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.?

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
===========================

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
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!

In my discussions with you I thought your idea may contain a germ of
something - I was simply not learned or even motivated enough to pursue it.


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

Putoff if I recall correctly has been refuted many times on
sci.physics.relativity.

Thanks
Bill


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.?

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
===========================

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.?

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.

The cool thing about their theory is that it replaces mass at a
fundamental level by the field.

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.

Like you, I am curious and I will be keeping an eye out for more.

--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
===========================

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:07:27 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:


"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .
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!


[Hobba]
In my discussions with you I thought your idea may contain a germ of
something - I was simply not learned or even motivated enough to pursue it.

[Hammond]
That is not uncommon. I think we can safely say the same about
Prof. Chris Isham's glossaristic comments concerning Hammond's
GOD=G_uv theory.





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

[Hobba]
Putoff if I recall correctly has been refuted many times on
sci.physics.relativity.

[Hammond]
So has Hammond' GOD=G_uv theory... and all such "refutations"
turn out to be incompetent amateur bunk unpublishable in the
peer reviewed literature.

Being "refuted on sci.physics.relativity" is practically a guarantee
that said theory is correct (assuming that said theory has
been published in the peer reviewed literature aforehand).... which
both God=G_uv and the ZPF-Inertia theories have!



Thanks
Bill




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.?

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
===========================

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.
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.



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.



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 think what the ZPF theory is is a "Semiclassical" Gravity theory.
In other words its a "Bohr Model" of Quantum Gravity!

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
===========================

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:56:02 -0700, (Daniel Weston)
wrote:

The ZPF theory is beyond my pay grade.
But I would like to know this: Does the ZPF theory also explain why a
body in motion continues in motion until acted upon by an outside force?
Consider 2 rockets that are side by side which turn their thrusters and
speed away from each other until they reach a separation speed of .9 c
and then turn off their thrusters and coast.


[Hammond]
That one is pretty easy to answer. According to the ZPF theory
Inertial force is EXTRINSICALLY CAUSED by acceleration... therefore,
when the accelertion stops (rockets turned off) the Inertial
opposition force will instantly stop too. OK... with no force
applied to the rocket: Thrust=0, Inertial force=0, there is simply no
force available to deaccelerate the rocket and with no deacceleration
the thing can't slow down or speed up... therefore it HAS to simply
(by default) keep moving with whatever velocity it had when the
acceleration stopped.

Mike however asked a related but even more puzzling question: If the
Lorentz Contraction is caused by inertial forces during acceleration,
why does the Lorentz Contraction persist after the rocket thrust is
shut off and the rocket is simply coasting at velocity v?


Regarding the ZPF-Lorentz Contraction idea then, there does
seem to be a problem!

In the first place, Maxwell's Equations (which the ZPF is based
on) ARE ALREADY Lorentz Covarient "right out of the box" as
Uncle Al put it. This means that the Lorentz Contraction can be
derived directly from Maxwell's Equations without postulating any
Zero Point EM Field. In fact Lorentz himself did this calculation as
early as 1904 (before Einstein published SR!) and the paper appears
in _The Principle of Relativity_, (a collection of original papers
by Lorentz, Einstein, Weys and Minkowski), Dover Books ppbk,
ISBN 0-486-60081-5, 1952 and can probably be found online
too. Its a famous paper although it seems trivial today since
we can see that all it says is that the Lorentz Contraction can be
derived from Maxwell's Equations since Maxwell's equations are
Lorentz Covarient!


On the other hand, there is still some chance the ZPF theory may tell
us something "more", and this is because the ZPF may be capable of
deriving the "gravitational time dilation" from the Zero Point Field
acceleration mechanism. I don't know whether it can, but so far
the ZPF postulate has explained:

1. Einstein's Equivalence Principle
2. The equality of inertial and gravitational mass.
3. Newton's inverse square law.
4. F=ma

These results of course are NOT CONTAINED in Maxwell's Equations, but
rather relate to Gravity Theory itself.

If the ZPF theory could provid a derivation of the "gravitational
length contraction" ( [1-Phi], where Phi is the Newtonian potential),
which Maxwell's Equations CAN'T, then we would have the situation
where the SR contraction (built into Maxwell's equations) could be
explained by the gravitational contraction (since no object can have a
velocity unless it has been accelerated), thus the ZPF theory would
provide an "iteration" of Maxwell's Equations which it starts with; by
virtue of the addition of the Zero Point field. The ZPF postulate
then by being added to Maxwell's equations might actually explain WHY
Maxell's equations are Lorentz Covarient to begin with (e.g. because
of the Zero Point field).
I dunno... maybe my intuition that the ZPF-Inertia theory is a
"Bohr Model" (semiclassical model) of the much sought for full blown
Quantum Gravity Theory was a little too inspired. However... as many
have pointed out, the ZPF theory is still in its infancy and a lot
more people are working on it now than ever before.


========================================
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
===========================

George Hammond:
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.?

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
===========================

Mike:

The cool thing about their theory is that it replaces mass at a
fundamental level by the field.

No, it doesn't. They simply ignore the fundamental question
entirely. They just assume the vacuum they want rather than
worry about how it got that way.

In addition to the Higgs theory of the standard model, the "quantum
vacuum inertia hypothesis" is competing with String theory.

The main thing that the theory competes with is the laws of
thermodynamics.

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.

Like you, I am curious and I will be keeping an eye out for more.

--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
===========================

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
===========================

Inertia and gravity are closer than two sides of the same coin. Reality
is they are the same thing. Beert