![]() |
| 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: bernard, glashow, haischs, inertiaquot, quotorigin, refutes, sheldon, theory |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Begin forwarded message: From: Jack Sarfatti Date: August 11, 2005 8:37:05 AM PDT To: "Amara D. Angelica" Subject: Is jiggling vacuum the origin of mass? Not quite This is all bad wrong over-simplified physics. It's not even wrong. I agree 100% with Glashow. Wesson was on the board of Bernie's short-lived CIPA when Joe Firmage funded it and is biased. I do not give his opinion much weight. I read his stuff. Glashow is a better physicist on these things. In fact Bernie & Alfonso got it wrong. It is the COHERING of the random ZPF into a COHERENT vacuum condensate (e.g. Higgs mechanism in standard model that gives the basic inertia to quarks and leptons via the Yukawa mechanism). This is all explained here with the math i http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...s1/default.htm http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ss...s2/default.htm http://qedcorp.com/APS/zpf2005.pdf The bulk of the inertia comes from kinetic energy of confined quarks inside the hadrons as shown e.g. by Frank Wilzcek - who got the Nobel Prize for that last year. The Haisch-Rueda origin of inertia and Puthoff's PV model are both considered cranky stuff by all the mainstream leaders in the physics community. That's a fact. I don't always agree with the mainstream, but I do in these two cases. On Aug 10, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Amara D. Angelica wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article....800&print=true Is jiggling vacuum the origin of mass? 13 August 2005 From New Scientist Print Edition . Mark Anderson Where mass comes from WHERE mass comes from is one of the deepest mysteries of nature. Now a controversial theory suggests that mass comes from the interaction of matter with the quantum vacuum that pervades the universe. The theory was previously used to explain inertial mass - the property of matter that resists acceleration - but it has been extended to gravitational mass, which is the property of matter that feels the tug of gravity. For decades, mainstream opinion has held that something called the Higgs field gives matter its mass, mediated by a particle called the Higgs boson. But no one has yet seen the Higgs boson, despite considerable time and money spent looking for it in particle accelerators. In the 1990s, Alfonso Rueda of California State University in Long Beach and Bernard Haisch, who was then at the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Scotts Valley and is now with ManyOne Networks, suggested that a very different kind of field known as the quantum vacuum might be responsible for mass. This field, which is predicted by quantum theory, is the lowest energy state of space-time and is made of residual electromagnetic vibrations at every point in the universe. It is also called a zero-point field and is thought to manifest itself as a sea of virtual photons that continually pop into and out of existence. Rueda and Haisch argued that charged matter particles such as electrons and quarks are unceasingly jiggled around by the zero-point field. If they are at rest, or travelling at a constant speed with respect to the field, then the net effect of all this jiggling is zero: there is no force acting on the particle. But if a particle is accelerating, their calculations in 1994 showed that it would encounter more photons from the quantum vacuum in front than behind it (see Diagram). This would result in a net force pushing against the particle, giving rise to its inertial mass (Physical Review A, vol 49, p 678). But this work only explained one type of mass. Now the researchers say that the same process can explain gravitational mass. Imagine a massive body that warps the fabric of space-time around it. The object would also warp the zero-point field such that a particle in its vicinity would encounter more photons on the side away from the object than on the nearer side. This would result in a net force towards the massive object, so the particle would feel the tug of gravity. This would be its gravitational mass, or weight (Annalen der Physik, vol 14, p 479). Rueda and Haisch say this demonstrates the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass - something that Einstein argued for in his theory of general relativity. "In place of having the particle accelerate through the zero-point field, you have the zero-point field accelerating past the particle," says Haisch. "So the generation of weight is the same as the generation of inertial mass." The idea is far from winning wide acceptance. To begin with, there's a conundrum about the zero-point field that needs to be solved. The total energy contained in the field is staggeringly large - enough to warp space-time and make the universe collapse in a heartbeat. Obviously this is not happening. Also, the pair's work can only account for the mass of charged particles. Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow of Boston University is dismissive. "This stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong," he says. But physicist Paul Wesson of Stanford University in California says Rueda and Haisch's unorthodox approach shows promise, though he adds that the theory needs to be backed up by experimental evidence. "If Haisch [and Rueda] could come up with a concrete prediction, then that would make people sit up and take notice," he says. "We're all looking for something we can measure." Printed on Thu Aug 11 06:18:59 BST 2005 |
