 |
There are currently, 252 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Zero Point Energy - Maybe not so mysterious
Posted on Sunday, December 23, 2007 @ 16:47:47 UTC by vlad
|
|
Anonymous writes: From The Pundit Master: Everyone knows, in fact, it's the law, that one cannot get more
energy out of a reaction than has been put into it. In other words it
is not possible to break a water molecule (hydrogen and oxygen) apart
and then burn the hydrogen (re-combining it with oxygen) and extract
more energy than it took to break apart the water molecule.
However,
there are many who claim to have done just that. John Kanzius' recent
discovery that one can burn seawater by exposing it to certain radio
frequencies may be the latest demonstration, although official results
are still pending. Assuming at least one of these cases is verified
(granted a big assumption), the law has been broken. Or has it?
Some
believe that these systems are taking advantage of "zero point energy"
that is, the lowest state of energy a system can have. The energy of
"empty space". One theory is that "empty space" isn't really empty at
all, but that the particles that comprise it are of a nature we don't
yet understand. Thus they've been dubbed "virtual particles". These
particles resonate at a wavelength too low to be of any consequence
unless particles come within about 10 nanometers of each other. At this
point the "virtual particle pressure" between the two particles becomes
significant enough to impact the system.
Another possibly
related theory used to explain other observations is quantum physics is
that nuetral particles in very close proximity, become polarized for a
time.
The two ideas might blend well in explaining where all
this excess energy might be coming from. As for the polarization,
electrons travel in a probablity field rather than at a specific point
along an orbit at any given time. Perhaps in very close proximity, the
probable location of an electron at any given time is more refined,
meaning it's more likely to be on one side of the nucleus than on the
other. This would cause one side of the molecule to be positively
charged with respect to a very close object during part of the orbit of
the electron(s). When particles are forced even closer together or
pushed farther apart, the rythym of the polarization becomes out of the
ordinary. The system could become unbalanced. Molecules could break
down.
Perhaps the catalysts and radio frequencies used in
these experiments and inventions are forcing molecular particles into
close enough proximity that the zero point energy makes the molecules
unstable and easier to break apart.
It seems to me that all the confusion in quantum physics stems from the assumption that if we can't detect it, it's not there. As I've said before it's analogous to trying to explain the motion of clouds while being totally ignorant of the existance of air. You'd have to give the clouds properties and forces that may work out mathematically and may well predict their behavior, but which still would not be an accurate depiction of what's going on.
Virtual particals "blinking in and out of existance" sounds very mystical. However, precipitating and evaporating sounds more familiar and may be more accurate.
Whether you call it a zero point field, virtual particals or aether, once you accept the premise of entities existing on a much smaller scale than previously imagined, it all comes down to pressure dynamics. Stuff under higher pressure moving toward lower pressue.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
The Quest for a New Class of Superconductors (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, December 23, 2007 @ 19:29:38 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | n a review published today in Nature,
researchers David Pines, Philippe Monthoux and Gilbert Lonzarich posit
that superconductivity in certain materials can be achieved absent the
interaction of electrons with vibrational motion of a material’s
structure.
The review, “Superconductivity without phonons,”
explores how materials, under certain conditions, can become
superconductors in a non-traditional way. Superconductivity is a
phenomenon by which materials conduct electricity without resistance,
usually at extremely cold temperatures around minus 424 degrees
Fahrenheit (minus 253 degrees Celsius)—the fantastically frigid point
at which hydrogen becomes a liquid. Superconductivity was first
discovered in 1911.
A newer class of materials that become superconductors at
temperatures closer to the temperature of liquid nitrogen—minus 321
degrees Fahrenheit (minus 196 degrees Celsius)—are known as
“high-temperature superconductors.”
A theory for conventional low-temperature
superconductors that was based on an effective attractive interaction
between electrons was developed in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper
and John Schrieffer. The explanation, often called the BCS Theory,
earned the trio the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1972.
The net attraction between electrons, which formed the basis for
the BCS theory, comes from their coupling to phonons, the quantized
vibrations of the crystal lattice of a superconducting material; this
coupling leads to the formation of a macroscopically occupied quantum
state containing pairs of electrons—a state that can flow without
encountering any resistance, that is, a superconducting state.
“Much like the vibrations in a water bed that eventually compel the
occupants to move together in the center, phonons can compel electrons
of opposite spin to attract one another, says Pines, who with Bardeen
in 1954, showed that this attraction could win out over the apparently
much stronger repulsion between electrons, paving the way for the BCS
theory developed a few years later.
However, according to Pines, Monthoux and Lonzarich, electron
attraction leading to superconductivity can occur without phonons in
materials that are on the verge of exhibiting magnetic order—in which
electrons align themselves in a regular pattern of alternating spins.
In their Review, Pines, Monthoux and Lonzarich examine the material
characteristics that make possible a large effective attraction that
originates in the coupling of a given electron to the internal magnetic
fields produced by the other electrons in the material. The resulting
magnetic electron pairing can give rise to superconductivity, sometimes
at substantially higher temperatures than are found in the materials
for which phonons provide the pairing glue.
Among the classes of materials that appear capable of
superconductivity without phonons are the so-called heavy electron
superconductors that have been studied extensively at Los Alamos since
the early 1980’s, certain organic materials, and the copper oxide
materials that superconduct at up to twice the temperature at which
nitrogen liquefies.
“If we ever find a material that superconducts at room
temperature—the ‘Holy Grail’ of superconductivity—it will be within
this class of materials,” says Pines. “This research shows you the lamp
post under which to look for new classes of superconducting materials.”
Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Via: http://www.physorg.com/news117380394.html [www.physorg.com]
|
|
|
More on Zero Point Energy (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, May 29, 2008 @ 15:16:35 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Sent by thepunditmaster: A follow up from The Pundit Master [thepunditmaster.blogspot.com]
In a post I did last December I hypothesized a bit about zero point energy [thepunditmaster.blogspot.com] and what the mechanics of it might be. I've got a couple of more new thoughts on the subject:
First
of all, you have to accept the premise that "empty space" is not really
empty, but comprised of particles or entities much smaller than
anything we've as yet been able to directly detect. Now let's get very
close to an atom and slow things way down.
From
our vantage
point the orbit of an electron is a ring. That is, we don't know where
it is at any given time in relation to the nucleus. But if you get
small and slow it down, the electron is at times on one side of the
nucleus, and at other times on the other. This would make the atom
either positively charged, negatively charged or relatively neutral
with respect to a very close, very small particle at any given time
depending on where the electron was in its orbit. Outside the electrons
orbit, the stuff of empty space would drawn toward then repelled from
the atom as the electron gets farther away, then closer to the "stuff".
Inside the orbit of the electron you have the same dynamic. Imagine a
bunch of very tiny particles trying to shoot the gaps as the electron
orbits. Some succeed, some don't. This would be how energy flows
through
an atom. Some "stuff" finds its way inside the orbit of the electron
and gets trapped (at least for a time) while some stuff escapes from
within the orbit back to the outside world. An equilibrium point is
reached where roughly the same amount of stuff gets in as gets out.
Naturally,
we'd want to find a way to muck this up. That's how we change the
behavior of atoms and their constituent parts and manipulate things to
our advantage. I'll leave that to the geniuses with the expensive toys,
but it could lead to new forms or sources of energy as well as
manufacturing techniques.
Get on it. My flying car is way overdue.
|
|
|
|
|
