Distributed Josephson Junction Arraysathttp://www.physics.gatech.edu/mbennett/dist2003.pdfby Matthew Bennett and Kurt Wiesenfeld says:"... The Kirchhoff limit is valid provided the size of the systemis small compared to the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation.As it happens, the twin technological goals of generating higheroperating frequencies ...and larger output powers (and thus more junctions)both work against this limit. ...To take an example,an array operating at 300 GHz - not a particularly high frequencyfor Josephson junctions - corresponds to a wavelength of 0.4 millimeterswhen the index of refraction is 2.5;for a typical spacing of 10 micrometers,this is about the same size as an array of about 40 junctions - not aparticularly large number for Josephson arrays ...at higher frequenciesthe current in the wire is not necessarily spatially uniform,so the wire becomes a significant dynamical entity which couplesthe junctions along its length. ... we model the wire as a losslesstransmission line ......The resonant case is especially revealing, and leads to significantphysical insight into achieving attracting synchronized dynamics.The tighter the clusters,the more likely it is that phase locked solutions appear. ...There are also hintsthat distributed arrays exhibit fundamentally different phenomenathan their lumped counterparts.In one case, experiments on distributed Josephson arraysreported evidence of super-radiance ...".                            Here is picture that I have in my mind for building a Josepson Junction device for exploring vacuum fluctuations:Consider the nested tori and linked circles of  a Clifford-Hopf3-sphere fibration. This picture 
shows one torus,so imagine a lot of tori nested as in this picture
These pictures 
show that for any given torus in the nesting the circles are interlinked similarly to 24-cell paths.Let each circle be a superconducting wire carrying some current,andlet all the circles be embedded in an insulator so that thewhole thing has characteristics of a lot of Josephson Junctionsandthen play with various magnetic field configurationsandthen watch what happens.

[[ 2009 addendum -

In their paper Higher order Josephson effects arXiv 0808.1892 Roman V. Buniy and Thomas W. Kephart said: "... Gaussian linking of superconducting loops containing Josephson junctions with enclosed magnetic fields give rise to interference shifts in the phase that modulates the current carried through the loop, proportional to the magnitude of the enclosed flux. We generalize these results to higher order linking of a superconducting loop with several magnetic solenoids, and show there may be interference shifts proportional to the product of two or more fluxes. ... The simplest example is a Borromean ring arrangement ...

... where the semiclassical path corresponds to one ring, which has higher order linking with two flux tubes carrying fluxes PHI_1 and PHI_2, which make up the other two rings. We found the phase shift in this system is ...[ proportional to the product PHI_1 PHI_2 ]... Higher order cases were explored in ...[ hep-th/0611335 and hep-th/0611336 ]... and shown to be related to commutator algebras of homotopy generators of the configuration space R3 \ { T1 u T2 } , where T1 and T2 are the tubes containing the fluxes. ... The same general logic can be applied to systems of superconductors, Josephson junctions, and magnetic fluxes where the Josephson effect can arise ...". ]]

In order to get up to the terahertz energy level you mighthave to fabricate the thing on sub-millmeter scales,which should be fun. When you get down to micron - nanometer scales, you get to scales of subcellular biological structures such as microtubules and centrioles (this picture
shows centriole structure), so maybe evolution has alreadybuilt some related stuff into our cells,and maybe this stuff is on the borderline betweenconventional semiconductor/superconductor fabricationand biological growth of structures.  


Tony Smith's Home Page ......