Zero Point Field

[Zohaar818]

http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm

 

Dear Group,

 

I post this link in hopes someone may give me the benefit of their opinion regarding the

'zero point field' theory. [i confess I typed it in the search box here on site but couldn't find any headers which mentioned it]

I would also very much like to discuss this in relation to another theory..'the Final Theory' by Mark McCutcheon....

I would also like to know if zero point field theory intrigues any of the theosophs among you..I know there must be several, given the discussions about intelligent design theory I see here.

 

Frankly, there are about a zillion subjects scientific that interest me..but the zero point field is where i would like to start.

 

 

Thanking you in advance for your courtesy and comments.

 

-Sincerely

Zohaar

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

i will admit that until reading your given link i was not at all too familiar with this so-called

zero point field theory but i have heard of people thinking they could tap into the vacuum for energy before.

 

seems to me if what the url article was true one would not get the null results one gets with the Michaelson-Morely experiments would one? since the earth is rotating and revolving around the sun the M.M. experiments are done in a somewhat accelerating frame of reference so this ZPF effect should have shown up a long time ago since the detection appartus is so precise, right?

 

comments?

 

peace and love,

and,

love and peace,

 

(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai ---> LOVES !!! :(

p.s.

maybe wrong!

but, seems some guy (physicist?) a few years ago was claiming he had found THE

vacuum state that described why all the fundamental constants had the values had

the values they did.

 

turns out, the parameters needed to describe his vacuum state were much more

numerous than the fundamental constants that needed to be measured to

describe his completely arbritrary choice of vaccuum state!

 

this is what the ZPF theory kinda seems to me, unless someone actually finds a way to light a

lightbulb with it without a hidden battery!

[infamous]

http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm

 

Dear Group,

 

I post this link in hopes someone may give me the benefit of their opinion regarding the

'zero point field' theory. [i confess I typed it in the search box here on site but couldn't find any headers which mentioned it]

I would also very much like to discuss this in relation to another theory..'the Final Theory' by Mark McCutcheon....

I would also like to know if zero point field theory intrigues any of the theosophs among you..I know there must be several, given the discussions about intelligent design theory I see here.

 

Frankly, there are about a zillion subjects scientific that interest me..but the zero point field is where i would like to start.

 

 

Thanking you in advance for your courtesy and comments.

 

-Sincerely

Zohaar

 

Interesting article Zohaar; I have been considering the value of such arguments for some time now. Even compared to the generally accepted theory of SR, this Zero Point Field has some merit to it. I think however, that you will find it rather difficult to convince any of those that hold to the SR model. There is a vast amount of evidence to support Special Relativity and for any change in how science views these questions, there will have to be hard evidence. There is a real resistance by most authorities to support ideas which do not agree with a standard model, and sometimes this attitude does suppress valuable material. Just the same, it is also not good scientific practice to be so eager to dismiss conventional wisdom. In any case, from a personal perspective, I see value in this idea of a Zero Point Field.

[Zohaar818]

i will admit that until reading your given link i was not at all too familiar with this so-called

zero point field theory but i have heard of people thinking they could tap into the vacuum for energy before.

 

seems to me if what the url article was true one would not get the null results one gets with the Michaelson-Morely experiments would one? since the earth is rotating and revolving around the sun the M.M. experiments are done in a somewhat accelerating frame of reference so this ZPF effect should have shown up a long time ago since the detection appartus is so precise, right?

 

comments?

 

peace and love,

and,

love and peace,

 

(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai ---> LOVES !!! :hyper:

p.s.

maybe wrong!

but, seems some guy (physicist?) a few years ago was claiming he had found THE

vacuum state that described why all the fundamental constants had the values had

the values they did.

 

turns out, the parameters needed to describe his vacuum state were much more

numerous than the fundamental constants that needed to be measured to

describe his completely arbritrary choice of vaccuum state!

 

this is what the ZPF theory kinda seems to me, unless someone actually finds a way to light a

lightbulb with it without a hidden battery!

 

 

 

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

 

Dear Kirk,

 

I am by no means qualified to answer your question...but perhaps this link will give you more to work with.

I'm thinking ..and this is unusual for me....that ZPF is the matrix out of which all reality emanates. if the super-string theorists are right..and if there can be instantaneous transmission of 'energy' at greater than light speed as some other physicist are now postulating, then it seems to me there must be a mechanism and a medium involved. The ZPF is all pervasive..would be present in all dimensions..would even account for what scientists are calling dark matter..could possibly be a key determinant or the building block [or hidden force] we also call gravity......

