# Zero Point Energy

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by K.FLINT, Nov 26, 2007.

1. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Well, i worked independantly from any source, as i used logical deduction. I really do hope you are mistaken...

3. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Well, independant, in the sense i thought the idea up myself.

5. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I've just sat here, and pondered some more...

Suppose the antimatter did have an antigravity... there would be no way we could test this because of force renormalization. There isn't only negatively charged particles around us... also positively charged particles which are not antipaticles. So an antigravity substence would in fact be attracted to negative matter, as opposed to rushing away from it. This is strange indeed the more i think about it.

Take an electron-positron production inside the atom. The only reason why the electron and the positron don't fall back on each other, is because the positron would be affected by the positive forces of the proton, and would inexorably be pushed away and out of the atom, whilst the electron remains stable around the nucleus, as it is attracted to protons.

If we had a large chunk of antielectrons, and a large chunk of protons, both chunks would rush away from each other... so which is showing antigravitational forces?

This is a bit like the paradox of Einsteins equivalance in the elevator... Can you tell whether you are falling or moving up?

Messages:
8,967
Mod note:

8. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
Well, presumably not because the zero point field doens't coulpe to matter, it only couples to gravity.

In general, a cosmological constant enters the action (which describes the dynamics of particles and fields in our universe) as

$\mathcal{S} \supset \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\left{\mathcal{L}_{matter} + \mathcal{L}_{gravity} + \Lambda\right}$

In order for the cosmological constant to know'' about the matter, there would have to be terms that mix the matter and the cosmological constant. But there are no such terms---indeed, if you neglect gravity (which you typically can, because the Newton's constant is so small), the cosmological constant is just that---an overall constant in the lagrangian. And if you have studied classical mechanics, you know that adding a constant to the lagrangian doesn't effect the dynamics (this is akin to adding a constant to the potential energy term---you can always add and subtract constants from the potential energy and not change the physics).

The cosmological constant only couples to the metric, g, and is only important for gravity.

9. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Actually, we find that [direct forces] in the ZPF influence solid matter. This is me just back by the by/ - but i know what you are saying Ben... But...

So, for instance, the electron is buffeted by the negative energy in the vacuum. If one can affect the other, then there should be no restrictions on predicting the same for larger masses affecting the ZPF.

Its a theory in progress, as far as i know. And it makes perfect logical sense.

10. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238

With one equation you say i am wrong... well actually, you are wrong.

If you say gravity, then i am affraid Ben, something which you have found difficult to comprehend recently, is the laws of equivalance. Matter is gravity is matter.

If you say that gravity couples to the ZPF, which i would almost certainly agree, then this also means distortions, curvature and even matter itself.

How are you going to argue with this?

Stop trying to glorify your position here by tring to make me out to look as a fool. I know what i say. That equation you provided was a very lame try. Especially if you don't understand basic equivalances.

11. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
Can you write down an equation that shows I am wrong?

sure, gravity couples to the zero point field, but matter doesn't.

Write down an equation that shows me that I am wrong.

Not as long as it proves my points.

12. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Did you even know the electron, ''a mass particle'' was affected by the ZPF...? If not, then i have nothing more to say.

13. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
Write an equation which proves your point.

14. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Answer my questiion first, then i will find mathematical proof.

Hint: Dirac's Equation

15. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
The electron doesn't couple to the zero point field.

16. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
I don't have the kind of time you expect me to have. I have two papers to mark, and to be quite honest, anything i did or would say, you would must probably shrug it off anyway. Let me just recite something very quickly by Dr. Wolf, which seems pertinent to our miscommunications here:

''Dirac began to ponder about the electron in 1928, when there wasn't much else to consider. Only three particles were known, the proton, the neutron and the electron.''
...
''Dirac was attempting to build a mathematical structure that would allow the electron to move at near light speed, as it HAD TO DO, when it was close to the nucleus with a large atomic number.''
...
''Dirac's concern, was the mathematical symmetry of the equation describing a sinlge electron, when you put relativity and quantum mechanics together - something whichhe called the ''equations beauty.''
...
''This is the expression we call Dirac's Equation,''
...
''Shows that surprisingly that the electron moved at near light speed, following a jagged path through space and time...''
...
''Why should the electron behave so bizarrely?''
...
''The answer, it turned out, that the electron was in constant interactions with other potential electrons in the vacuum.''
...
''Dirac showed that the vacuum contained an infinite amount of negatively charged spinning particles below the threshold of any measurable properties.''

Or also known as the Dirac Sea, which is also the same thing as the ZPF. Now, Ben... go do your homework, instead of trying to fabricate others. I know what i am saying, do you?

I am saying, that the electron, a mass particle WITH GRAVITY OBVIOUSLY, is affected by the negative energy in the vacuum. If you still have a problem with this, i cannot help you.

17. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
Ahh yes. The Dirac Sea. This is certainly something completely different than the zero point energy (i.e. cosmological constant).

18. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
No... its not actually.

The ZPF and the Dirac Sea have been linked as somehow the same thing, becauseboth are virtual electromagnetic sea's.

19. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
The Dirac Sea ben, is the zero-point of electromagnetic fluctuations.

20. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
From > ''Understanding the ZPF''

This will compliment what you only undestood, and will proove that my study right now is being taken highly seriously. Now, admit you were wrong ben... It's something you never do, and it pisses me off.

'' Dr. Harold Puthoff’s ZPE

Dr. Harold Puthoff is a physicist who has continued to develop Dr. Andrei Sakharov's theories of gravity and inertia. What he has achieved, which is now causing shock waves even at NASA, is that gravity has now been theoretically proven to relate directly to ZPE. Thus, a very fascinating new theoretical imagery is presented. For example, Dr. Puthoff, in his paper, "Gravity as a Zero Point Fluctuation Force", (Phys. Rev. 3/89) points out that gravitational mass and its associated gravitational effects are shown to derive in a self-consistent way from electromagnetic zero point induced particle motion (in other words, ZPE). "Zitterbewegung" or particle jittering may also be the result of that zero point fluctuations. Puthoff believes that it constitutes an already unified field. He refers to the Gravitation text by Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, often used in graduate courses on general relativity. There are basically six approaches to gravitation that are outlined in that book. The one that Dr. Puthoff emphasizes is specifically the one that Sakharov developed. In the paper, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force" (Phys. Rev. A 39,5,1993), he points out that Dr. Sakharov regards gravitation as not a fundamental interaction at all, but an induced effect that's brought about by changes in the vacuum when matter is present. The fascinating part about this is that the mass is shown to correspond to the kinetic energy, the zero point induced internal particle jittering, while the force of gravity is a long range effect. Low frequency, long range forces are now associated with van der Waal's forces. (Van der Waal's forces are seen in colloids and various other liquids weakly interacting.) In Puthoff’s theory, gravity is related directly to zero point fields, by the low frequency end of the zero point radiation spectrum.

When we consider ZPE as having a third order dependence on frequency, it reminds me of the Hutchison effect, (see Intro. to ‘Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point’, report published by Integrity Res. Inst.) which also has been shown to be a 3rd derivative (3rd order) effect. The Hutchison effect is used to explain an object (conducting or non-conducting) which repels gravity under the influence of high voltage AC-modulated DC fields, with the object continually and uniformly increasing its acceleration. Scientists have never seen that happen before except in the third order Lorentz-Dirac equation treating radiation reaction which may help explain the Hutchison effect. Forces in nature tends to create a constant acceleration.(due to F=ma) The third order effect predicted by the equation of motion in Puthoff's paper is directly related to zero point energy and also yields an insight into the Hutchison effect. It is also worth noting that the "Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point" video shows the evaluation of the Hutchison effect by the U. S. military, who promptly classified the report.

Inertia as a ZPE Effect

The Lorentz force is used to describe Faraday's law, for example, when we have a charged particle moving in a perpendicular magnetic field and use the right hand rule to describe where the magnetic field is going to force that particle to go. In this example, the electric field, magnetic field, and the force are all perpendicular to each other. The Lorentz Force now has been proven by Puthoff in his derivation in Physical Review A (49, 2, 94), to be directly responsible to what he calls the "electromagnetic resistance arising from the known spectral distortion of the zero point field in an accelerated frame."

Physicists often hear that Einstein was very interested in Mach’s principle. Ernst Mach was a philosopher more than a scientist and developed the concept that we could only understand inertia if we have some unmoving reference frame. He chose the distant stars as the reference frame. This has been interpreted, not only by Einstein, but others since then to actually explain the principle of inertia, since the distant stars can be regarded as a relatively stable reference frame in the universe from our perspective. Puthoff states, "The ZPF could thus serve as the Machian cosmic reference frame…and the interesting point is that the bulk of the contribution to the effect, in this case the inertial mass, comes from the very-high-frequency components of the ZPF." He then demonstrates a causal and quantifiable basis for Mach’s principle and explains that the magnetic component of the Lorentz force arises in ZPE and matter interactions.''

21. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Notice as well,''particle jittering.'' Didn't you say the Dirac Sea had nothing to do with ZPE?

22. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
And somehow'' magic pixies fly from my ass and solve all of my problems.

Treating the Dirac Sea as the zero point energy leads to a result which is wrong by 120 orders of magnitude.

23. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
Actually, didn't you say the same thingabout me commenting that the ZPF is the same as the Cosmological Constant? So are we now admitting that scientists do actually relate these sea's as all the same?

By waving your hands in the air, proclaiming a disorder of 120 magnitudes does not take away the fact physicists are having to deal with it.

Now... You have got everything wrong so far... I wonder how far you will drag this out? First you told me that I was wrong about the Inertial matter and ZPF through one equation, which i showed you were heavily wrong in the end, you also denied that the ZPF and the Dirac Sea where the same, i showed you where incorrect... How many more of these pixies need to fly out your arse then before you start accepting i know a bit of physics too eh?

What is it Ben...? Professional competition, because each and every time i have something scientific to say, you have something else to say about it, and i've found 70% of the time, maybe more, you have either misunderstood me, or you have been proven totally wrong.

Do what i do. Stay out of area's you don't fully understand. That way you can't go wrong.