![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: controversy, energy, point, zero |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sep 25, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote: Remember, macro-quantum vacuum coherence hides random micro-quantum zero point vacuum energy under the rug. Any random zero point energy that leaks out is exotic vacuum that contributes to the cosmological constant either as dark energy or dark matter depending on the sign of the pressure negative or positive respectively. Dark energy at a distance is a universal repulsive antigravity field. Dark matter at a distance is a universal attractive gravity field. Both fields can be stronger than what is expected from Newton’s constant. That is the effective Planck energy is smaller than 10^19Gev. However, as possibly in the case of Ken Shoulders “charge clusters” the effective forces inside an extended exotic vacuum region can change sign! Indeed, that is why the EVO is stable and that is also why the single electron is stable. Alexander Burinskii in Moscow has rightly raised the issue of the the distinction between renormalization and regularization of interacting field Feynman diagrams in special relativistic quantum field theory in relation to the zero point energy problem. We need to see how all these ideas survive in quantum field theory in a c-number curved space background like in Birrill and Davies text book. The issue of the reality of quantum foam is problematical in the soft condensed matter physics approach to gravity as an emergent ODLRO macro-quantum phenomenon. That is gravity is a low energy effective c-number ODLRO macro-quantum coherent field theory that in principle is not to be quantized in the usual way the way QED is done. This feature is now being tested in gamma ray astronomy. Why do Milonni's two naive free photon field models of the Casimir force ~ hcA/d^4 as virtual photon effects give the correct empirical answer for the wrong reasons? In the simple boundary condition model using only free virtual photons Milonni computes E(d) - E(infinity) and he gets the cutoff independent correct answer. However, what he should compute is E(d) + E(L - d) Letting L d at the end. The virtual photon ZPF force is then the negative gradient of this sum. This vanishes in 1 + 1 space-time. The cosmological constant problem is that E(d) + E(L - d) is directly observable in general relativity. This is why Hal's "Type II Casimir Force" model is unacceptable because it requires a huge cosmological constant vacuum energy filling all space outside Ken Shoulders EVOs which have zero ZPE inside their charged shells at least below h/mc short wave cutoff. This contradicts general relativity that is the covering theory here. Any result from globally flat quantum field theory that contradicts general relativity must be rejected. That is the basic problem with what Hal Puthoff is suggesting for metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon. |
| Ads |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Should zero point energy be taken seriously? | Dave | Physics - General Discussion | 4 | September 16th 04 11:26 PM |
| Zero Point Energy Farce | Jack Sarfatti | Physics - General Discussion | 2 | February 7th 04 02:43 PM |
| On the gravitation of zero point energy | Jack Sarfatti | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | January 31st 04 03:08 AM |
| Another nitrox controversy? | BllFs6 | Physics - General Discussion | 0 | January 28th 04 03:21 PM |
| Zero Point Energy | Phat Boi | Physics - General Discussion | 23 | January 25th 04 05:11 PM |