| Ads |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have already exposed a "CAUSALITY VIOLATION" in Haisch's
demonstration, as shown on his website, of how his attempt ot use "Rindler Flux" to demonstrate the existence of the "Zero Point Energy Field" is TOTALLY incorrect. I also illustrated to him how you can use Special Relativity to solve this paradox, since he attempts to use an experiment to reveal motion of an inertial frame with respect to the "still" Zero Point Energy.. and as we all will remember from Uncle Albert: "You cannot perform any experiment within an inertial frame to detect its motion". (with erspect to ANY absolute background (including the ZPE, Quantum Vacuum, etc.) Anyway, the true cause of inertia has already been discovered by Reality Physics: INERTIA is: The ability of the "PHOTON SPIN" forming a particle (Fermion) to resist a change in its intrinsic spin velocity (of the particle) due to the vector acceleration, or decelleration, of the particle. Of course, this can only be true if particles are made of spinning light, as recently discovered by Reality Physic at: www.realityphysics.com all the best, Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS [ " The QUANTUM VACUUM is in their head ! " ] |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff wrote:
[snip crap] Anyway, the true cause of inertia has already been discovered by Reality Physics: INERTIA is: The ability of the "PHOTON SPIN" forming a particle (Fermion) to resist a change in its intrinsic spin velocity (of the particle) due to the vector acceleration, or decelleration, of the particle. [snip moe carp] Photons are spin-1 bosons. Idiot. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
If you believe in the INCORRECT "STATIC" background description of the
universe as misassumed by Relativity and current QM today, then you are exactly right! However, with "Reality Physics", which uses an "ACTIVE" background for the universe (where Fermion subatomic particles are made of light - and photons DO NOT have a spin of "one") I am able to calculate the CORRECT values for the electron pilot waves of the atom using the de Broglie Wavelength Equation for a moving electron: (wavelength [de] Broglie=h/p). Something you, Prof. Sarfatti, or none of the other repetative "rubber stamps" in Theoretical Physics today can do. Want proof? wavelength of = h / (electron mass) x c-c(1-Vo^2/c^2)^1/2 atom, orbit [n] whe h = Plank's Constant c = speed of light Vo = electron's orbital velocity and: Vo[n1]= 2,188,500m/s, Vo[n2]=1,094,250 m/s, Vo[n3]=728,570 m/s orbit wavelength: [n1]=9.12x10^-8m,[n2]=3.65x10^-7m, [n3]=8.21x10-7 m THEREFO wavelength of [n1] = h /(e- mass)xc-c(1-[2,188,500m/s]^2 / c^2)^1/2 = h / (e- mass)xc-c(.999.973,39)--{Time Dilation!} = h /(9.109x10^-31kg)x(7,984m/s) = h / 7.2726256x!0^27 kg. m/s = 9.12x10^-8 meters As you can immediately observe, by substituting in the velocities of the other orbits of the atom into this new CORRECTED de Broglie Equation of Reality Physics, we obtain the CORRCET value for ALL of the atoms orbits, now for the first time in the history of Physics, interconnecting Atomic structure (Quantum Mechanics) with Time Dilation (SpaceTime-Motion Physics) - something Theoretical Physics Academia has been trying to do for 3/4 of a century now ! Now that you have seen what this "idiot" can do, let's see either you, or Prof. Sarfatti, or anyone else out there, use current Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, or whatever you want (as long as its not Reality Physics) to accomplish what I just have. Better find a way to do this pretty fast Uncle Al, or people in this news group might think you are even dummer than an "idiot", since I have just revealed right here that I can do something you can't. all the best, Jeff Lee CENTER for REALITY PHYSICS ps: All opinions and comments welcome. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| There are *THEORETiCAL models*, *MATHEMATiCAL models* and *REAL* models. There are, actually, NO *PHYSiCAL* theories, what-so-ever, you dimwit.!! And, the "theory" is NOT the "mathematics" (i.e. "arithmetic"), dooOP.!! P | brian a m stuckless | Physics - General Discussion | 3 | November 13th 05 11:02 AM |
| Is ZPF Inertia a "semiclassical Gravity" theory? | George Hammond | Physics - General Discussion | 9 | September 10th 05 11:43 PM |
| Is ZPF Inertia a "semiclassical Gravity" theory? | George Hammond | Current Physics Research (Moderated) | 0 | September 7th 05 04:57 AM |
| Sheldon Glashow refutes Bernard Haisch's "Origin of Inertia" Theory | Jack Sarfatti | Physics - General Discussion | 5 | August 13th 05 06:06 PM |
| Origin of "Polhode" & "Herpolhode"? | Mike Fontenot | Physics - General Discussion | 8 | February 23rd 04 06:37 PM |