I just find it terribly intriguing.

 

-Sincerely

Zohaar

[Zohaar818]

Philip Ball, Nature, Feb. 2004 http://www.nature.com/Physics/Physics.taf?g=&file=/physics/highlights/6974-3.html&filetype=&_UserReference=C0A804F54651F06AE1CBD407899240295C0F

 

Empty space can set objects in motion, a physicist claims.

 

The empty space between stars contains energy from virtual particles.

© NASA

 

Motion can be conjured out of thin air, according to a physicist in Israel.

 

Alexander Feigel of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot says that objects can achieve speeds of several centimetres an hour by getting a push from the empty space of a vacuum.

 

No one has yet measured anything being set in motion by emptiness. But Feigel thinks it should theoretically be possible to make use of the effect to shunt tiny amounts of liquids around on a lab chip, for example. Such small-scale experiments could be useful for chemists interested in testing thousands of different drugs at the same time, or for forensic scientists who need to do analyses on tiny amounts of material.

 

The whole idea of getting movement from nothing sounds like a gift to advocates of perpetual-motion machines. But there's nothing in Feigel's theory that violates the fundamental laws of physics, so this doesn’t provide a way to cheat the Universe and get free energy.

 

Instead, Feigel draws on the well-established notion that empty space does contain a little bit of energy. This ‘vacuum energy’ is a consequence of the uncertainty principle — one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics.

 

Because of the uncertainty principle, subatomic particles or photons can appear spontaneously in empty space — provided that they promptly vanish again. This constant production and destruction of 'virtual particles' in a vacuum imbues the vacuum with a small amount of energy.

Moving in a Vacuum

Feigel considered the effects of virtual photons on the momentum — a property defined as mass multiplied by velocity — of objects placed in a vacuum, and came to a surprising conclusion.

 

He started with the fact that electrical and magnetic forces between objects are mediated by photons that flit between them. So an object placed in strong electric and magnetic fields can be considered to be immersed in a sea of these transitory, virtual photons.

 

Feigel then showed that the momentum of the virtual photons that pop up inside a vacuum can depend upon the direction in which they are travelling. He concludes that if the electric field points up and the magnetic field points north, for example, then east-heading photons will have a different momentum from west-heading photons.

 

So the vacuum acquires a net momentum in one direction — it’s as though the empty space is ‘moving’ in that direction, even though it is empty.

 

It is a general principle of physics that momentum is ‘conserved’ — if something moves one way, another thing must move the other way, as a gun recoils when it shoots a bullet. So when the vacuum acquires some momentum from these virtual photons, the object placed within it itself starts to move in the opposite direction.

 

Feigel estimates that in an electric field of 100,000 volts per metre and a magnetic field of 17 tesla — both big values, but attainable with current technology — an object as dense as water would move at around 18 centimetres per hour.

 

References

 

1. Feigel, A. Quantum vacuum contribution to the momentum of dielectric media. Physical Review Letters, 92, 020404, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.020404 (2004).

[Bo]

you have to be very carefull in this context with what is science and what is *nonsense*

For example the idea of a vacuum that is completely empty, was already abandoned when Heisenberg wrote down his famous uncertainty relation. Since then a lot of work has been put in the question 'what does our vacuum look like?' and there is still no sensible answer. (string theory predicts some 10^120 different, consistent vacuum configurations!).

 

The link (http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm) you posted on the other hand produces mostly nonsense. For example:

What is seen as inertia is nothing more than an effect caused by an electromagnetic force acting on a charge.

then...:

- How can it be that objects with the same charge can havedifferent mass?

- How can e.g. A neutron (or any other electrical neutral particle) have mass?

- The photon (carier of the E/M force) also caries inertia...

-the given story on gravity seems strange: why would the force only be attracting if we asume the universe electricly neutral?

 

Bo

[Zohaar818]

you have to be very carefull in this context with what is science and what is *nonsense*

For example the idea of a vacuum that is completely empty, was already abandoned when Heisenberg wrote down his famous uncertainty relation. Since then a lot of work has been put in the question 'what does our vacuum look like?' and there is still no sensible answer. (string theory predicts some 10^120 different, consistent vacuum configurations!).

 

The link (http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm) you posted on the other hand produces mostly nonsense. For example:

 

then...:

- How can it be that objects with the same charge can havedifferent mass?

- How can e.g. A neutron (or any other electrical neutral particle) have mass?

- The photon (carier of the E/M force) also caries inertia...

