A Physics forum. Physics Banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » Physics - General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , , ,

Zero Point Energy Controversy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 27th 04 posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.skeptic,sci.astro,sci.military
Jack Sarfatti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,218
Default Zero Point Energy Controversy


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Free Credit Reports - Mortgage Calculator - Home Loan - Hen Weekends - Dog ecards