George Hammond wrote:
On 7 Sep 2005 18:10:13 -0700, "Mike" wrote:
George Hammond wrote:
NOTE: I posted this to the (moderated) sci.physics.research
ng (9-6-05). Professionals may respond there if preferable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is ZPF Inertia a "semiclassical Gravity" theory?
___________________________
Some time ago I innocently inquired as to:
"Why C would be an invariant for all
observers regardless of their velocity?"
since Relativity provides no physicall mechanism for
this, but merely "postulates" it.
At that time I (naively) suggested it was because of ACCELERATION
(since no two particles can have different velocities unless they
were differentially accelerated somewhere in the past)
.. and suggested that ACCELERATION is the causal mechanism behind
the Lorentz Contraction and the Time Dilation and thus explains
"physically" why the speed of light is an invarient.
LO AND BEHOLD...........
I now find out that this intuition is in fact a veritible cottage
industry and has been for 10 or 15 years!
A celebrated "physical" mechanism for Inertia has been discovered
by Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff in 1994:
Physical review A 1994:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/PRA94.pdf
Annelen der Physik 2005:
http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
This topic has recently obtained tremendous coverage in the literature
(Physical Review A 1994, Annalen der Physik 2005, etc.)... and is
now known as the "Vacuum Field theory of Inertia".
According to this theory, "Inertial mass" is caused by an
"electirc drag force" caused by matter being ACCLERATED
throught the "Zero Point Fluctions" of the vacuum.
This theory ostensibly explains the Lorentz Contraction, Time
Dilation, Inertia, and according to Sakharov ultimately even
Einstein's Field Equations simply as an interaction between matter
moving through the "zero point fluctions" of the vacuum!
Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff have actually "derived" F=ma
from the ZPF as well as Newton's inverse square law of
gravity!
Some people think it might even replace the Higgs mechanism
of the Standard Model for explaining mass!
At any rate... I'm sure not alone in my intuition that
"acceleration" is the cause of the speed of light being
invarient to velocity... apparently there are hundreds of
scientists now working on the ZPF theory... which apparently
originated with Andrei Sakharov, Zeldovich.. and even Einstein
suspected it as early as 1910 in papers with Abraham
and Stern... and of course historically Lorentz in his ether theory
of the Lorentz Contraction.
Is there any expert here who has a handle on the "offical status"
of this (now widely discussed) ZPF theory of Mass.. and can they tell
me how this theory meshes with QFT and GR.?
[Mike]
Rueda and Haisch's theory, as expressed in "Contributions to Inertial
Mass by Reaction of the Vacuum to Accelerated Motion", Foundations of
Physics 28, 1057-1108 (1998) cannot, as far as I know, account for the
gravitational effects of GR. So there is still much work to do.
[Hammond]
The Annalen der Physik paper above is 2005, 7 years later than the
paper you have cited. I suggest you read that.
Sigh. I have read it. Back on September 4 I posted this:
Sep 4, 9:54 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: "Mike" - Find messages by this author
Date: 4 Sep 2005 06:54:27 -0700
Local: Sun, Sep 4 2005 9:54 am
Subject: Can anyone recommend a good introductory text...
wrote:
...for studying Stochastic Electrodynamics?
Look at the references at the end of
http://www.calphysics.org/arti cles/gravity_arxiv.pdf
in particular, [10].
--Mike Jr.
So far they have:
1. Derived Einstein's Equivalence Principle from ZPF.
2. Derived Newton's Inverse Square Law from ZPF.
3. Explained why inertial mass=gravitational mass.
It seems to me that it won't be long before they derive Einstein's
field equations at least in the Linearized Gravity limit (1st order
approximation).. since they have already derived Newton's
Inverse Square Law.
As I said, Rueda and Haisch's theory [..] cannot, as far as I know,
account for the gravitational effects of GR. I mentioned the 1998
paper because the 2005 paper extended it. Neither have cracked the
full nut. Still, it is interesting.
BTW, the 1998 paper extended an earlier version of the theory published
in 1994.