-the given story on gravity seems strange: why would the force only be attracting if we asume the universe electricly neutral?

 

Bo

 

Dear BO,

Again my apologies for not being able to answer your questions..I have only come into an appreciation of the higher sciences recently, and only now have the time in life to pursue my autodidactic impulses...

Having said that, I did post a link to the Cal Tech site [above] which goes into more detail. I do know that NASA is asking for more funding into ZPF in relation to the new mandate to get men to Mars ..[and I hope women go with them, or what is the point...!]

And I have seen reports of ZPF research on the BBC [i live in Europe]...so I believe there must be something to it.

You know, what intrigues me is that ZPF could actually be the resolution to the argument between Einstein and Bohr..that there is an underlying force pervading everything..a universal constant upon which all depends.A mechanism and a medium by which information/energy travels at faster than light speeds..arcs across dimensions..çausing the minute vibrations and fluctuations we describe as quantum uncertainty.

We know that of all the elemental forces gravity is at once the strongest and the weakest.

Imagine how strong it has to be to hold stellar bodies in orbit across trillions and trillions of light years...and yet here we are able to walk jump, fly on planet earth. On the moon you could supposedly hit a golf ball about a mile.

Some speculate that [in line with super-string theory] gravity is actually the force being exerted upon our universe from outside, not inside. That we are actually inhabitants of one 'physical'universe but surrounded by others..we are in a multiverse..and that parallel universes co-exist right along side of us..extending into the very rooms that you and I are sitting in as we correspond.

I am by no means a thinker of the caliber required to solve these riddles of science in a way that would satisfy someone, like yourself, say, who obvioulsy has a deeper understanding of these matters..perhaps a degree. I'm more of a philospher than a scientist.

One thing that Mr. Mc Cutcheon wrote which I found striking is that if light speed were the constant we claim[ed] it to be..that nothing could travel faster, no effect could be measured sooner than it would take for light to get from point a to point be...how would one explaint he effects on earth if the sun were to suddenly vanish from the center of our solar system..just blink out into nonexistence. It would take minutes for the light to go out on earth after the sun disappeared, but the loss of gravity would be felt sooner than the loss of light.

So by what mechanism does the information/energy signal [or abrupt ceasing of same] get transmitted to earth quicker than the sunbeams?

 

And that brings me back to [what i understand to be] the crux of the argument between the quantum camp and relativity adherents of bygone eras...by measuring the spin of one sub-atomic particle you could assume to know the speed and position of its twin.

But how far apart do these twins have to be from each other before they are no longer part of the same system..an inch, a mile, a light year? Say we took these bits and seperated them by a light year..and we measured the one closest to us..could we asume to know at that precise moment its twin wasa rotating in the opposite direction? it would take a year travelling at the speed of light to get there, so even if we left ahed of time to have monitors at the other end..there would still be an awful long TIME gap between sending and receipt of information.

But theory says the twin would know immediately..which is to say sooner than light could travel. Again, by what mechanism are the bits informed of each other?

Whatever it is it must be faster than light, just as pervasive and ever present as gravity but not as subject to its local variations in force. It must be constant..and fall outside of the usual parameters by which we describe 'energy'in our physical plane.

I think ZPF makes a great candidate, but, like you, I am still hoping to see the definitve 'science' to go with it.

In the meantime I thank you for indulging me and my 'ideas'.

-Sincerely

-Zohaar

[watcher]

hi zohaar,

 

like you i'm also interested in ZPF/ZPE for philosophical reasons.

you can check out this site. i think it can satisfy some of your curiosity about the subject.

 

"twm.co.nz/hologram.html#synthesis"

 

you can also google "fractal universe" for some related topics...

 

 

hybrid

[Qfwfq]

I confirm that, as Bo says, the idea of zero point fluctuations is not a new one at all and that, rather than being in conflict with it, it is quite a part of field theory and hence also the standard model. For example, one consequence is the so-called Casimir effect. There is however the alternative attempt to view quantum physics a consequence of it instead of vice versa.

 

While I agree that the webpage linked to above isn't very reliable, and talks nonsense when conjecturing that energy might be extracted ex vacuo, I could play the devil's advocate with Bo's argument by saying that the neutron is composed of quarks having opposite electric charges... I really don't know anything about stochastic electrodynamics but I wouldn't rule it out as a way of explaining mass, this would simply play the role of the Higgs boson which is the only thing not yet experimentally verified in the standard model. I wouldn't be sure that the model needs to be changed all that much, in order to accomodate this. Glancing through this interesting page, I found it a quite reasonable source.