The cool thing about their theory is that it replaces mass at a
fundamental level by the field.
[Hammond]
The Higgs mechanism anticipates this too. Of course Higgs
comes from full blown QFT.
I don't think that the two theories are saying the same thing. ZPF is
more akin to the concept of hydrodynamical mass. Charles Galton Darwin
(the grandson of Charles Robert Darwin) wrote about hydrodyamical mass
in a paper published in 1953.
The Higgs mechanism is different in that particles soak up potential
energy by coupling to the Higgs field and thereby acquire mass via the
mass-energy relation.
In addition to the Higgs theory of the standard model, the "quantum
vacuum inertia hypothesis" is competing with String theory. If the
next generation of particle accelerators fails to find the Higgs
particle then we shall see. String theory has the promise of
predicting the masses of the fundamental particles, something that ZPF
can't do.
[Hammond]
I don't think the ZPF theory is "competing" with QFT, the Standard
Model or String Theory.
I stand by what I said. :-)
I think what the ZPF theory is is a "Semiclassical" Gravity theory.
In other words its a "Bohr Model" of Quantum Gravity!
I don't think that you are giving ZPF enough credit. ZPF isn't there
yet but it is making progress. Still, ZPF can't be a fundamental
theory because it can't explain why the masses are what they are.
String theory could offer such an explanantion.
As you remember the Bohr Model used classical mechanics, added
the "postulate of quantization" and produced a highly successful
"semiclassical" model of the atom.
I think here what Haisch, Rueda and Putoff are doing is using
classical elecromagnetic theory and adding the "postulate" of
the "zero point vacuum em field" and it has produced a
"Bohr Model" of full blown Quantum Gravity!!
An astounding feat if it turns out to be correct.... and since
Phys. Rev., and Annalen der Physick and half a dozen other
Journals have now published it... it CERTAINLY can't be a
"kook" theory!!
Like you, I am curious and I will be keeping an eye out for more.
[Hammond]
I'm particularly curious to see if they can reproduce Lorentz's
calculation of the Lorentz Contraction using the ZPF. If so,
the fundamental mystery of SR will finally be solved!
I suspect they will, since Heinrich Antoon Lorentz himself
was convinced that it could be explained from em theory... and
he came very close to doing it 100 years ago except that he didn't
know about the "vacuum zero point energy field" and so had to assume
an "Ether" which turned out to be incorrect. Now it looks like the
"ether field" theory wasn't so far off base as everyone thought!
--Mike Jr.
1. Can the "stochastic EM-ZPF theory" be reconciled
with QFT by calling it a "semiclassical" EM theory?
2. Is there any chance GR can be "derived" from this
semiclassical ZPF theory?
3. Does EM-ZPF relate QFT to GR.. and if so why isn't
this a major path to Quantum Gravity?
4. Is this considered the explanation of 'Mach's Principle"?
5. Is this a (semiclassical) causal mechanism of the Lorentz
Contraction?
6. Is this a vindication of Lorentz's "ether" theory?
7. Is this considered a serious challenge to the "Higg's mechanism"?
------------------------------------------------
Can you please give me the "low down" on what is the majority opinion
of the "ZPF theory of Inertia" and where it stands vis a vis
QFT, GR, QM, and current Quantum Gravity theories?
This ZPF theory of Inertia seems to have "come out of the blue",
and seems unrelated to any other major branch of Physics?
-------------------------------------------------
Are we now to consider that there is a "semiclassical"
explanation of GR from electromagnetic theory that doesn't
require QM other than to "postulate" the existence of
the zero point field? Is that what this is.. a "semiclassical
theory of Gravity"?
Is this a "semiclassical" explanation of GR, as opposed to a full
blown Quantum explanation of GR?
Is this a major ground tremor of Quantum Gravity... or is this a
flash in the pan?
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
Join COSA church (Church of the Scientific Advent)
Send a blank email to
and your email address will be added to the
COSA discussion list (free, no obligation)
===========================
and please ask your news service to add:
alt.sci.relativistic-proof-of-god.moderated
===========================